Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Outpatient Tisagenlecleucel Recipients for B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
B cell malignancies
CD19 CAR-T
Outcomes
Outpatient
Tisagenlecleucel
Journal
Transplantation and cellular therapy
ISSN: 2666-6367
Titre abrégé: Transplant Cell Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101774629
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
received:
20
03
2023
revised:
15
04
2023
accepted:
24
04
2023
medline:
5
7
2023
pubmed:
30
4
2023
entrez:
29
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an approved CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies. Given potentially life-threatening toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, inpatient tisa-cel infusion and toxicity monitoring are often considered; however, the toxicity profile of tisa-cel may be conducive to outpatient administration. Here we review the characteristics and outcomes of tisa-cel recipients treated in the outpatient setting. Patients age ≥18 years with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received tisa-cel between June 25, 2018, and January 22, 2021, at 9 US academic medical centers were included in a retrospective analysis. Six of the 9 representative centers (75%) had an outpatient program in place. A total of 157 patients were evaluable, including 93 (57%) in the outpatient treatment group and 64 (43%) in the inpatient treatment group. Baseline characteristics, toxicity and efficacy, and resource utilization were summarized. The most common lymphodepletion (LD) regimen was bendamustine in the outpatient group (65%) and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (91%) in the inpatient group. The outpatient group had more patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (51% versus 15%; P < .001), fewer patients with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above the normal range at the time of LD (32% versus 57%, P = .003) compared to the inpatient group, and a lower Endothelial Activation and Stress Index score (.57 versus 1.4; P < .001). Any-grade CRS and ICANS were lower in the outpatient group (29% versus 56% [P < .001] and 10% versus 16% [P = .051], respectively). Forty-two outpatient tisa-cel recipients (45%) required an unplanned admission, with a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 1 to 27 days), compared to 13 days (range, 4 to 38 days) in the inpatient group. The median number of tocilizumab doses administered was similar in the 2 groups as were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) transfer (5% versus 8%; P = .5) and median length of ICU stay (6 days versus 5 days; P = .7). There were no toxicity-related deaths in the 30 days post-CAR-T infusion in either group. Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar in the 2 groups. With careful patient selection, outpatient tisa-cel administration is feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment. Outpatient toxicity monitoring and management may help optimize healthcare resource utilization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37120134
pii: S2666-6367(23)01255-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.04.019
pmc: PMC11027185
mid: NIHMS1976681
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
tisagenlecleucel
Q6C9WHR03O
cell-associated neurotoxicity
0
Receptors, Chimeric Antigen
0
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
449.e1-449.e7Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA065493
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 20;38(27):3119-3128
pubmed: 32401634
Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jan;23(1):91-103
pubmed: 34895487
Transplant Cell Ther. 2022 Oct;28(10):669-676
pubmed: 35850429
Blood Adv. 2020 Feb 25;4(4):676-686
pubmed: 32084260
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022 Dec;57(12):1839-1841
pubmed: 36131002
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380(1):45-56
pubmed: 30501490
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Apr;25(4):625-638
pubmed: 30592986
Blood Cancer J. 2020 Aug 5;10(8):79
pubmed: 32759935
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 2;382(14):1331-1342
pubmed: 32242358
Transplant Cell Ther. 2021 Jul;27(7):558-570
pubmed: 33910041
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022 Aug;22(8):e730-e737
pubmed: 35595619
Lancet. 2020 Sep 19;396(10254):839-852
pubmed: 32888407
Blood. 2022 Sep 8;140(10):1056-1058
pubmed: 36074532
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 10;38(5):384-387
pubmed: 31675247
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022 Jun;57(6):1025-1027
pubmed: 35411106
Blood Adv. 2020 Apr 14;4(7):1440-1447
pubmed: 32271898
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):31-42
pubmed: 30518502
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Dec;25(12):2305-2321
pubmed: 31446199
Blood Adv. 2021 Jul 27;5(14):2799-2806
pubmed: 34264268
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 Jul;14(7):499-509
pubmed: 26129802
Blood Adv. 2020 Aug 11;4(15):3776-3787
pubmed: 32780846
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2023 Jan;22(1):5-15
pubmed: 36737060
Blood Adv. 2021 Mar 23;5(6):1695-1705
pubmed: 33720336
Blood Adv. 2021 Sep 14;5(17):3397-3406
pubmed: 34432870
Cancer Cell. 2015 Oct 12;28(4):415-428
pubmed: 26461090
Blood Adv. 2020 Nov 10;4(21):5414-5424
pubmed: 33147337
Transplant Cell Ther. 2022 Sep;28(9):583-585
pubmed: 35781100