Khouri, Jack

Introduction: For cardiac transthyretin (ATTR) amyloidosis, bone scintigraphy has emerged as a noninvasive diagnostic tool. The use of different tracers, namely Pyrophosphate (PYP), 3,3-diphosphono-1,2-propanodicarboxylic acid (DPD), HydroxymethyleneDiphosphonate (HMDP), allow for the detection of amyloid deposits in the heart. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of bone scintigraphy in ATTR and light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the ASH AL Amyloidosis Diagnostic Guideline, we performed systematic reviews for 7 prioritized PICO questions related to the screening, diagnosis and organ involvement evaluation of AL amyloidosis. Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate performed title and abstract screening and full text article screening on LASER AI, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Studies were eligible if they included patients that performed both a bone scintigraphy scan and an endomyocardial biopsy for suspicion of ATTR amyloidosis. Test positivity for the visual score was defined to be ≥2, for the heart over contralateral (H/CL) ratio it was > 1.5 at one hour and >1.3 at 3 hours. Diagnostic test accuracy measures of interest were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Statistical analysis was performed on STATA 18.0. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: After deduplication, we retrieved 29,237 studies from electronic databases. 12 studies with 1127 patients reported on visual score in patients suspected to have ATTR amyloidosis. The pooled sensitivity for visual score was 96% (95% CI 92.0-98.0) while specificity was 90% (95% CI 84.0-95.0) (Certainty of evidence (COE): Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯). 3 studies reported on ATTR visual score in combination with evaluating for monoclonal gammopathy, the pooled sensitivity was decreased to 93% (95% CI 65-99) and while specificity increased to 99% (95% CI 80-100) (COE: Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯). H/CL was evaluated in 5 studies with 189 patients; pooled sensitivity was 97% (95% CI 89.0-99.0) and specificity was 88% (95% CI 64-97) (COE: Low ⨁⨁◯◯). We also performed subgroup analyses for the diagnostic test accuracy of visual score for the different tracers (PYP, DPD, HMDP) in patients suspected to have ATTR amyloidosis. DPD was found to have the highest sensitivity which was found to be 97% (95% CI 91.0-99.0) and a specificity of 95 (95% CI 86.0-98.0) (4 studies, n = 297 COE: Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯). The sensitivity and specificity for PYP was 95% (95% CI 87.0-98.0) and 90% (95% CI 79.0-96.0) (7 studies, n = 377 COE: Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯). 1 study reported on HMDP with a sensitivity and specificity of 79% (95% CI 49.0-95.0) and 100% (95% CI 59.0-100.0) (COE: Low ⨁⨁◯◯). Conclusion: Bone scintigraphy has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of ATTR amyloidosis, particularly in patients without a monoclonal gammopathy.

Introduction: Although endomyocardial biopsy is the gold standard, echocardiography, and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis. In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of CMR and echocardiography for cardiac amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the American Society of Hematology guidelines on the diagnosis of Amyloidosis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024 for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening and full-text article screening on LASER Al and extracted relevant data using a piloted Excel sheet. We performed statistical pooling using Stata 18.0 software. We evaluated risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report diagnostic test accuracy as sensitivity (95% confidence interval) and specificity (95% confidence interval). Results: After screening 29,237, we included 9 studies assessing DTA of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) using an endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) as a reference test in patients with amyloidosis (light chain and ATTR). The majority of studies didn't report on the type of amyloidosis where only 2 out of 9 were in patients with light chain amyloidosis. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of LGE are 0.95 (0.88. 0.98), and 0.81 (0.60, 0.92), respectively. We did a sensitivity analysis and included only LGE suggestive for amyloidosis which didn't change sensitivity but led to an increase in specificity for amyloidosis to 0.87 (0.76, 0.94), respectively. The pooled estimates were based on moderate certainty in the evidence. For 2-dimensional echocardiography, we addressed DTA for different echocardiographic findings and we did not limit the reference to EMB. A panel of experts judged whether the reference was acceptable or not. Acceptable reference was EMB alone or a combination of extracardiac biopsy plus cardiac imaging (CMR or echocardiography) with or without positive cardiac biomarkers (troponin or BNP or NT-proBNP). Six studies (n=2063) addressed interventricular septum thickness (IVS), sensitivity was 0.77 (0.69, 0.84) and specificity was 0.71 (0.60, 0.81). 4 out of 6 studies used 12 mm as a cutoff while the other 2 studies used 13 mm as a cutoff. Only 2 studies (n=1667) assessed the DTA of posterior wall thickness (PWT), with sensitivity ranging from 0.76 to 1.00, and specificity ranging from 0.84 to 0.89. Six studies (n=438) addressed diastolic dysfunction (grade 2,3), with a sensitivity of 0.71 (0.40, 0.90), and specificity of 0.75 (0.64, 0.84). 7 studies (n=472) reported DTA of only diastolic dysfunction grade 3. When compared to diastolic dysfunction (grade 2,3, sensitivity decreases to 0.42 (0 28. 0.58) and specificity increases to 0.89 (0.83. 0.94). For E/A ratio, only 2 studies (n=127) were included. Sensitivity ranged from 0.45 to 0.65, and specificity ranged from 0.85 to 0.98. Four studies (n=1596) yielded a sensitivity of 0.86 (0.65, 0.95) and specificity of 0.76 (0.55, 0.89) of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS). All except one used -17% as a cutoff for GLS. For apical sparing on GLS, pooled estimates from 8 studies (n=2253) led to a sensitivity of 0.72 (0.64, 0.78) and specificity of 0.78 (0.64, 0.88). There was a variation of cutoff across studies. The certainty of evidence for echocardiographic findings was low to moderate. Conclusion: CMR is a more accurate test with better performance compared to echocardiography.

Introduction MM is characterized by the proliferation of abnormal clonal plasma cells, causing destructive bone lesions, kidney injury, anemia, and hypercalcemia. Treatment of MM involves immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies to achieve disease remission. AL amyloidosis comprises disorders of abnormal extracellular deposition of misfolded proteins in various organs with resultant damage, and the key strategy of treatment is to prolong the time to or reverse organ dysfunction. However, many patients will relapse from the standard triplet or quadruplet therapies, necessitating additional treatments with novel mechanisms of action. Lisaftoclax is a novel investigational BCL-2 inhibitor with strong antitumor activity in hematologic malignancies. Here, we report clinical trial data on lisaftoclax combined with novel therapeutic regimens in pts with R/R MM or R/R AL amyloidosis. Methods Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status ≤ 2, ≥ 1 prior line of therapy, and adequate organ function. Patients with R/R AL amyloidosis had confirmed symptomatic organ involvement, purpura, and/or carpal tunnel syndrome. Lisaftoclax was administered orally daily at doses assigned in repeated 28-day cycles. Pomalidomide, daratumumab, and lenalidomide were administered per label use. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg, pts > 75 years old) was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of 28-day cycles. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of lisaftoclax combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd; Arm A) or daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd; Arm B) in R/R MM and lisaftoclax combined with Pd in R/R AL amyloidosis (Arm C). Intensive blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses. Results As of May 29, 2024, 52 pts were enrolled, including 42 with R/R MM and 10 with AL amyloidosis. In Arm A (n = 35), lisaftoclax was administered orally at dose assigned: 400 mg (n = 3), 600 mg (n = 4), 800 mg (n = 15), 1,000 mg (n = 7), and 1,200 mg (n = 6). In Arm B (n = 7), all pts were treated with lisaftoclax 600 mg. In Arm C (n = 10), lisaftoclax was administered at 400 mg (n = 1), 600 mg (n = 4), 800 mg (n = 3), and 1,000 mg (n = 2). The median (range) age of all patients was 69.5 (24-88) years, of whom 63.5% were male and 63.5% were ≥ 65 years of age. The enrolled patients were heavily treated, with a median (range) number of treatment cycles of 4 (1-26), and a median (range) number of prior therapy lines of 3 (1-19). In Arm A, out of 31 evaluable patients, 3 (9.7%) achieved complete remission (CR), 7 (22.6%) reached very good partial remission (VGPR), and 9 (29.0%) achieved partial response (PR). The overall response rate (ORR) was 19 (61.3%), and the ≥ VGPR rate was 10 (32.3%). In Arm B, of 4 evaluable patients, 2 (50%) achieved CR and 2 (50%) ≥ VGPR. In Arm C, of 7 assessed patients, 1 (14.3%) achieved CR, 4 (57.1%) VGPR, 1 (14.3%) PR, and 5 (71.4%) ≥ VGPR, for an ORR of 6 (85.7%); 2 pts had cardiac response. Among 49 pts in the safety population, 34 (69.4%) reported any-grade lisaftoclax treatment-related AEs (TRAEs; ≥ 5% incidence), including neutropenia (20.4%), thrombocytopenia (6.1%), leukopenia (10.2%), nausea (16.3%), abdominal distension (10.2%), diarrhea (12.2%), and constipation (8.2%). A total of 11 pts experienced grade ≥ 3 TRAEs, including neutropenia (14.3%) and febrile neutropenia (2%), and 3 pts experienced lisaftoclax-related serious AEs (1 each): febrile neutropenia, acute kidney injury, and diarrhea with electrolyte imbalance. In Arm B, 1 pt experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (prolonged QT interval). Pharmacokinetic analyses showed no drug-drug interaction (DDI) in all pts treated with lisaftoclax at all doses in combination with other therapeutic agents used in 3 arms. Conclusions Our findings suggest that lisaftoclax improves the depth of response in pts with R/R MM or AL amyloidosis when combined with Pd or DRd. These combination therapies demonstrated a favorable safety profile with no drug-drug interactions, particularly in hematologic side effects. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04942067; internal study identifier: APG2575MU101.

