Anwer, Faiz

Summary Functional high‐risk (FHR) multiple myeloma (FHRMM) is often defined as progression within 12–24 months of front‐line autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). For patients with early progression after suboptimal front‐line therapies, it is challenging to assign the disease progression to a true FHR phenotype versus less effective front‐line therapy. In this study, we combined data from three Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research studies (MM18‐02, MM19‐01 and MM20‐03). We included patients who received front‐line AHSCT between 2008 and 2018 and had progression <12 (FHR12, n = 465), <18 (FHR18, n = 672) or <24 months (FHR24, n = 853) after AHSCT. We classified induction therapy as standard lenalidomide‐containing triplets (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [VRD]/carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [KRD]) versus other (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone [VTD]/bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone [VCD]/bortezomib, dexamethasone [VD]/lenalidomide, dexamethasone [RD]) and studied the impact of front‐line therapy on post‐FHR overall survival (OS). In the FHR12 cohort (follow‐up 48 months), the OS after VRD/KRD ( n = 238) was 21 versus 17 months with other regimens ( n = 227, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6–1.06). In a multivariable model, the HR for OS was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.7–1.3, p = 0.69) for VRD/KRD versus other regimens. There was no significant interaction between type of first‐line (1L) therapy and time from 1L AHSCT to first relapse in predicting OS. Similar results were seen for FHR18 and FHR24. FHRMM remains a negative prognostic factor irrespective of front‐line therapy and warrants consideration of T‐cell engagers' second‐line therapy.

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

PURPOSE Initial reports indicate that access to contemporary therapies currently used in North America for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) varies internationally. No studies have quantitatively reported the extent of disparities in the access to MM therapies worldwide, with a goal to investigate access to MM therapies and barriers globally. METHODS From June 18 to July 15, 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to 176 oncologists treating MM outside the United States. MM drugs were categorized by accessibility, with the cutoff for adequate access set at 60% of respondents affirming easy/moderate access. RESULTS Ninety-five (54%) respondents from 33 countries completed the survey. Fifty-one percent of the respondents were from university-based academic programs, and 17% of the responders treated only plasma cell disorders. Most respondents had adequate access to noncellular MM therapies, except for isatuximab, ixazomib, selinexor, and elotuzumab. Among the cellular therapies, 17% had access to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy, whereas 23% had access to approved T-cell engagers (TCEs). Financial stress on patients and health care systems has emerged as a primary barrier to global inaccessibility of treatment drugs. CONCLUSION Global access to novel MM therapies remains challenging, and we have identified barriers and suggested strategies to bridge this gap.

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) &lt;40 mL/min. CrCl &lt;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.

PURPOSE Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), two B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compare safety, efficacy, and survival among patients with RRMM treated with standard-of-care (SOC) ide-cel or cilta-cel. METHODS Data were from a retrospective chart review of patients with RRMM leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with the intent to receive SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel at 19 institutions. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type. RESULTS A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with ide-cel (n = 386) and cilta-cel (n = 255). Five hundred eighty-six patients were infused (n = 350 for ide-cel; n = 236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 12.6 and 13.0 months for ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well balanced. Cilta-cel was associated with higher likelihood of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS; odds ratio [OR], 6.80 [95% CI, 2.28 to 20.33]), infections (OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.92]), second primary malignancies (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.89 to 3.56]), and delayed neurotoxicity (OR, 20.07 [95% CI, 4.46 to 90.20]). Cilta-cel was also associated with better treatment responses (≥complete response: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.63 to 3.60]), longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.63]), and longer overall survival (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97]). No associations were observed between therapy type and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenia at days 30 and 90, or nonrelapse mortality. We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time period as Food and Drug Administration approval for cilta-cel (≥March 2022). CONCLUSION Cilta-cel demonstrated superior efficacy and survival, with higher incidence of certain toxicities, compared with ide-cel.

BackgroundDespite routine evaluation of cytogenetics in myeloma, little is known regarding the impact of high‐dose therapy (HDT) consolidation on overall survival (OS) or progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients who have high‐risk cytogenetics. The authors performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the heterogeneity of HDT efficacy according to cytogenetic risk.MethodsAll RCTs in patients who had newly diagnosed myeloma from 2000 to 2021 that compared upfront HDT versus standard‐dose therapy (SDT) consolidation were included. The primary objective was to assess the difference in HDT efficacy between standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics in terms of the OS or PFS log(hazard ratio) (HR). The pooled OS and PFS HR was calculated according to cytogenetic‐risk subgroup using a random‐effects model, and heterogeneity (I2) (the percentage of total observed variability explained by between‐study differences) was assessed using an interaction test.ResultsAfter screening 3307 citations, 6 RCTs were included for PFS analysis, and 4 were included for OS analysis. The median follow‐up ranged from 3.1 to 7.8 years. The pooled OS HR for HDT versus SDT consolidation in patients with standard‐risk and high‐risk cytogenetics was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70‐1.17; I2 = 0%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45‐0.97; I2 = 0%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of OS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was statistically significant in favor of the high‐risk group (P for interaction = .03). The pooled PFS HR for HDT versus SDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56‐0.76; I2 = 0%) versus 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33‐0.83; I2 = 55%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of PFS between standard‐risk and high‐risk patients was not significant (P for interaction = .25).ConclusionsThe magnitude of OS benefit with upfront HDT is cytogenetics‐dependent. Patients with high‐risk cytogenetics should preferably receive upfront rather than delayed HDT consolidation.Lay Summary Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma harboring high‐risk cytogenetics.

