Aller au contenu Aller au menu

Patient Management and Outcomes

EBV+ PTLD treatment overview

A range of therapies are available for EBV-positive PTLD; however, some patients fail to respond to initial treatment and have limited alternative options.

While rituximab-based therapy has improved outcomes, relapse and refractory disease remain common, highlighting a clear unmet medical need.

Ongoing research into adoptive immunotherapy – particularly EBV-specific CTL therapy – is offering new insight into how immune restoration may improve long-term disease control.

Data are presented only for providing overview information about clinical practices 
and could not be approved by Regulatory Authorities.

EBV+ PTLD treatment algorithm following HCT or SOT1-5

Reduction in Immunosuppression (RIS)

First-line therapy 
Maintained throughout treatment in 
some patients, often in combination with rituximab.

Learn more

Rituximab + Chemotherapy

For patients with no response 
or disease progression

Learn more

T-Cell Immunotherapy

For patients with relapsed/
refactory EBV+ PTLD 
or those for whom chemotherapy 
is inappropriate

Learn more

Reduction in immunosuppression 

What is RIS?

Reduction in immunosuppression (RIS) helps restore immune function, allowing EBV-specific CTLs to proliferate and control B-cell growth.4

  • Once diagnosis of EBV+ PTLD is suspected, immediate RIS should be considered1,2,3,5 – this may be sufficient for a select group of low-risk patients with early legions or low-stage, non-bulky disease1
  • In high-risk patients, RIS is often combined with other treatments (e.g. rituximab ± chemotherapy)1,6,7
  • Alternative therapies are indicated when RIS is not possible1

     

FIRST-LINE THERAPY 

RIS promotes immune recovery4
and may be sufficient for select 
low-risk patients1

Key treatment outcomes

While RIS can help restore immune control,4 response rates are limited,5,8 reinforcing the need for combination approaches such as RIS plus rituximab in the first-line setting.5,6

In a prospective, multicentre Phase 2 study of 16 adult SOT recipients with PTLD, RIS achieved partial response (PR) in 1 of 16 patients (6%) and no complete responses (CRs).8

 

After SOT

Group Management of
immunosuppressives		 Duration Response 
n (%)		 Toxicity
n/N (%)
GROUP 1
Clinically urgent
(level 1; n=3)		 Cyclosporine/tacrolimus:
reduced to 25%
 
Azathioprine/methotrexate/
cyclophosphamide: stopped

Glucocorticoid: reduced to 
7.5 mg/day		 Immunosuppressives were maintained at this level for 
a maximum of 10 days

CR: 0 (0%)

PR: 1 (6%)

Rejections: 6/16

(38%)
GROUP 2
Clinically not urgent 
(level 2; n=13)		 Cyclosporine/tacrolimus:  
reduced to 50%

Azathioprine/methotrexate/
cyclophosphamide: stopped

Glucocorticoid: reduced by 50% 
(lower limit 7.5 mg/day)		 Immunosuppressives were maintained at this level for
a maximum of 14 days

Median patient age was 47 years; 75% of patients had late PTLD, and nearly 70% of patients had advanced stage of disease and/or elevated lactate dehydrogenase.8

Adapted from Swinnen LJ, et al. Transplantation. 2008.

Conventional treatment approaches

Rituximab & chemotherapy

Rituximab, a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody, is commonly used for CD20-positive polymorphic PTLD or monomorphic DLBCL-like PTLD that is resistant to RIS, but can also be used as first-line therapy. 2,4

In patients who do not respond adequately to rituximab monotherapy, combination treatment with chemotherapy (e.g. R-CHOP) can be given. Sequential use of rituximab followed by chemotherapy may also be a favourable option.1

Key treatment outcomes

Rituximab
monotherapy

Rituximab monotherapy

Prospective Phase 2 studies in adults with PTLD after SOT who failed to respond to RIS have shown
rituximab to be effective and well tolerated.9-11

After SOT

Study N Response,
n (%)		 Infections
(WHO grade III/IV)		 Median OS 
(months)12		 Rituximab-related mortality Safety profile

Oertel, et al.  (2005)9

17

CR: 9 (53%) 
PR: 1 (6%)

None

37.0

None
  • Four episodes of toxicity (three Grade 1; one Grade 2) 
  • No Grade 3/4 toxicity

