Table 1.
Transplant characteristics in patients with prior CD19 CAR-T treatment
| ALL (n = 19) | NHL/CLL (n = 13) | Entire cohort (N = 32) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (range), y | 39 (23-74) | 52 (37-65) | 46 (23-74) |
| Dose of first CAR-T therapy, cells/kg | |||
| 2 × 105 | 8 (42) | 2 (15) | 10 (31) |
| 2 × 106 | 11 (58) | 9 (70) | 20 (63) |
| 2 × 107 | 0 (0) | 2 (15) | 2 (6) |
| LD regimen for first CAR-T therapy | |||
| Cy-Flu | 16 (84) | 10 (77) | 26 (81) |
| Cy-based without Flu | 3 (16) | 3 (23) | 6 (19) |
| Best response to first CAR-T therapy* | |||
| CR | 18 (95) | 2 (15) | 20 (62) |
| PR | 0 (0) | 5 (39) | 5 (16) |
| SD | 0 (0) | 2 (15) | 2 (6) |
| PD | 1 (5) | 4 (31) | 5 (16) |
| CRS (grade) after first CAR-T therapy† | |||
| 0 | 7 (37) | 3 (23) | 10 (31) |
| 1 | 4 (21) | 5 (39) | 9 (28) |
| 2 | 7 (37) | 4 (31) | 11 (35) |
| 3 | 1 (5) | 1 (8) | 2 (6) |
| NT (grade) after first CAR-T therapy‡ | |||
| 0 | 12 (63) | 5 (39) | 17 (53) |
| 1 | 1 (5) | 2 (15) | 3 (9) |
| 2 | 2 (11) | 4 (31) | 6 (19) |
| 3 | 4 (21) | 2 (15) | 6 (19) |
| 4 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Second CAR-T infusion, n | 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Best response to second CAR-T therapy | |||
| CR | 2 (100) | 1 (14) | 3 (34) |
| PR | 0 (0) | 2 (28.5) | 2 (22) |
| SD | 0 (0) | 2 (28.5) | 2 (22) |
| PD | 0 (0) | 2 (28.5) | 2 (22) |
| CRS (grade) after second CAR-T therapy | |||
| 0 | 2 (100) | 4 (57) | 6 (67) |
| 1 | 0 (0) | 2 (29) | 2 (22) |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 1 (14) | 1 (11) |
| 3 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| NT (grade) after second CAR-T therapy | |||
| 0 | 2 (100) | 5 (72) | 7 (77) |
| 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (11) |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 1 (14) | 1 (11) |
| 3 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 4 | 0 (0) | 1 (14) | 1 (11) |
| HCT-CI | |||
| 0 | 4 (21) | 2 (15) | 6 (19) |
| 1 | 2 (11) | 5 (39) | 7 (22) |
| 2 | 5 (26) | 3 (23) | 8 (25) |
| 3 | 3 (15) | 0 (0) | 3 (9.5) |
| 4 | 2 (11) | 1 (8) | 3 (9.5) |
| 5 | 2 (11) | 2 (15) | 4 (12) |
| 6 | 1 (5) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| Donor type | |||
| MRD | 3 (16) | 2 (15) | 5 (16) |
| MUD | 9 (50) | 8 (62) | 17 (53) |
| mMURD | 1 (4) | 1 (8) | 2 (6) |
| Haploidentical | 1 (4) | 2 (15) | 3 (9) |
| UCT | 5 (26) | 0 (0) | 5 (16) |
| Cell type | |||
| PBSC | 13 (69) | 13 (100) | 26 (81) |
| BM | 1 (5) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| Cord | 5 (26) | 0 (0) | 5 (16) |
| Conditioning regimen | |||
| MAC | 14 (74) | 5 (39) | 19 (59) |
| RIC | 2 (10) | 3 (23) | 5 (16) |
| NMA | 3 (16) | 5 (38) | 8 (25) |
| GVHD prophylaxis | |||
| CNI + MMF | 5 (26) | 6 (46) | 11 (35) |
| CNI + MMF + sirolimus | 1 (5) | 2 (15) | 3 (9) |
| CNI + MTX | 9 (48) | 3 (23) | 12 (38) |
| CNI + MTX + abatacept | 3 (16) | 0 (0) | 3 (9) |
| CNI + MMF + PtCy | 1 (5) | 1 (8) | 2 (6) |
| NCI + ATG | 0 (0) | 1 (8) | 1 (3) |
Unless otherwise indicated, data are n (%).
ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; BM, bone marrow; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; CR, complete response; Cy, cyclophosphamide; Flu, fludarabine; MAC, myeloablative conditioning; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; mMRD, mismatch related donor; MRD, matched related donor; MTX, methotrexate; MUD, matched unrelated donor; NMA, nonmyeloablative conditioning; PBSC, peripheral blood stem cell; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; PtCy, posttransplant cyclophosphamide; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning; SD, stable disease; UCT, umbilical cord transplant.
Response assessment using the Lugano classification17 and the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia18 criteria.
CRS grading per modified Lee et al.19
NT grading per National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.03).20