The Pharmacology of T Cell Therapies.

Main Text

For the past century, the concept of “a drug” has largely been confined to low molecular weight organic compounds, so-called “small molecules” and larger biomolecules. However, over the past decade, these traditional concepts have been challenged with the advent of new drugs based upon cells, which we refer to here as cellular therapies. Despite their complexity, cellular therapies have incredible potential for the treatment of human disease. This potential is illustrated by the recent FDA approvals of tisagenlecleucel (CTL019, Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), genetically engineered T cell therapies that are able to induce durable, complete remission of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in individuals with otherwise highly chemotherapy-refractory disease. 1 , 2 Like all drugs, understanding the pharmacology of T cell therapies is critical to their effective application in the clinical setting.

Overview of Adoptive Cellular Therapy Using T Cells

T cell therapy is hardly a new concept. In fact, it has been practiced for over 50 years in the form of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, in which T cells passively transferred in the cellular product used to reconstitute the ablated hematopoietic system mediate important graft-versus-leukemia effects that are critical to long-term success of this therapy. 3 Over the past 2 decades, this approach has been refined greatly by the use of cell culture and gene therapy tools to create T cells with defined antigenic specificity for cancer therapy. At least two distinct approaches are currently being developed for controlling antigen specificity.

The first approach relies upon isolation of naturally formed, tumor-specific T cells such as tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Pioneered by Steven Rosenberg and his research team at the National Cancer Institute, this therapy relies upon the isolation of T cells from surgically resected tumor fragments that are propagated ex vivo by repeated rounds of stimulation with an agonist monoclonal antibody to CD3ε and recombinant human interleukin 2 (rhIL-2). 4 After extensive expansion of the tumor-derived lymphocytes, these cells are then re-infused back into the patient from which they were originally derived. The overall process is depicted schematically in Figure 1 . TIL therapy has shown some remarkable anti-tumor activity, especially in melanoma, with 20%–30% of patients with metastatic melanoma showing deep and durable clinical remissions lasting years and even decades. 5 , 6 , 7 Figure 1 Schematic Depiction of the Adoptive T Cell Immunotherapy Process for Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte or Engineered T Cell Therapy

The second approach for generating tumor-specific T cell therapies capitalizes on our ability to transfer genetic material encoding either a cloned T cell receptor (TCR) or a synthetic receptor formed by combining the antigen-binding portions of an antibody molecule with signaling components from immunoreceptors and costimulatory molecules, which has been referred to as chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) or T-bodies. 8 Although there are many different approaches used for generating genetically modified T cells, most of these approaches share the same basic schema, as shown in Figure 1 . In general, T cells are obtained from peripheral blood, most commonly by leukopheresis. After activation by mitogenic signals similar to those used for TILs, the cells are genetically modified and then expanded prior to their reinfusion back into the patient. Genetic modification can be accomplished by use of retroviral vectors, 9 , 10 lentiviral vectors, 11 transposons, 12 or, most recently, homologous recombination following gene editing. 13 , 14

Defining the “Drug” in T Cell Therapies

Drugs used in the clinical setting require production that adheres to current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) to ensure the safety, purity, and potency from batch to batch. Although the approach to assessing purity and potency are fairly straightforward for small molecule drugs and most biomolecules, defining these characteristics for a cellular product, such as a genetically modified T cell or TIL, is challenging at best and perhaps impossible using present technology.

Unlike traditional molecular drugs that can be chemically defined, cellular therapies are composed of highly complex mixtures of thousands of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and other organic compounds. A cellular therapy product generated for therapeutic purposes also typically contains hundreds of millions or billions of cells, which vary greatly in their chemical composition from one cell to another. How then does one define purity in the context of this complexity? Embracing practicality, the purity of most cellular products is currently defined by the analysis of a few highly selected proteins using flow cytometric approaches that define the T cell and T cell subset composition of the cells within a product. However, the advent of new single cell transcriptomic approaches (e.g., single cell RNA-seq) show that even highly selected “homogenous” populations of T cells or bone marrow progenitor cells exhibit a great deal more variation than is obvious from the limited set of surface markers typically used to define these populations. 15 , 16 Diversity is also created during the genetic engineering process. Most gene delivery approaches in current use for cell therapy employ viral vectors that produce insertions of the genetic material into random locations within the genome. The effect of insertion location on the expression and function of T cells is largely unknown, but a recent study by Eyquem et al. 13 using site-directed insertion of a CAR into the TCR gene locus suggests that gene location may have large effects on CAR-T cell function in vivo .

Similar to purity, potency is also quite difficult to delineate for a cellular therapy product. Potency is generally described as the quantity of a drug required to achieve a defined effect. It seems logical to believe that the number of T cells required to kill a defined number of tumor cells in vitro might be a good test of potency for a cancer-targeted T cell therapy. Unfortunately, cytotoxic activity in vitro as well as several other assays of T cell function (e.g., interferon-γ [IFN-γ] production) appear to have little correlation with the in vivo potency of CD19-specific CAR-T cells. 17 There are many factors that might limit the in vivo activity and overall efficacy of a T cell therapy. However, it is important to recognize that cellular therapies are uniquely “living drugs,” with the capacity to replicate themselves. The cells that carry out the majority of the cytotoxicity in vivo are unlikely to be the cells in the original infused cell product, but rather the descendants of these cells. In the extreme situation, even a single T cell clone was reported to have mediated the majority of the antileukemic effects in a patient with ALL treated with CTL019 who experienced a delayed response to the therapy, suggesting that T cell therapies may rely upon a large amount of T cell proliferation to achieve their desired anticancer effects. 18