Choquet, et al. (2006)10

43

CR: 12 (28%)* 
PR: 7 (16%)

None

14.9

None
  • Grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 26 (57%) patients 
  • 2 of these AEs were considered by the investigator to be related to rituximab

González Barca, et al. (2007)11†

38

CR: 23 (61%) 
PR: 7 (18%)

None

42.0

None
  • One episode of Grade 4 neutropenia was the only acute severe AE

*Day 80 response: nine patients with CR; three patients with complete unconfirmed response.
†In case of partial remission, four additional doses of rituximab were administered.11

Chemotherapy ±
rituximab

Chemotherapy ± rituximab

Retrospective studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes of CHOP-based chemotherapy in adults
with PTLD after SOT, revealing high rates of toxicity.13-17

AFTER SOT

Study Chemotherapy
regimen (n)		 CR, % (n/n) Treatment-related
mortality, % (n/n)		 Safety profile

Mamzer-Bruneel,
et al. (2000)13

CHOP (8), CHOP+RT (2)

60 (6/10)

60 (6/10*)
  • Sepsis was common and drove most early deaths 
  • No acute graft rejections, despite RIS
  • Toxicity primarily infectious; CHOP itself showed no renal toxicity

Norin, et al.
(2004)14

CHOP (6), CHOP + MTX (2)
VACOP-B + R-CHOP (1),
CHOP + other (3)†

50 (6/12)

17 (2/12)
  • Neutropenic sepsis led to 2 deaths 
  • Grade 4 neutropenia developed in 7/8 evaluable patients 
  • No liver grafts were lost to rejection

Elstrom, et al. 
(2006)15

CHOP (10), R-CHOP (9),
other(4)‡

57 (13/23)

26 (6/23)
  • Rituximab: 2 patients hospitalised (1 infection, 1 allograft rejection); 5 graft rejections while on therapy (RIS setting) 
  • Chemotherapy: 12 (52%) patients hospitalised (mostly infections); overall serious toxicity, 50% (CHOP) and 55% (R-CHOP)

Fohrer, et al.
(2006)16

ACVBP (32),
R-ACVBP (1) 

67 (22/33)

9 (3/33)
  • Grade 3/4 neutropenia in 19 (58%) patients
  • Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 14 (42%) patients
  • 41 (32%) infections recorded in 26 (79%) patients (29 ≥Grade 3)

Choquet, et al.
(2007)17

CHOP (26)

50 (13/26)

31 (8/26)
  • CHOP-associated mortality driven by infectious complications (n=7) and acute liver failure (n=1)

*All deaths regardless of causality. 
†CHOP + dexamethasone, ifosfamide, MTX, cytarabine, etoposide, intrathecal methotrexate, cytarabine, prednisolone; two patients received chemotherapy other than CHOP. 
‡CEP: cyclophosphamide, etoposide, prednisone; ESHAP: etoposide, methylprednisolone, cytarabine, cisplatin; ProMACECytaBOM: mechlorethamine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide,
etoposide, vincristine, prednisone, procarbazine, methotrexate, cytarabine, bleomycin; R/C: rituximab, cyclophosphamide. 

Sequential treatment
(rituximab followed by
chemotherapy)

PTLD 1st Study12

Sequential treatment (ST):
rituximab > CHOP

In a Phase 2 study of patients with CD20+ PTLD refractory to initial RIS, 90% (53/59) achieved complete or partial response after four weekly doses of rituximab followed by four 21-day cycles of CHOP.

Read More

PTLD-1 RSST STUDY18

Response-adapted sequential treatment

The subsequent Phase 2 PTLD-1 RSST trial evaluated a response-adapted strategy after rituximab induction, showing that rituximab consolidation in patients achieving CR was safe and effective.

Read More

PTLD-2 MODIFIED RSST STUDY19

Modified RSST

A Phase 2 trial tested a modified RSST approach. In addition to patients who achieved a CR after rituximab induction, rituximab maintenance monotherapy was also given to those in PR and who were considered low risk with <3 IPI risk factors. Similar TTP, OS, and PFS were observed compared to the PTLD-1 ST and RSST trials. 

Read More

RIS + rituximab,
chemotherapy, DLI

AFTER HCT: retrospective analyses

First-line rituximab after HCT shows variable responses and limited survival, highlighting a clear unmet need in this patient population.

