Castaneda, Omar

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: Lymphodepletion (LD) chemotherapy is critical for the efficacy of CAR-T therapy by eradicating immunosuppressive cells, inducing costimulatory molecules, and promoting expansion and persistence of CAR-T cells. It also can contribute to an increased risk of infections, cytopenia, and other toxicities. We evaluated the utilization of varying LD regimens used in standard-of-care (SOC) autologous B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) CAR-T therapy with ide-cel or cilta-cel for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and the effect on outcomes and toxicity. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RRMM who underwent LD and CAR-T cell infusion by December 31, 2022, from 13 US academic institutions with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel. Response rates and other categorical variables, specifically LD regimen, were tested for association using Wilcoxon rank-sum (or Kruskal-Wallis for three or more groups) or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Results: A total of 523 patients were infused at the time of data cut-off with 489 patients evaluable for safety and survival analyses; 368 (75%) were infused with ide-cel and 121 (25%) with cilta-cel. The median age was 65 years old (range 30-90) with 206 females (42%) and 283 males (58%), and 13% with ECOG performance status ≥ 2 at time of LD. Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) LD was used in 422 patients while 67 patients received other LD regimens including bendamustine-based (n = 35, 52%), cladribine-based (n = 25, 37%) or cyclophosphamide alone (n = 7, 10%). The primary reason for use of Flu/Cy LD was institutional guidance or SOC in 378 patients (90%), while the primary reason for use of other LD regimens was due to the fludarabine shortage in 65 patients (97%) with 3% citing physician's choice or institutional guidance. No significant difference was identified among response outcomes, with those receiving Flu/Cy LD achieving an ORR of 84% compared to 81% with other LD regimens (p = 0.59) and no difference observed in rates of ≥ VGPR (66% Flu/Cy LD vs 60% other LD; p = 0.48). Of those evaluable for MRD at 1 and 3 months, the MRD negative rate at 10 -6 for those with Flu/Cy LD was 77% (n= 137) and 77% (n=113) and with other LD regimens was 66% (n=35) and 79% (n=28), respectively. At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, no statistically significant difference was noted in median progression free survival (mPFS) with Flu/Cy vs other LD regimens (9.3 mos vs NR) or overall survival (OS) (19.4 mos vs NR). When stratified by type of CAR-T therapy, treatment with bendamustine-based LD was associated with an inferior mPFS compared to those receiving Flu/Cy LD in patients treated with ide-cel (3.8 vs 8.5 mos; p=0.0056), though not by multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis of patients treated with ide-cel between Flu/Cy and bendamustine LD did not reveal any significant differences in age, gender, ECOG, R-ISS stage, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics or renal dysfunction (Cr < 45 ml/min). LD regimen was not a predictor for PFS on multivariable analyses amongst patients treated with ide-cel, while ECOG ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR]= 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.40, 14.08) and t(4,14) (HR= 2.02, 95% CI=1.14, 3.59) were associated with worse PFS. No difference in mPFS by LD regimen was observed in patients receiving cilta-cel, which was a smaller cohort (mPFS: Flu/Cy 11.7 mos, bendamustine-based NR, cladribine-based NR, cyclophosphamide NR). Rates of all grade CRS (81% vs 70%), Grade ≥ 3 CRS (3% vs 3%), all grade ICANS (19% vs 12%, and Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (4% vs 2%) were similar among those receiving Flu/Cy or other LD regimens, respectively. Patients receiving Flu/Cy LD were less likely to have any grade cytopenia at 1 month (33% vs 55%, p < 0.001) and 3 months (52% vs 69%, p < 0.001), with no observed difference in infection rate. Conclusions: The fludarabine shortage experienced in the US in late 2022 necessitated the use of alternative LD regimens with BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy with most centers relying on bendamustine- or cladribine-based regimens. Use of bendamustine-based LD was associated with inferior PFS in patients receiving ide-cel on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis after adjusting for other prognostic factors. In summary, there is no clear difference in efficacy or safety between Flu/Cy and non-Flu/Cy LD in patients receiving BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy. *Authors contributed equally