Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Bridging therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel for large B-cell lymphoma: results from the US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium

  • Michael D. Jain
  • , Miriam T. Jacobs
  • , Feng Gao
  • , Loretta J. Nastoupil
  • , Jay Y. Spiegel
  • , Yi Lin
  • , Saurabh Dahiya
  • , Matthew Lunning
  • , Lazaros Lekakis
  • , Patrick Reagan
  • , Olalekan Oluwole
  • , Joseph McGuirk
  • , Abhinav Deol
  • , Alison R. Sehgal
  • , Andre Goy
  • , Brian T. Hill
  • , Charalambos Andreadis
  • , Javier Munoz
  • , Julio C. Chavez
  • , N. Nora Bennani
  • Aaron P. Rapoport, Julie M. Vose, David Miklos, Sattva S. Neelapu, Frederick L. Locke, Armin Ghobadi
  • Moffitt Cancer Center
  • Washington University St. Louis
  • University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
  • Stanford University
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
  • Greenebaum Cancer Center
  • University of Nebraska Medical Center
  • University of Miami
  • University of Rochester
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Kansas
  • Wayne State University
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Cleveland Clinic Foundation
  • University of California at San Francisco
  • Banner Health

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

30 Scopus citations

Abstract

During the manufacturing period of autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, patients may experience a decline in their condition due to cancer progression. In this study, we investigated the impact of bridging therapy (BT) on the outcome of patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received antilymphoma treatment between leukapheresis and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) infusion. We conducted our analysis using data from the multicenter US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium, with a median follow-up of 33 months (range, 4.3-42.1). Out of the 298 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 275 patients received axi-cel. A total 52% of patients (n = 143) who received BT had a higher baseline risk profile than patients who did not receive BT, and these patients, as a group, had inferior outcomes compared with those who did not receive BT. However, after propensity score matching between the 2 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in overall response rate (77% vs 87%; P = .13), complete response rate (58% vs 70%; P = .1), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P = .23), and overall survival (HR, 1.39; P=.09) between the BT group and the no-BT group, respectively. Analyzing the effects of BT in the whole cohort that underwent leukapheresis regardless of receiving axi-cel (intention-to-treat analysis) showed similar results. Radiation BT resulted in outcomes similar to those observed with nonradiation BT. Our findings suggest that BT may be safe without a significant impact on long-term survival for patients who require disease stabilization during the manufacturing period. Moreover, our results suggest that there is no clear advantage to using radiation-based BT over nonradiation-based BT.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1042-1050
Number of pages9
JournalBlood Advances
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 27 Feb 2024

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bridging therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel for large B-cell lymphoma: results from the US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this