Cargando…

Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy with T cells genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) or tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TIL) demonstrates impressive clinical results in patients with cancer. Lymphodepleting preconditioning prior to cell infusion is an integral part...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nissani, Abraham, Lev-Ari, Shaked, Meirson, Tomer, Jacoby, Elad, Asher, Nethanel, Ben-Betzalel, Guy, Itzhaki, Orit, Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie, Schachter, Jacob, Markel, Gal, Besser, Michal J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33990415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-001743
_version_ 1783694035902267392
author Nissani, Abraham
Lev-Ari, Shaked
Meirson, Tomer
Jacoby, Elad
Asher, Nethanel
Ben-Betzalel, Guy
Itzhaki, Orit
Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie
Schachter, Jacob
Markel, Gal
Besser, Michal J.
author_facet Nissani, Abraham
Lev-Ari, Shaked
Meirson, Tomer
Jacoby, Elad
Asher, Nethanel
Ben-Betzalel, Guy
Itzhaki, Orit
Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie
Schachter, Jacob
Markel, Gal
Besser, Michal J.
author_sort Nissani, Abraham
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy with T cells genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) or tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TIL) demonstrates impressive clinical results in patients with cancer. Lymphodepleting preconditioning prior to cell infusion is an integral part of all adoptive T cell therapies. However, to date, there is no standardization and no data comparing different non-myeloablative (NMA) regimens. METHODS: In this study, we compared NMA therapies with different doses of cyclophosphamide or total body irradiation (TBI) in combination with fludarabine and evaluated bone marrow suppression and recovery, cytokine serum levels, clinical response and adverse events. RESULTS: We demonstrate that a cumulative dose of 120 mg/kg cyclophosphamide and 125 mg/m(2) fludarabine (120Cy/125Flu) and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning were equally efficient in achieving deep lymphopenia and neutropenia in patients with metastatic melanoma, whereas absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) and absolute neutrophil counts were significantly higher following 200 cGyTBI/75Flu-induced NMA. Thrombocytopenia was most profound in 120Cy/125Flu patients. 30Cy/75Flu-induced preconditioning in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia resulted in a minor ALC decrease, had no impact on platelet counts and did not yield deep neutropenia. Following cell infusion, 120Cy/125Flu patients with objective tumor response had significantly higher ALC and significant lower inflammatory indexes, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis 7 days after cell infusion was performed to determine the cut-offs, which distinguish between responding and non-responding patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort. NLR≤1.79 and PLR≤32.7 were associated with clinical response and overall survival. Cytokine serum levels did not associate with clinical response in patients with TIL. Patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort developed significantly more acute NMA-related adverse events, including thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia and cardiotoxicity, and stayed significantly longer in hospital compared with the 60Cy/125Flu and TBI/75Flu cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Bone marrow depletion and recovery were equally affected by 120Cy/125Flu and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning; however, toxicity and consequently duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the 60Cy/125Flu cohort. Patients in the 30Cy/75Flu and TBI/75Flu groups rarely developed NMA-induced adverse events; however, both regimens were not efficient in achieving deep bone marrow suppression. Among the regimens, 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning seems to achieve maximum effect with minimum toxicity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8127974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81279742021-05-26 Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy Nissani, Abraham Lev-Ari, Shaked Meirson, Tomer Jacoby, Elad Asher, Nethanel Ben-Betzalel, Guy Itzhaki, Orit Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie Schachter, Jacob Markel, Gal Besser, Michal J. J Immunother Cancer Immune Cell Therapies and Immune Cell Engineering BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy with T cells genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) or tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TIL) demonstrates impressive clinical results in patients with cancer. Lymphodepleting preconditioning prior to cell infusion is an integral part of all adoptive T cell therapies. However, to date, there is no standardization and no data comparing different non-myeloablative (NMA) regimens. METHODS: In this study, we compared NMA therapies with different doses of cyclophosphamide or total body irradiation (TBI) in combination with fludarabine and evaluated bone marrow suppression and recovery, cytokine serum levels, clinical response and adverse events. RESULTS: We demonstrate that a cumulative dose of 120 mg/kg cyclophosphamide and 125 mg/m(2) fludarabine (120Cy/125Flu) and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning were equally efficient in achieving deep lymphopenia and neutropenia in patients with metastatic melanoma, whereas absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) and absolute neutrophil counts were significantly higher following 200 cGyTBI/75Flu-induced NMA. Thrombocytopenia was most profound in 120Cy/125Flu patients. 30Cy/75Flu-induced preconditioning in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia resulted in a minor ALC decrease, had no impact on platelet counts and did not yield deep neutropenia. Following cell infusion, 120Cy/125Flu patients with objective tumor response had significantly higher ALC and significant lower inflammatory indexes, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis 7 days after cell infusion was performed to determine the cut-offs, which distinguish between responding and non-responding patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort. NLR≤1.79 and PLR≤32.7 were associated with clinical response and overall survival. Cytokine serum levels did not associate with clinical response in patients with TIL. Patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort developed significantly more acute NMA-related adverse events, including thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia and cardiotoxicity, and stayed significantly longer in hospital compared with the 60Cy/125Flu and TBI/75Flu cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Bone marrow depletion and recovery were equally affected by 120Cy/125Flu and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning; however, toxicity and consequently duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the 60Cy/125Flu cohort. Patients in the 30Cy/75Flu and TBI/75Flu groups rarely developed NMA-induced adverse events; however, both regimens were not efficient in achieving deep bone marrow suppression. Among the regimens, 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning seems to achieve maximum effect with minimum toxicity. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8127974/ /pubmed/33990415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-001743 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Immune Cell Therapies and Immune Cell Engineering
Nissani, Abraham
Lev-Ari, Shaked
Meirson, Tomer
Jacoby, Elad
Asher, Nethanel
Ben-Betzalel, Guy
Itzhaki, Orit
Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie
Schachter, Jacob
Markel, Gal
Besser, Michal J.
Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title_full Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title_fullStr Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title_short Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy
title_sort comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive t cell therapy
topic Immune Cell Therapies and Immune Cell Engineering
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33990415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-001743
work_keys_str_mv AT nissaniabraham comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT levarishaked comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT meirsontomer comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT jacobyelad comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT ashernethanel comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT benbetzalelguy comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT itzhakiorit comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT shapirafrommerronnie comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT schachterjacob comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT markelgal comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy
AT bessermichalj comparisonofnonmyeloablativelymphodepletingpreconditioningregimensinpatientsundergoingadoptivetcelltherapy