The “Pharmacokinetics” and “Pharmacodynamics” of Engineered T Cells

Genetically Engineered T Cell Kinetics following Adoptive Transfer

Most of our knowledge regarding T cell engraftment kinetics is derived from correlative studies performed in clinical trials of genetically modified T cells, in particular CD19-specific CAR-T cells. Two methods, qPCR and flow cytometry, are commonly employed to track the genetically modified T cells following adoptive transfer. Although it is possible for gene silencing or receptor internalization to limit concordance of these methods by reducing expression of the immunoreceptor transgene, 19 these methods appear to show good correlation, especially during peak levels of T cell engraftment. 20 Overall, the data obtained across more than 10 clinical trials of CAR-modified T cells show that engineered T cell concentrations rapidly decline within hours following infusion (see Table 1 ). Following this initial decline, which likely represents cellular redistribution into tissues, the concentrations of engineered T cells then rise to reach a maximum concentration (Cmax) in blood that typically occurs within the 2nd week following infusion. This peak is subsequently followed by a second, slower decline in concentration that occurs over a variable period of days to several months. However, the concentration of functional engineered T cells can be maintained at detectable concentrations in many individuals for years. 21 , 22 Although more limited, data, primarily from multiple myeloma, indicates that engineered T cell kinetics within the tumor compartment appear to parallel concentrations in blood. 23 Table 1 Summary of Reported Pharmacokinetic Data from Clinical Trials of CD19-Specific CAR-T Cells Reference Trial Indication (Number of Subjects) Vector, Transgene, and Cells Conditioning Regimen Dose Response Cmax (Blood) Time to Cmax Persistence t1/2 AUC Comment Lee et al., Lancet 2015 85 NCT01593696 , CD19 CAR T B-ALL (20), DLBCL (1) γ retrovirus (FMC63)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 1 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 1.3, 0.03–3.6) 70% CR (ALL) mean, ∼20 cells/μL (range, 0 to ∼45) by FCM a 14 days absent by D+68 (in evaluable non-HSCT subjects) not reported not reported Locke et al., 2017 63 ZUMA-1, CD19 CAR T DLBCL(7) γ retrovirus (FMC63)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 2 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 1.7, 1.1–2) 57% CR; 71% OR not reported 7–14 days detectable at 12 months in 3, with ongoing response by qPCR not reported not reported patient with lowest Cmax experienced CR, ongoing at 12 months Ali et al., 2016 24 NCT02215967 , BCMA CAR T MM (12) γ retrovirus (11D-5-3)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 2 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 2.8, 0.3–9) 8.3% CR; 25% PR <10 cells/μL (dose 0.3 × 10 6 to 1 × 10 6 CAR+/kg); <10/μL to >250/μL (dose 3 × 10 6 to 9 × 10 6 CAR+/kg) a not reported CAR+ ≤0.1% of PBMCs by 3 months not reported not reported patients with highest Cmax experienced best response Wang et al., Blood 2016 86 NCT01318317 , CD19 CAR T day +2 post auto-HSCT DLBCL (7), MCL (1) lentivirus (FMC63)-z leukopheresis CD4-CD45RA-CD14-depleted, CD62L-enriched T cells HSCT conditioning: bis-chloroethylnitrosourea; etoposide; Ara-C; melphalan median: 50 × 10 6 total CAR+ (mean, range: 65.6, 25–100) 63% CR, 25% PR median, 280 (range, 0–925) CAR copies/mL (qPCR); mean, 1.6 CAR copies/μg gDNA ∼2 weeks mean persistence: 18.25 days (range 0–28) by qPCR not reported AUC25: mean 25.4 log10 CAR copies/μg gDNA Wang et al., Blood 2016 86 NCT01815749 , CD19 CAR T day +2 post auto-HSCT DLBCL (4), MCL (4) lentivirus (FMC63)-28z leukopheresis CD25-CD45RA-CD14-depleted, CD62L-enriched T cells HSCT conditioning: bis-chloroethylnitrosourea; etoposide; Ara-C; melphalan median: 200 × 10 6 total CAR+ (mean, range: 143.8, 50–200) 100% CR median, 692 (range, 267–27,790) CAR copies/mL (qPCR); mean, 2.79 CAR copies/μg gDNA ∼2 weeks mean persistence: 20.5 days (range 7–27) by qPCR not reported AUC25: mean 40.2 log10 CAR copies/μg DNA Gardner et al., 2017 25 NCT02028455 , CD19 CAR T B-ALL, pediatric (43) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz + EGFRt leukopheresis, CD4s and CD8s expanded separately, enriched for transgene, mixed 1:1 for infusion Cytoxan (27); Cytoxan/etoposide (1); fludarabine (1); Cytoxan + fludarabine (13) median: 1 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 2.55, 0.5–10) 93% CR mean 100–400 CAR+/μL (FCM) a median 10 days (range, 7–18 days) median 3 months (95% CI 2.07–6.44), by B cell aplasia not reported not reported Cmax and AUC correlate with antigen burden but not with dose Brentjens et al., 2011 59 NCT00466531 , NCT01044069 , CD19 CAR T CLL (8), B-ALL (1) γ retrovirus (SJ25C1)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells no conditioning (3); Cytoxan (6) median: 1.1 × 10 9 total CAR+ (mean, range: 1.24 × 10 9 , 1.8 × 10 8 to 3.2 × 10 9 ) reduction in lymphadenopathy (1 subject, CLL); persistent B cell aplasia (1 subject, ALL) not reported not reported up to 8 weeks in 2 patients by IHC not reported not reported presence of CAR+ cells determined by qPCR/flow cytometry after ex vivo restimulation Mueller et al., 2017 20 NCT01626495 , NCT01029366 , NCT01747486 , CD19 CAR T B-ALL, pediatric (55), adult (6), CLL (42) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan; Cytoxan/etoposide; clofarabine; fludarabine/Cytoxan; CVAD; bendamustine; no conditioning range: 0.76 × 10 6 to 20.6 × 10 6 CAR+/kg, ALL; median: 1.6 × 10 8 total CAR+ (range: 0.14 × 10 8 to 11 × 10 8 ), CLL ALL: 82%–93% CR; CLL: 35% CR, 18% PR geometric mean (CV%), peds-ALL: 48,000 copies/μg gDNA (132) in CR/CRi patients, 17,200 copies/μg gDNA (779) in NR CR: 11 days (range, 1–32); NR: 15 days (range, 1–32) CR: median 192 days (range, 18–780 days); NR: median 28.5 (range, 1–32) by qPCR CR: median 18.8 days (range, 0.7–400); NR 8.8 days (range, 1.2–11.8) AUC0–28: CR- 328,212 copies/μg × days (CV% 208.5); NR: 8,688 copies/μg × days (CV% 1,910) Hu et al., 2017 87 ChiCTR-OCC-15007008, CD19 CAR T B-ALL (15) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 3.7 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 4.4, 1.1–9.8) 40% CR median, 342 CAR+ cells/mL (95% CI, 140–532) in grade 3 CRS group; median, 96 CAR+ cells/mL (95% CI, 61.5–132.8) in grade 1 to 2 CRS/non-CRS group not reported up to 7 months in one patient not reported not reported Turtle et al., 2016 31 NCT01865617 , CD19 CAR T B-ALL (30) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz + EGFRt leukopheresis, CD4+ and CD8+/CD8+Tcm-enriched expanded separately, enriched for transgene, mixed 1:1 for infusion Cytoxan (11); Cytoxan + etoposide (2); Cytoxan + fludarabine (17) median: 2 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 2.42, 0.2–20) 93% remission by flow cytometry, 86% MRD-negative CR not reported 7–14 days a not reported not reported not reported Turtle et al., 2017 88 NCT01865617 , CD19 CAR T CLL (24) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz + EGFRt leukopheresis, CD4+ and CD8+/CD8+Tcm-enriched expanded separately, enriched for transgene, mixed 1:1 for infusion Cytoxan (1); fludarabine (2); Cytoxan + fludarabine (21) median: 2 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 2.42, 0.2– 20) 21% CR, 53% PR by IWCLL criteria not reported not reported not reported not reported not reported Pan et al., 2017 89 ChiCTR-IIh-16008711, CD19 CAR T B-ALL (51) lentivirus (FMC63)-41BBz leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine; no conditioning (1) mean, range: 1 × 10 5 CAR+/kg, 0.05–14 90% CR not reported 8–11 days undetectable in blood on day +30 (42 subjects), present at day 40, 45, and 60 (3 subjects) by FCM not reported not reported Davila et al., 2014 58 NCT01044069 , CD19 CAR T B-ALL (16) γ retrovirus (SJ25C1)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan 3 × 10 6 CAR T cells/kg (15 subjects); 4.8 × 10 5 CAR+ cells/kg (1 subject) 88% overall CR not reported 7–14 days low undetectable by 2 to 3 months, complicated by progression to allo-HSCT in 7 subjects not reported not reported Rossig et al., 2017 90 CD19TPALL, CD19 CAR T, in vivo vaccination to boost CAR T cells in cohort 2 B-ALL, pediatric (11) γ retrovirus (FMC63)-28z EBV-specific CTL fludarabine; fludarabine + vincristine + dexamethasone median: 4.55 × 10 7 CAR+/m 2 (mean, range: 4.62, 1.08– 7.2) 36.4% continued, 9.1% CR, 9.1% PR not reported not reported cohort 1 (no vaccination): median, 0 days (range 0–28); cohort 2 (vaccination): median, 56 days (range, 0–221) not reported not reported Kochenderfer et al., 2017 48 b NCT00924326 , CD19 CAR T DLBCL (19), FL (2), MCL (1) γ retrovirus (FMC63)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 2 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 1.86, 1–6) 55% CR, 18% PR median, 98 CAR+/μL in subjects with remission; median, 15 CAR+/μL in subjects without remission median, 8.5 days (range, 6–35 days) 0 to 1 CAR+/μL by 3 months not reported not reported Kochenderfer et al., 2015 91 b NCT00924326 , CD19 CAR T DLBCL (9), CLL (4), other indolent lymphoma (2) γ retrovirus (FMC63)-28z leukopheresis bulk T cells Cytoxan + fludarabine median: 2.5 × 10 6 CAR+/kg (mean, range: 2.3, 1–5) 53% CR, 26.7% PR range, 9–777 CAR+ cells/μL 7–17 days not reported not reported not reported B-ALL, B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia; FCM, flow cytometry; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplant; OR, overall response; MM, multiple myeloma; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cell; gDNA, genomic DNA; CI, confidence interval; NR, non-responder; MRD, minimal residue disease; IWCLL, international workshop on chronic lymphocytic leukemia; FL, follicular lymphoma. a Estimate from graphical data presented in report, without numerical values explicitly reported. b There is likely some patient overlap between these last two reports by Kochenderfer et al. (neither is a complete subset of the other).