Response varies between studies from

CR with first-line rituximab, 
reflects wide variability20,21

 

Narrative review of treatment approaches for 
EBV-associated PTLD following solid organ or 
haematopoietic cell transplantation.20
Retrospective multicentre UK study of 69 patients with probable or proven 
EBV-associated PTLD following alemtuzumab-based allo-SCT.21

 

Survival

Survival rates have been reported, mostly among
patients treated with rituximab as first-line therapy21

 

Retrospective multicentre UK study of 69 patients 
with probable or proven EBV-associated PTLD following 
alemtuzumab-based allo-SCT.21


 

Relapse/refractory disease:

Around 50% of cases relapse or are refractory to rituximab-based regimens,23
and few studies have reported outcomes in this setting
 

Study n/N* Treatment (n) Response rate Relapses

Hou et al. (2009)23

 1/12† RIS + rituximab (1);
DLI (2)		 CR: 1/1 (RIS + rituximab)
CR: 0/1, PR: 2/2 (DLI)		 -

Fox et al. (2014)21

 3/62‡ CHOP (5);
CHOP followed by DLI (2);
DLI (3)		 CR: 0/5, PR: 0/5 (CHOP)
CR: 3/5 (DLI)		 None

Socié et al. (2024)22

 4/81‡ Chemotherapy-containing
regimen (32);
Other, not specified (4)		 Durable response of 
>6 months: 4/36 
(all therapies)		 2/4

*n: the total number of patients who achieved a CR; N: the number of patients constituting the study population. 
†One patient achieved CR after first-line therapy. 
‡Patients who achieved a CR (or durable response) after next-line therapy

T-cell immunotherapy 

Poor outcomes persist in refractory EBV+ PTLD

For patients with relapsed or refractory disease, prognosis remains poor and therapeutic options are limited.22,24,25

This underscores the importance of additional treatment approaches to support this patient population. 
 

Treatment options for relapsed 
or refractory EBV+ PTLD remain limited22,24,25

After SOT24

 

Retrospective chart review of patients with EBV+ PTLD following SOT who received rituximab alone or rituximab plus chemotherapy as initial therapy. Median OS was the time from the earliest date when patients developed relapsed/refractory disease.24

After HCT22

 

Retrospective chart review of allogeneic HCT recipients who failed rituximab alone or rituximab plus chemotherapy. Median OS was time from initial treatment failure leading to relapsed/refractory EBV+ PTLD.22

Beyond rituximab: limited options for refractory disease

Treatment options for patients whose disease is refractory to rituximab remain limited, typically involving chemotherapy or immunotherapy.1,3

When chemotherapy is inappropriate or ineffective, immunotherapy may offer an alternative therapeutic approach.1,3 

Among emerging strategies, EBV-specific CTL therapy has shown promise in addressing this unmet need.20,26

Treatment options beyond rituximab are limited1,3


EBV-specific CTL therapy has shown promise1,3,20,26

Adoptive T-cell immunotherapy  

What is immunotherapy?

Immunotherapy harnesses the body’s own immune system to recognise and eliminate diseased or infected cells.

In EBV+ PTLD, adoptive immunotherapy aims to restore T-cell function, helping to re-establish immune control and limit disease progression.1,4,20,25
 

Adoptive immunotherapy aims 
to restore T-cell function 4,25


What are EBV specific CTLs?

Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) are specialised immune cells that recognise and destroy infected or malignant cells.1,25

In EBV+ PTLD, EBV-specific CTLs can identify and eliminate B cells harbouring the virus, helping to re-establish immune control and  reduce tumour burden.1,25,27
 

What is EBV-specific CTL therapy?

EBV-specific CTL therapy involves the infusion of CTLs generated  to recognise EBV antigens.1,27 

These CTLs can be derived from:1,4,25

  • The patient’s own cells
  • The original stem cell donor in HCT recipients
  • A partially HLA-matched third-party donor
     

Appropriately matched EBV-specific CTLs enable targeted elimination infected B cells while minimising the risk of graft rejection1,27,29

 

Sources and applications for T-cell therapy6,27,28

T-cell source Typical use Key considerations

Donor lymphocyte infusions (DLI)

Post-HCT PTLD of donor origin

High GvHD risk

Donor-derived 
EBV-CTLs

Post-HCT PTLD of donor origin

Lower GvHD risk than DLI; production may be delayed

Autologous
EBV-CTLs  

Post-SOT PTLD of recipient origin

Production may be delayed

Third-party
EBV-CTLs 

PTLD following SOT or HCT

Readily available from established cell banks

Simplified model for illustrative purposes only.
 

