A simple scoring system for response and toxicity following lymphoma CAR-T: Results from the Australian CAR-T real-world consortium

Abstract Aim: Autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is now a standard-of-care for relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), but optimal patient selection, sequencing with other novel agents and bridging strategies are areas for improvement. Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) have been publicly funded in Australia since January 2020 and August 2021, respectively. We evaluated the impact of baseline clinical and laboratory risk factors known at (1) apheresis and (2) pre-lymphodepletion (pre-LD), on efficacy and toxicity of CAR-T to inform clinical decision making. Methods: Adult patients with R/R LBCL eligible for CAR-T according to the Australian national criteria (ECOG <2, ≥2 prior lines or autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT), adequate organ function) were included if they underwent apheresis with intent to receive CAR-T at 6 Australian centres between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2024. For infused patients, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from date of infusion. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) models using routinely-available risk factors were applied at apheresis and pre-LD, and predictive scoring systems were established. Results: 632 patients were included. The median age was 66 years (16 to 85), histologies were high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) 11%, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) 63%, transformed lymphoma 16%, Richters transformation 4%, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) 2%, T-cell/histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) 2%. Bridging therapy was used in 87% (46% systemic, 24% radiotherapy, 17% combined). 210 tisa-cel-intended patients underwent apheresis; 190 (90%) were infused. The best overall and complete response rates (ORR and CRR) were 73% and 59%, respectively. The 12-month PFS was 34% (intention-to-treat (ITT)), and 38% (infused). Grade (G) ≥3 CRS occurred in 9%, and G≥3 ICANS in 7%. 422 axi-cel-intended patients underwent apheresis; 395 (94%) proceeded to infusion. The best ORR and CRR were 85% and 72%, respectively. The 12-month PFS was 47% (ITT), and 50% (infused). G≥3 CRS occurred in 4%, and G≥3 ICANS occurred in 22%. CoxPH factors included: age (>75 vs ≤75), sex, ECOG (0 vs ≥1), histology (HGBL vs DLBCL vs transformed lymphoma), number of prior lines of therapy (2 vs 3 vs ≥4), prior autoSCT, history of primary refractory disease, relapsed/refractory to most recent systemic therapy, LDH (high vs normal), bridging response (PD/SD vs PR/CR vs no bridging, at pre-LD only). At time of apheresis, a two-factor model including relapsed/refractory status and LDH was selected. For tisa-cel patients the 12-month PFS (ITT) stratified by number of risk factors was, 0: 58% (44–76%), 1: 33% (24–45%), and 2: 24% (16–37%). Rates of failure to infuse were, 0: 5%, 1: 8%, and 2: 18%. For axi-cel 12-month PFS (ITT) was: 0: 63% (50–78%), 1: 53% (45–63%), and 2: 37% (30–45%). Rates of failure to infused were, 0: 2%, 1: 6%, and 2: 8%. At pre-LD, a three-factor model including ECOG, bridging response and LDH, was selected. For tisa-cel patients the 12-month PFS (infused) stratified by number of risk factors was, 0: 72% (58–89%), 1: 49% (38–63%), 2: 28% (17–46%), and 3: 3% (0–23%). For axi-cel 12-month PFS (infused) was, 0: 66% (54–80%), 1: 65% (55–76%), 2: 52% (43–63%), and 3: 23% (15–35%). Amongst tisa-cel patients with all 3 risk factors, the rate of G≥3 CRS was 22% and G≥3 ICANS was 12%, compared with 5% and 7%, respectively, with ≤2 risk factors. Amongst axi-cel patients with all 3 risk factors, the rate of G≥3 CRS was 9% and G≥3 ICANS was 31%, compared with 2% and 19%, respectively, with ≤2 risk factors. Conclusions: Real-world Australian outcomes of CAR-T for R/R LBCL in third-line and beyond are favourable. A two-factor model at pre-apheresis (relapsed/refractory status and LDH) and a three-factor model at pre-LD (ECOG, bridging response and LDH) stratifies for both PFS and high-grade toxicity risk. Response to bridging was associated with improved outcomes with either product. In the absence of identified risk factors outcomes were excellent with either product, with axi-cel more effective relative to tisa-cel as risk factors increased. These findings offer a simple and clinically useful framework for consideration of patient selection, product choice and bridging strategy in the era of alternative highly-effective therapies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-399
Primary Topic
CAR-T cell therapy research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A simple scoring system for response and toxicity following lymphoma CAR-T: Results from the Australian CAR-T real-world consortium

Phoebe Joy Ho, Mark R. Dowling, Adrian Minson, Emily Blyth et al.
Blood
CAR-T cell therapy research
article

A simple scoring system for response and toxicity following lymphoma CAR-T: Results from the Australian CAR-T real-world consortium

