常规化疗或 inotuzumab ozogamicin 作为桥接方案的选择似乎不影响儿童 B-ALL 中 CD19 靶向 CAR-T 治疗的临床缓解

Bridging therapy (BT) given during the period between T-cell collection and initiation of lymphodepleting chemotherapy is indicated for most children with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) undergoing treatment with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. Both conventional chemotherapy agents and B-cell directed antibody-based therapies such as antibody-drug conjugates and bispecific T-cell engagers have been used as systemic forms of BT. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate if there are detectable differences in clinical outcomes based on the type of BT given (conventional chemotherapy or inotuzumab). A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients treated with tisa-cel at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center for B-ALL with bone marrow disease (with or without extramedullary disease). Patients who did not receive systemic BT were excluded. Only 1 patient received blinatumomab as BT and was therefore not included in this analysis to focus the analysis on the use of inotuzumab. Pre-infusion characteristics and post-infusion outcomes were collected. Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, and t-test or Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous parametric and non-parametric variables respectively. Mantel-Cox was used for survival analyses.

Thirty-two patients received BT before CD19 CAR-T for medullary leukemia; 24 received conventional chemotherapy, and 8 received inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO). Cohorts were evenly matched regarding CAR-T indication, recipient age, and median CAR-T cell dose. There were no significant differences between the groups for attaining a minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete response after CAR-T, the percentage of patients who maintained prolonged B-cell aplasia, or the median duration of B-cell aplasia. Thirty-seven percent of patients in the conventional chemotherapy group and 43% in the antibody-based therapy group relapsed, with a median time to relapse in both groups of 5 months.

No differences in event-free survival, the cumulative incidence of relapse, or overall survival were seen between the two groups. Initial response to tisa-cel, relapse rate, and survival were similar between patients who received BT with conventional chemotherapy or InO therapy.

Because low disease burden at the time of infusion is a positive prognostic factor, choice of bridging regimen should focus on therapy that is anticipated to effectively lower disease burden and minimize treatment-related toxicity. Given the limitations associated with the single center retrospective analysis, a larger, multicenter study is needed to further explore these findings.