Key clinical evidence

Evaluating EBV-specific CTL therapy

Clinical research provides important insights into the role of EBV-specific CTLs 
in relapsed/refractory EBV+ PTLD following transplantation.

Experience suggests third-party EBV-CTLs warrant exploration in both SOT and HCT 
settings, while donor-derived EBV-CTLs have achieved response rates exceeding 80% 
in post-HCT PTLD.90

Key treatment outcomes

SOT

THIRD-PARTY EBV-CTLs: adoptive T-cell therapy in the EBV+ PTLD setting after SOT

Study Method of selection Prior therapy n HLA Response
(CR+PR) % (n/n)

Mahadeo, et al. (2024)26*

EBV-BLCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

Rituximab ± CT

29

≥2

52 (15/29)

Bonifacius, et al. (2023)31*

EBV-BLCL-stimulated T-cell line

CT ± rituximab

5

≥3/6

80 (4/5)

Prockop, et al. (2020)32*

EBV-BLCL-sensitised T-cell line

Rituximab ± CT/RT

13

≥2/10

54 (7/13)

Chiou, et al. (2018)33

EBV-BLCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

RIS ± rituximab/IG/antiviral

10

2–5/6; 5–7/10

80 (8/10)

Gallot, et al. (2014)34*

EBV-BLCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

CT ± rituximab/RT

3

≥2

33 (1/3)

Vickers, et al. (2014)35*

EBV-LCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

NA

5

3–9/10

100 (5/5)

Gandhi, et al. (2007)36

EBV-LCL-sensitised EBV CTLs

RIS, rituximab ± CT

3

≥3/6

66 (2/3)

Haque, et al. (2007)37*

EBV-LCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

RIS, rituximab ± other

31

2–5/6

61 (19/31)

Sun, et al. (2002)38*

EBV-BLCL-stimulated EBV CTLs

RT; rituximab + CT

2

≥4/6

100(2/2)

*These studies also investigated third-party EBV-CTLs in patients who received HCT.

HCT

Donor Derived

DONOR-DERIVED EBV-CTLs: adoptive T-cell therapy in the EBV+PTLD setting after HCT20

Read More

Third Party

Third party EBC-CTLs: adoptive T-cell therapy in the EBV+PTLD setting after HCT

Read More

Spotlight: Allele study 

ALLELE is a global, multicentre, open-label phase 3 study investigating 
the efficacy and safety of tabelecleucel after failure of rituximab ± 
chemotherapy in patients with EBV+ PTLD following SOT or HCT.26

Study Design

Key inclusion criteria:

  • Prior allogenic SOT or HCT
  • Biopsy-proven EBV+ PTLD
  • Previous rituximab or rituximab+CT failure
  • ECOG PS ≤3 (Lansky score ≥20 for patients aged <16 years)

Key exclusion criteria:

  • Patients with Grade ≥2 GvHD, active CNS PTLD, Burkitt lymphoma, classical Hodgkin lymphoma, or any T-cell lymphoma

 

Primary endpoint: Objective response rate†

Secondary endpoints:

  • OS
  • Duration of response
  • Objective response overall
  • Overall PR and CR rates

 

  • Time to response and time to best response
  • Rates of allograft loss/rejection episodes (SOT)
  • Safety

Adapted from Mahadeo, et al. The Lancet. 2024. 
*Treatment ends with any of the following: maximal response achieved, unacceptable toxicity, initiation of non-protocol therapy, failure of up to four tabelecleucel with 
different HLA restrictions (HCT) or two tabelecleucel with different HLA restrictions (SOT).26 †Evaluated by independent review (IORA).26

Patient population

ALLELE started accrual in 2018 with efficacy and safety data published on 43 patients with relapsed/refractory EBV+ PTLD (29 SOT and 14 HCT) who received at least one dose of study treatment

