决定异体 CAR T 细胞排斥与扩增的细胞和分子机制
Cellular and molecular mechanisms determining allogeneic CAR T cell rejection and expansion.
我们评估了11例接受单一批次cemacabtagene ansegedleucel(cema-cel)治疗的大B细胞淋巴瘤患者,cemacabtagene ansegedleucel是一种异体抗CD19 CAR T产品。
英文原题:The First-in-Human ENCIT01 Trial Comparing Second- versus Third-Generation L1CAM-specific CAR T Cells in Patients with Primary Refractory or Relapsed Neuroblastoma.
尽管在经重度预处理的人群中可进行生产,L1CAM 可能并不是神经母细胞瘤的合适靶点。
目的:复发/难治性神经母细胞瘤患儿的治疗结局很差。ENCIT-01(NCT02311621)是一项首次人体临床试验,面向复发/难治性神经母细胞瘤患者,采用靶向 L1CAM 的嵌合抗原受体(CAR)T 细胞治疗。L1CAM 是一种黏附分子,在神经母细胞瘤中高表达,而在正常组织中的表达有限。 患者与方法:本试验评估了三种不同的 CAR 构型:短间隔区第二代 4-1BB CAR(2GS,A 组)、短间隔区第三代 4-1BB + CD28 CAR(3GS,B 组),以及长间隔区第二代 4-1BB CAR(2GL,C 组)。 结果:36 例患者入组,其中 22 例接受治疗(A 组/2GS,n = 11;B 组/3GS,n = 8;C 组/2GL,n = 3)。36 例中有 34 例成功制备出 CAR-T 细胞产品。常见的 2 级毒性包括细胞因子释放综合征、皮疹和低钠血症。3 例患者出现剂量限制性低钠血症,分别见于 A 组/2GS 的剂量水平 5(DL5)、B 组/3GS 的 DL3 和 C 组/2GL 的 DL2。与 A 组相比,B 组和 C 组在较低剂量水平下即出现毒性,这提示第三代构型和长间隔区产品的效力可能不同。未观察到客观缓解。相关性分析显示,肿瘤和皮肤中均可检出 CAR-T 细胞,并发现巨噬细胞浸润肿瘤的证据。 结论:尽管在既往接受过多线治疗的人群中,L1CAM 靶向 CAR-T 细胞产品可以成功制备,但 L1CAM 可能并非神经母细胞瘤的合适靶点。可能需要进一步的工程化策略来降低毒性并实现持久的抗肿瘤作用。
PURPOSE: Outcomes for children with relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma are dismal. ENCIT-01 (NCT02311621) was a first-in-human clinical trial for patients with relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma using chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting L1CAM, an adhesion molecule that is overexpressed in neuroblastoma with limited normal tissue expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial evaluated three different CAR constructs: a short-spacer second-generation 4-1BB CAR (2GS, arm A), a short-spacer third-generation 4-1BB + CD28 CAR (3GS, arm B), and a long-spacer second-generation 4-1BB CAR (2GL, arm C). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled, of whom 22 were treated (arm A/2GS n = 11, arm B/3GS n = 8, and arm C/2GL n = 3). Thirty-four of 36 patients had a CAR T-cell product successfully manufactured. Cytokine release syndrome, skin rash, and hyponatremia were common grade 2 toxicities. Hyponatremia was dose-limiting in three patients [dose level (DL); DL5 arm A/2GS, DL3 arm B/3GS, and DL2 arm C/2GL]. Patterns of toxicity appeared at lower DLs on arms B and C compared with arm A, suggesting differential potency of the third generation and long-spacer products. No objective responses were seen. Correlative analyses demonstrated CAR T-cell presence in tumor and skin, with evidence of macrophage tumor infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Although feasible to manufacture in a heavily pretreated population, L1CAM may not be an appropriate target in neuroblastoma. Additional engineering strategies may be needed to prevent toxicity and provide durable antitumor effects.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。