Factors Affecting T Cell Engraftment Kinetics

Perhaps not unexpected, T cell engraftment kinetics varies considerably across patients and across clinical trials. Recently reported data from 103 individuals with ALL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with tisagenlecleucel (CTL019) show a coefficient of variation (%CV) for Cmax and area under the concentration time curve from day 0 to day 28 (AUC 0–28d ) of 167% and 209%, respectively, in responding patients. In non-responding patients, which were primarily individuals with CLL, the variation was even wider, with the %CV for both Cmax and AUC 0–28d exceeding 1,000%. 20 Although these statistics are not reported in other published trials, the variability in both kinetic parameters shown within these studies appear to be considerable.

There are multiple factors that likely contribute to the observed variability in engineered T cell engraftment kinetics ( Figure 2 ). T cell dose is a logical variable to consider. Unfortunately, few studies have directly compared engraftment in relation to the engineered T cell dose, and those studies have shown conflicting results. 24 , 25 , 26 In many ways, T cell therapy is akin to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in which the number of CD34+ cells transferred is correlated with both the engraftment success as well as the time to recovery of mature hematopoietic cells. 27 However, it is still challenging to identify the T cells within an infused product with the greatest “stemness.” Studies in both murine and primate models of adoptive cellular therapy (ACT) over the past decade have shown that T cells vary in their ability to support long-term engraftment following adoptive transfer. Memory T cells with a naive-like and central memory immunophenotype appear to have “stem-cell-like” properties with the greatest replicative and engraftment capacity. 28 , 29 However, it is largely unknown whether the immunophenotypes described for quiescent T cells freshly isolated from blood are informative when applied to T cells that have been ex vivo activated and cultured. The surface markers used for identifying the naive-like, stem cell memory (Tscm) or central memory (Tcm) T cells change significantly during the culture process such that T cell immunophenotype is much more homogeneous at the end of the culture compared with the cells used at the culture’s start. Recent retrospective analysis of CTL019 data suggest that immunophenotypic characterization of T cell composition of both the starting leukopheresis material as well as the infused T cell product are predictive of engraftment and response. 30 In addition, efforts to generate T cell products with a more defined composition have shown good engraftment results. 31 However, because they have also not been directly compared to products with less defined composition, it is difficult to know how much benefit is derived from these approaches. These approaches are also more complicated and costly to implement, and a substantial proportion of patients in the study by Turtle et al. 31 failed to achieve a defined composition using Tcm-selected T cells due to low lymphocyte counts. Figure 2 Variables Impacting Efficacy of T Cell Therapy Many recipient and product factors are thought to impact the efficacy of adoptive T cell therapy. Although effects have largely not been tested in human trials, in vitro , preclinical in vivo , and human trial evidence implicate parameters at all points of the T cell therapy “life cycle”: (1) disease type, (2) prior therapy, (3) expansion culture conditions (e.g., cytokine and length of culture), including T cell phenotype of the product, (4) synthetic antigen receptor design, (5) pre-conditioning regimen and tumor burden, (6) T cell dose, and (7) post-infusion therapy. (8) Recipient genetics, especially those related to immunity, likely also impact efficacy.

Consistent with concepts borrowed from the hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplant field, prior lymphodepleting chemotherapy (so-called “conditioning”) appears to also have important effects on both the Cmax and maintenance of adoptively transferred T cells over time. 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 The mechanisms that underlie the effect of conditioning on T cell kinetics are not fully understood. Reduced competition for homeostatic cytokines required for T cell maintenance has been postulated as one important part of the mechanism; 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 however, there is evidence to suggest that cytokines induced by gut microflora translocation may also be an important contributing factor to the enhanced engraftment observed with conditioning. 41 Modulation of the tumor microenvironment, including depletion of regulatory T cells and other suppressive cells, have also been attributed to the enhancing effects of conditioning on adoptive T cell therapy. 42 , 43

It is clear that additional factors beyond conditioning contribute to the variable kinetics of proliferation and trafficking within the host. Although no clinical studies directly comparing the kinetics of CAR-T cell engraftment and expansion for CARs with different costimulatory domains have been reported, pre-clinical studies indicate that CD137 (4-1BB) and CD28 domains may have important differences in kinetics. We reported that CD137-domain-containing CARs exhibit greater persistence of T cell concentration over time compared with CD28-costimulated CARs using a xenograft model of ALL. 44 Improved persistence of T cells has also been reported with CARs bearing domains from ICOS, OX-40, as well as 3 rd generation designs incorporating CD28 and CD137 or OX-40. 45 , 46 , 47

Evidence for Pharmacodynamic Relationships in CAR-T Cell Therapy

Efficacy

Not surprisingly, there is increasing evidence for a relationship between exposure to CAR-T cells and clinical efficacy. Evaluation of data from the phase I and II clinical trials of tisagenlecleucel in ALL and CLL show that individuals achieving a complete response (CR) exhibit a higher overall exposure to CAR-T cells as measured by the AUC and Cmax of vector copies/mg of genomic DNA over the first 48 days following infusion compared to non-responding patients. 20 Similar relationships between CAR-T cell exposure have been described for CD19-specific CAR-T cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) as well as B cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-specific CAR-T cells in multiple myeloma. 24 , 48

Numerous strategies are being investigated to improve the efficacy of T cell therapies; details of each of these are beyond the scope of this review and readers are referred to recent reviews. 49 , 50 , 51 Chief among these are methods to neutralize effects of checkpoint signaling. For example, preclinical and early clinical evidence suggests that antibody therapy targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis may enhance CAR-T cell effects. 52 , 53 Additionally, CAR-T cell intrinsic systems have been designed to disrupt checkpoint signaling; as examples, a “switch receptor” consisting of the PD-1 extracellular domains fused to CD28 transmembrane and cytoplasmic domains can convert inhibitory interactions into T cell stimulatory signals. 54 Other cell-intrinsic approaches include CAR-T cell-secreted checkpoint inhibitors, PD-1 dominant-negative receptors, and genetic disruption of inhibitory receptor expression. 53 , 55 , 56 It is likely that the success of therapeutic T cells, particularly against solid tumors, will depend upon combination approaches that address checkpoint inhibition in addition to immune-receptor activation.

