MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405041516 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-198509

Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) in Patients (pts) with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Follicular Lymphoma (FL): Transcend FL 2-Year Follow-up

2024· article· en· W4405041516 on OpenAlexaff
Loretta J. Nastoupil, Saurabh Dahiya, Maria Lia Palomba, Alejandro Martı́n, Juan Luis Reguera, John Kuruvilla, Ulrich Jaeger, Guillaume Cartron, Koji Izutsu, Martin Dreyling, Brad S. Kahl, Hervé Ghesquières, Kirit M. Ardeshna, Hideki Goto, Anna Maria Barbui, Jeremy S. Abramson, Peter Borchmann, Isabelle Fleury, Stephan Mielke, Alan P Skarbnik, Manali Kamdar, Reem Karmali, Andreas Viardot, Thalia A. Farazi, Grace Shih Hui Kao, Min Vedal, Rina Nishii, Jessica Papuga, Jinender Kumar, Franck Morschhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollicular lymphomaRefractory (planetary science)MedicineInternal medicineOncologyLymphomaGastroenterologyCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the primary analysis of TRANSCEND FL (NCT04245839), a global, phase 2 study, liso-cel showed an ORR of 97%, CR rate of 94%, and favorable safety in pts with second-line (2L) or later R/R FL. Here, we report results in pts with third-line or later (3L+) and 2L FL with high-risk disease features after approximately 2 y of follow-up. Methods: Eligible pts with R/R FL included 3L+ and 2L pts with progression of disease ≤ 24 mo (POD24) of diagnosis after treatment with anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylator ≤ 6 mo of FL diagnosis and/or modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (mGELF) criteria. All pts received ≥ 1 prior combination systemic therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylator. Pts received liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells) after lymphodepleting chemotherapy (LDC). Bridging therapy was allowed with reconfirmation of PET-positive disease before LDC. The primary endpoint was ORR per independent review committee (IRC) by PET/CT using Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary endpoints included CR rate, duration of response (DOR) and PFS by IRC assessment, OS, safety, cellular kinetics, and pt-reported outcomes (PRO). Time to next treatment (TTNT; time from index date to the start date of subsequent systemic treatment or death from any cause, whichever occurred first) and PFS2 (time from index date to the first documented PD, per investigator assessment, or death from any cause after the start date of the subsequent line of therapy) were analyzed post hoc. Results: At data cutoff (January 10, 2024), 107 3L+ and 23 2L high-risk FL pts had received liso-cel and were evaluable for safety; 103 3L+ and 23 2L pts were efficacy evaluable. In pts with 3L+ FL, median (range) age was 62 y (23-80), 89% had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 57% were high risk per FLIPI. Forty-three percent of pts had POD24 (per eligibility criteria), 53% met mGELF criteria, and 64% were double refractory to anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylator. In pts with 2L FL, median (range) age was 53 y (34-69), 74% had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, 30% were high risk per FLIPI, 52% had POD24, 70% met mGELF criteria, and 48% were double refractory to anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylator. Median (range) on-study follow-up was 30.0 mo (0.3-39.6) for 3L+ and 29.5 mo (1.0-38.2) for 2L. For 3L+, ORR and CR rate (95% CI) were 97.1% (91.7-99.4) and 94.2% (87.8-97.8), respectively; for 2L, ORR and CR rate were both 95.7% (78.1-99.9). In 3L+ and 2L pts, medians continued to be not reached for all time-to-event analyses. In 3L+ pts, 24-mo (95% CI) DOR was 74.6% (64.8-82.1), PFS was 72.5% (62.7-80.1), OS was 88.2% (80.1-93.1), probability of TTNT was 80.1% (70.8-86.7), and probability of PFS2 was 76.6% (57.7-87.9). In 2L pts, 24-mo (95% CI) DOR was 86.4% (63.4-95.4), PFS was 82.6% (60.1-93.1), OS was 95.7% (72.9-99.4), probability of TTNT was 91.3% (69.5-97.8), and probability of PFS2 was 91.1% (68.8-97.7). Persistence of liso-cel transgene was observed up to Month 30 in 25% (7/28 pts) and 17% (1/6 pts) for 3L+ and 2L pts, respectively. PRO data showed durable improvements across domains for most pts. The safety profile with longer median follow-up was manageable and consistent with the primary analysis (18.9-mo median follow-up). As reported in the primary analysis, incidence of grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was 1% (no grade 4/5), grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NEs) were 2% (no grade 4/5), and prolonged cytopenia was 22% (most recovered to grade ≤ 2 by Day 90). There were 9 pts who had second primary malignancies (7%; 7 in the 3L+ cohort and 2 in the 2L cohort), with 5 reported since the primary analysis (malignant melanoma, colorectal cancer, mucoepidermoid carcinoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, and basal cell carcinoma [1 each]). No secondary T-cell malignancies were reported. In the leukapheresed set, there were 16 on-study deaths, of which 1 occurred before liso-cel infusion and 2 occurred since the primary analysis due to PD, 1 pt each in the 3L and 4L+ cohorts. In patients who received liso-cel in the outpatient setting (n = 14; 3L+, n = 13; 2L, n = 1), no pts had experienced grade ≥ 3 CRS, NEs, or prolonged cytopenia at data cutoff. Conclusions: With 2-y follow-up in pts with 3L+ and 2L high-risk R/R FL who received a single administration of liso-cel, ORR and CR rates were above 94%, with sustained high rates of 24-mo DOR, PFS, and OS, and no new safety signals. These data support liso-cel as a highly efficacious and safe treatment option for pts with R/R FL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→