Baseline patient characteristics26,43 SOT (n=29) HCT (n=14) All (N=43)
Median age (range), years 44.4 (6.1–81.5)  51.9 (3.2–73.2) 48.5 (3.2–81.5)
Male, n (%) 16 (55.2)  8 (57.1) 24 (55.8)

ECOG PS (age ≥16 years)*

  • n
  • ECOG <2, n (%)
  • ECOG ≥2, n (%)
  • Missing, n (%)

 

27 
18 (66.7) 
8 (29.6) 
1 (3.7)

 

13
10 (76.9)
3 (23.1)
0

 

40
28 (70.0)
11 (27.5)
1 (2.5)

PLTD-adapted prognostic index
(aged ≥16 years)†

  • Low risk, n (%)
  • Intermediate risk, n (%)
  • High risk, n (%)
  • Unknown risk, n (%)


 

2 (7.4)
13 (48.1)
11 (40.7)
1 (3.7)

 


1 (7.7)
6 (46.2)
6 (46.2)
0

 


3 (7.5)
19 (47.5)
17 (42.5)
1 (2.5) 

Disease morphology and histology

  • DLBCL (%)
  • Other (%)
  • Plasmablastic lymphoma (%)

 

19 (65.5)
8 (27.6)
2 (6.9) 

 

10 (71.4)
3 (21.4)
1 (7.1) 

 

29 (67.4)
11 (25.6)
3 (7.0) 
Extra nodal disease (%) 24 (82.8) 9 (64.3)  33 (76.7)

Prior therapies

  • Median no. of prior systemic therapies (range)
  • Rituximab monotherapy, n (%)
  • Rituximab monotherapy as first-line, n (%)
  • Chemotherapy-containing regimen,‡ n (%)

 

1.0 (1–5)
23 (79.3)
22 (75.9)
16 (55.2)

 

1.0 (1–4)
14 (100)
14 (100)
3 (21.4)

 

1.0 (1–5)
37 (86.0)
36 (83.7)
19 (44.2)

Disease morphology and histology

  • DLBCL (%)

 

19 (65.5)

 

10 (71.4)

 29 (67.4)
Median time from transplant to EBV+ PTLD diagnosis (range), months  13.2  
(7.2–103.2)		 4.3 
(3.2–7.8)		 -
Median time from initial EBV+ PTLD diagnosis to first administration (range), months 6.6
(3.5–13.0)		 1.2  
(0.8–3.0)		 4.0 
(2.2–8.6)
Median cycles (range) 2.0 (1.0–3.0)  3.0 (2.0–4.0)  2.0 (1.0–4.0)
Median number of doses administered (range) 6.0 (3.0–9.0) 9.0 (6–12) 6.0 (3.0–12.0)
Median treatment duration (range), months 1.9 (0.5–3.4) 2.8 (1.9–4.3) 2.1 (0.5–3.9)

Data cut-off date: 5 Nov 2021. 
*Percentages for ECOG were based on the number of patients in the corresponding age group.26
†Disease risk for PTLD patients was assessed at baseline using the PTLD-adapted prognostic index (based on age, ECOG score and serum lactate dehydrogenase level).43 
‡Chemotherapy regimens could have also been combined with rituximab or other immunotherapy agents. 

Key Efficacy

Primary Endpoint

Tabelecleucel demonstrated a clinically meaningful ORR

Among all patients:

  • Median TTR was 1.0 month 
  • Estimated median DoR was 23 months

Overall Response Rate %

Data cut-off date: 5 Nov 2021.

OVERALL SURVIVAL

1-year OS in patients with EBV+ PTLD following SOT or HCT was 61.1%

Patients responding to tabelecleucel had higher 1-year OS rate than non-responders   

In responders, estimated 1-year OS was 84.4% (95% CI, 58.9-94.7) with mOS not reached  

In non responders, the estimated 1-year OS was 34.8% (95% CI, 14.6-56.1) with mOS of 5.7 months

AMONG ALL PATIENTS, MEDIAN OS WAS 18.4 MONTHS    

Data cut-off date: 5 Nov 2021.
Figure used with permission of Elsevier Ltd., from Mahadeo, Kris Michael et al. The Lancet Oncology, 
Volume 25, Issue 3, 376–387; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. 