Cytokine Release Syndrome

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) represents the most prominent adverse event associated with CD19-specific CAR-T cell therapy. CRS, which occurs in the majority of patients with ALL, is characterized in its mild form by a limited, influenza-like syndrome that includes fever, chills, and myalgia. Symptoms of CRS typically occur during the first 2 weeks following CAR-T cell infusion, with reported onset as early as 2 days following CAR-T cell administration to as late as several weeks after infusion. The onset and severity of CRS coincides with the kinetics of T cell engraftment and a rise in the concentration of cytokines within the serum. 57 , 58 More severe CRS (sCRS) is associated with hemodynamic instability, which, in the most severe manifestation, requires vasopressor and ventilator support and can lead to death. Some differences in the grading system exist between studies, which influences the frequencies of sCRS; however, sCRS is reported to occur in 8%–43% of patients treated with CD19 CAR-T cells. 31 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 Although CRS is the most frequent adverse event reported with CD19 CAR-T cell therapies, the frequency of CRS in other CAR-T cell therapies is less clear. CRS, including sCRS, has been reported with BCMA-specific 24 , 64 and CD123-specific 65 CAR-T cell therapies. However, little data on CRS have been reported from trials of CAR-T cells targeting other antigens in solid tumors. In addition, the nature and severity of CRS in these settings may be different. 66

Many factors influence the risk for CRS. The most comprehensive analysis of CRS is reported by Turtle and colleagues. 67 , 68 In an effort to better understand and predict CRS and neurotoxicity following CD19 CAR-T cell treatment, they analyzed 133 patients treated for ALL, CLL, or NHL. Higher tumor burden and higher CAR-T cell dose were significantly associated with sCRS, which is consistent with data reported from other CD19 CAR-T cell studies. 61 The relationship of CRS severity to CAR-T cell exposure was supported by logistic regression that demonstrated a correlation between peak CAR-T cell engraftment and occurrence and severity of CRS. Additional factors affecting sCRS risk included conditioning chemotherapy, the use of CAR T cells produced using bulk CD8+ T cells rather than central memory selected CD8+ cells, and thrombocytopenia prior to conditioning. The latter finding is intriguing in light of the additional evidence demonstrating disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients suffering from sCRS, and it suggests that endothelial injury may be an important underlying mechanism contributing to CRS severity that remains to be explored.

Limiting the dose of infused cells may serve to mitigate CRS toxicity. However, both efficacy and toxicity are linked to the engraftment (i.e., Cmax) of CAR-T cells. The therapeutic index of CD19 CAR-T cell therapy may therefore be narrow. Reduction of T cell dose in the setting of high tumor burden has been advocated, and this strategy is used in some studies. Because patients with sCRS often exhibit fever within the first 2 days of infusion, split dosing administered over multiple days and held with evidence of CRS is also employed to mitigate the risk of sCRS. However, none of these strategies has been studied prospectively. Tocilizumab (anti-interleukin-6 [IL-6]) therapy is quite effective at reversing the clinical signs of severe CRS, forming the basis for its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in conjunction with tisagenlecleucel. Clinical studies are underway to determine whether early intervention with tocilizumab can mitigate the risk of sCRS (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02906371 ). Biomarkers that predict CRS following CD19-directed CAR T cell therapy have been identified by multiple groups. 57 , 67 Prospective studies of treatment algorithms utilizing biomarkers to guide preventative intervention are needed. Ultimately, multiple strategies, including modifications in product manufacturing, patient pre-treatment, and synthetic receptor engineering, may need to be combined to prevent occurrence of CRS. Additional mechanistic insights into the pathophysiology of CRS in conjunction with a better understanding of the critical elements of anti-tumor T cell functions are also needed to overcome the challenge of controlling toxicity, without interfering with efficacy. For additional information on CRS, including current management strategies, readers are referred to additional recent publications. 60 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71

Neurotoxicity

Encephalopathy characterized by confusion, delirium, and aphasia that can also be associated with seizures and cerebral edema is a less frequent, but still relatively common, toxicity associated with CAR-T cell therapy in approximately 40% of treated patients. Most cases of encephalopathy are mild to moderate in severity, without evidence of neuropathology on imaging, and appear largely reversible. However, the data on neurotoxicity are relatively sparse and lack an established grading system. Neurologic toxicity was a prominent feature in 6 of 15 deaths reported in relation to CAR-T cell therapy, and severe neurotoxicity is clearly an important toxicity of this therapy. Severe neurotoxicity has also been reported in trials of TCR-engineered T cell therapies targeting MAGE-A3. 72

The mechanism(s) by which T cell therapy leads to neurologic toxicity is poorly understood. In the case of the MAGE-A3 TCR studies, the severe neurotoxicity was attributed to direct recognition of MAGE protein within the CNS. 72 Neurotoxicity occurs even in those with no evidence of tumor cells within the CSF prior to CAR-T cell infusion, and there is no clear evidence for a role of target antigen in the CNS for CD19 or BCMA-specific CAR-T cell therapies. 68 , 73 In these therapies, the severity of neurotoxicity appears related to the severity of CRS and is associated with both early and high cytokine concentrations as well as endothelial activation. 67 , 68 The similarity of sCRS to macrophage activation syndrome/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (MAS/HLH), which also frequently has associated neurologic symptoms that portend a poorer prognosis, suggests a common mechanism that might relate to inflammatory cytokines that are highly elevated in both conditions and predictive. However, the temporal relationships between CRS and neurotoxicity are not entirely synchronous with the onset of CRS, which generally precedes the signs of neurotoxicity by several days. IL-6 blocking therapy also fails to reverse neurotoxicity in some individuals who are treated for CRS. Whether this is due to limited antibody penetration into the CNS due to the blood-brain barrier, important roles for other cytokines or cytokine-independent mechanisms is unknown. At present, an optimal strategy for managing patients with severe neurotoxicity associated with CAR-T cell therapy has not been defined and has largely relied upon management of CRS with supportive care.

On-Target Off-Tumor Toxicity

All patients who experience complete tumor response to CD19-directed CAR T cell therapy experience concomitant elimination of non-malignant B cells. This loss of B cells is associated with a decrease in total immunoglobulin concentrations in serum but preservation of many vaccine-related antibody responses, suggesting that the defects in humoral immunity following CD19-specific CAR-T cell therapy are incomplete. 74 B cell aplasia has been used as a pharmacologic biomarker of drug persistence and efficacy. Indeed, early return of B cells has prompted investigators to re-infuse patients with additional doses of CD19-directed CAR T cells. 61 The minimum duration of B cell aplasia, reflective of CAR-T cell persistence, required for durable (i.e., decades-long) tumor remission is not unknown and may be different across tumor types. Long-term follow up of patients following CD19 CAR-T cell therapy will eventually shed light on this and guide approaches to limit CAR-T cell persistence to reverse B cell aplasia without impairing efficacy.

Similarly, it is reasonable to expect that elimination of normal plasma cells (PCs) occurs in the setting of multiple myeloma treated with CAR-T cells that target antigens such as BCMA, which are shared between non-malignant PCs and myeloma cells. Consistent with this notion, Ali et al. 24 demonstrate absence of any CD138+ cells in a bone marrow biopsy from a patient who experienced a stringent complete remission after BCMA-directed CAR-T cell infusion. Whether the absence of PCs within the bone marrow serves as a reliable marker of ongoing anti-myeloma efficacy may not be as clinically useful as B cells following CD19-directed CAR therapy because other measures of CAR-T cell presence and disease status are easily performed on peripheral blood. Unlike CD19-CAR therapy, elimination of normal PCs with BCMA-directed therapies is likely to more severely impact humoral immunity to pathogens, and this off-tumor effect of therapy requires further investigation.

Off-tumor targeting of immunotherapy antigen has also been associated with T cell immunotherapies for melanoma, in which some responding patients develop vitiligo, immune-mediated destruction of skin melanocytes. This toxicity appears due to targeting that includes MART-1, TRP-1/2, and gp100, which are shared between normal melanocytes and melanoma cells. In some cases, melanocytic cells within the eye can also be targeted, leading to ophthalmic complications. 75 Patients who develop vitiligo after melanoma therapy, including adoptive T cell therapy, demonstrate increased survival compared to those who do not develop vitiligo. 76 Severe toxicity due to T cell targeting of tissues beyond the desired tumor has also been observed with TCRs, recognizing the MAGE family of cancer-testis proteins. 72 , 77 In a case of fatal cardiotoxicity associated with an affinity-enhanced, MAGE-A6-specific TCR, the TCR recognized a peptide derived from the muscle protein, titin, which exhibited similarities to the targeted peptide from MAGE-A6. 78

