Differences in response to immunotherapy drugs including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin in B-ALL patients
Zhi-Yin Liu1, Ze-Ying Yan1, Jian-Feng Li2
1Department of Hematology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Ruijin Road II 197, Shanghai, China.
The treatment of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) has undoubtedly transitioned into the immunotherapy era. We conducted a retrospective study on B-ALL immunotherapy, especially regimens including blinatumomab (Blina) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), at our center. A total of 21 B-ALL patients were involved in this study, including 18 with newly diagnosed (ND) B-ALL and 3 with relapsed B-ALL. RNA sequencing identified a total of five new fusions (ADD1::JAK2, PVT1::IGLL5, PAX5::KANK2, ETV6::BCL2L14, and CDKN2A::TGFBR3) in five different patients. All ND patients can be divided into four groups according to treatment response. Group 1, which included patients with PAX5::KANK2 and CREBBP::ZNF384, responded best to Blina. Group 2, which included one patient with CDKN2A::TGFBR3 fusion and one who was BCR::ABL positive, showed an inferior response to Blina compared with Group 1. Group 3 initially showed no response but subsequently responded very favorably to InO and showed further improvement with Blina. Group 4, which included patients with PVT1::IGLL5 fusion, had the poorest prognosis. In conclusion, Blina and InO showed specific treatment advantages for different patient groups in our cohort that may be attributed to intrinsic genetic characteristics, such as new fusion genes.
The treatment of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) has undoubtedly transitioned into the immunotherapy era. We conducted a retrospective study on B-ALL immunotherapy, especially regimens including blinatumomab (Blina) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), at our center. A total of 21 B-ALL patients were involved in this study, including 18 with newly diagnosed (ND) B-ALL and 3 with relapsed B-ALL. RNA sequencing identified a total of five new fusions (ADD1::JAK2, PVT1::IGLL5, PAX5::KANK2, ETV6::BCL2L14, and CDKN2A::TGFBR3) in five different patients. All ND patients can be divided into four groups according to treatment response. Group 1, which included patients with PAX5::KANK2 and CREBBP::ZNF384, responded best to Blina. Group 2, which included one patient with CDKN2A::TGFBR3 fusion and one who was BCR::ABL positive, showed an inferior response to Blina compared with Group 1. Group 3 initially showed no response but subsequently responded very favorably to InO and showed further improvement with Blina. Group 4, which included patients with PVT1::IGLL5 fusion, had the poorest prognosis. In conclusion, Blina and InO showed specific treatment advantages for different patient groups in our cohort that may be attributed to intrinsic genetic characteristics, such as new fusion genes.
More Related Videos
07:25In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
05:32Multimodal Bioluminescent and Positronic-emission Tomography/Computational Tomography Imaging of Multiple Myeloma Bone Marrow Xenografts in NOG Mice
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Tumor Immunotherapy
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