Introduction: Light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is caused by the secretion of immunoglobulin light chains by monoclonal plasma cells. The increase in the levels of these monoclonal proteins may proceed the development of any clinical symptoms, and their identification in the serum and urine remains an integral part of establishing a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of serum immunofixation (SIFE), urine immunofixation (UIFE), and free light chain (FLC) ratio for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the ASH AL Amyloidosis Diagnostic Guideline, we performed systematic reviews for 7 prioritized PICO questions related to the screening, diagnosis and organ involvement evaluation of AL amyloidosis. Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate performed title and abstract screening and full text article screening on LASER AI, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Eligible studies were those that included patients who performed one of the three tests (SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC) and had their AL amyloidosis diagnosis confirmed via a biopsy. Diagnostic test accuracy measures of interest were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Statistical analysis was performed on OpenMeta[Analyst]. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: After deduplication, we retrieved 29,237 studies from electronic databases. 31 studies with 3973 patients reported on the use of serum immunofixation (SIFE) with a pooled sensitivity of 72.4% (95% CI 68.1%-76.4%). 27 studies with 2855 patients reported on the use of urine immunofixation UIFE for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis with a pooled sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI 74.6%-82%). 29 studies with 5305 patients reported on the use of κ/λ FLC ratio amyloidosis with a pooled sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 73.7%-84.9%). 24 studies reported on the use of both SIFE and UIFE with a sample size of 3751 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 85.3%-93.3%). 3 studies reported on the use SIFE and κ/λ FLC ratio with 321 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 97.7% (95% CI 95.6%-99.9%). Finally, we identified 10 studies that performed SIFE,UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio concurrently with 1926 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 99% (95% CI 97%-99.7%) of all three tests and considering a result abnormal if any of the components had a positive result. We also identified 5 studies with 957 patients reporting on the concurrent use of SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio for the diagnosis AL amyloidosis and differentiation of AL from ATTR amyloidosis in a population of patients with suspected cardiac amyloid involvement, the pooled sensitivity was found to be 99%(95% CI 99%-100%) and with a pooled specificity of 77%(95% CI 75%-80%). Certainty of evidence moderate for all outcomes. Conclusion: The combined use of SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio has a high sensitivity for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis, and the tests remain a valuable initial screening of AL amyloidosis and differentiation from ATTR amyloidosis.

Introduction: In patients with systemic light-chain amyloidosis, cardiac involvement is common. Cardiac involvement (presence and severity) is the most important predictor of mortality in patients with AL amyloidosis. Endomyocardial biopsy remains the gold standard, but it is a costly and invasive test. Consequently, cardiac biomarkers are used for screening for cardiac involvement and have significant prognostic value.In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of Nt-proBNP, BNP, and high sensitivity troponin for cardiac amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the American Society of Hematology guidelines on the diagnosis of Amyloidosis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024 for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening and full-text article screening on LASER Al and extracted relevant data using piloted Excel sheets. The panel judged whether the reference test is acceptable or not. Acceptable reference test is EMB alone or a combination of extracardiac biopsy plus cardiac imaging (CMR or echocardiography) with or without positive cardiac biomarkers (troponin or BNP or NT-proBNP). For statistical analysis, we only included studies reporting on both the sensitivity and specificity of the cardiac biomarker. We used Stata 18.0 software for meta-analysis. We evaluated risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report diagnostic test accuracy as sensitivity (95% confidence interval) and specificity (95% confidence interval). Results: After screening 29,237 studies, a total of 10 studies addressed DTA of Nt-proBNP for cardiac amyloidosis. These studies used a wide variety of cutoffs for diagnosis of cardiac involvement, ranging from 150 to 5000 ng/L and a cutoff of 332 ng/L was the most studied and reported. