AFAndrew D. Fesnak

Andrew D. Fesnak

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Andrew D. Fesnak has a total of 263 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:

  • J. Joseph Melenhorst

    Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    4 shared publications
  • Anne Chew

    Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

    3 shared publications
  • B.L. Levine

    3 shared publications
  • Bruce L. Levine

    Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    3 shared publications
  • Bruce L. Levine

    Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

    3 shared publications
  • Don L. Siegel

    Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

    3 shared publications

Latest Publications

  • Red cell exchange for rapid leukoreduction in adults with hyperleukocytosis and leukostasis

    by Ethan Andrew Mack, Meaghan C. Dougher, Ashley M. Ginda, Caitlin Q Cahill, Melissa Murter, Kevin Schell, Yvette C. Tanhehco, Vijay G. Bhoj, Andrew D. Fesnak, Don L. Siegel, et al.

    We show that red cell exchange (RCE) treats hyperleukocytosis in acute leukemia. RCE provided similar leukoreduction to standard therapeutic leukoreduction and could be superior in patients with severe anemia or monocytic leukemias or when requiring rapid treatment.


  • A simulation-based comparison of centralized and point-of-care supply chain strategies for autologous cell therapy

    by Kan Wang, Chin-Yuan Tseng, Zhaowei Li, Chip White, Ben Wang, Bruce L. Levine, Andrew D. Fesnak


  • Open Access

    Supplementary Data from Scalable Manufacturing of CAR T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy

    by Mohamed Abou-El-Enein, Magdi Elsallab, Steven A. Feldman, Andrew D. Fesnak, Helen E. Heslop, Peter Marks, Brian G. Till, Gerhard Bauer, Barbara Savoldo

  • Open Access

    Supplementary Data from Scalable Manufacturing of CAR T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy

    by Mohamed Abou-El-Enein, Magdi Elsallab, Steven A. Feldman, Andrew D. Fesnak, Helen E. Heslop, Peter Marks, Brian G. Till, Gerhard Bauer, Barbara Savoldo

    Supplementary Data from Scalable Manufacturing of CAR T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy

  • How do I: Evaluate the safety and legitimacy of unproven cellular therapies?

    by Indira Guleria, Maria de Los Angeles Muñiz, Matthew Wilgo, Asawari Bapat, Wanxing Cui, Yen‐Michael Sheng Hsu, Madhan Jeyaraman, Sathish Muthu, Federico Rodriguez, Andrew Fesnak, et al.

    Background: Unproven cellular therapies are being offered to patients for a variety of conditions and diseases for which other treatments have failed. The use of untested cellular therapies is a worldwide problem. Practitioners (e.g., physicians, scientists, QA/QI facility managers, and policy advocates) are perhaps unaware of the risks involved with such therapies. Therefore, a critical need exists to bring attention to the potential limitations and adverse effects of these therapies to inform and limit misinformation.Study Design and Methods: We describe the extent of the unproven cellular therapy problem through a search of scientific literature and social media coverage. We also describe the regulatory framework that can be used by the practitioner to review and evaluate both proven and unproven cellular therapies.Results: We report on the current state of unproven cellular therapies across the globe. A workflow to facilitate an understanding of the regulatory processes involved in the approval of cellular therapies is provided as well as a list of warnings required by regulatory agencies on various products. It is hoped that this article will serve as a tool kit to educate the practitioner on navigating the field of unproven cellular therapy products.Discussion: Increasing awareness of the issues associated with unproven therapies through education is important to help in reducing misinformation and risks to patients.


  • A randomized controlled study of convalescent plasma for individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia

    by Katharine J. Bar, Pamela A. Shaw, Grace H. Choi, Nicole Aqui, Andrew Fesnak, Jasper B. Yang, Haideliza Soto-Calderon, Lizette Grajales, Julie Starr, Michelle Andronov, et al.

    Background. Antibody-based strategies for COVID-19 have shown promise in prevention and treatment of early disease. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been widely used but results from randomized trials supporting its benefit in hospitalized patients with pneumonia are limited. Here, we assess the efficacy of CCP in severely ill, hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods. We performed a randomized control trial (PennCCP2), with 80 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, comparing up to 2 units of locally sourced CCP plus standard care versus standard care alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was comparison of a clinical severity score. Key secondary outcomes include 14- and 28-day mortality, 14- and 28-day maximum 8-point WHO ordinal score (WHO8) score, duration of supplemental oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, respiratory SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results. Eighty hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled at median day 6 of symptoms and day 1 of hospitalization; 60% were anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. Participants had a median of 3 comorbidities, including risk factors for severe COVID-19 and immunosuppression. CCP treatment was safe and conferred significant benefit by clinical severity score (median [MED] and interquartile range [IQR] 10 [5.5–30] vs. 7 [2.75–12.25], P = 0.037) and 28-day mortality (n = 10, 26% vs. n = 2, 5%; P = 0.013). All other prespecified outcome measures showed weak evidence toward benefit of CCP. Conclusion. Two units of locally sourced CCP administered early in hospitalization to majority seronegative participants conferred a significant benefit in clinical severity score and 28-day mortality. Results suggest CCP may benefit select populations, especially those with comorbidities who are treated early. Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397757. Funding. University of Pennsylvania.


