CAR-T and Other Immunotherapies in Myeloma Ivan Borrello, M.D. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

car t and other immunotherapies in
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CAR-T and Other Immunotherapies in Myeloma Ivan Borrello, M.D. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CAR-T and Other Immunotherapies in Myeloma Ivan Borrello, M.D. bb2121: BCMA CAR T Cell Design bb2121 CAR Design CD8 MND SP Anti-BCMA scFv 4-1BB CD3z Promoter Linker Signaling Domains Tumor binding domain Autologous T cells


slide-1
SLIDE 1

CAR-T and Other Immunotherapies in Myeloma

Ivan Borrello, M.D.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

bb2121: BCMA CAR T Cell Design

  • Autologous T cells transduced with a lentiviral vector encoding a CAR specific for human BCMA
  • Optimal 4-1BB costimulatory signaling domain: associated with less acute toxicity and more

durable CAR T cell persistence than CD28 costimulatory domain1

  • 1. Ali SI, et al. Blood. 2016;128(13):1688-700.

bb2121 CAR Design

SP Anti-BCMA scFv CD3z 4-1BB MND CD8

Tumor binding domain Signaling Domains Linker Promoter

slide-3
SLIDE 3

CAR-T Toxicities

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Parameter Escalation (N=21) Expansion (N=22) Exposed Refractory Exposed Refractory Prior therapies, n (%) Bortezomib 21 (100) 14 (67) 22 (100) 16 (73) Carfilzomib 19 (91) 12 (57) 21 (96) 14 (64) Lenalidomide 21 (100) 19 (91) 22 (100) 18 (82) Pomalidomide 19 (91) 15 (71) 22 (100) 21 (96) Daratumumab 15 (71) 10 (48) 22 (100) 19 (86) Cumulative exposure, n (%) Bort/Len 21 (100) 14 (67) 22 (100) 14 (64) Bort/Len/Car/Pom/Dara 15 (71) 6 (29) 21 (96) 7 (32) Parameter Escalation (N=21) Expansion (N=22) Median (min, max) prior regimens 7 (3, 14) 8 (3, 23) Prior autologous SCT, n (%) 21 (100) 19 (86) 3 (14) 1 15 (71) 14 (64) >1 6 (29) 5 (23)

Data cutoff: March 29, 2018. SCT, stem cell transplant.

Treatment History

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Parameter Dosed Patients (N=43) Patients with a CRS event, n (%) 27 (63) Maximum CRS gradea None 1 2 3 4 16 (37) 16 (37) 9 (21) 2 (5) Median (min, max) time to onset, d 2 (1, 25) Median (min, max) duration, d 6 (1, 32) Tocilizumab use, n (%) 9 (21) Corticosteroid use, n (%) 4 (9)

Cytokine Release Syndrome Parameters

Data cutoff: March 29, 2018. aCRS uniformly graded according to Lee DW, et al. Blood. 2014;124(2):188-195. b3 patients were treated at the 50 x 106 dose level for a total of 43 patients.

Cytokine Release Syndrome By Dose Level

Dose Levelb

16,7 50,0 22,2 22,7 9,1 20 40 60 80 100 150 x 106 >150 x 106

Patients, %

3 2 1

39% 82% >150 × 106 (n=22) 150 × 106 (n=18) Maximum Toxicity Gradea

Cytokine Release Syndrome

slide-7
SLIDE 7

bb2121 CAR+ T Cell Expansion

  • Comparable Cmax in active dose cohorts (≥150 × 106

CAR+ T cells)

  • Durable bb2121 persistence (≥6 months) in 44%
  • Higher peak expansion in patients with response

Data cutoff: March 29, 2018. Cmax, maximum serum concentration; LLOQ, lower limit of quantitation.

7

Median (Q1, Q3) Vector Copies in CD3-Enriched Peripheral Blood by Dose Cohorts

Month 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 12 At risk, n 32 26 16 10 With detectable vector, n (%) 31 (97) 22 (85) 7 (44) 2 (20)

Patients with ≥2 months of response data and 1 month of vector copy data (N=36). P value based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test. Patients with a post-baseline vector copy value were included. One patient was dosed at 205 × 106 CAR+ T cells instead of the planned 450 × 106 and was included in the 450 × 106 dose group.

Peak bb2121 Vector Copies in Responders vs Nonresponders

P=0.005 Median Vector Copies/µg of Genomic DNA

1 07 1 06 1 05 1 04 1 03

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Tumor Response: Deep MRD- negative responses observed

  • All responding patients evaluated for MRD were MRD negative at 1 or more time points
  • 2 nonresponders evaluated for MRD were MRD positive at month 1

Response 50 × 106 150 × 106 450 × 106 800 × 106 Total MRD- evaluable responders 4 11 1 16 MRD-nega 4 (100) 11 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100)

Data cutoff: March 29, 2018. aOf 16 MRD-negative responses: 4 at 10-6, 11 at 10-5, 1 at 10-4 sensitivity by Adaptive next-generation sequencing assay.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

PFS at Inactive (50 × 106) and Active (150–800 × 106) Dose Levelsa PFS in MRD-Negative Patientsa

