Impact of SCHOLAR-1 Criteria on Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy Efficacy in Aggressive B Lymphoma: A...

In the pre-chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy era, the SCHOLAR-1 study identified a group of patients with refractory aggressive B cell lymphoma (ABCL) with particularly poor prognoses. We recently published our real-world data from Spain, focused on this SCHOLAR-1 refractory group, and compared patients who underwent CAR-T therapy with the previous standard of care. In this study, we found that the efficacy of CAR-T therapy in refractory patients, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), was superior to that of the treatments available in the pre-CAR-T era. The main objective of these new analyses was to analyze treatment efficacy in terms of response rates and survival for patients with ABCL with or without the SCHOLAR-1 criteria. In addition, we analyzed the prognostic impact of each SCHOLAR-1 criterion independently. Our study aimed to assess the prognostic impact of SCHOLAR-1 criteria on ABCL patients treated with CAR-T therapy in Spain. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study. We included all adult patients treated with commercially available CAR-T cell products and diagnosed with ABCL different from primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma between February 2019 and July 2022. Patients meeting any SCHOLAR-1 criteria (progressive disease as the best response to any line of therapy, stable disease as the best response to ≥4 cycles of first-line therapy or ≥2 cycles of later-line therapy, or relapse at <12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation [auto-SCT]) in the line of treatment before CAR-T therapy (SCHOLAR-1 group) were compared with those not meeting any of these criteria (non-SCHOLAR-1 group). To analyze the prognostic impact of individual SCHOLAR-1 criteria, all the patients who met any of the SCHOLAR-1 criteria at any time were included to assess whether these criteria have the same prognostic impact in the CAR-T era. In addition, patients were grouped according to whether they were refractory to the first line of treatment, refractory to the last line of treatment, or relapsed early after auto-SCT. The PFS and OS were calculated from the time of appearance of the SCHOLAR-1 refractoriness criteria. Of 329 patients treated with CAR-T (169 with axi-cel and 160 with tisa-cel), 52 were in the non-SCHOLAR-1 group and 277 were in the SCHOLAR-1 group. We found significantly better outcomes in the non-SCHOLAR-1 patients compared with the SCHOLAR-1 patients (median PFS of 12.2 and 3.3 months, respectively; P = .009). In addition, axi-cel showed better results in terms of efficacy than tisa-cel for both the non-SCHOLAR-1 group (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 2.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1 to 6.7; P = .028]; HR for OS, 7.1 [95% CI, 1.5 to 34.6; P = .015]) and SCHOLAR-1 group (HR for PFS, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.3 to 2.5; P < .001]; HR for OS, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.6; P = .002]), but also significantly more toxicity. Finally, separately analyzing the prognostic impact of each SCHOLAR-1 criterion revealed that refractoriness to the last line of treatment was the variable with the most significant impact on survival. In conclusion, SCHOLAR-1 refractoriness criteria notably influence the efficacy of CAR-T therapy. In our experience, axi-cel showed better efficacy than tisa-cel for both SCHOLAR-1 and non-SCHOLAR-1 patients. Refractoriness to the last line of treatment was the variable with the most significant impact on survival in the CAR-T therapy era.