Asoori, Sireesha

Abstract Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecific antibodies (bsAbs), have improved outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, early mortality (EM) remains a significant challenge, even in the era of novel immunotherapies. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of real-world patients with RRMM treated with commercial bsAbs to evaluate the incidence and causes of EM. Between May 2022 and June 2025, a total of 441 patients were treated across 7 countries. EM, defined as death within 12 months of therapy initiation, occurred in 148 patients (34%), with a median time from bsAb initiation to death of 2.87 months (interquartile range, 1.38-6.85). The leading cause of EM was progressive disease (72%), followed by infection (13%); regardless of the cause of death, 82% had active disease at the time of death. Our findings highlight that despite encouraging efficacy, EM remains high among real-world bsAb recipients, emphasizing the need for improved disease control strategies and supportive care interventions.

Abstract Background: BCMA- and GPRC5D-targeting immunotherapies including CART cell therapy and Bispecific antibodies are currently approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, clinical outcomes after dual antigenic exposure remain undefined. Herein we report the first report of BCMA-GPRC5D dual targeted multiple myeloma (DEMM). Methods: We conducted a retrospective multi-center study of RRMM patients treated with both BCMA- and GPRC5D-targeted treatments (TT) (CAR T, bispecific antibodies, ADCs) between November 1, 2022, and July 1, 2025. Outcomes included PFS1 (post-dual exposure), and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier estimates and event-free probabilities were calculated. Results: One hundred and fifty patients who underwent TCE treatments were included and 49 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Median age was 65 years, 22.4% had creatinine clearance <=30 and ECOG 2 or greater was present in 22.2%; 57% had high-risk cytogenetics (IMWG 2016), and 60.5% were penta-refractory. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (LOT) before 1st TCE and 9 prior LOT before DEMM. 65.3% received 1 TCE, 30.6% received 2 TCE and 4.1% received 3 TCE before DEMM. Similarly, 67.3% received 1 BCMA, 24.5% received 2 BCMA TT and 4.1% received 3 BCMA TT before DEMM. Prior TT included- BCMA CART (57.1%), BCMA Bispecific (57.1%), BCMA ADC (18.4%), other TCE (10.2%). The last dual exposure was GPRC5D Bispecific in 91.8%, BCMA Bispecific in 6.1% and BCMA CART in 2%. The median followup post relapse was 3.4 months (range 0.0-16 mos). The median PFS during the last dual exposure TT was 3.98 months (95% CI: 2.96–6.70). 32.7% did not receive any subsequent LOT and died due to progressive disease. 67.3% of patients had progressive MM and received next LOT. Median PFS1 was 1.77 months (95% CI: 1.28–6.21) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month event-free probabilities of 44%%, 19% and 0% respectively. Median OS was 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.53-12.16) for DEMM from the time of refractoriness to dual antigenic targets. Conclusions: Patients dual-exposed to BCMA- and GPRC5D-directed therapies have a poor prognosis, 32.7% had not received further treatment and in those who received treatment the PFS1 was less than 2 months and an OS of 5.7 months from progression. This reflects an area of high unmet need for the patients that are dual-exposed to BCMA- and GPRC5D-directed therapies. Further data on the cohort will be updated at the meeting. Acknowledgements include, the International Myeloma Foundation, IMWG.

