Impact of bridging therapy (BT) on lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) treatment in patients (pt) with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7068 Background: TRANSCEND FL primary analysis (NCT04245839) demonstrated very high response rates and manageable safety with liso-cel in second-line or later (2L+) FL, including 2L high-risk FL. Here, we report outcomes in subgroups of pts by BT status. Methods: TRANSCEND FL, a global, phase 2, single-arm, open-label study, evaluated liso-cel in adults with 2L+ R/R FL. Pts with 2L FL had progression of disease ≤ 24 mo (POD24) from diagnosis after treatment with anti-CD20 + alkylator ≤ 6 mo of FL diagnosis and/or met modified Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (mGELF) criteria. Pts received liso-cel after lymphodepleting chemotherapy (LDC). Optional BT per investigator was allowed during liso-cel manufacturing; reconfirmation of PET/CT-positive FL was required before LDC/liso-cel infusion to be considered efficacy evaluable (EE). PET/CT-based response assessments were performed at baseline (after end of BT and ≤ 7–14 days before LDC) and at post-infusion day 29 onward up to 60 mos. Primary endpoint was ORR per independent review committee (IRC); secondary endpoints included CR rate, duration of response (DOR), PFS, OS, and safety. Comparisons between BT and no BT (NBT) subgroups are descriptive. Results: Of 139 leukapheresed pts: 54 received BT; 130 were treated with liso-cel and 124 were EE (BT, n = 45; NBT, n = 79). BT pts had higher disease burden at baseline vs NBT: stage III/IV (94% vs 82%), sum of the product of perpendicular diameters ≥ 50 cm2 before LDC per IRC (26% vs 14%), FL International Prognostic Index score 3–5 (78% vs 38%), met mGELF criteria (72% vs 48%), double refractory to anti-CD20 + alkylator (78% vs 52%), and POD24 from initial immunochemotherapy (65% vs 52%). ORR/CR rates were high and similar across subgroups, with all BT responders achieving CR (Table). Median DOR, PFS, and OS were not reached (NR) in both subgroups (Table), with a median follow-up of 18.9 mo. Grade (gr) ≥ 3 treatment-emergent AEs in BT vs NBT pts were reported in 82% vs 70%, most commonly, neutropenia (69% vs 52%), anemia (18% vs 5%), and thrombocytopenia (18% vs 5%). Gr ≥ 3 lab-based cytopenia was numerically higher in BT vs NBT at Day 29 (37% vs 14%), but most pts recovered to gr ≤ 2 by Day 90. In BT vs NBT pts, any-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 51% vs 62%) and neurological events (NE; 12% vs 17%) were numerically lower, but gr 3 CRS/NEs/infections were similarly low across subgroups (BT, 0/6%/2%; NBT, 1%/0/7%, respectively), with no gr 4 or 5 events. Conclusions: Liso-cel showed equal clinical efficacy and safety (low rates of severe CRS/NEs/infections) in BT vs NBT pts, suggesting BT may mitigate worse outcomes and AEs associated with high tumor burden/high-risk features. Clinical trial information: NCT04245839 . [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".