Key safety

SAFETY PROFILE
Tabelecleucel was generally well tolerated in relapsed/refractory EBV+ PTLD patients

Most TESAEs were not treatment related; none of the fatal TESAEs were related to tabelecleucel.

  • None of the five fatal TEAEs were related to tabelecleucel
  • There was no trend in treatment-related TESAEs; all TESAEs were reported in single patients, except for pyrexia, which was reported in two patients
  • There were no reports of tumour flare reaction, infusion-related reaction, cytokine release syndrome, marrow rejection, or transmission of infectious disease
  • There were no events of GvHD or organ rejection reported as related to tabelecleucel

*TEAEs are events that occurred from start of tabelecleucel to 30 days after the last dose or treatment-related events that occurred on or after the first dose of tabelecleucel.  
†Fatal TESAEs were disease progression (n=3), respiratory failure (n=1), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (n=1).  

Data cut-off date: 5 Nov 2021.

 

Event type, n (%) SOT  (n=29) HCT  (n=14) All  (n=43)
Any TESAEs* 15 (51.7) 8 (57.1) 23 (53.5)
Grade ≥3 TESAEs  15 (51.7) 8 (57.1) 23 (53.5)
Fatal TESAEs† 4 (13.8) 1 (7.1) 5 (11.6)
Treatment-related event type, n (%) All
(n=43)
Treatment-related serious AEs 4 (9.3)
Grade ≥3 treatment-related serious AEs 2 (4.7)
Treatment-related serious AEs that led to treatment discontinuation 0 (0)

Updated Analysis

Updated Analysis44

Updated ALLELE study data from a larger cohort confirm the previously reported benefit–risk profile of tabelecleucel in R/R EBV+ PTLD

Most TESAEs were not treatment related

None of the fatal TESAEs were related to tabelecleucel

No cases of tabelecleucel-related GvHD or organ rejection were reported

Updated analysis included 75 patients 

  • SOT: n=49
  • HCT: n=26

 

Data cutoff date: Oct 9, 2023. 
*Response assessed per Lugano classification with LYRIC modification by IORA. †Estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method

Key takeaways

The ALLELE study provides pivotal evidence on the use of tabelecleucel, an off-the-shelf EBV-specific T-cell immunotherapy, in R/R EBV+ PTLD after failure of rituximab and/or chemotherapy.26,44

  • ORR: 51% (22/43) in the main ALLELE trial; 50.7% (38/75) in the updated cohort, with best overall responses of CR in 28.0% and PR in 22.7% 
  • Median OS 18.4 months among all patients
  • Median DoR 23.0 months among all patients
  • Clinical benefit was observed across both SOT and HCT subgroups
  • Generally well tolerated in both the initial and updated analyses

 

Data cut-off: Nov 5, 2021 (main ALLELE cohort, n=43;
Oct 9 2023 (updated cohort, n=75).

Tabelecleucel is a licensed treatment option for patients with R/R EBV+ PTLD following rituximab-based therapy45

Your feedback matters

Select below on a scale from 0–10:

