Back to Authors

Kumar, Shaji

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Etentamig in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with prior exposure to B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapy.
Chhabra, S, Searle, Emma, Popat, Rakesh, Magen, Hila , Gatt, Moshe E., Avivi, Irit, Korde, Neha, Valdes, Cesar Rodriguez , Lichtman, Eben I. , Touzeau, Cyrille, Leleu, Xavier P., Svensson, Anders, Doerr, Thomas, Yu, Jovian , (Lee), Xin (Shane) Li, Ahsan, Aarif, Rosenberg, Tanya, Talati, Chetasi, Kumar, Shaji, Chhabra, Saurabh , Searle, Emma J , Popat, Rakesh , Gatt, Moshe E. , Avivi, I., Baljević, Muhamed , Touzeau, Cyrille , Leleu, Xavier , Svensson, Anders , Doerr, Thomas, Talati, Chetasi , Kumar, Shaji

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 7508-7508

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.7508 Get It

7508 Background: Data on response to BCMA-targeted therapies among BCMA-exposed pts with RRMM are limited. Outcomes after sequential/subsequent anti-BCMA bispecific T-cell engagers (Bs-TCE) are vital to evaluate. Etentamig is a next-generation differentiated BCMA x CD3 Bs-TCE composed of a bivalent BCMA-binding domain with a high-avidity, low-affinity CD3-binding domain potentially reducing cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and a silenced Fc tail for extended half-life and convenient monthly (Q4W) dosing. Phase 1 results of etentamig in RRMM showed robust efficacy and potential best-in-class safety. Methods: Arm B of the open-label, Phase 1b MOVISO study (NCT05650632) evaluated etentamig in pts with RRMM with ≥2 prior lines of therapy (PLT), including triple-class and prior BCMA exposure (antibody-drug conjugate [ADC] >30 days or CAR-T >6 months [mo] after last exposure). Primary safety endpoints were CRS and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS); efficacy endpoints included objective response rate (ORR; IMWG 2016), duration of response (DoR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Pts received etentamig (60 mg IV; no step-up dosing [SUD]) on Cycle 1 Day 1 and Q4W thereafter. Results: At cutoff (June 11, 2025), 41 prior BCMA-exposed pts (CAR-T, n=24; ADC, n=17) had been treated; 24 (57%) were male, 38 (93%) were White, median (mdn) (range) age was 68 (43–89) years, 37 (88%) had ECOG PS ≤1, and 34 (81%) were triple-class refractory. Mdn (range) PLT was 6 (3–15). For 21 (51%) pts, the last PLT was BCMA directed; 23 (56%) had previously responded to anti-BCMA therapy (17/24 [71%] for CAR-T and 6/17 [35%] for ADC). Mdn (range) time from last prior CAR-T or ADC to first dose of etentamig was 15 (1–30) and 4 (1–45) mo, respectively. Mdn (range) follow-up was 5.5 (0.2–17.1) mo. Despite no SUD, CRS and ICANS were reported in 24 (57%) and 3 (7%) pts, respectively; all G1/2 events, except 1 G3 ICANS. G3/4 neutropenia and infections were reported in 15 (36%) and 17 (41%) pts, respectively. Efficacy outcomes are detailed in the Table (NE, not estimable). For pts whose last PLT was BCMA directed, MRD negativity (clonoSEQ, 10 –5 ) was seen in 2/3 (67%) evaluable pts, along with robust peak activation and proliferation of CD8+ T cells. Conclusions: Pts treated with etentamig achieved durable responses; rates were higher in pts who received CAR-T as last line. No new safety signals were observed; only low-grade CRS was seen despite no SUD. Clinical trial information: NCT05650632 . All prior BCMA (N=41) Prior BCMA CAR-T (N=24) ORR, n/n (%) [95% CI] Overall 17/36 (47) [30–65] 11/22 (50) [28–72] BCMA-directed last PLT 11/19 (58) [34–80] 7/11 (64) [31–89] Mdn DoR, mo [95% CI], No. of pts Overall 13 [7–NE], N=17 13 [7–NE], N=11 BCMA-directed last PLT 13 [7–NE], N=11 13 [7–NE], N=7 Mdn PFS, mo [95% CI], No. of pts Overall 3.4 [3–11], N=41 8.3 [2–NE], N=24 BCMA-directed last PLT 9.4 [2–NE], N=21 9.4 [2–NE], N=12
Prediction of progression in MGUS using transformer-based survival time-series modeling.
Kumbhar, Vaishnavi, Braun, Nicholas, Cook, Joselle, Gonsalves, Wilson I., Buadi, Francis, Hayman, Suzanne R. , Siddiqui, Mustaqeem Ahmad, Kapoor, Prashant , Dispenzieri, Angela, Vachon, C M, Kyle, Robert A., Rajkumar, S. Vincent, Kumar, Shaji, Kumbhar, Vaishnavi, Binder, Moritz , Cook, Joselle , Gonsalves, Wilson I. , Buadi, Francis K. , Siddiqui, Mustaqeem , Dispenzieri, Angela , Kyle, R., Kumar, Shaji

