Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Axicabtagene Ciloleucel: Efficacy and Toxicity in a Real-World Setting

Abstract

CD19 CAR-T therapy has revolutionized the management of high-risk and relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) but remains limited by significant toxicities leading to morbidity/mortality and high resource utilization. Single-arm studies have suggested differences in efficacy and toxicity across FDA-approved CD19 CAR-T products. A matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison showed comparable efficacy and more favorable safety with lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) compared to axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), but was limited to clinical trial patients (pts) and suffered from an absence of patient-level data (Maloney, J Hematol Oncol, 2021). In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, adjusted comparative analyses using pt-level data are critically needed to guide product choice. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the impact of CAR-T product type on the outcomes of 129 LBCL pts receiving liso-cel or axi-cel per standard of care. All LBCL pts treated at our center with liso-cel or axi-cel outside of a clinical trial between 1/2018 and 5/2023 were included. Best response was determined within 3 months of CAR-T infusion by PET-CT imaging per Lugano 2014 criteria. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune-effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were graded using ASTCT criteria. Of 129 total pts, 37% (n=48) and 63% (n=81) received liso-cel and axi-cel, respectively. Seven pts received out-of-specification liso-cel on an expanded access protocol. Pts who received liso-cel were older (median 67 vs 62 years, p=.003). Other baseline characteristics, including male sex (liso-cel vs axi-cel: 63% vs 69%, p=.4), HCT-CI score (1.0 vs 1.0, p=.6), pre-lymphodepletion (LD) LDH (178 vs 214 U/L, p=.14) and ALC (0.65 vs 0.60 x 10³/µL, p=.3), largest lesion diameter (3.1 vs 3.0 cm, p=.4), and extranodal disease (56% vs 56%, p>.9) were similar. The vein-to-vein time (time from leukapheresis to CAR-T infusion) was longer for liso-cel: median, 35 vs 27 days (p<.001). After liso-cel, the total inpt duration was shorter (median, 5 vs 14 days, p<.001) and fewer pts had ≥2 admissions (8.3% vs 22%, p=0.043). In pts with measurable disease prior to LD (n=113), we observed comparable efficacy with liso-cel vs axi-cel: ORR, 82% vs 77% (p=.5); CR, 56% vs 51% (p=.8). After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, we observed comparable 1-year outcomes with liso-cel vs axi-cel: duration of response (DOR), 56% vs 61% (p=.7); progression-free survival (PFS), 47% vs 47% (p=.99; Figure); and overall survival (OS), 69% vs 60% (p=.39). In pts evaluable for toxicity assessment (n=129), liso-cel was associated with lower rates of CRS and ICANS compared to axi-cel: any grade CRS, 62% vs 88% (p=.001); ICANS any grade, 32% vs 56% (p=.010); days with fever, median 2 vs 5 days (p<.001). Grade 3-4 CRS, 2.1% vs 9.9% (p=.2) or grade 3-4 ICANS, 23% vs 19% (p=0.5) were similar. We measured lower peak serum inflammatory markers after liso-cel: CRP, 58 vs 114 mg/L (p<.001); ferritin, 622 vs 1,315 ng/mL (p=0.007); IL-6, 55 vs 204 pg/mL (p=.010); and D-dimer, 1.4 vs 2.4 mg/L (p=.017). The incidence of infectious complications after liso-cel vs axi-cel was as follows: bacteremia: 6% vs 9% (p=.7); CMV viremia: 13% vs 6.2% (p=.3). Post-infusion median nadir cytopenias were less severe after liso-cel: ANC, 0.32 vs 0.04 x 10³/µL (p<.001); Plt, 69 vs 35 x 10³/µL (p=.003); and Hgb, 8.9 vs 8.2 g/dL (p<.001). Fewer pts developed severe neutropenia after liso-cel: 72% vs 93% (p=0.002). In multivariable analysis including pre-LD LDH and ALC, largest lesion diameter, age and HCT-CI score, we could not confirm an independent impact of the product type on CR, PFS, or OS ( Table). However, axi-cel remained independently associated with a higher odds of any grade CRS (adjusted OR [aOR] 4.56, 95% CI 1.65-13.5, p=.004) and any grade ICANS (aOR 3.44, 95% CI 1.42-8.85, p=.008). Our analysis of CD19 CAR-T therapy for R/R LBCL in the non-trial setting showed similar rates of durable responses following liso-cel and axi-cel. Pts who received liso-cel were older, with otherwise comparable baseline characteristics. Although liso-cel was associated with less toxicity, its vein-to-vein time was longer. In multivariable analyses, pre-LD LDH and largest lesion diameter were the only factors independently associated with response outcomes. We conclude that liso-cel is a robust alternative to other CD19 CAR-T products in older and frailer LBCL pts.