Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy for Pediatric Cancer
For T cells to attack cellular targets (viruses or cancer cells), they must bind to class I major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on the surface of the target cells and avoid suppressor signals sent by regulatory T cells and other surface molecule interactions. Gene transfer technologies can modify T cells to express MHC-independent antibody-binding domains (CAR molecules) aimed at specific target proteins on the surface of tumors. To minimize the chance of suppressor mechanisms affecting CAR T-cell function and to create a cytokine milieu conducive to CAR T-cell expansion,[1] lymphodepleting chemotherapy is generally given before CAR T-cell infusions. CAR T-cell–mediated responses are further enhanced by adding intracellular costimulatory domains (e.g., CD28, 4-1BB), which cause significant CAR T-cell expansion and may increase the lifespan of these cells in the recipient.[1]
CAR T-Cell Therapy Indications for Pediatric Cancer
Investigators using this technology have targeted a variety of tumors/surface molecules, but the best-studied example in pediatric patients is CAR T cells aimed at CD19, a surface receptor on B cells. Several groups have reported significant rates of remission (70%–90%) in children and adults with refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).[2,3,4,5] Several groups have also reported persistence of CAR T cells and remission beyond 6 months in most patients studied.[5,6] Early loss of the CAR T cells is associated with relapse, and the best use of this therapy (bridge to transplant vs. definitive therapy) is under study.
Indications for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation vary over time as risk classifications for a given malignancy change and the efficacy of primary therapy improves. It is best to include specific indications in the context of complete therapy for any given disease. With this in mind, links to sections in specific PDQ summaries that cover the most common pediatric CAR T-cell therapy indications are provided below.
- B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
- Refer to the Treatment of Relapsed Childhood ALL section in the PDQ summary on Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment for more information.
- B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
- Refer to the Treatment options for recurrent or refractory Burkitt lymphoma/leukemia section in the PDQ summary on Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment for more information.
CAR T-Cell Toxicities
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS)
Responses to CAR T-cell therapies have been associated with a significant increase in inflammatory cytokines, termed cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CRS presents as a sepsis-like situation that can be successfully treated with anti–interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) therapies (tocilizumab), often in combination with steroids.[7,8] CRS presents as fever, headache, myalgias, hypotension, capillary leak, hypoxia, and renal dysfunction. The severity of the CRS determines whether patients require therapy. Severity of CRS can be measured by staging. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Consensus guidelines for CRS have been broadly adopted (refer to Table 1).[9] While treatment of grade 1 and early grade 2 CRS is generally not offered, patients with some forms of grade 2 and all patients with grades 3 and 4 CRS receive therapy.
Table 1. ASTCT CRS Consensus Gradinga,b
CRS Parameter |
Grade 1 |
Grade 2 |
Grade 3 |
Grade 4 |
ASTCT = American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy; BiPAP = bilevel positive airway pressure; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; CRS = cytokine release syndrome; CTCAE = Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. |
a Reprinted fromBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Volume 25, Issue 4, Daniel W. Lee, Bianca D. Santomasso, Frederick L. Locke et al., ASTCT Consensus Grading for Cytokine Release Syndrome and Neurologic Toxicity Associated with Immune Effector Cells, Pages 625–638, Copyright 2019, with permission from Elsevier.[9] |
b Organ toxicities associated with CRS may be graded according to CTCAE v5.0 but they do not influence CRS grading. |
c Fever is defined as temperature ≥38°C not attributable to any other cause. In patients who have CRS then receive antipyretic or anticytokine therapy such as tocilizumab or steroids, fever is no longer required to grade subsequent CRS severity. In this case, CRS grading is driven by hypotension and/or hypoxia. |
d CRS grade is determined by the more severe event: hypotension or hypoxia not attributable to any other cause. For example, a patient with temperature of 39.5°C, hypotension requiring 1 vasopressor, and hypoxia requiring low-flow nasal cannula is classified as grade 3 CRS. |
