Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multicenter study reveals 1.6% CNS relapse in patients with R/R LBCL undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, suggesting the need for further CNS prophylaxis evaluation.
Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, over 50% of patients will experience progressive disease (PD) after infusion. While relapse in the central nervous system (CNS) is uncommon (<5%) after chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), large real-world cohorts focused on this specific event after CAR T-cell therapy are lacking. Here, we carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the CNS relapse risk in the post-CART space and compared the results to a CIT cohort. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, international study including patients with R/R LBCL treated at 9 centers with commercially-available CAR T-cell products until June 2025. For the comparative cohort, we included transplant-eligible patients who received second-line CIT in the GELTAMO network until December 2023; if these patients received CAR T-cell therapy at a later line, they were censored. Patients with a prior history of CNS involvement were excluded from the study. The primary endpoint was incidence of CNS relapse in the CAR-T cohort. Secondary endpoints included CNS relapse among patients with high-risk CNS-IPI, with 1 prior line and in those who experienced PD after CAR-T; the same endpoints were assessed in the CIT cohort. Results: This study included 1102 R/R LBCL patients; 875 (79%) and 227 (21%) comprised the CAR-T and CIT cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up for the full patient population was 41 months (95%CI 37-46). Focusing on the CAR-T cohort, median age was 63 years (IQR 53-70) with a male predominance (61%). Most had a DLBCL diagnosis (82%), ECOG 0-1 (89%), 2 prior lines of therapy (58%) and a high-risk CAR-HEMATOTOX (53%). Among patients with an available CNS-IPI score (442/875), 26% were low, 56% intermediate and 18% high-risk at time of CAR-T; 16% had received CNS prophylaxis with first-line treatment. Overall, the incidence of CNS relapse in CAR T-cell recipients was 1.6% (N=14). Focusing on these patients, 67% were germinal center B-cell (GCB) type and 29% were double/triple hit (DH/TH); all had received 2+ treatment lines and 21% prior CNS prophylaxis. Most (85%) had extranodal involvement and 21% had high-risk extranodal sites (breast, kidney, testes). The CNS-IPI score at CAR-T included 2 low, 7 intermediate and 4 high-risk (1 not available). Relapse was leptomeningeal (54%), parenchymal (23%) or both (23%), usually associated with concomitant systemic disease (71%). Median time from CAR T-cell infusion to PD was 1 month (IQR 0.9-3.5) and to CNS relapse was 4.7 months (IQR 1.4-48.1). At data cutoff, only 2 patients remained alive. Given the diverse settings, we explored a range of subgroup analyses. First, we focused on the 52% of patients who experienced PD after CAR-T, with a 3.1% incidence of CNS relapse. Second, we turned to CNS-IPI; in the 18% high-risk patients, 5.1% experienced CNS relapse. Third, we carried out an analysis restricted to patients with 1 prior treatment line (N=100), with no cases of CNS relapse. Regarding our comparative CIT cohort, baseline characteristics which were different from the CAR-T group included a younger age (57 vs 63 years, p<0.01), lower number of prior lines (1 in all patients), lower rate of transformed indolent lymphoma (6% vs 26%, p<0.01) and bulky disease (15% vs 23%, p=0.01). There were no differences in DH/TH status or CNS-IPI distribution; 26% had received prior CNS prophylaxis (p<0.01). The incidence of CNS relapse was comparable to the CAR-T cohort (2.2%, N=5 [p=0.60]). Of these, most (80%) had extranodal involvement, with high-risk sites (60%). The CNS-IPI score included 2 intermediate and 2 high-risk (1 not available). Relapse was mostly parenchymal (80%) and associated concomitant systemic disease (80%). Median time from CIT to PD was 1.7 months (IQR 1.2-4.1) and to CNS relapse was 3.5 months (IQR 2.1-8.7). None of these patients were alive at data cutoff. Finally, in the subgroup analyses, CNS relapse rate was 3.0% (p=1.0) among the 73% who experienced PD after CIT and 7.1% (p=0.7) in those with a high-risk CNS-IPI. Conclusions: The incidence of CNS relapse after CAR T-cell therapy was very low, especially in second-line. The CNS-IPI score did not seem to aid high-risk patient identification in this setting. Clinical trials incorporating CAR T-cell therapy in front-line will further clarify the role of CNS prophylaxis in this patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maharaj et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: