Fresh Versus Cryopreserved LV20.19 CAR T-Cell Therapy for Relapsed, Refractory DLBCL and Follicular Lymphoma

Transplantation and Cellular Therapy(2024)

引用 0|浏览5
暂无评分
摘要
Introduction Although cryopreservation of commercial CAR T-cell products facilitates shipping to a local site, its impact on CAR T-cell functionality, efficacy, and viability has not been evaluated. At the Medical College of Wisconsin utilizing a point-of-care manufacturing system we generally infuse fresh (non-cryopreserved) CAR T-cells when clinically feasible as our standard of care process with LV20.19 CAR T-cell therapy in an ongoing clinical trial. To better understand the impact of cryopreservation, we added a new arm where all patients’ CAR products were mandated to be cryopreserved. We now report clinical outcomes of LV20.19 CAR T-cells given fresh versus post-cryopreservation in patients with R/R DLBCL and FL. Methods We conducted a Phase 1/2 single center, multi-cohort clinical trial (NCT04186520) evaluating LV20.19 CAR T-cells at a fixed dose of 2.5x10e6 cells/kg for pts with R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. CAR T-cells were all manufactured on-site utilizing CliniMACS Prodigy device with an 8-12 day manufacturing process depending on assigned cohort. This analysis is limited to pts with DLBCL and FL stratified by administration of a fresh CAR T-cell product administered on the day of harvest versus a CAR T-cell product administered after cryopreservation/thawing. Results Among the 30 pts with DLBCL or FL who received LV20.19 CAR T-cells, 18 received a fresh while 12 received a post-cryopreserved product. All pts achieved target cell dose. There was no difference in mean age, sex, disease subtype, or prior lines of therapy (Table 1). 83% in the fresh and 75% in the cryopreserved cohort had DLBCL. The ORR was 72% for fresh versus 83% for cryopreserved products. Among responding patients (n=23), the median duration of response (DOR) was 6 months for fresh cohort and not reached in the cryopreserved cohort (Figure 1). There was no difference in the in-vivo expansion between cohorts (Figure 2A and B). In terms of toxicity, there was no difference in rates of CRS or high-grade ICANS (Table 1). The mean day to CRS was day 1 in both groups. Mean CRP and ferritin were similar in both cohorts. Pts receiving a fresh infusion generally received LV20.19 CAR T-cells 9-13 days after apheresis versus 14-24 days for those receiving a mandated cryopreserved product. Conclusions Cryopreservation of LV20.19 CAR T-cell therapy had no meaningful impact on ORR, DOR, toxicity profile, time to CRS, or in-vivo expansion. Although fresh products facilitate shorter time from apheresis to infusion, cryopreservation may allow for rapid advancement of products to multicenter trials and licensure.
更多
查看译文
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要