Abstract Background Allogeneic (off the shelf) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy addresses the logistical challenges, availability (including insufficient T-cell yields from low baseline absolute lymphocyte count), and variable product quality of autologous CAR T therapy. ALLO-715 is a genetically modified anti-BCMA AlloCAR T™ cell which uses Cellectis TALEN ® technology to disrupt the T-cell receptor alpha constant gene (TRAC) and the CD52 gene to reduce the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and permit the use of ALLO-647, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody (mAb), for selective and transitory host lymphodepletion (LD). Methods UNIVERSAL is an open-label, Phase 1 trial (NCT04093596) in adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma who have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulator, and anti-CD38 mAb. Patients (pts) must be refractory to their last treatment line. Pts receive LD followed by ALLO-715 at 1 of 4 dose levels (DLs) in a 3+3 dose escalation design: 40, 160, 320, and 480 x 10 6 CAR+ T cells. Several LD regimens are being evaluated: FCA39; FCA60; FCA90; and CA39; with fludarabine [F] 90 mg/m 2, cyclophosphamide [C] 900 mg/m 2, and ALLO-647 [A] 39, 60, or 90 mg divided over 3 days. Results As of June 21, 2021 data-cut, 47 subjects were enrolled; 42 were treated with ALLO-715; 5 progressed prior to treatment. Median time from enrollment to LD was 5 days and no treated pts required bridging therapy. Pts were heavily pretreated with a range of 3-11 prior lines of therapy; 42.9% were penta refractory. There were 19% ISS Stage III at screening, 34% had high risk cytogenetics, and 19% had extramedullary disease. The most common Grade (Gr) 3+ adverse events (AEs) included anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 52.4%, all Gr 1/2 except 1 pt with Gr 3. CRS was treated with tocilizumab (21.3%) and corticosteroids (12.8%). One pt (with Gr 2 CRS) experienced Gr 1 neurotoxicity that resolved. Gr 3+ infections occurred in 12.8% of pts, including 2 previously reported Gr 5 events (fungal pneumonia and adenovirus hepatitis). Early results from this trial have been presented previously (ASH 2020) and therefore the efficacy analysis on pts (n=26) treated at DL3 and DL4 with FCA LD, which are considered a more relevant cell dose and LD, is presented here (Table). In pts who received DL3 or DL4 (320 or 480 x 10 6 CAR T cells) (n=26), the ORR was 61.5% (95% CI: 40.6, 79.8); very good partial response or better (VGPR+) rate was 38.5% (95% CI: 20.2, 59.4). Median time to 1 st response was 16 days. The median follow-up for the DL3/DL4 pts was 7.4 months (95% CI: 3.6, 9.9) with a median duration of response of 8.3 months (95% CI: 1.5, not reached). Of the 10 pts with a best response of VGPR+, 8 were found to be negative by minimal residual disease (MRD) analysis. Conclusions UNIVERSAL demonstrates proof of concept for allogeneic CAR T therapy in multiple myeloma. ALLO-715 showed CAR T cell dose response relationship with higher doses (DL3/DL4) leading to clinically meaningful efficacy, including high VGPR+ rate of 38.5% and high MRD negativity without requiring leukapheresis or bridging therapy. ALLO-715 following LD with FCA has a tolerable safety profile. FCA induces a deep and durable window of lymphocyte depletion allowing CAR T cell expansion and persistence. A study using the next generation anti-BCMA CAR (ALLO-605) which supplies cytokine signaling to the CAR bearing cells is ongoing (IGNITE). The current UNIVERSAL trial continues to enroll, including a cohort with consolidation, and updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mailankody: Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Plexus Communications: Honoraria; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Physician Education Resource: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb/Juno: Research Funding; Jansen Oncology: Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Evicore: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding. Liedtke: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sidana: BMS: Consultancy; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Oluwole: Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Nath: Actinium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anwer: Janssen pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; BMS / Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raje: Caribou: Other; Janssen: Other; bluebird bio: Other; Amgen: Other; Celgene: Other; BMS: Other. Siegel: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celularity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen Inc.: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karski: Allogene Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Crispr Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Nektar Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lovelace: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Lourbakos: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Hari: Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.