Toxicity could also occur when genetically introduced TCRa and TCRb chains form heterologous pairs with endogenous TCR chains. In this manner, new TCRs may be generated. These new TCRs have not been subject to the usual process of thymic selection, which prunes autoreactive receptors from the functional T cell repertoire. In addition to generating potentially pathogenic new receptors, chain mispairing may limit therapeutic efficacy by decreasing the expression level of the intended TCR. Although in vivo toxicity due to chain mispairing has not yet been reported in patients, several strategies have been developed to mitigate this theoretical complication. Approaches can be divided into two broad categories. One aims to reduce or eliminate endogenous TCR chains using small hairpin RNA (shRNA) or CRISPR. 79 A phase I trial at the University of Pennsylvania (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03399448 ) will apply CRISPR to delete endogenous TCRa and TCRb in a TCR-based cell therapy targeting MART-1. The second category encompasses several protein engineering strategies that biochemically favor intended pairing over mispairing. Examples that have shown merit in preclinical studies include use of murine constant domains in the TCRa and TCRb chains, introduction of inter-chain disulfide bonds, mutations that create inter-chain “knob-in-hole” interactions, and domain swapping between TCRa and TCRb and substitution with TCRg and TCRd transmembrane and cytoplasmic domains. 79 , 80

Conclusions

We have entered an exciting time in the field of immunotherapy. A plethora of new tools that enable the insertion, deletion, or modification of genes within T cells has become available over the last decade. Combined with novel synthetic control systems that can more precisely regulate T cell survival and function, 81 it is now possible to create T cell-enhanced function and improved safety. In parallel with improved technologies to create T cells, new technologies are enabling high-resolution characterization of T cell products and highly sensitive techniques are available to detect therapeutic T cells in vivo and measure their pharmacologic effects (i.e., target elimination). The first generation of T cell therapies, such as the recently approved tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, are leading the way for more advanced cellular therapies.

Universal donor T cells that utilize gene editing technologies to eliminate the TCR and MHC required for graft-versus-host disease and donor cell rejection, respectively, represents one of the most notable new technologies to enter clinical phase testing. 82 Not only do these approaches have the potential to markedly reduce cost and improve the efficiency of manufacturing, but a universal donor T cell might also reduce the significant variation in engraftment kinetics and efficacy that arise from the variable nature of T cells across individuals. The use of gene editing technology also affords the potential to eliminate important negative regulatory pathways, such as the immune checkpoint molecule PD-1, which limits T cell immunity, especially within solid tumors. 83 Synthetic molecular switches such as an inducible caspase 9 that regulate T cell survival through administration of a second drug have also entered the clinic. 84 These latter approaches, while adding complexity, are often included in T cell therapies as a fail-safe mechanism to mitigate the risk of off-tumor toxicity.

Finally, there is still much to learn, especially about the long-term safety of these novel therapies. No case of insertional oncogenesis has been reported to our knowledge, with either retroviral or lentiviral vector engineering of mature T cells compared with the observed leukemogenesis associated with retroviral engineering of hematopoietic stem cells. Nevertheless, the possibility that this complication may occur with low frequency remains given the limited number of patients treated overall. Current FDA guidance recommends at least a 15-year follow up for individuals treated with gene therapy, and both tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel were approved with the requirement for long-term monitoring of treated subjects during the post-marketing phase.

Author Contributions

M.C.M. wrote the original draft and V.G.B. contributed to the writing, review, and editing of the final manuscript, including compilation of data for Table 1 .

References

1 Novartis AG. (2017). Kymriah package insert. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/UCM573941.pdf .

2 Kite Pharma, Inc. (2017). Yescarta package insert. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/UCM581226.pdf .

3 Horowitz M.M. Gale R.P. Sondel P.M. Goldman J.M. Kersey J. Kolb H.J. Rimm A.A. Ringdén O. Rozman C. Speck B. Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation Blood 75 1990 555 562 2297567

4 Topalian S.L. Muul L.M. Solomon D. Rosenberg S.A. Expansion of human tumor infiltrating lymphocytes for use in immunotherapy trials J. Immunol. Methods 102 1987 127 141 3305708 10.1016/s0022-1759(87)80018-2

5 Dréno B. Nguyen J.M. Khammari A. Pandolfino M.C. Tessier M.H. Bercegeay S. Cassidanius A. Lemarre P. Billaudel S. Labarrière N. Randomized trial of adoptive transfer of melanoma tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 51 2002 539 546 12384805 10.1007/s00262-002-0315-1 PMC11034217

6 Figlin R.A. Thompson J.A. Bukowski R.M. Vogelzang N.J. Novick A.C. Lange P. Steinberg G.D. Belldegrun A.S. Multicenter, randomized, phase III trial of CD8(+) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in combination with recombinant interleukin-2 in metastatic renal cell carcinoma J. Clin. Oncol. 17 1999 2521 2529 10561318 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2521

7 Rosenberg S.A. Yannelli J.R. Yang J.C. Topalian S.L. Schwartzentruber D.J. Weber J.S. Parkinson D.R. Seipp C.A. Einhorn J.H. White D.E. Treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukin 2 J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86 1994 1159 1166 8028037 10.1093/jnci/86.15.1159

8 Hinrichs C.S. Rosenberg S.A. Exploiting the curative potential of adoptive T-cell therapy for cancer Immunol. Rev. 257 2014 56 71 24329789 10.1111/imr.12132 PMC3920180

9 Kotterman M.A. Chalberg T.W. Schaffer D.V. Viral vectors for gene therapy: translational and clinical outlook Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 17 2015 63 89 26643018 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104938

10 Schott J.W. Hoffmann D. Schambach A. Retrovirus-based vectors for transient and permanent cell modification Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 24 2015 135 146 26433198 10.1016/j.coph.2015.09.004

11 Naldini L. Trono D. Verma I.M. Lentiviral vectors, two decades later Science 353 2016 1101 1102 27609877 10.1126/science.aah6192

12 Tipanee J. VandenDriessche T. Chuah M.K. Transposons: moving forward from preclinical studies to clinical trials Hum. Gene Ther. 28 2017 1087 1104 28920716 10.1089/hum.2017.128

13 Eyquem J. Mansilla-Soto J. Giavridis T. van der Stegen S.J. Hamieh M. Cunanan K.M. Odak A. Gönen M. Sadelain M. Targeting a CAR to the TRAC locus with CRISPR/Cas9 enhances tumour rejection Nature 543 2017 113 117 28225754 10.1038/nature21405 PMC5558614

14 MacLeod D.T. Antony J. Martin A.J. Moser R.J. Hekele A. Wetzel K.J. Brown A.E. Triggiano M.A. Hux J.A. Pham C.D. Integration of a CD19 CAR into the TCR alpha chain locus streamlines production of allogeneic gene-edited CAR T cells Mol. Ther. 25 2017 949 961 28237835 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.02.005 PMC5383629

15 Gaublomme J.T. Yosef N. Lee Y. Gertner R.S. Yang L.V. Wu C. Pandolfi P.P. Mak T. Satija R. Shalek A.K. Single-cell genomics unveils critical regulators of Th17 cell pathogenicity Cell 163 2015 1400 1412 26607794 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.009 PMC4671824

16 Nestorowa S. Hamey F.K. Pijuan Sala B. Diamanti E. Shepherd M. Laurenti E. Wilson N.K. Kent D.G. Göttgens B. A single-cell resolution map of mouse hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell differentiation Blood 128 2016 e20 e31 27365425 10.1182/blood-2016-05-716480 PMC5305050

17 Novartis. (2017). Tisagenlecleucel. Report of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting, U.S. Food & Drug Administration. November 9, 2017, BLA 125646. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM566166.pdf .

18 Motz, G., Bushman, F.D., Fraietta, J.A., June, C.H., Melenhorst, J.J., Nobles, C.L., and Young, R.M. March 23, 2017. Car t cell therapies with enhanced efficacy. U.S. patent WO2017049166 A1.

