CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:CAR T‑Cell Therapy as a Bridging Strategy to Second Transplant in Relapsed B‑Cell ALL.
CAR T‑Cell Therapy as a Bridging Strategy to Second Transplant in Relapsed B‑Cell ALL.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
我们的研究支持 CAR-T 细胞治疗作为复发 B-ALL 选定患者接受 HSCT2 的有效桥接策略,与 HSCT2 后生存结局改善及复发减少相关。
第二次异基因移植(HSCT2)可能为首次移植(HSCT1)后复发的部分急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)患者提供治愈机会,然而历史上结局较差,很大程度上由后续复发高发所驱动。嵌合抗原受体(CAR)T 细胞治疗可在复发/难治性(R/R)ALL 中诱导深度且持久的缓解,但其作为桥接 HSCT2 的作用仍研究不足。CAR-T 治疗后以移植进行巩固可能增强 HSCT2 后的疾病控制并改善结局。
比较不同桥接治疗策略下HSCT2的结局,尤其关注CAR-T 细胞治疗与非CAR桥接方法。
这是一项单中心回顾性分析,纳入在City of Hope接受HSCT1后复发、随后在完全缓解(CR)状态下接受HSCT2的成人B细胞ALL患者。
在55例接受HSCT2的复发B-ALL成人患者中,中位年龄为32岁,既往治疗线数中位数为4线。从HSCT1到复发的中位时间为425天,超过一半的患者在≥CR3时进入HSCT2。挽救治疗包括23例(42%)接受CAR-T 细胞治疗,12例(22%)接受blinatumomab,12例(22%)接受inotuzumab ozogamicin,8例(15%)接受其他方案。接受CAR-T 与其他挽救治疗的患者在基线患者及疾病特征方面无显著差异。与其他挽救治疗相比,在HSCT2前接受CAR-T 细胞治疗的患者2年无进展生存期(PFS)显著改善(67.6% vs. 31.4%,p= 0.003),总生存期(OS)也显著改善(77.3% vs. 51.6%,p= 0.021)。在HSCT2前接受CAR-T 细胞治疗的患者中,复发累积发生率显著更低(p=0.01),而两组非复发死亡率相似(p=0.43)。在多变量分析中,CAR-T 细胞治疗仍与更优的PFS(HR 0.26;95% CI,0.10-0.62;p < 0.001)和OS(HR 0.33;95% CI,0.13-0.81;p = 0.026)独立相关。从HSCT1到复发的间隔较长(>475天)也预示OS改善(HR 0.42;95% CI,0.18-0.96;p = 0.04),而年龄较大显示OS较差的趋势(HR 2.17;95% CI,0.97-4.89;p = 0.054)。
A second allogeneic transplant (HSCT2) may offer cure for selected patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) relapsing after first transplant (HSCT1), however, outcomes have historically been poor, largely driven by high incidence of subsequent relapse. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‑cell therapy induces deep and durable remissions in relapsed/refractory (R/R) ALL, yet its role as a bridge to HSCT2 remains under studied. Consolidation with transplant after CAR-T therapy may enhance post‑HSCT2 disease control and improve outcomes.
To compare HSCT2 outcomes according to bridging therapy strategies, with a particular focus on CAR T‑cell therapy versus non‑CAR bridging approaches. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single‑center retrospective analysis of adult patients with relapsed B‑cell ALL after a HSCT1 who subsequently underwent a HSCT2 in complete remission (CR) at City of Hope.
Among 55 adults with relapsed B‑ALL who underwent HSCT2, the median age was 32, with a median of 4 prior lines of therapies. The median time from HSCT1 to relapse was 425 days, and over half of patients proceeded to HSCT2 in ≥CR3. Salvage therapy included CAR T‑cell therapy in 23 patients (42%), blinatumomab in 12 (22%), inotuzumab ozogamicin in 12 (22%), and other regimens in 8 (15%). Baseline patients and disease characteristics were not significantly different between those receiving CAR T and other salvage approaches. Patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy before HSCT2 had significantly improved 2-year progression free survival (PFS) (67.6% vs. 31.4%, p= 0.003) and overall survival (OS) (77.3% vs. 51.6%, p= 0.021) compared with other salvage therapies, respectively. Cumulative incidence of relapse was significantly lower in patients who received CAR T‑cell therapy before HSCT2 (p=0.01), while non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (p=0.43). In multivariable analysis, CAR T-cell therapy remained independently associated with superior PFS (HR 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62; p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.81; p = 0.026). A longer interval from HSCT1 to relapse (>475 days) also predicted improved OS (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.96; p = 0.04), while older age showed a trend toward inferior OS (HR 2.17; 95% CI, 0.97-4.89; p = 0.054).
Our study supports CAR T-cell therapy as an effective bridging strategy to HSCT2 in selected patients with relapsed B-ALL, associated with improved post HSCT2 survival outcomes and reducing relapse. Careful optimization of patient selection and timing of transplant remains critical to maximize long-term outcomes.
READING GUIDES
了解这条资料涉及的技术、疾病或试验登记信息,再回到原始来源核实。
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。