How likely are you to recommend this website to a colleague?
Unlikely
Highly Likely
How likely are you to incorporate the learnings from this website into your clinical practice?
Unlikely
Highly Likely
References
  1. Shah N, et al. Br J Haematol. 2021;193(4):727–40.
  2. Yamada M, et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024;13(Suppl 1):S31–8.
  3. Styczynski J, et al. Haematologica. 2016;101(7):803–11.
  4. Dierickx D, Habermann TM. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(6):549–62.
  5. Allen UD, Preiksaitis JK. Clin Transplant. 2019;33(9):e13652.
  6. Lindsay J, et al. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2021;34(6):635–45.
  7. Sureda A, et al. The EBMT Handbook: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies. 8th edition. Cham (CH): Springer; 2024.
  8. Swinnen LJ, et al. Transplantation. 2008;86(2):215–22.
  9. Oertel SH, et al. Am J Transplant. 2005;5(12):2901–6.
  10. Choquet S, et al. Blood. 2006;107(8):3053–7.
  11. González-Barca E, et al. Haematologica. 2007;92(11):1489–94.
  12. Trappe R, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(2):196–206.
  13. Mamzer-Bruneel MF, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(21):3622.
  14. Norin S, et al. Med Oncol. 2004;21(3):273–84.
  15. Elstrom RL, et al. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(3):569–76.
  16. Fohrer C, et al. Br J Haematol. 2006;134(6):602–12.
  17. Choquet S, et al. Haematologica. 2007;92(2):273–4.
  18. Trappe R, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:536–43.
  19. Zimmermann H, et al. Leukemia. 2022;36(10):2468–78.
  20. Shahid S, Prockop SE. Cancer Drug Resist. 2021;4(3):646–64.
  21. Fox CP, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(2):280–6.
  22. Socié G, et al.Bone Marrow Transplant. 2024;59(1):52–8.
  23. Hou HA, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(4):315–21.
  24. Dharnidharka V, et al. Hemasphere. 2022; 6(Suppl): 997–8.
  25. Canichella M, de Fabritiis P. Antibodies (Basel). 2025;14(2):47. 
  26. Mahadeo KM, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25(3):376–87.
  27. Clerico M, et al. J Clin Med. 2022;11(24):7542.
  28. Wistinghausen B, et al. Ann Lymphoma. 2022;6:5.
  29. Nijland ML, et al. Transplant Direct. 2015;2(1):e48.
  30. Styczynski J, et al. Anticancer Res. 2022;42:5181–6.
  31. Bonifacius A, et al. J Clin Invest. 2023;133(12):e163548.
  32. Prockop S, et al. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(2):733–47.
  33. Chiou FK, et al. Pediatr Transplant. 2018;22(2).
  34. Gallot G, et al. J Immunother. 2014;37(3):170–9.
  35. Vickers MA, et al. Br J Haematol. 2014;167(3):402–10.
  36. Gandhi MK, et al. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(5):1293–9.
  37. Haque T, et al. Blood. 2007;110(4):1123–31.
  38. Sun Q, et al. Br J Haematol. 2002;118(3):799–808.
  39. Tzannou I, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(31):3547–57.
  40. Naik S, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016; 137(5):1498–505.e1.
  41. Leen AM, et al. Blood. 2013;121(26):5113–23.
  42. Barker JN, et al. Blood. 2010;116(23):5045–9.
  43. EBVALLO® European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), 13 October 2022 (EMA/858618/2022).
  44. Chaganti S, et al. Presented at the 51st EBMT Annual Meeting. 30 March– 2 April 2025; Florence, Italy. Oral OS17–03.
  45. EBVALLO® (tabelecleucel) Summary of Product Characteristics.
Abbreviations
  • 4CHOP, four cycles of CHOP
  • 4R, four courses of rituximab
  • 8R, eight courses of rituximab
  • ACVBP, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin and prednisone
  • AE, adverse event
  • CD20, cluster of differentiation 20
  • CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, prednisone
  • CI, confidence interval
  • CNS, central nervous system
  • CR, complete response
  • CTL, cytotoxic T lymphocyte
  • DC, dendritic cells
  • DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
  • DLI, donor lymphocyte infusion
  • DoR, duration of response
  • EBNA-1, Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen 1
  • EBV(+), Epstein–Barr virus (positive)
  • ECOG (PS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (performance status) 
  • GvHD, graft-versus-host disease
  • HCT, haematopoietic cell transplantation
  • HLA, human leukocyte antigen
  • IFNγ, interferon-gamma
  • IG, immunoglobulin
  • IPI, International Prognostic Index
  • IORA, IORA stands for the Independent Oversight Response Assessment
  • ITT, intent-to-treat
  • LCL, lymphoblastoid cell lines
  • LYRIC, Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria
  • mOS, median overall survival
  • MTX, methotrexate
  • ORR, overall response rate
  • OS, overall survival
  • PFS, progression-free survival
  • PR, partial response
  • PTLD, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder
  • R-ACVBP, rituximab + ACVBP
  • R-CHOP, rituximab + CHOP
  • R-DHAOx, rituximab + dexamethasone, cytarabine, oxaliplatin
  • RIS, reduction in immunosuppression
  • R/R, relapsed/refractory
  • RSST, risk-stratified sequential treatment
  • RT, radiotherapy
  • SOT, solid organ transplant
  • ST, sequential treatment
  • TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event
  • TESAE, treatment-emergent serious adverse event
  • TTP, time to progression
  • TTR, time to response
  • VACOP-B, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, bleomycin
  • WHO, World Health Organization