19 Ellis J. Silencing and variegation of gammaretrovirus and lentivirus vectors Hum. Gene Ther. 16 2005 1241 1246 16259557 10.1089/hum.2005.16.1241

20 Mueller K.T. Maude S.L. Porter D.L. Frey N. Wood P. Han X. Waldron E. Chakraborty A. Awasthi R. Levine B.L. Cellular kinetics of CTL019 in relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia Blood 130 2017 2317 2325 28935694 10.1182/blood-2017-06-786129 PMC5731220

21 Porter D.L. Hwang W.T. Frey N.V. Lacey S.F. Shaw P.A. Loren A.W. Bagg A. Marcucci K.T. Shen A. Gonzalez V. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells persist and induce sustained remissions in relapsed refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia Sci. Transl. Med. 7 2015 303ra139 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac5415 PMC5909068 26333935

22 Scholler J. Brady T.L. Binder-Scholl G. Hwang W.T. Plesa G. Hege K.M. Vogel A.N. Kalos M. Riley J.L. Deeks S.G. Decade-long safety and function of retroviral-modified chimeric antigen receptor T cells Sci. Transl. Med. 4 2012 132ra53 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003761 PMC4368443 22553251

23 Rapoport A.P. Stadtmauer E.A. Binder-Scholl G.K. Goloubeva O. Vogl D.T. Lacey S.F. Badros A.Z. Garfall A. Weiss B. Finklestein J. NY-ESO-1-specific TCR-engineered T cells mediate sustained antigen-specific antitumor effects in myeloma Nat. Med. 21 2015 914 921 26193344 10.1038/nm.3910 PMC4529359

24 Ali S.A. Shi V. Maric I. Wang M. Stroncek D.F. Rose J.J. Brudno J.N. Stetler-Stevenson M. Feldman S.A. Hansen B.G. T cells expressing an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor cause remissions of multiple myeloma Blood 128 2016 1688 1700 27412889 10.1182/blood-2016-04-711903 PMC5043125

25 Gardner R.A. Finney O. Annesley C. Brakke H. Summers C. Leger K. Bleakley M. Brown C. Mgebroff S. Kelly-Spratt K.S. Intent-to-treat leukemia remission by CD19 CAR T cells of defined formulation and dose in children and young adults Blood 129 2017 3322 3331 28408462 10.1182/blood-2017-02-769208 PMC5482103

26 Frey N.V. Shaw P.A. Hezner E.O. Gill S. Marcucci K. Luger S.M. Mangan J. Grupp S. Maude S. Ericson S. Optimizing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for adult patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) J Clin Oncol. 34 Suppl 2016 7002–7002

27 Mavroudis D. Read E. Cottler-Fox M. Couriel D. Molldrem J. Carter C. Yu M. Dunbar C. Barrett J. CD34+ cell dose predicts survival, posttransplant morbidity, and rate of hematologic recovery after allogeneic marrow transplants for hematologic malignancies Blood 88 1996 3223 3229 8874224

28 Berger C. Jensen M.C. Lansdorp P.M. Gough M. Elliott C. Riddell S.R. Adoptive transfer of effector CD8+ T cells derived from central memory cells establishes persistent T cell memory in primates J. Clin. Invest. 118 2008 294 305 18060041 10.1172/JCI32103 PMC2104476

29 Gattinoni L. Lugli E. Ji Y. Pos Z. Paulos C.M. Quigley M.F. Almeida J.R. Gostick E. Yu Z. Carpenito C. A human memory T cell subset with stem cell-like properties Nat. Med. 17 2011 1290 1297 21926977 10.1038/nm.2446 PMC3192229

30 Fraietta J.A. Lacey S.F. Wilcox N.S. Bedoya F. Chen F. Orlando E. Brogdon J.L. Hwang W.-T. Frey N. Young R.M. Biomarkers of response to anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia Blood 128 2016 57

31 Turtle C.J. Hanafi L.A. Berger C. Gooley T.A. Cherian S. Hudecek M. Sommermeyer D. Melville K. Pender B. Budiarto T.M. CD19 CAR-T cells of defined CD4+:CD8+ composition in adult B cell ALL patients J. Clin. Invest. 126 2016 2123 2138 27111235 10.1172/JCI85309 PMC4887159

32 Dudley M.E. Wunderlich J.R. Yang J.C. Sherry R.M. Topalian S.L. Restifo N.P. Royal R.E. Kammula U. White D.E. Mavroukakis S.A. Adoptive cell transfer therapy following non-myeloablative but lymphodepleting chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic melanoma J. Clin. Oncol. 23 2005 2346 2357 15800326 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.240 PMC1475951

33 Dudley M.E. Yang J.C. Sherry R. Hughes M.S. Royal R. Kammula U. Robbins P.F. Huang J. Citrin D.E. Leitman S.F. Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens J. Clin. Oncol. 26 2008 5233 5239 18809613 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5449 PMC2652090

34 Wallen H. Thompson J.A. Reilly J.Z. Rodmyre R.M. Cao J. Yee C. Fludarabine modulates immune response and extends in vivo survival of adoptively transferred CD8 T cells in patients with metastatic melanoma PLoS One 4 2009 e4749 19270751 10.1371/journal.pone.0004749 PMC2650617

35 Goff S.L. Dudley M.E. Citrin D.E. Somerville R.P. Wunderlich J.R. Danforth D.N. Zlott D.A. Yang J.C. Sherry R.M. Kammula U.S. Randomized, prospective evaluation comparing intensity of lymphodepletion before adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for patients with metastatic melanoma J. Clin. Oncol. 34 2016 2389 2397 27217459 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.7220 PMC4981979

36 Gattinoni L. Finkelstein S.E. Klebanoff C.A. Antony P.A. Palmer D.C. Spiess P.J. Hwang L.N. Yu Z. Wrzesinski C. Heimann D.M. Removal of homeostatic cytokine sinks by lymphodepletion enhances the efficacy of adoptively transferred tumor-specific CD8+ T cells J. Exp. Med. 202 2005 907 912 16203864 10.1084/jem.20050732 PMC1397916

37 Brown I.E. Blank C. Kline J. Kacha A.K. Gajewski T.F. Homeostatic proliferation as an isolated variable reverses CD8+ T cell anergy and promotes tumor rejection J. Immunol. 177 2006 4521 4529 16982889 10.4049/jimmunol.177.7.4521

38 Kline J. Brown I.E. Zha Y.Y. Blank C. Strickler J. Wouters H. Zhang L. Gajewski T.F. Homeostatic proliferation plus regulatory T-cell depletion promotes potent rejection of B16 melanoma Clin. Cancer Res. 14 2008 3156 3167 18483384 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4696

39 Proietti E. Greco G. Garrone B. Baccarini S. Mauri C. Venditti M. Carlei D. Belardelli F. Importance of cyclophosphamide-induced bystander effect on T cells for a successful tumor eradication in response to adoptive immunotherapy in mice J. Clin. Invest. 101 1998 429 441 9435316 10.1172/JCI1348 PMC508583

40 Bracci L. Moschella F. Sestili P. La Sorsa V. Valentini M. Canini I. Baccarini S. Maccari S. Ramoni C. Belardelli F. Cyclophosphamide enhances the antitumor efficacy of adoptively transferred immune cells through the induction of cytokine expression, B-cell and T-cell homeostatic proliferation, and specific tumor infiltration Clin. Cancer Res. 13 2007 644 653 17255288 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1209

41 Paulos C.M. Wrzesinski C. Kaiser A. Hinrichs C.S. Chieppa M. Cassard L. Palmer D.C. Boni A. Muranski P. Yu Z. Microbial translocation augments the function of adoptively transferred self/tumor-specific CD8+ T cells via TLR4 signaling J. Clin. Invest. 117 2007 2197 2204 17657310 10.1172/JCI32205 PMC1924500

42 Baba J. Watanabe S. Saida Y. Tanaka T. Miyabayashi T. Koshio J. Ichikawa K. Nozaki K. Koya T. Deguchi K. Depletion of radio-resistant regulatory T cells enhances antitumor immunity during recovery from lymphopenia Blood 120 2012 2417 2427 22806892 10.1182/blood-2012-02-411124