e Low-flow nasal cannula is defined as oxygen delivered at ≤6L/minute. Low flow also includes blow-by oxygen delivery, sometimes used in pediatrics. High-flow nasal cannula is defined as oxygen delivered at >6L/minute. |
Fever c |
Temperature ≥38°C |
Temperature ≥38°C |
Temperature ≥38°C |
Temperature ≥38°C |
With |
Hypotension |
None |
Not requiring vasopressors |
Requiring a vasopressor with or without vasopressin |
Requiring multiple vasopressors (excluding vasopressin) |
And/or d |
Hypoxia |
None |
Requiring low-flow nasal cannulae or blow-by |
Requiring high-flow nasal cannulae, facemask, nonrebreather mask, or Venturi mask |
Requiring positive pressure (e.g., CPAP, BiPAP, intubation and mechanical ventilation) |
Approaches to mitigating CRS toxicities
Early studies of CD19-targeted CAR T cells using both CD28 and 4-1BB costimulatory domains varied in approach. However, because of concern about loss of CAR T-cell persistence with excessive use of immune suppressive agents, the use of tocilizumab or steroids was limited to patients who experienced severe toxicities. These toxicities included hypotension requiring high-dose pressors, severe hypoxia, or intubation. After one early study showed similar efficacy in patients treated with and without tocilizumab,[10] investigators designed approaches aimed at early treatment of CRS to limit organ damage secondary to grade 4 CRS. Some approaches have decreased toxicity without obvious effects on efficacy.
Evidence (early interventions for CRS):
- Investigators at Seattle Children's Hospital compared a strategy of early intervention versus standard practice. Early intervention included treatment with tocilizumab for patients with fever higher than 39°C that is unresponsive to acetaminophen, persistent hypotension after a 10 mL/kg bolus, or initiation of oxygen. Steroids were given after tocilizumab if symptoms persisted or worsened 6 to 12 hours later.[11]
- The early intervention approach doubled the number of patients requiring tocilizumab or steroids but did not affect the overall minimal residual disease–negative remission rate, infection rate, long-term persistence of CAR T cells, or overall survival.
- In addition, early intervention for patients with CRS resulted in a decreased need for intubation or inotropic support, from 30% to 15%. However, this finding was not statistically significant (P = .29), possibly because of the small number of patients.
- Investigators at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia performed a prospective trial of a different strategy of early intervention. Because of earlier findings that showed that high disease burden at the time of CAR T-cell treatment was associated with severe CRS,[6] they defined a high tumor burden cohort as patients with 40% or more marrow blasts before infusion. Planned early intervention for the high tumor burden cohort was tocilizumab, given for two fevers of 38.5°C or higher, at least 4 hours apart, in a 24-hour period.[12]
- Grade 4 CRS decreased from 50% (in a comparator cohort) to 27% in the high tumor burden cohort (P = .18), with no change in efficacy and long-term CAR T-cell persistence.
Immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS)
Neurological toxicities, including aphasia, altered mental status, and seizures, have also been observed with CAR T-cell therapy. This clinical syndrome (ICANS) is graded according to the most severe five measures that are not attributable to causes other than CAR T-cell therapy, as follows:[9]
- Standardized neurological responsiveness score (tests vary by age: Immune Effector Cell-Associated Encephalopathy [ICE] score for children aged ≥12 years and Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium [CAPD] for children aged <12 years).
- Level of consciousness.
- Seizure activity.
- Motor weakness.
- Elevated intracranial pressure/cerebral edema.
Most neurological toxicities after CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy have been short lived (1–5 days), but rare, fatal events such as severe cerebral edema have been reported.[13] The pathophysiology of central nervous system (CNS) toxicity is likely related to disruption of the blood-brain barrier secondary to systemic cytokine release,[13] high levels of cytokines in the cerebrospinal fluid,[13] and/or direct attack of CD19-positive brain mural cells in the CNS tissue by the CAR T cells.[14] CNS symptoms have not responded well to IL-6R–targeting agents and have generally been treated with high-dose steroids or other approaches. Exactly when treatment is required for ICANS is controversial, but concerns about its rare, fatal form have led to near-uniform recommendations for the treatment of patients with grade 3 or higher ICANS.[15]
Other side effects of CAR T-cell therapy
Other CAR T-cell therapy side effects include the following:
- Coagulopathy.
- Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis–like laboratory changes.
- Cardiac dysfunction.
Early studies of patients with high levels of disease and delayed CRS therapy resulted in 20% to 40% of patients requiring treatment in the intensive care unit (mostly pressor support, with 10% to 20% of patients requiring intubation and/or dialysis);[2,5,6] however, current real-world data show that intensive care unit requirements are now less than 10% to 20%.[16]
Approved CAR T-Cell Therapies
An international trial in children led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of tisagenlecleucel for patients aged 1 to 25 years with CD19-positive B-cell ALL that is refractory or in second or later relapse.[17]
Tisagenlecleucel has also been approved for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma, as has axicabtagene ciloleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel.[18,19]
References:
- Kalos M, Levine BL, Porter DL, et al.: T cells with chimeric antigen receptors have potent antitumor effects and can establish memory in patients with advanced leukemia. Sci Transl Med 3 (95): 95ra73, 2011.
- Grupp SA, Kalos M, Barrett D, et al.: Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for acute lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med 368 (16): 1509-18, 2013.
- Lee DW, Kochenderfer JN, Stetler-Stevenson M, et al.: T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet 385 (9967): 517-28, 2015.
- Davila ML, Riviere I, Wang X, et al.: Efficacy and toxicity management of 19-28z CAR T cell therapy in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Sci Transl Med 6 (224): 224ra25, 2014.
- Gardner RA, Finney O, Annesley C, et al.: Intent-to-treat leukemia remission by CD19 CAR T cells of defined formulation and dose in children and young adults. Blood 129 (25): 3322-3331, 2017.
- Maude SL, Frey N, Shaw PA, et al.: Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N Engl J Med 371 (16): 1507-17, 2014.
- Lee DW, Gardner R, Porter DL, et al.: Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of cytokine release syndrome. Blood 124 (2): 188-95, 2014.
- Maude SL, Barrett D, Teachey DT, et al.: Managing cytokine release syndrome associated with novel T cell-engaging therapies. Cancer J 20 (2): 119-22, 2014 Mar-Apr.
- Lee DW, Santomasso BD, Locke FL, et al.: ASTCT Consensus Grading for Cytokine Release Syndrome and Neurologic Toxicity Associated with Immune Effector Cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 25 (4): 625-638, 2019.
- Mueller KT, Waldron E, Grupp SA, et al.: Clinical Pharmacology of Tisagenlecleucel in B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Clin Cancer Res 24 (24): 6175-6184, 2018.
- Gardner RA, Ceppi F, Rivers J, et al.: Preemptive mitigation of CD19 CAR T-cell cytokine release syndrome without attenuation of antileukemic efficacy. Blood 134 (24): 2149-2158, 2019.
- Kadauke S, Myers RM, Li Y, et al.: Risk-Adapted Preemptive Tocilizumab to Prevent Severe Cytokine Release Syndrome After CTL019 for Pediatric B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Prospective Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol 39 (8): 920-930, 2021.
- Gust J, Ponce R, Liles WC, et al.: Cytokines in CAR T Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity. Front Immunol 11: 577027, 2020.
- Parker KR, Migliorini D, Perkey E, et al.: Single-Cell Analyses Identify Brain Mural Cells Expressing CD19 as Potential Off-Tumor Targets for CAR-T Immunotherapies. Cell 183 (1): 126-142.e17, 2020.
- Ragoonanan D, Khazal SJ, Abdel-Azim H, et al.: Diagnosis, grading and management of toxicities from immunotherapies in children, adolescents and young adults with cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 18 (7): 435-453, 2021.
- Pasquini MC, Hu ZH, Curran K, et al.: Real-world evidence of tisagenlecleucel for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Adv 4 (21): 5414-5424, 2020.
- Maude SL, Laetsch TW, Buechner J, et al.: Tisagenlecleucel in Children and Young Adults with B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N Engl J Med 378 (5): 439-448, 2018.
- Chow VA, Shadman M, Gopal AK: Translating anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy into clinical practice for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 132 (8): 777-781, 2018.
- Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al.: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel CAR T-Cell Therapy in Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma. N Engl J Med 377 (26): 2531-2544, 2017.