Goel, Utkarsh

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy that has shown remarkable efficacy in patients with RRMM. As real-world (RW) experience with cilta-cel continues to expand, and with the recent FDA guidance reducing the recommended proximity to the CAR T center from four to two weeks post-infusion, there is growing interest in identifying patients at low risk for severe early complications who may be safely managed in the outpatient setting and potentially ‘discharged’ home earlier. Methods Data were collected from 769 patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel at 15 institutions in the U.S. via the Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium.Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients who could be managed in the outpatient setting (low-risk group). Based on expert consensus within the Consortium, low-risk patients were defined as: grade ≤1 CRS, no ICANS, and no IEC-HS. The remaining patients were categorized as high-risk. We evaluated baseline characteristics with missingness < 20% as predictors, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, ECOG performance status (PS) at time of lymphodepletion (LD), extramedullary disease, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) percentage, high-risk cytogenetics, bridging therapy including response, penta-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, prior anti-BCMA therapy, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and baseline ferritin. The cohort was restricted to patients with complete data on all predictors (n=455) and split into a training and testing cohort (80/20 split, n=364/91). Bidirectional stepwise regression was used to build the predictive model using variables with significance of p<0.15 selected for entry. The best model was selected based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and a significance level of p<0.05. Results Among the 455 patients with complete data included in the final model, 290 (64%) were categorized as low-risk and 165 (36%) as high-risk. Compared to the low-risk group, high-risk patients were more likely to have an ECOG PS ≥2 at time of LD (20% vs 9%, p<0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (47% vs 35%, p=0.009), and penta-refractory disease status (34% vs 24%, p=0.031). High-risk patients also had a higher median BMPC percentage (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), and higher baseline pre-LD CRP and ferritin. Overall response rates were high, at 95% vs 90% (p=0.047) for the low vs high risk groups, with complete response or better achieved in 73% vs 66% of patients, respectively (p=0.14). With a median follow-up of approximately 11 months, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI: 27-NA) in the low-risk group and 18.2 months (95% CI: 13.1-NA) in the high-risk group. In terms of safety, non-ICANS neurotoxicity (NINT) occurred less frequently in the low-risk group (6.6% vs 13%, p=0.015). Specifically, Parkinsonism was observed in 1.7% vs 6.1% (p=0.013), and cranial nerve palsy in 4.5% vs 5.5% (p=0.7), respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was lower in the low-risk group (4.2%) compared to the high-risk group (14%; p < 0.001). The most common causes of NRM in the low- and high-risk groups were acute toxicities (0% vs 36%, including CRS, IEC-HS, and ICANS), delayed toxicities (0% vs 8%, including colitis, NINT, and Parkinsonism), infections (50% vs 48%), and other unrelated causes (50% vs 8%). The best model to predict low-risk patients that could be managed in the outpatient settingincluded BMPC percentage and ECOG PS at LD. In the training cohort, patients with a higher pre-LD BMPC percentage and an ECOG PS ³2 were less likely to be in the low-risk group(OR per 1-unit change in BMPC percentage = 0.99, 95% CI=0.98-0.99, p<0.001 and OR for ECOG PS 2-4 = 0.38, 95% CI=0.20-0.72, p=0.003). The AUC for this model was 0.663 in the training cohort and 0.659 in the testing cohort. Conclusion In this large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel, we identified clinical factors associated with lower risk for early severe toxicities, supporting outpatient administration and the potential for earlier discharge in selected patients, particularly those who are fit and have low disease burden. Our findings provide a practical framework to guide risk stratification and outpatient CAR T management strategies, particularly in light of evolving regulatory guidance and growing RW experience with cilta-cel.