43 Kodumudi K.N. Weber A. Sarnaik A.A. Pilon-Thomas S. Blockade of myeloid-derived suppressor cells after induction of lymphopenia improves adoptive T cell therapy in a murine model of melanoma J. Immunol. 189 2012 5147 5154 23100512 10.4049/jimmunol.1200274 PMC3505990

44 Milone M.C. Fish J.D. Carpenito C. Carroll R.G. Binder G.K. Teachey D. Samanta M. Lakhal M. Gloss B. Danet-Desnoyers G. Chimeric receptors containing CD137 signal transduction domains mediate enhanced survival of T cells and increased antileukemic efficacy in vivo Mol. Ther. 17 2009 1453 1464 19384291 10.1038/mt.2009.83 PMC2805264

45 Guedan S. Chen X. Madar A. Carpenito C. McGettigan S.E. Frigault M.J. Lee J. Posey A.D. Jr. Scholler J. Scholler N. ICOS-based chimeric antigen receptors program bipolar TH17/TH1 cells Blood 124 2014 1070 1080 24986688 10.1182/blood-2013-10-535245 PMC4133482

46 Carpenito C. Milone M.C. Hassan R. Simonet J.C. Lakhal M. Suhoski M.M. Varela-Rohena A. Haines K.M. Heitjan D.F. Albelda S.M. Control of large, established tumor xenografts with genetically retargeted human T cells containing CD28 and CD137 domains Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 2009 3360 3365 19211796 10.1073/pnas.0813101106 PMC2651342

47 Hombach A.A. Abken H. Costimulation by chimeric antigen receptors revisited the T cell antitumor response benefits from combined CD28-OX40 signalling Int. J. Cancer 129 2011 2935 2944 22030616 10.1002/ijc.25960

48 Kochenderfer J.N. Somerville R.P.T. Lu T. Yang J.C. Sherry R.M. Feldman S.A. McIntyre L. Bot A. Rossi J. Lam N. Rosenberg S.A. Long-duration complete remissions of diffuse large B cell lymphoma after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor t cell therapy Mol. Ther. 25 2017 2245 2253 28803861 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.07.004 PMC5628864

49 Fesnak A.D. June C.H. Levine B.L. Engineered T cells: the promise and challenges of cancer immunotherapy Nat. Rev. Cancer 16 2016 566 581 27550819 10.1038/nrc.2016.97 PMC5543811

50 Li H. Zhao Y. Increasing the safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy Protein Cell 8 2017 573 589 28434147 10.1007/s13238-017-0411-9 PMC5546931

51 Srivastava S. Riddell S.R. Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy: challenges to bench-to-bedside efficacy J. Immunol. 200 2018 459 468 29311388 10.4049/jimmunol.1701155 PMC5957501

52 Chong E.A. Melenhorst J.J. Lacey S.F. Ambrose D.E. Gonzalez V. Levine B.L. June C.H. Schuster S.J. PD-1 blockade modulates chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)–modified T cells: refueling the CAR Blood 129 2017 1039 1041 28031179 10.1182/blood-2016-09-738245 PMC5391777

53 Cherkassky L. Morello A. Villena-Vargas J. Feng Y. Dimitrov D.S. Jones D.R. Sadelain M. Adusumilli P.S. Human CAR T cells with cell-intrinsic PD-1 checkpoint blockade resist tumor-mediated inhibition J. Clin. Invest. 126 2016 3130 3144 27454297 10.1172/JCI83092 PMC4966328

54 Liu X. Ranganathan R. Jiang S. Fang C. Sun J. Kim S. Newick K. Lo A. June C.H. Zhao Y. A chimeric switch-receptor targeting PD1 augments the efficacy of second-generation CAR T cells in advanced solid tumors Cancer Res. 76 2016 1578 1590 26979791 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2524 PMC4800826

55 Li S. Siriwon N. Zhang X. Yang S. Jin T. He F. Kim Y.J. Mac J. Lu Z. Wang S. Enhanced cancer immunotherapy by chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells engineered to secrete checkpoint inhibitors Clin. Cancer Res. 23 2017 6982 6992 28912137 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0867

56 Suarez E.R. Chang K. Sun J. Sui J. Freeman G.J. Signoretti S. Zhu Q. Marasco W.A. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells secreting anti-PD-L1 antibodies more effectively regress renal cell carcinoma in a humanized mouse model Oncotarget 7 2016 34341 34355 27145284 10.18632/oncotarget.9114 PMC5085160

57 Teachey D.T. Lacey S.F. Shaw P.A. Melenhorst J.J. Maude S.L. Frey N. Pequignot E. Gonzalez V.E. Chen F. Finklestein J. Identification of predictive biomarkers for cytokine release syndrome after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia Cancer Discov. 6 2016 664 679 27076371 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0040 PMC5448406

58 Davila M.L. Riviere I. Wang X. Bartido S. Park J. Curran K. Chung S.S. Stefanski J. Borquez-Ojeda O. Olszewska M. Efficacy and toxicity management of 19-28z CAR T cell therapy in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia Sci. Transl. Med. 6 2014 224ra25 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008226 PMC4684949 24553386

59 Brentjens R.J. Rivière I. Park J.H. Davila M.L. Wang X. Stefanski J. Taylor C. Yeh R. Bartido S. Borquez-Ojeda O. Safety and persistence of adoptively transferred autologous CD19-targeted T cells in patients with relapsed or chemotherapy refractory B-cell leukemias Blood 118 2011 4817 4828 21849486 10.1182/blood-2011-04-348540 PMC3208293

60 Fitzgerald J.C. Weiss S.L. Maude S.L. Barrett D.M. Lacey S.F. Melenhorst J.J. Shaw P. Berg R.A. June C.H. Porter D.L. Cytokine release syndrome after chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia Crit. Care Med. 45 2017 e124 e131 27632680 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002053 PMC5452983

61 Maude S.L. Frey N. Shaw P.A. Aplenc R. Barrett D.M. Bunin N.J. Chew A. Gonzalez V.E. Zheng Z. Lacey S.F. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia N. Engl. J. Med. 371 2014 1507 1517 25317870 10.1056/NEJMoa1407222 PMC4267531

62 Turtle C.J. Hanafi L.A. Berger C. Hudecek M. Pender B. Robinson E. Hawkins R. Chaney C. Cherian S. Chen X. Immunotherapy of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with a defined ratio of CD8+ and CD4+ CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells Sci. Transl. Med. 8 2016 355ra116 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf8621 PMC5045301 27605551

63 Locke F.L. Neelapu S.S. Bartlett N.L. Siddiqi T. Chavez J.C. Hosing C.M. Ghobadi A. Budde L.E. Bot A. Rossi J.M. Phase 1 results of ZUMA-1: a multicenter study of KTE-C19 anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy in refractory aggressive lymphoma Mol. Ther. 25 2017 285 295 28129122 10.1016/j.ymthe.2016.10.020 PMC5363293

64 Cohen A.D. Garfall A.L. Sadtmauer E.A. Lacey S.F. Lancaster E. Vogl D.T. Dengel K. Ambrose D.E. Chen F. Plesa G. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-specific chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CART-BCMA) for multiple myeloma (mm): initial safety and efficacy from a phase I study Blood 128 2016 1147

65 Luo Y. Chang L.-J. Hu Y. Dong L. Wei G. Huang H. First-in-man CD123-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for the treatment of refractory acute myeloid leukemia Blood 126 2015 3778

66 Tanyi J.L. Stashwick C. Plesa G. Morgan M.A. Porter D. Maus M.V. June C.H. Possible compartmental cytokine release syndrome in a patient with recurrent ovarian cancer after treatment with mesothelin-targeted CAR-T cells J. Immunother. 40 2017 104 107 28234665 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000160

67 Hay K.A. Hanafi L.A. Li D. Gust J. Liles W.C. Wurfel M.M. López J.A. Chen J. Chung D. Harju-Baker S. Kinetics and biomarkers of severe cytokine release syndrome after CD19 chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell therapy Blood 130 2017 2295 2306 28924019 10.1182/blood-2017-06-793141 PMC5701525