Phoebe Joy Ho, Mark R. Dowling, Adrian Minson, Emily Blyth, Constantine Si Lun Tam, Gaurav Sutrave, Andrea S. Henden, Robie W. Macdonald, Cameron Curley, Christina Brown, Hamish W Scott, Allison Barraclough, Safia Belbachir, Anthony Jeffrey, Catelyn Cashion, Vinay Vanguru, Mary Ann Anderson, Stephen Boyle, Simon James Harrison, Michael John Dickinson, Jason M. Butler, Nicole O'Leary, Jian Li, Shafqat Inam, Thomas Buss
article en

Abstract

Abstract Aim: Autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is now a standard-of-care for relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), but optimal patient selection, sequencing with other novel agents and bridging strategies are areas for improvement. Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) have been publicly funded in Australia since January 2020 and August 2021, respectively. We evaluated the impact of baseline clinical and laboratory risk factors known at (1) apheresis and (2) pre-lymphodepletion (pre-LD), on efficacy and toxicity of CAR-T to inform clinical decision making. Methods: Adult patients with R/R LBCL eligible for CAR-T according to the Australian national criteria (ECOG <2, ≥2 prior lines or autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT), adequate organ function) were included if they underwent apheresis with intent to receive CAR-T at 6 Australian centres between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2024. For infused patients, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from date of infusion. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) models using routinely-available risk factors were applied at apheresis and pre-LD, and predictive scoring systems were established. Results: 632 patients were included. The median age was 66 years (16 to 85), histologies were high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) 11%, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) 63%, transformed lymphoma 16%, Richters transformation 4%, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) 2%, T-cell/histiocyte rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) 2%. Bridging therapy was used in 87% (46% systemic, 24% radiotherapy, 17% combined). 210 tisa-cel-intended patients underwent apheresis; 190 (90%) were infused. The best overall and complete response rates (ORR and CRR) were 73% and 59%, respectively. The 12-month PFS was 34% (intention-to-treat (ITT)), and 38% (infused). Grade (G) ≥3 CRS occurred in 9%, and G≥3 ICANS in 7%. 422 axi-cel-intended patients underwent apheresis; 395 (94%) proceeded to infusion. The best ORR and CRR were 85% and 72%, respectively. The 12-month PFS was 47% (ITT), and 50% (infused). G≥3 CRS occurred in 4%, and G≥3 ICANS occurred in 22%. CoxPH factors included: age (>75 vs ≤75), sex, ECOG (0 vs ≥1), histology (HGBL vs DLBCL vs transformed lymphoma), number of prior lines of therapy (2 vs 3 vs ≥4), prior autoSCT, history of primary refractory disease, relapsed/refractory to most recent systemic therapy, LDH (high vs normal), bridging response (PD/SD vs PR/CR vs no bridging, at pre-LD only). At time of apheresis, a two-factor model including relapsed/refractory status and LDH was selected. For tisa-cel patients the 12-month PFS (ITT) stratified by number of risk factors was, 0: 58% (44–76%), 1: 33% (24–45%), and 2: 24% (16–37%). Rates of failure to infuse were, 0: 5%, 1: 8%, and 2: 18%. For axi-cel 12-month PFS (ITT) was: 0: 63% (50–78%), 1: 53% (45–63%), and 2: 37% (30–45%). Rates of failure to infused were, 0: 2%, 1: 6%, and 2: 8%. At pre-LD, a three-factor model including ECOG, bridging response and LDH, was selected. For tisa-cel patients the 12-month PFS (infused) stratified by number of risk factors was, 0: 72% (58–89%), 1: 49% (38–63%), 2: 28% (17–46%), and 3: 3% (0–23%). For axi-cel 12-month PFS (infused) was, 0: 66% (54–80%), 1: 65% (55–76%), 2: 52% (43–63%), and 3: 23% (15–35%). Amongst tisa-cel patients with all 3 risk factors, the rate of G≥3 CRS was 22% and G≥3 ICANS was 12%, compared with 5% and 7%, respectively, with ≤2 risk factors. Amongst axi-cel patients with all 3 risk factors, the rate of G≥3 CRS was 9% and G≥3 ICANS was 31%, compared with 2% and 19%, respectively, with ≤2 risk factors. Conclusions: Real-world Australian outcomes of CAR-T for R/R LBCL in third-line and beyond are favourable. A two-factor model at pre-apheresis (relapsed/refractory status and LDH) and a three-factor model at pre-LD (ECOG, bridging response and LDH) stratifies for both PFS and high-grade toxicity risk. Response to bridging was associated with improved outcomes with either product. In the absence of identified risk factors outcomes were excellent with either product, with axi-cel more effective relative to tisa-cel as risk factors increased. These findings offer a simple and clinically useful framework for consideration of patient selection, product choice and bridging strategy in the era of alternative highly-effective therapies.

BloodVol. 146(Supplement 1)
The University of Sydney (AU), Queensland Health (AU), Queensland University of Technology (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), Australian Red Cross Lifeblood (AU), QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), Fiona Stanley Hospital (AU), The Alfred Hospital (AU), Westmead Hospital (AU), Westmead Institute for Medical Research (AU), Cancer Care Services (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 47%
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.