Click Here to
News, Updates,
& More
Stay Up
to Date

Checkpoint Inhibitor a New Approach to Jump-Start a Waning Response to CAR T-Cell Therapy

Online Only
JHOP - March 2019 Vol 9, No 1 - Immunotherapy, ASH
Download PDF
Phoebe Starr

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has achieved remarkable long-lasting remissions in B-cell malignancies, in approximately 60% of the cases, the initial response wanes over time because of “immune exhaustion.” The use of a checkpoint inhibitor to boost immune response to CAR T-cell therapy is gaining traction as an attractive approach, according to 2 early studies presented at ASH 2018.

Both studies looked at the use of pembrolizumab to augment CAR T-cell response—one study was in patients with relapsed or refractory non­Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one in pediatric patients with relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell NHL

In a small, single-center study, 12 patients with NHL that progressed or relapsed who have previously received CD19 CAR T-cell therapy were given fixed-dose intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. Pembrolizumab was the only treatment they received after the CAR T-cell infusion. “The evidence suggests that immune exhaustion may contribute to progressive disease or relapse [with CAR T-cell], since two-thirds of patients at progression have PD-L1 expression on biopsies. The idea is to restart the immune system using a checkpoint inhibitor,” said lead investigator Elise A. Chong, MD, Hematology and Oncol­ogy Fellow, Lymphoma Program, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“We don’t know the best time to administer checkpoint inhibition relative to CAR T-cell, and several multicenter trials are studying this,” Dr Chong added.

Of the 12 patients included in this early trial, 11 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and 1 had follicular lymphoma. Of the 12 patients, 9 had progressive disease at a median of 3.3 months before they received pembro­lizumab. In the other 3 patients, the disease relapsed more than 1 year after the CAR T-cell therapy infusion, at which point they received pembrolizumab therapy.

The combination was safe in this early study, and CAR T-cells re-­expanded in 8 of 11 patients after pembrolizumab therapy, signaling a “boosting” of immune activity. The only grade ≥3 adverse event considered possibly related to pembroliz­umab was neutropenia in 3 patients.

Among the 12 patients evaluable for response, the best overall response rate was 25%, with 1 complete response and 2 partial responses; 1 patient had stable disease, and 8 had progressive disease.

“The optimal timing of pembro­lizumab is a big question, and it appears that 1 year out is not optimal for most patients. Our study suggests that within 3 months is a better time frame, and we may be able to start pembrolizumab much sooner, or even before CAR T-cell. We treated some patients as early as 13 days after CAR T-cell infusion without toxicity,” Dr Chong said. “We need to determine the optimal window of time to give pembrolizumab, and balance that with toxicity.”

Several multicenter clinical trials are exploring the optimal timing of a checkpoint inhibitor in patients with lymphoma that progresses or relapses with CAR T-cell therapy in the third-line setting. Those studies are studying different CAR T-cell therapy and checkpoint inhibitor combinations, such as tisagenlecleucel and pembrolizu­mab; axicabtagene ciloleucel and atezolizumab; and JCAR017 and durvalumab; as well as different intervals between CAR T-cell therapy and checkpoint inhibitor administration.

Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell ALL

A single-center study at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia enrolled 14 heavily pretreated pediatric patients, including 13 patients with relapsed B-cell ALL and 1 patient with B lymphoblastic lymphoma who had received CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and then a PD-1 inhibitor—pembrolizumab or nivolumab, respectively, which was started 14 days or later after CAR T-cell infusion and resolution of any cytokine release syndrome.

The 14-day interval was chosen because CAR T-cell levels typically decline by that time, and cytokine release syndrome tends to occur during that interval. With a median of 13.3 months after receiving a checkpoint inhibitor, 50% of the enrolled patients maintained a partial or a complete response.

“We showed that the combination is safe, and that PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor may be used to improve CAR T-cell persistence. More than 18 months later, at least half of the patients exhibited response with a checkpoint inhibitor. The data suggest that it might be of benefit to patients with early B-cell recovery and bulky extramedullary disease,” said senior author Shannon L. Maude, MD, PhD, Attending Physician, Division of On­cology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, PA.

Commenting on this study, Joseph C. Alvarnas, MD, Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Hematology & Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, said, “When people don’t respond as well as they should, it may be that the T-cells are depleted and functionally exhausted. The mechanism of exhaustion is in part mediated by checkpoint-related killing, and by thwarting that process with pembrolizumab or nivo­lu­mab, this small study suggests that we can improve the quality and duration of response in patients we would expect not to do as well.”

In the study, 3 groups of patients received pembroliz­umab—4 patients with partial or no response to CAR T-cell therapy (all 4 patients had disease progression with pembrolizumab); 6 patients with poor persistence of CAR T-cell therapy (pembrolizumab resulted in return of B-cell aplasia, a sign of CAR T-cell function) and sustained complete response; and 4 patients with bulky extramedullary disease (2 sustained complete response and 2 partial response). No unexpected or fatal events were reported in the study. Within 2 days of initiating pembrolizumab therapy, cytokine release syndrome symptoms and fever were observed in 3 of the 14 patients; 4 patients had grade 3 or 4 cytopenia. No graft-versus-host disease flares were ­observed.

Related Items
Atezolizumab, Vemurafenib, and Cobimetinib Triplet Therapy Improves PFS in BRAF-Positive Melanoma
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on August 17, 2020 in AACR Highlights
Targeted Therapy with Olaparib Beneficial in Metastatic Prostate Cancer with Gene Mutations
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on February 24, 2020 in ESMO
Ceritinib Effective in Treating Brain Metastases in NSCLC
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on February 18, 2020 in ESMO
Paradigm Shift: PARP Inhibitors Should Be Offered to All Patients with Ovarian Cancer
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on February 18, 2020 in ESMO
FDA Grants Priority Review to Keytruda for Patients with High-Risk, Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Web Exclusives published on December 3, 2019 in Bladder Cancer, FDA Updates, Immunotherapy
Long-Term Data Confirm Survival Benefit for Pembrolizumab in Advanced NSCLC
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on November 25, 2019 in Lung Cancer
Adding CDK4/6 Inhibitor to Endocrine Therapy Improves Survival in Advanced Breast Cancer: New Standard of Care
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on October 28, 2019 in ESMO, Breast Cancer
FDA Unveils Pilot Program to Expand Access to Investigational Oncology Drugs
Phoebe Starr
Web Exclusives published on July 29, 2019 in ASCO
CAR T-Cell Therapy Targeting Solid Tumors
Chase Doyle
Web Exclusives published on July 29, 2019 in Immunotherapy
Checkpoint Inhibition Consolidation Therapy Promising in High-Risk Hematologic Malignancies
Charles Bankhead
JHOP - March 2019 Vol 9, No 1 published on March 13, 2019 in ASH
Last modified: April 27, 2020