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 7518-7518

10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.7518 Get It

7518 Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is common, yet only a minority progress to malignant plasma-cell disorders. Mayo risk stratification uses baseline factors and is commonly implemented/validated in a Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) framework, which may miss prognostic longitudinal patterns. Methods: We assembled 15,158 MGUS patients with longitudinal laboratory data and progression outcomes (smoldering multiple myeloma, multiple myeloma, AL amyloidosis, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). We compared a Mayo-factor Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) baseline versus STRaTS, a transformer-based survival model, to predict progression risk at 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons. STRaTS leveraged longitudinal trajectories of routine labs including hemoglobin, platelets, differential counts (neutrophils/lymphocytes/monocytes), immunoglobulins (IgG/IgA/IgM), free light chains (kappa/lambda), M-spike, and creatinine. To minimize bias, we used laboratory results collected from 1–3 years after diagnosis and started follow-up at year 3; patients progressing before year 3 or lacking follow-up beyond year 3 were excluded. A total of 7,305 patients met eligibility and were split into train/validation/test cohorts of 4,383/1,461/1,461. Discrimination was assessed by concordance index (C-index). Clinical operating performance was evaluated on a held-out test cohort by comparing sensitivity and specificity at the same proportion of patients selected for intensified surveillance (same workload). Results: Among MGUS patients with complete baseline Mayo factors(N=3,388), Kaplan–Meier–estimated 3-/5-/10-year cumulative progression risk was 0.1/0.4/3.4% (Low), 3.0/4.3/7.9% (Low-Intermediate), 4.4/6.4/14.1% (High-Intermediate), and 8.9/12.5/16.9% (High). On a held-out test cohort, STRaTS demonstrated superior discrimination versus the Mayo-factor CoxPH (C-index 0.75 vs 0.538; p<0.0001). Both models were trained and evaluated on identical train/test splits. At the same surveillance workload, STRaTS achieved higher sensitivity with comparable specificity; when 40.3% of patients were selected for closer surveillance, 3-year sensitivity was 81.0% for STRaTS versus 47.6% for CoxPH (Table). Conclusions: Among MGUS patients who remain progression-free at 3 years, transformer-based survival modeling of longitudinal laboratory trajectories provides more accurate individualized conditional progression risk estimates and improved workload-matched identification of progressors compared with the conventional Mayo/Cox approach. Sensitivity/specificity (%). Operating Point Flagged % STRaTS Sens / Spec (%) CoxPH Sens / Spec (%) Int+High, 3y 40.3 81.0 / 58.5 47.6 / 58.9 Int+High, 5y 40.3 81.2 / 60.4 46.9 / 58.8 Int+High, 10y 40.3 25.0 / 56.3 23.8 / 58.7 Two-Group High (≥2 factors), 5y 5.6 37.4 / 93.4 35.4 / 93.1