Abstract Background: Real-world data suggest that safety and efficacy of ide-cel and cilta-cel mirror data from pivotal trials, yet older adults remain underrepresented. We report outcomes of the largest cohort of RRMM patients aged ≥75 years receiving CAR-T and compare them with propensity-matched younger patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed RRMM patients receiving standard-of-care BCMA CAR-T at 15 centers from the US Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium between May 2021 and December 2024. Patients ≥ 75 years were 2:1 propensity-matched to patients < 75 based on CAR-T product, sex, performance status, extramedullary disease, baseline ferritin, penta-refractory status, bridging therapy, prior autologous SCT and lines of therapy. Continuous outcomes were analyzed with multivariable linear regression, binary outcomes with logistic regression, and time-to-event endpoints with Cox proportional-hazards models. We estimated average treatment effects via G-computation, using cluster-robust standard errors to account for the matched sets. Results: After 2:1 propensity matching, the cohort included 194 patients ≥ 75 years (cilta-cel: 64 and ide-cel: 130) and 388 patients < 75 years (cilta-cel: 128, ide-cel: 260). Median ages were 78 (range: 75-90) for the older cohort vs 65 (range: 35-74) for the younger cohort. The older cohort had a higher frequency of t(14;16) (9% vs. 3%, p = 0.005), lower baseline ferritin (151 vs. 196 ng/mL, P = 0.046), and lower likelihood of prior ASCT (57% vs. 71%, P = 0.001). Median prior lines of therapy were 5. Median follow-up time for ≥ 75 and < 75 groups for cilta-cel was 11.5 and 11 months and for ide-cel was 16 and 24.3 months, respectively. ORR did not differ amongst the older vs younger patients: cilta-cel (97% vs. 97%) and ide-cel (90% vs. 88%).For patients ≥ 75 years, median PFS with cilta-cel was 28.7 months (95% CI: 13.3–NR) and with ide-cel was 16.4 months (95% CI: 12.1–22.4). In patients < 75 years, median PFS was not reached for cilta-cel but was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.6–12.7) for ide-cel, reflecting inferior PFS with ide-cel in the younger group (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.6). On sensitivity analysis by Cox proportional hazards model, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in PFS in older vs younger patients receiving cilta-cel, although older patients paradoxically had better PFS with ide-cel compared to their matched younger cohort. In the cilta-cel cohort, HR for PFS for older vs younger patients was 1.48 (95% CI:0.77-2.84; p=0.2) and in the ide-cel cohort it was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5, 0.98; p=0.04). Median OS was reached only in the < 75-year ide-cel cohort at 40 months (95% CI: 32.5–43.5). Rates of CRS were similar, with any-grade (grade ≥3) CRS seen in 74% vs 78% (0% vs. 0.8%) of cilta-cel recipients and 86% vs. 87% (3.1% vs. 1.5%) of ide-cel recipients in the older vs younger groups, respectively. ICANS rates were 21% vs. 20% for cilta-cel (p = 0.79) and 29% vs 20% for ide-cel (p = 0.07), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 ICANS. In the cilta-cel cohort, Parkinsonian delayed neurotoxicity (DNT) occurred in 3/62 (4.8%) older patients and 6/128 (4.7%) younger patients. Similarly, other non-Parkinsonian DNT rates were similar across age groups, with 6.4% vs 5.5% in older vs younger cilta-cel cohort and 0% vs 1% in the older vs younger ide-cel cohort. Rates of IEC-HS, and infections were comparable across the cohorts. There was no difference in hospital length of stay and ICU admission rate between products within either age cohort. The overall non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 6.7% for patients ≥ 75 years and 6.2% in patients < 75 years. For cilta-cel, NRM in older vs younger cohort was 9.4% vs 4.7% (p= 0.96) and for ide-cel it was 5.4% vs 6.9%, respectively (p= 0.65). Conclusion: Appropriately selected older adults (≥75 years) receiving CAR-T therapy for RRMM can derive a similar efficacy benefit with CAR-T as a propensity-matched younger cohort, without any increased signal of toxicity including CRS, ICANS or delayed NT. NRM was numerically greater, but not statistically significant, in older adults receiving cilta-cel. Median PFS with cilta-cel and ide-cel in older adults were 28.7 months and 16.4 months with median OS not reached and 40 months, respectively. Older adults, ≥75 years old, should not be excluded from CAR-T therapy solely due to advanced age. Overall, cilta-cel was not associated with worsened toxicities in older adults and may offer better PFS.

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