*Authors contributed equally. Introduction. Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have been FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Prior work from our consortium identified racial and ethnic differences in safety and response to ide-cel among patients treated in the standard of care (SOC) setting; despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity. Here, we extend this work to investigate racial and ethnic differences in safety, efficacy, and outcomes in a larger cohort of patients treated with SOC ide-cel with longer follow-up and patients treated with SOC cilta-cel. Methods. Data for RRMM patients who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2022 and were treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel were pooled across 19 institutions in the U.S. Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We compared Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (any race) patients, excluding other racial and ethnic groups due to small sample sizes that precluded sub-group investigations. Separately for each CAR T-cell therapy, racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics, safety, and treatment responses were examined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to examine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by race and ethnicity. Results. Among 332 RRMM patients treated with ide-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 17% and 10% of the cohort, respectively. Hispanic patients were younger at infusion compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White patients (55.5 vs. 63 vs. 66 years, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher disease burden (≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cell percentage) compared to Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients (35% vs. 20% vs. 19%, p=0.05), while a higher proportion of Non-Hispanic White patients had high-risk cytogenetics compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (37% vs. 23% vs. 10%, p=0.003). Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to develop severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 30 (p<0.001) and day 90 (p=0.01) post-infusion, and these differences were particularly driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients at these time points. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to achieve a best response of partial response (PR) or better (82%) compared to Non-Hispanic Black (75%) and Hispanic patients (63%, p=0.02). No other racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics (including cytopenias), safety, PFS, and OS were observed (p>0.05). Among 222 RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 12% and 9% of the cohort, respectively. At baseline, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have anemia (p=0.01), and Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have thrombocytopenia (p=0.02) and neutropenia (p=0.06) compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. No other differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed by race and ethnicity. While not statistically significant, a higher rate of severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 90 post-infusion was observed among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (33% vs. 44% vs. 21%, p=0.07), similar to the ide-cel cohort. This finding was primarily driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients and higher rates of anemia among Hispanic patients. No other racial and ethnic differences in safety, responses to cilta-cel, PFS, or OS were not observed in the cilta-cel cohort (p>0.05). Conclusion. In a large cohort of RRMM patients treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel, we observed a higher rate of cytopenias post-infusion and inferior ide-cel responses among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity, suggesting that both available CAR T-cell therapies for RRMM patients can be utilized across all populations. Future studies that include larger patient cohorts of racially and ethnically diverse patients should be conducted to confirm these findings and additionally evaluate long-term outcomes.

Introduction: Teclistamab (Tec) is the first approved BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody for the treatment of triple-class-exposed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the pivotal MajesTEC-1 study. Tec was associated with high overall response rate (ORR) of 63% in heavily pretreated patients. After a longer follow-up of 30.4 months, CR rate was 46.1%, median duration of response (DOR) was 24 months (95% CI, 17.0 - not estimable), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.4 months (95% CI, 8.8 - 16.4). Herein, we present updated analysis of real-world outcomes and safety with tec in RRMM with extended follow-up of more than 12 months. Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with RRMM treated with tec on-label at 9 academic centers from 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Canada) through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Immunotherapy Committee. Patients with RRMM treated with commercial tec at the respective institutions between May 24, 2022 to January 4, 2024 were included. Median follow-up was 14 months with data collected until July 15, 2024. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) was defined as 1q+, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and/or del(17p). Response was assessed using the IMWG consensus criteria. Patient characteristics were summarized by frequency (percentage) or median (interquartile range [IQR] or range). PFS, overall survival (OS), DOR were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There were 223 patients included in this analysis with the following characteristics: median age of 67 (range 33-91) with 24% ≥75 years; 45% female; 74% White, 10% Black, 9% Asian, and 7% other/unknown; 86 of 176 (49%) with high risk cytogenetics, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and gain/amp 1q; 29.4% (37/126) with known extramedullary disease; 14% with creatinine clearance ≤30 ml/min. Patients received a median of 6 (IQR, 4-8) prior lines of therapy with 52% (107/206) being penta-drug refractory. Among 212 patients with available data, 161 (75.9%) patients would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. There were 94 (42%) patients who received prior BCMA-directed therapy (29.8% antibody-drug conjugate [ADC] alone; 45.7% CART alone; 6.3% bispecific antibody alone; 17.0% ADC and CART). Median time from diagnosis to tec initiation was 6.1 (range 0.6-29.2) years. For the 206 response-evaluable patients, ORR was 66%, including 25.2% ≥CR, 33.5% VGPR, and 7.3% PR. ORR for the 90 response-evaluable patients with prior BCMA-directed therapy was 54.5% (21.1% ≥CR, 26.7% VGPR, 6.7% PR). After a median follow-up of 14 (95%CI, 13-14) months, median PFS and OS were 8.8 (95% CI, 5.5-14) and 20 (95% CI, 18-not reached [NR]) months, respectively. 12-month PFS estimate was 46% (95% CI, 40%-54%), and 12-month OS rate was 65% (95% CI, 59%-72%). Median DOR was 17 (95% CI, 17-NR) months with 12-month estimate of 68% (95% CI, 60%-77%). Tec step-up dosing occurred in the outpatient setting for 57 (25.6%) patients. CRS occurred in 119 out of 222 (53.6%) patients with almost all being grade 1-2, except for 1 grade 4 event. ICANS occurred in 18 out of 216 (8.3%) patients (grade 1-2: 5.1%; grade 3-4: 2.8%). Any grade infection occurred in 130 (58.3%) patients; 25.1% of patients had grade ≥3 infection, including 10 patients with grade 5 infection. While receiving teclistamab, 79 (35.4%) patients had ≥2 infections. IVIG was given in 114 out of 164 (69.5%) patients. Conclusion: In this multicenter international real-world analysis of outcomes and safety associated with tec, ORR was high at 66% with 25.2% of patients achieving ≥CR. CR rates may be underestimated due to infrequent bone marrow confirmation in the real-world datasets. Encouragingly, ORR was 54.5% in BCMA exposed RRMM patients, including 21.1% with ≥CR. After a median follow-up of 14 months, heavily pretreated patients including patients with prior BCMA therapy had durable responses with median PFS of 8.8 months and median DOR of 17 months. There were no new safety signals noted in this real-world study. This is the largest real-world study to date of teclistamab with long-term follow-up of more than 12 months. Additional data including more patients, longer follow-up and results from difficult to treat subgroups will be presented at the meeting.

