Razzo, Beatrice M.

Abstract Teclistamab is an anti-CD3-/B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) bispecific antibody approved for use in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We undertook a retrospective study of post-approval, real-world outcomes with teclistamab in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. Among 509 patients, 89% would have been ineligible for the MajesTEC-1 trial, primarily due to prior BCMA-directed therapy, cytopenias, or diminished performance status. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 54% (1.4% grade ≥3) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 11% (2.2% grade ≥3), with no fatal events. Infections occurred in 42% and contributed to death in 5%. Partial response (PR) or better was achieved in 53% and very good PR or better in 45%. With 10.1 months of median follow-up, the estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.8 months and 12-month overall survival was 61%. Independent predictors of less than very good PR and shorter PFS included BCMA-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in the previous 9 months, high disease burden, lymphopenia, and elevated ferritin. Significance: T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies such as teclistamab represent an important new treatment modality for multiple myeloma and other blood cancers. This study evaluates the real-world safety and efficacy of teclistamab, including its activity in populations not represented in the initial phase I/II study, and identifies clinical variables associated with treatment response. See related commentary by Zweegman et al., p. 542

Abstract Outcomes of bispecific antibodies in patients with renal impairment (RI) are not well characterized, given the exclusion of these patients from clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and RI treated with standard-of-care teclistamab. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) <40 mL/min. CrCl <30 mL/min or dialysis dependence was defined as severe RI. Of the 384 included patients, 81 (21%) had RI, including 45 (18%) with severe RI, and 18 (5%) on dialysis. Patients with RI were more likely to be older (median age, 71 vs 67 years; P = .002) and have a higher median number of previous lines of therapy (7 vs 6; P = .04). Rates and severity of cytokine release syndrome (51% vs 59%; grade ≥3: 1.2% vs 1%) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (16% vs 13%; grade ≥3: 2.5% vs 2.6%) were similar in patients with and without RI, respectively. Patients with RI had higher baseline and day 30 post-teclistamab grade ≥3 anemia and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. Renal function did not worsen after teclistamab initiation in most patients with RI outside of the context of disease progression. Overall response rate (52% vs 56%; P = .61) and survival outcomes (median progression-free survival, 4.6 vs 6.5 months; P = .62) were comparable in patients with and without RI, respectively, after a median follow-up of 9.9 months. No differences in overall survival or non-relapse mortality were noted. Our findings suggest that treatment with teclistamab is feasible in patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with a similar safety and efficacy profile to patients without RI.

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