68 Gust J. Hay K.A. Hanafi L.A. Li D. Myerson D. Gonzalez-Cuyar L.F. Yeung C. Liles W.C. Wurfel M. Lopez J.A. Endothelial activation and blood-brain barrier disruption in neurotoxicity after adoptive immunotherapy with CD19 CAR-T cells Cancer Discov. 7 2017 1404 1419 29025771 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0698 PMC5718945

69 Obstfeld A.E. Frey N.V. Mansfield K. Lacey S.F. June C.H. Porter D.L. Melenhorst J.J. Wasik M.A. Cytokine release syndrome associated with chimeric-antigen receptor T-cell therapy: clinicopathological insights Blood 130 2017 2569 2572 29074500 10.1182/blood-2017-08-802413

70 Frey N.V. Porter D.L. The promise of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy Oncology (Williston Park) 30 2016 880 888 890 27744645

71 Neelapu S.S. Tummala S. Kebriaei P. Wierda W. Gutierrez C. Locke F.L. Komanduri K.V. Lin Y. Jain N. Daver N. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy - assessment and management of toxicities Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15 2018 47 62 28925994 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.148 PMC6733403

72 Morgan R.A. Chinnasamy N. Abate-Daga D. Gros A. Robbins P.F. Zheng Z. Dudley M.E. Feldman S.A. Yang J.C. Sherry R.M. Cancer regression and neurological toxicity following anti-MAGE-A3 TCR gene therapy J. Immunother. 36 2013 133 151 23377668 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182829903 PMC3581823

73 Garfall A.L. Lancaster E. Stadtmauer E.A. Lacey S.F. Dengel K. Ambrose D.E. Chen F. Gupta M. Kulikovskaya I. Vogl D.T. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) after infusion of anti-Bcma CAR T cells (CART-BCMA) for multiple myeloma: successful treatment with cyclophosphamide Blood 128 2016 5702

74 Bhoj V.G. Arhontoulis D. Wertheim G. Capobianchi J. Callahan C.A. Ellebrecht C.T. Obstfeld A.E. Lacey S.F. Melenhorst J.J. Nazimuddin F. Persistence of long-lived plasma cells and humoral immunity in individuals responding to CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy Blood 128 2016 360 370 27166358 10.1182/blood-2016-01-694356 PMC4957161

75 Johnson L.A. Morgan R.A. Dudley M.E. Cassard L. Yang J.C. Hughes M.S. Kammula U.S. Royal R.E. Sherry R.M. Wunderlich J.R. Gene therapy with human and mouse T-cell receptors mediates cancer regression and targets normal tissues expressing cognate antigen Blood 114 2009 535 546 19451549 10.1182/blood-2009-03-211714 PMC2929689

76 Byrne K.T. Turk M.J. New perspectives on the role of vitiligo in immune responses to melanoma Oncotarget 2 2011 684 694 21911918 10.18632/oncotarget.323 PMC3248219

77 Linette G.P. Stadtmauer E.A. Maus M.V. Rapoport A.P. Levine B.L. Emery L. Litzky L. Bagg A. Carreno B.M. Cimino P.J. Cardiovascular toxicity and titin cross-reactivity of affinity-enhanced T cells in myeloma and melanoma Blood 122 2013 863 871 23770775 10.1182/blood-2013-03-490565 PMC3743463

78 Cameron B.J. Gerry A.B. Dukes J. Harper J.V. Kannan V. Bianchi F.C. Grand F. Brewer J.E. Gupta M. Plesa G. Identification of a Titin-derived HLA-A1-presented peptide as a cross-reactive target for engineered MAGE A3-directed T cells Sci. Transl. Med. 5 2013 197ra103 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006034 PMC6002776 23926201

79 Schmitt T.M. Ragnarsson G.B. Greenberg P.D. T cell receptor gene therapy for cancer Hum. Gene Ther. 20 2009 1240 1248 19702439 10.1089/hum.2009.146 PMC2829456

80 Bethune M.T. Gee M.H. Bunse M. Lee M.S. Gschweng E.H. Pagadala M.S. Zhou J. Cheng D. Heath J.R. Kohn D.B. Domain-swapped T cell receptors improve the safety of TCR gene therapy eLife 5 2016 10.7554/eLife.19095 PMC5101000 27823582

81 Lim W.A. June C.H. The principles of engineering immune cells to treat cancer Cell 168 2017 724 740 28187291 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.016 PMC5553442

82 Qasim W. Zhan H. Samarasinghe S. Adams S. Amrolia P. Stafford S. Butler K. Rivat C. Wright G. Somana K. Molecular remission of infant B-ALL after infusion of universal TALEN gene-edited CAR T cells Sci. Transl. Med. 9 2017 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaj2013 28123068

83 Ren J. Zhang X. Liu X. Fang C. Jiang S. June C.H. Zhao Y. A versatile system for rapid multiplex genome-edited CAR T cell generation Oncotarget 8 2017 17002 17011 28199983 10.18632/oncotarget.15218 PMC5370017

84 Di Stasi A. Tey S.K. Dotti G. Fujita Y. Kennedy-Nasser A. Martinez C. Straathof K. Liu E. Durett A.G. Grilley B. Inducible apoptosis as a safety switch for adoptive cell therapy N. Engl. J. Med. 365 2011 1673 1683 22047558 10.1056/NEJMoa1106152 PMC3236370

85 Lee D.W. Kochenderfer J.N. Stetler-Stevenson M. Cui Y.K. Delbrook C. Feldman S.A. Fry T.J. Orentas R. Sabatino M. Shah N.N. T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial Lancet 385 2015 517 528 25319501 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61403-3 PMC7065359

86 Wang X. Popplewell L.L. Wagner J.R. Naranjo A. Blanchard M.S. Mott M.R. Norris A.P. Wong C.W. Urak R.Z. Chang W.C. Phase 1 studies of central memory-derived CD19 CAR T-cell therapy following autologous HSCT in patients with B-cell NHL Blood 127 2016 2980 2990 27118452 10.1182/blood-2015-12-686725 PMC4911862

87 Hu Y. Wu Z. Luo Y. Shi J. Yu J. Pu C. Liang Z. Wei G. Cui Q. Sun J. Potent anti-leukemia activities of chimeric antigen receptor-modified t cells against CD19 in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphocytic leukemia Clin Cancer Res. 23 2017 3297 3306 28039267 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1799

88 Turtle C.J. Hay K.A. Hanafi L.A. Li D. Cherian S. Chen X. Wood B. Lozanski A. Byrd J.C. Heimfeld S. Durable molecular remissions in chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified t cells after failure of Ibrutinib J Clin Oncol. 35 2017 3010 3020 28715249 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.8519 PMC5590803

89 Pan J. Yang J.F. Deng B.P. Zhao X.J. Zhang X. Lin Y.H. Wu Y.N. Deng Z.L. Zhang Y.L. Liu S.H. High efficacy and safety of low-dose CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapy in 51 refractory or relapsed B acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients Leukemia 31 2017 2587 2593 28490811 10.1038/leu.2017.145

90 Rossig C. Pule M. Altvater B. Saiagh S. Wright G. Ghorashian S. Clifton-Hadley L. Champion K. Sattar Z. Popova B. Vaccination to improve the persistence of CD19CAR gene-modified T cells in relapsed pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia Leukemia 31 2017 1087 1095 28126984 10.1038/leu.2017.39

91 Kochenderfer J.N. Dudley M.E. Kassim S.H. Somerville R.P. Carpenter R.O. Stetler-Stevenson M. Yang J.C. Phan G.Q. Hughes M.S. Sherry R.M. Chemotherapy-refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and indolent B-cell malignancies can be effectively treated with autologous T cells expressing an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor J Clin Oncol. 33 2015 540 549 25154820 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2025 PMC4322257