Introduction: Frailty is known to be an important risk factor for adverse outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) and is often under-represented in clinical trials. Frail patients are known to have increased toxicity, high rates of treatment discontinuation rates and decreased efficacy including worse overall survival in MM. Teclistamab (TEC) is a bispecific BCMA-CD3 directed T-cell antibody (BsAb) that was approved based upon the pivotal MajesTEC-1 study showing high overall response rates in patients with R/R MM. In MajesTEC-1, the median age was 63, and patients with ECOG ≥ 2 were excluded, suggesting that the vast majority of patients in the trial were fit. There is a paucity of data both in clinical trials as well as in the real-world regarding the outcomes of patients, particularly frail patients, with BsAb. This data is needed to both understand current outcomes of frail patients as well as devise strategies for future optimization with BsAb treatment. We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) immunotherapy database with the objective of understanding the outcomes of older adults (age ≥ 70) including frail patients treated in the real-world with teclistamab. Methods: Data was collected from 7 individual academic sites for patients aged ≥ 70 years treated with teclistamab in the real-world. Data collected include patient demographics, disease characteristics, as well as efficacy and toxicity associated with teclistamab. Frailty score was retrospectively calculated using the simplified/IFM frailty index which includes chronological age, ECOG PS and Charlson Comorbidity Index categorizing the patients into fit (score 0-1) or frail (≥ score 2). Fisher's exact tests were performed to evaluate differences in outcomes between fit and frail patients. Results: A total of 81 pts were included in our total cohort. The median age was 76 year (range 70-91). Among them, 44 (54%) were > age 75 and 23 (28%) > age 80. Twenty-eight (35%) patients had an ECOG performance status of ≥2. Using the simplified/IFM frailty index, 22 (27%) were classified as fit and 59 (73%) were frail. In the frail subgroup, a high proportion of patients (42%) would be classified as ultra frail (frailty score of ≥3). Selected baseline patient and disease characteristics are as follows: high risk cytogenetics including 1q gain/amp (fit 67% vs frail 43%), median prior lines (fit 7 vs frail 5), triple class refractory (fit 81% vs frail 88%), CrCl <30 (fit 5% vs frail 15%). For patients hospitalized for step-up dosing, median number of hospital days was 8 both in the fit and frail group. All grade CRS was noted in 12 (55%) fit and 28 (47%) frail patients. Among the fit patients, only 1 of the 12 patients (8%) had grade 2 CRS, whereas 8 of 28 (29%) frail patients had grade 2 (p-value=0.23). ICANS was reported in 2 (9%) fit patients and 8 (14%) frail patients (p=0.72). The majority of ICANS was grade 1 in both groups, but among the frail group, there was one grade 3 and two grade 4 ICANS cases reported. Infections were reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 35 (59%) frail patients (p=0.32), with 2 (9%) and 14 (23%) being grade≥3 (p-value=0.21). IVIG was administered in most patients (fit 50% vs frail 58%, p=0.62). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 19 (32%) frail patients (p=0.30). The overall dosing interval was changed in 32% of fit patient and 34% of frail patients (p=1.00). The overall response rate was 50% for fit patients versus 66% for frail patient (p=0.61). The type of responses noted in the fit patient were as follows: sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 27%, PR/MR 5%, SD 18%, PD/NE 32% and for frail patients : sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 43%, PR/MR 9%, SD 5%, PD/NE 25%. The median follow-up time was 13.1 months. 12-month PFS for fit pts was 47.6% (95% CI 25.7% - 66.7%) and for frail pts 42.4% (29.0% - 55.3%). 12-months OS for fit pts was 64.9% (95% CI 39.9% - 81.6%) and for frail 61.5% (47.0% -73.1%). Conclusions: This is the first real-world study to evaluate the outcomes of teclistamab in frail older adults. With regards to toxicity, frail older adults showed a trend towards higher rates of ≥ grade 2 CRS, ≥ grade 2 ICANS as well as ≥3 grade infections. Efficacy was maintained in both fit and frail older adults similar to the MajesTEC-1 study. Our study highlights that BCMA BsAb can be safely utilized in older adults including frail older adults; however, additional proactive supportive care may be required to further optimize outcomes.