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of Nt-proBNP using 332 as cutoffs are 0.99 ( 0.97, 1) and 0.53 (0.3, 0.75), respectively. The pooled estimates were based on 4 studies (n=645) with moderate certainty in the evidence. For BNP, DTA was assessed in 3 studies (n= 257). Each study used a different cutoff for BNP (73, 100, and 412 ng/L). The sensitivity and specificity of BNP in each study were comparable and not significantly affected by the cutoff variation. Pooled sensitivity and specificity across studies, were 0.87 (0.80, 0.92), and 0.79 (0.71, 0.85), respectively. The certainty in evidence for the DTA of BNP was low. Eight studies reported on DTA of high sensitivity troponin, with cutoffs ranging from 14 to 86 ng/L. Meta-analysis of studies reporting on cutoff 14 ng/L yielded sensitivity of 0.94 (0.87, 0.97) and specificity of 0.11 (0.08, 0.16) with moderate certainty evidence. Increasing the cutoff to 35 ng/l led to a decrease in sensitivity to 0.82 (0.66, 0.92) and an increase in specificity to 0.86 (0.74, 0.93) with low certainty evidence. Conclusion: Cardiac biomarkers are highly sensitive, valuable initial tests for increasing suspicion of cardiac involvement in patients with AL amyloidosis. However, they lack specificity and, on their own, are insufficient for a definitive diagnosis of cardiac involvement. These biomarkers may be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tests to accurately identify and assess the extent of cardiac involvement.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Introduction: Tissue biopsies are needed to establish a diagnosis of systemic AL amyloidosis. Biopsy can be obtained from an involved organ with suspected amyloid deposition (target biopsy) or from sites in which amyloid commonly deposits (surrogate biopsy). The choice of biopsy site depends on institutional and physician preference. Two commonly used sites for surrogate biopsies are abdominal fat pad and bone marrow. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of fat pad and bone marrow biopsies as surrogate biopsy sites in the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the ASH AL Amyloidosis Diagnostic Guideline, we performed systematic reviews for seven prioritized PICO questions related to the screening, diagnosis and organ involvement evaluation of AL amyloidosis. We conducted electronic searches on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 2024. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate performed title and abstract screening and full text article screening on LASER AI, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Studies were eligible if they included patients that had a fat pad sample or bone marrow biopsy and a target organ biopsy for suspicion of AL amyloidosis allowing for the calculation of diagnostic test accuracy measures. Diagnostic test accuracy measures of interest were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Statistical analysis was performed on OpenMeta[Analyst]. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: After deduplication, we retrieved 29,237 studies.. 20 studies with 2955 patients reporting on bone marrow biopsy, 25 with 4702 patients on fat pad sampling were included. The pooled sensitivity for bone marrow biopsy was 55.1% (95% CI 45.8-64.0, I2 = 94%) (Certainty of evidence: Low ⨁⨁◯◯), For fat pad sampling sensitivity was 76.6% (95% CI 72.1-80.8, I2 = 84.2%) (Certainty of evidence: Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯). Among the included studies, 1 evaluated the sensitivity of fat pad sampling and bone marrow biopsy combined and found it to be 89%. No included studies evaluated specificity for bone marrow biopsy or fat pad sample. Conclusion: Combination of fat pad and bone marrow biopsy together significantly improve sensitivity for amyloid detection compared to either fat pad sampling or bone marrow biopsy alone.

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved in 2022 for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report outcomes with cilta-cel in the standard-of-care setting. Patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis for cilta-cel manufacturing between 1 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 at 16 US academic medical centers were included. Overall, 255 patients underwent leukapheresis and 236 (92.5%) received cilta-cel, of which 54% would not have met CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria. In treated patients (N = 236), cytokine release syndrome was seen in 75% (grade ≥3, 5%), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 14% (grade ≥3, 4%), and delayed neurotoxicity in 10%. Overall and complete response rates were as follows: all patients who received cilta-cel (N = 236), 89% and 70%; patients receiving conforming cilta-cel (n = 191), 94% and 74%; and conforming cilta-cel with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion (n = 152), 95% and 76%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 10%, most commonly from infection. After a median follow-up of 13 months from cilta-cel, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, with 12-month estimate being 68% (95% confidence interval, 62-74). High ferritin levels, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease were independently associated with inferior PFS, with a signal for prior B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy (P = .08). Second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers were seen in 5.5% and myeloid malignancies/acute leukemia in 1.7%. We observed a favorable efficacy profile of standard-of-care cilta-cel in RRMM, despite more than half the patients not meeting the CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria.