A Real-World Comparison of CAR T-Cell Therapy Versus a Historical Standard-of-Care Approach for Relapsed-Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada

Background Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapies have been funded in Canada for patients with relapsed-refractory large B-cell lymphoma (RR LBCL) after two lines of systemic therapy since December 2019. However, real-world evidence of CAR-T outcomes has been limited to small series with little comparison to prior standard-of-care management. We compared overall survival (OS), adverse events, and healthcare utilization for a cohort of patients with RR LBCL consecutively treated with CAR-T versus a cohort of historical controls treated with standard-of-care therapy prior to CAR-T approval. Methods This is a propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study of patients with RR LBCL treated at Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre. Using linked clinical and administrative datasets, consecutive patients treated with CAR-T (2020-2022) following provincial funding approval were compared to a matched cohort of historical controls (2012-2017). Patients were followed from index date, defined as the date of progression following 2 lines of chemotherapy (2L) in the historical controls and following last therapy (2L or higher) in the CAR-T patients for up to 3-years, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2023. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) was used to account for confounding between cohorts (age, sex, lactate dehydrogenase, and comorbidities). Kaplan meier curves and IPTW-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression analyses estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) between treatment cohort and OS. A landmark survival analysis of patients alive at 3 months post-index date addressed immortal time bias. Adverse events (AEs) from inpatient/emergency department [ED] diagnoses and healthcare utilization were reported per 1000 person-days at risk. Results A total of 86 CAR-T patients and 150 historical control patients were evaluable for comparison. Variables were balanced after applying the sIPTW (based on standardized difference <0.1); mean age was 56 years and males comprised 61%. Prior treatment included ASCT in 27.6% CAR-T vs 38.4% historical control patients (standardized difference 0.21; p=0.09). Post-2L progression, 58% of historical controls had no further treatment, 32% received intravenous or oral chemotherapy/targeted agents, 6.2% had an autologous stem cell transplant, and 10% received palliative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. CAR-T patients received tisagenlecleucel (33.3%) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (66.7%) CAR-T products. The OS probabilities at 1-, 2-, and 3-years were 68% (95% CI 53-79%), 60% (95% CI 44-73%), and 57% (95% CI 39-71%), respectively, in the CAR-T group, and 18% (95% CI 12-25%), 11% (95% CI 7-17%), and 10% (95% CI 5-16%), respectively, in the control group. The IPTW-adjusted HR for all-cause death was 0.22 (95% CI 0.15-0.33), and landmark survival analysis for all-cause death 3-months post-index date to end of follow-up generated a similar HR of 0.28 (CI 0.19-0.44) in the CAR-T group. CAR-T patients had a lower number of days hospitalized (77.73 [95% CI 75.00-80.57] vs 86.11 [95% CI 83.12-89.21] per 1000 person-day; p<0.001), ICU admissions (0.55 [95% CI 0.36-0.84] vs 1.26 [95% CI 0.94-1.69] per 1000 person-day; p=0.001), and ED visits (4.79 [95% CI 4.10-5.61] vs 2.07 [95% CI 1.65-2.60] per 1000 person-day; p<0.001). Additionally, CAR-T patients had lower events per 1000 person-days of: infection (1.44 [95% CI 1.10-1.87] vs 3.02 [95% CI 2.50-3.64] p<0.001), neutropenia (0.65 [95% CI 0.44-0.96] vs 1.79 [95% CI 1.4-2.29]; p<0.001), febrile neutropenia (0.45 [95% CI0.28-0.72] vs 1.47 [95% CI 1.12-1.92]; p<0.001), gastrointestinal toxicity (0.26 [95% CI 0.14-0.49] vs 0.69 [95% CI 0.46-1.02]), and respiratory infections (0.51 [95% CI 0.33-0.79] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.65-1.29]; p=0.04). Conclusions CAR T-cell therapy produced a significant and sustained survival benefit versus historical standard-of-care management, with fewer hospitalizations and infections. Despite well-described CAR-T toxicities, historical control patients had more AEs, underscoring the lack of other effective salvage treatments. This study describes one of the largest real-world comparisons of patients with RR LBCL receiving CAR T-cell therapy compared to previous standard-of-care therapies and demonstrates its effectiveness amongst a broad cohort of eligible patients, consistent with the results of pivotal trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2024-206375
Primary Topic
CAR-T cell therapy research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Real-World Comparison of CAR T-Cell Therapy Versus a Historical Standard-of-Care Approach for Relapsed-Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada

Inna Y. Gong, Kelvin Chan, David Hodgson, Mahmood AminiLari et al.
Blood
CAR-T cell therapy research
article

A Real-World Comparison of CAR T-Cell Therapy Versus a Historical Standard-of-Care Approach for Relapsed-Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Ontario, Canada

Inna Y. Gong, Kelvin Chan, David Hodgson, Mahmood AminiLari, Zharmaine Ante, Ning Liu, Danielle Rodin, Anca A. Prica, Tiana Kordbacheh, Robert Kridel, Nauman Malik, Michael Crump, Vishal Kukreti, Christine I. Chen, Sita Bhella, Abi Vijenthira, John Kuruvilla, Jing Yang
article en

Abstract

Background Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapies have been funded in Canada for patients with relapsed-refractory large B-cell lymphoma (RR LBCL) after two lines of systemic therapy since December 2019. However, real-world evidence of CAR-T outcomes has been limited to small series with little comparison to prior standard-of-care management. We compared overall survival (OS), adverse events, and healthcare utilization for a cohort of patients with RR LBCL consecutively treated with CAR-T versus a cohort of historical controls treated with standard-of-care therapy prior to CAR-T approval. Methods This is a propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study of patients with RR LBCL treated at Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre. Using linked clinical and administrative datasets, consecutive patients treated with CAR-T (2020-2022) following provincial funding approval were compared to a matched cohort of historical controls (2012-2017). Patients were followed from index date, defined as the date of progression following 2 lines of chemotherapy (2L) in the historical controls and following last therapy (2L or higher) in the CAR-T patients for up to 3-years, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2023. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) was used to account for confounding between cohorts (age, sex, lactate dehydrogenase, and comorbidities). Kaplan meier curves and IPTW-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression analyses estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) between treatment cohort and OS. A landmark survival analysis of patients alive at 3 months post-index date addressed immortal time bias. Adverse events (AEs) from inpatient/emergency department [ED] diagnoses and healthcare utilization were reported per 1000 person-days at risk. Results A total of 86 CAR-T patients and 150 historical control patients were evaluable for comparison. Variables were balanced after applying the sIPTW (based on standardized difference <0.1); mean age was 56 years and males comprised 61%. Prior treatment included ASCT in 27.6% CAR-T vs 38.4% historical control patients (standardized difference 0.21; p=0.09). Post-2L progression, 58% of historical controls had no further treatment, 32% received intravenous or oral chemotherapy/targeted agents, 6.2% had an autologous stem cell transplant, and 10% received palliative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. CAR-T patients received tisagenlecleucel (33.3%) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (66.7%) CAR-T products. The OS probabilities at 1-, 2-, and 3-years were 68% (95% CI 53-79%), 60% (95% CI 44-73%), and 57% (95% CI 39-71%), respectively, in the CAR-T group, and 18% (95% CI 12-25%), 11% (95% CI 7-17%), and 10% (95% CI 5-16%), respectively, in the control group. The IPTW-adjusted HR for all-cause death was 0.22 (95% CI 0.15-0.33), and landmark survival analysis for all-cause death 3-months post-index date to end of follow-up generated a similar HR of 0.28 (CI 0.19-0.44) in the CAR-T group. CAR-T patients had a lower number of days hospitalized (77.73 [95% CI 75.00-80.57] vs 86.11 [95% CI 83.12-89.21] per 1000 person-day; p<0.001), ICU admissions (0.55 [95% CI 0.36-0.84] vs 1.26 [95% CI 0.94-1.69] per 1000 person-day; p=0.001), and ED visits (4.79 [95% CI 4.10-5.61] vs 2.07 [95% CI 1.65-2.60] per 1000 person-day; p<0.001). Additionally, CAR-T patients had lower events per 1000 person-days of: infection (1.44 [95% CI 1.10-1.87] vs 3.02 [95% CI 2.50-3.64] p<0.001), neutropenia (0.65 [95% CI 0.44-0.96] vs 1.79 [95% CI 1.4-2.29]; p<0.001), febrile neutropenia (0.45 [95% CI0.28-0.72] vs 1.47 [95% CI 1.12-1.92]; p<0.001), gastrointestinal toxicity (0.26 [95% CI 0.14-0.49] vs 0.69 [95% CI 0.46-1.02]), and respiratory infections (0.51 [95% CI 0.33-0.79] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.65-1.29]; p=0.04). Conclusions CAR T-cell therapy produced a significant and sustained survival benefit versus historical standard-of-care management, with fewer hospitalizations and infections. Despite well-described CAR-T toxicities, historical control patients had more AEs, underscoring the lack of other effective salvage treatments. This study describes one of the largest real-world comparisons of patients with RR LBCL receiving CAR T-cell therapy compared to previous standard-of-care therapies and demonstrates its effectiveness amongst a broad cohort of eligible patients, consistent with the results of pivotal trials.

BloodVol. 144(Supplement 1)
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA), University Health Network (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Health Sciences Centre (CA), Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Ipsen
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
CAR-T cell therapy research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.