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

Introduction: Teclistamab (TEC) is a bispecific BCMA-CD3 directed T-cell antibody (BsAb), recently approved by EMA and FDA. Approval was based on the MajesTEC-1 study showing high overall response rates (≥PR in 63.0%) in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM). Few reports have described Real-World experience despite that TEC can induce unique side effects including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity (ICANS) and a high incidence of infection (MajesTEC-1: incidence 76.4%; ≥Gr3: 44.8%). Thus, we performed a Real-World analysis of TEC therapy from 7 International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) associated MM academic centers. Methods: Patients treated with standard-of-care TEC were included. Data was collected until 7/28/2023. Results: 103 pts were included; median age 63 (range 33-91y); 15 pts. (14.5%) >75 yrs; 56.5% were male, 71.8% Caucasian, 11.6% Hispanic, and 12.6% Asian. Pts received a median of 6 PLT (range 1-16); 75% were triple-class-refractory (n=41/52 (79%), 30/85 (35%) had high-risk cytogenetics/FISH and 32/80 (40%) had 1q21 gain. At least 57/76 (75%) of pts would not have been eligible for MajesTEC-1 (mostly from prior BCMA (n=28 CAR-T, n=14 ADC; n=3 BsAb; n=5 CAR-T+ADC). 14 pts had CrCl <30ml/min with 2 on HD. Median number of hospital days was 8 (n= 72) but 31 patients were treated entirely as outpatients (Mayo clinic (MN, AZ, FL)). CRS was seen in 52 (50.4%) (all grade 1: except 6 Gr2, 1 Gr4), generally resolved within 24 hrs and was managed with tocilizumab alone (n= 27) or dex alone (n=9) or dex+toci (n=12). CRS was more common with inpatient (56.9%) vs outpatient (35.4%) TEC Rx. CrCl <30 ml, did not appear to alter the incidence or severity of CRS (50%; 1 Gr4). ICANS was infrequent (n=5; 4.85%), 1 pt with Gr 4-Sz requiring HD-steroids and TEC discontinuation). Infections were common, seen in 54 (52.4%) of patients, the majority were viral URI or CMV reactivation (n=26; 3 pts receiving CMV Rx, 1 pt with CMV organ disease). IVIG was given in 43/67 (64%) pts. The overall response rate for evaluable patients (n=82) was 63%; (sCR/CR 14; VGPR 23; PR 15; MR 2, SD 14; PD 14). In evaluable pts treated with prior BCMA (n=43), the ORR was 53% (sCR/CR 4; VGPR 14; PR 5; 1 MR; SD 10; PD 9). The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was PD (26.2%). 14 pts have died by the time of data cut-off (7/28/23), with the most common cause of death being disease progression. Conclusions: In this Real-World evaluation of TEC, a high ORR was seen, similar to the MajesTEC-1 study. Responses were rapid and are expected to deepen over time (median f/u 5m). CRS rates were similar to MajesTEC-1 and no new toxicity signal was noted. The rates of infection appear low but may be related to short follow-up. Details regarding the incidence and types of infection and the global use of IVIG will be described. With longer follow-up, additional efficacy/toxicity data will be presented.