MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417011298 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2369

INO-transit: Inotuzumab ozogamicin treatment prior to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in Relapsed/Refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Real-world patient characteristics and outcomes in Spain, the UK and US

2025· article· en· W4417011298 on OpenAlexaff
Núria Martínez‐Cibrián, Valentin Ortiz-Maldonado, Cristina Blázquez Goñi, Pere Barba, Mónica Cabrero Calvo, Ryan D. Cassaday, Lindsay George, Mi Kwon, Guru Subramanian Guru Murthy, Emma Nicholson, Deborah Richardson, Marc S. Schwartz, Hannah Wallis, Stephanie Dorman, Susana Pulido, Emma Reeves, Wei Jiang, Mona Amet, Ivana Rajkovic-Potjewyd, Neil A Reynolds, A. Smith, David I. Marks, Anna Castleton

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsSociété de Protection des Forêts contre les Insectes et Maladies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlinatumomabChimeric antigen receptorGemtuzumab ozogamicinMinimal residual diseaseSalvage therapyAcute lymphocytic leukemiaCytokine release syndromeHematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction:Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is a CD22-targeted antibody drug conjugate approved for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). InO has shown promising results as a component of transitioning therapy prior to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) (Kantarjian et al., 2019). However, real-world data on the use and outcomes of InO prior to or as a bridging therapy to CAR-T remain limited (Laetsch et al. 2023; Shah et al. 2021; Lin et al. 2024). The INO-TRANSIT study aimed to describe the real-world demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in R/R B-ALL patients treated with InO prior to CAR-T. Methods:Data were drawn from an observational chart review of patients with R/R B-ALL receiving InO prior to CAR-T from sites in Spain, the UK and the US from December 2024–June 2025. Patients were ≥18 years at index and received InO to facilitate CD19-directed CAR-T (even if CAR-T was not administered). Electronic case report forms captured patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. Index was first InO dose (01 June 2017 onwards), with a minimum follow-up of three months post-index. Overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) were evaluated via Kaplan-Meier estimations (with 95% CIs). Results:Of the 84 patients analyzed, median (IQR) age was 40.0 (24.0, 59.0) years, 78.6% were White and 57.1% were male. Most patients (73.2%) had relapsed disease, 25.5% were refractory. 20.2% of patients had extramedullary disease at their R/R B-ALL diagnosis. Prior to index, 35.7% of patients received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant, 31.0% received blinatumomab and 4.8% received InO. At index, 14.3% of patients were Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) positive, 6.0% were Ph-like and 25.0% of patients had other cytogenetic abnormalities. Median (IQR) bone marrow blast (BMB) count was 62.5% (18.0%, 89.5%). All patients underwent at least 1 cycle of InO prior to CAR-T, 21.4% received 2 cycles and 3.6% received ≥3 cycles. Most patients (73.8%) received InO as a monotherapy. Overall, 45.3% of patients first received InO prior to apheresis and 54.7% between apheresis and CAR-T infusion. Upon InO completion, 46.5% of patients achieved CR, CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). 26.2% of patients were refractory to InO and 9.5% had progressive disease. Of those assessed (n=65), 41.5% tested negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) after their first and 43.1% after their last cycle of InO. Median (IQR) BMB count after last dose of InO was 2.0% (0.0%, 41.0%), and 66.0% patients had BMB <5%. Median (IQR) TTNT was 35.0 (22.0, 57.0) days, inclusive of CAR-T initiation. Leukapheresis was performed successfully on all patients (n=84); 71 (84.5%) received CAR-T infusion, 9 (10.7%) received another therapy and 4 (4.8%) went into palliative care. CAR-T treatment details were available for 64 patients. Of these, 29.7% received tisagenlecleucel, 34.4% received brexucabtagene autoleucel and 35.9% received another CD19-directed CAR-T product. CAR-T was infused as salvage 1 (34.4%), salvage 2 (29.7%) or salvage 3 or later (26.6%). Overall, 76.7% (n=56/73) of patients achieved CR/CRh/CRi after CAR-T or another therapy. A further 6.8% had refractory disease and 6.8% had progressive disease. CR was maintained for 68.8% of patients until six months after CAR-T. After infusion, 35.9% of patients had B-cell recovery. At 12 months after CAR-T infusion, an estimated 72.5% patients survived and 62.4% had not initiated another salvage therapy. Median OS was not reached. Most patients were alive at the time of data collection (57.3%). Of those who died (42.7%), ALL disease progression was responsible in 82.9% of patients while 11.4% died due to ALL treatment-related causes. Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) was diagnosed in 7.1% of patients at any point during their ALL treatment; a further 4.8% had suspected VOD. 46.4% of patients were diagnosed with neutropenic sepsis at any point during their diagnosis and treatment. Conclusions:Most patients who received InO prior to CAR-T successfully received treatment, achieving CR after CAR-T. Leukapheresis after InO treatment was feasible, with meaningful 12-month post-CAR-T OS, and the incidence of VOD at any time was low. While larger, comparative studies are required to determine optimal strategies before CAR-T, this study suggests that InO may be used effectively prior to CAR-T.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCAR-T cell therapy research→French-language works237,207→