Data cutoff: March 29, 2018. Median and 95% CI from Kaplan-Meier estimate. NE, not estimable. aPFS in dose escalation cohort. 50 × 106 (n=3) 150–800 × 106 (n=18) Events 3 10 mPFS (95% CI), mo 2.7 (1.0–2.9) 11.8 (8.8–NE) 150–800 × 106 (n=16) mPFS (95% CI), mo 17.7 (5.8–NE)

Progression-Free Survival

  • mPFS of 11.8 months at active doses (≥150 × 106 CAR+ T cells) in 18 subjects in dose escalation phase
  • mPFS of 17.7 months in 16 responding subjects who are MRD-negative

mPFS = 11.8 mo mPFS = 2.7 mo mPFS = 17.7 mo

slide-10
SLIDE 10

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 PBL aPBL MILs aMILs CPM/ 10^5 CD3

Nothing CD33 CD138

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 240

Days post tumor challenge Human Kappa (ng/ml)

HBSS aMIL aPBL

MILs Exhibit Significant Anti-Myeloma Specificity aMILs Effectively Kill Myeloma Cells MILs eradicate pre-established disease

Marrow Infiltrating Lymphocytes

Noonan et al Ca Res 2005; 65(5)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 APC day 79

100 101 102 103 104 PE M1

100 101 102 103 104 PE M1

aPBLs Human CD3+ aMILs MILs Persist in the Bone Marrow and Eradicate Myeloma

Human CD138+ Control No Stain

10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 APC day 110

slide-12
SLIDE 12

First MILs Clinical Trial

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Tumor Specificity of aMILs Product

13

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

CR PD

%CD3+/CFSElow/IFNg+

p=0.07

(Noonan et al. STM 2015; 7:288)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 D60 D180 D360 %CD3+/CFSElow/IFNγ+

CR PR SD PD

Tumor-specific Response in the BM Correlates with Clinical Outcomes

* *

*p<0.001

(Noonan et al. STM 2015; 7:288)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

41BB Expression with Expansion

PBL MIL

CD4+/41BB+ =8.14% CD4+/41BB+ =18.21%

CD4+ CD4+

Pre-Activation

CD4+/41BB+ =2.8% CD4+/41BB+ =10.67%

Normoxia

CD4+/41BB+ =0% CD4+/41BB+ =43.4%

Hypoxia

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Hypoxia Enhances Function in 4- 1BB+ T cell Subset

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2139 untouched 2139 4- 1BBneg 2139 4- 1BBpos

slide-17
SLIDE 17

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

d+3 7 14 21 28 60 180

J0770 J0997 J1343 MILs J1343 No MILs

Average ABS Lymph Count

N=21 N=30

Normoxia MILs No MILS

In vivo MILs Expansion

N=5 N=2

Hypoxia MILs

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Day 3 Day 5 Day 9

MILs CAR

5.7% 36.1% 0% 1.6%

PBLs CAR

7.1% 57.8%

CD3

CD138

Superior Killing by MIL-CARs Compared to PBL-CARs

N.B: 8226 cells was added on days 3 or 7 days after the primary 8226 challenge

slide-19
SLIDE 19

MIL CARs: More Data Showing Superior Killing via the CAR in MIL CARs vs. PBL CARs

19

C A R M I L s C A R P B L s 5 0 1 0 0

% 8 2 2 6 C e l l K i l l i n g P = 0 . 0 0 7 7 * *

C A R M I L s C A R P B L s 5 0 1 0 0

% 8 2 2 6 C e l l K i l l i n g P = 0 . 0 2 1 *

CART:Target ratio = 1:10 Primary Challenge (48hr) Rechallenge

slide-20
SLIDE 20

MIL CARs: Preserve the Endogenous TCR-mediated Killing

CD38 MIL CARs NT MILs

14.9% 4.8%

CD38 Stimulated CD38 MIL CARs

21.0% Native TCR in MIL CARS works even after the CAR has fired

Tumor Specificity Assay Testing ability of Native TCR to Recognize Tumor Ag:

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Conclusions

  • Tumor specificity of MILs correlates with clinical outcomes
  • Memory phenotype, broad antigenic specificity are properties

unique to MILs and not found on PBLs

  • T cell persistence correlates with responses
  • Hypoxia augments T cell function of MILs through

– upregulation of 4-1BB – increase in anti-apoptotic proteins and survival cytokines – Enhance ex vivo and in vivo expansion

  • The absence of a PFS plateau with BCMA CARs limits the long-

term efficacy of this approach in MM

  • MILs appear to show better anti-tumor activity as a source of

CAR-modified T cells than PBLs

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Acknowledgements

22

Myeloma Group Abbas Ali Carol Ann Huff Bill Matsui Amy Sidorski Satish Shanbhag Jenn Hanle Clinical Research Laura Cucci Leo Luznik Phil Imus Maria Yankouski Amanda Stevens Cell Therapy Lab Janice Davis Vic Lemas Sue Fiorino Borrello Lab Megan Heiman Valentina Hoyos Luca Biavati Danielle Dillard Ervin Griffin Amy Thomas WindMIL Kim Noonan Eric Lutz Lakshmi Rudraraju Funding NIH BMT PO1 Commonwealth Foundation