  • Humanized CD19-Targeted Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cells in CAR-Naive and CAR-Exposed Children and Young Adults With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

    by Regina M. Myers, Yimei Li, Allison Barz Leahy, David M. Barrett, David T. Teachey, Colleen Callahan, Christina C. Fasano, Susan R. Rheingold, Amanda DiNofia, Lisa Wray, et al.

    PURPOSE: CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)–modified T cells demonstrate unprecedented responses in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL); however, relapse remains a substantial challenge. Short CAR T-cell persistence contributes to this risk; therefore, strategies to improve persistence are needed. METHODS: We conducted a pilot clinical trial of a humanized CD19 CAR T-cell product (huCART19) in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL (n = 72) or B-lymphoblastic lymphoma (n = 2), treated in two cohorts: with (retreatment, n = 33) or without (CAR-naive, n = 41) prior CAR exposure. Patients were monitored for toxicity, response, and persistence of huCART19. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients 1-29 years of age received huCART19. Cytokine release syndrome developed in 62 (84%) patients and was grade 4 in five (6.8%). Neurologic toxicities were reported in 29 (39%), three (4%) grade 3 or 4, and fully resolved in all cases. The overall response rate at 1 month after infusion was 98% (100% in B-ALL) in the CAR-naive cohort and 64% in the retreatment cohort. At 6 months, the probability of losing huCART19 persistence was 27% (95% CI, 14 to 41) for CAR-naive and 48% (95% CI, 30 to 64) for retreatment patients, whereas the incidence of B-cell recovery was 15% (95% CI, 6 to 28) and 58% (95% CI, 33 to 77), respectively. Relapse-free survival at 12 and 24 months, respectively, was 84% (95% CI, 72 to 97) and 74% (95% CI, 60 to 90) in CAR-naive and 74% (95% CI, 56 to 97) and 58% (95% CI, 37 to 90) in retreatment cohorts. CONCLUSION: HuCART19 achieved durable remissions with long-term persistence in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL, including after failure of prior CAR T-cell therapy.


  • Top Cited Papers

    CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer

    by Edward A. Stadtmauer, Joseph A. Fraietta, Megan M. Davis, Adam D. Cohen, Kristy L. Weber, Eric Lancaster, Patricia A. Mangan, Irina Kulikovskaya, Minnal Gupta, Fang Chen, et al.

    CRISPR takes first steps in humans: CRISPR-Cas9 is a revolutionary gene-editing technology that offers the potential to treat diseases such as cancer, but the effects of CRISPR in patients are currently unknown. Stadtmauer et al. report a phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety and feasibility of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in three patients with advanced cancer (see the Perspective by Hamilton and Doudna). They removed immune cells called T lymphocytes from patients and used CRISPR-Cas9 to disrupt three genes ( TRAC, TRBC , and PDCD1 ) with the goal of improving antitumor immunity. A cancer-targeting transgene, NY-ESO-1, was also introduced to recognize tumors. The engineered cells were administered to patients and were well tolerated, with durable engraftment observed for the study duration. These encouraging observations pave the way for future trials to study CRISPR-engineered cancer immunotherapies. Science , this issue p. eaba7365 ; see also p. 976


  • Place of Academic GMP Facilities in Modern Cell Therapy

    by Alexey Bersenev, Andrew Fesnak

    Academic medicine, in general, serves a dual role in advancing the scientific field as well as providing the highest quality clinical care. In the last decade we have observed significant development of commercial cell and gene therapy products with rapid growth of the industry. Currently, hospital-based Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) facilities, which are used to support primarily academic investigator-initiated clinical trials, are increasingly involved in interactions with industry. The purpose of this piece is to review the role of academic GMP facilities in development of cellular therapies. For the purpose of this review we will discuss manufacturing facilities located in hospitals or academic medical centers and compare them with commercial GMP facilities. Although the missions of academic and commercial GMP facilities are different, both are bound by industry standards and often engage in technology transfer with industry partners. Therefore, successful operation of an academic GMP facility requires striking a unique balance between commercial and academic priorities. Finally, we highlight some of the most challenging aspects of academic GMP facility operation and point to potential solutions.