Portuguese, Andrew J

Patients with plasma cell leukemia (PCL) are generally excluded from pivotal T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody (BsAb) trials. We evaluated real-world outcomes in a multicenter retrospective study of 122 patients with primary or secondary PCL across 15 academic centers, categorized as 'active' (≥5% circulating plasma cells within 30 days of BsAb initiation) or 'historical'. In a heavily pretreated population, patients received teclistamab (37%), elranatamab (11%), talquetamab as a line of therapy (Tal LOT, 42%), or talquetamab as bridging therapy to CAR-T (Tal Bridge, 11%). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was grade 1-2 in 56% and grade 3-4 in 4%, whereas neurotoxicity was grade 1-2 in 16% and grade 3-4 in 5%. Among 110 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 55%, including 61% with Tal LOT, 58% with Tal Bridge, 46% with elranatamab, and 33% with teclistamab. With a median follow-up of 8.3 months, talquetamab demonstrated superior survival. Tal LOT showed a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.5 months and a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.5 months, and both were unreached in the Tal Bridge cohort. In contrast, teclistamab and elranatamab showed a mPFS of 1.2 and 1.6 months and mOS of 8.1 and 3.6 months, respectively (P=0.007, P=0.023). In active PCL, Tal LOT achieved mPFS/mOS of 6.9/12.2 months versus 0.7/1.4 months with teclistamab and 1.0/3.1 months with elranatamab, respectively (P<0.001, P=0.002). Multivariable analysis associated active PCL with worse survival and Tal LOT with improved outcomes. BsAbs were safe in PCL, with talquetamab showing superior outcomes compared with BCMA-directed BsAbs.

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.

Summary Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy and bispecific T‐cell engagers (BsAb) have emerged as promising immunotherapeutic modalities in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of CAR‐T and BsAb therapies in MM patients with a prior history of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). Thirty‐three MM patients with prior allo‐HCT received CAR‐T ( n = 24) or BsAb ( n = 9) therapy. CAR‐T therapy demonstrated an ORR of 92% (67% ≥ CR), and 73% were MRD negative. BsAb therapy resulted in an ORR of 44% (44% ≥ CR) and 44% MRD negative. Safety analysis showed grade ≥3 AEs in 92% of CAR‐T and 56% of BsAb patients. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 83% of CAR‐T and 78% of BsAb recipients, while immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in three CAR‐T patients. Infections of grade ≥3 were reported in 50% of CAR‐T and 44% of BsAb recipients. No exacerbation of graft‐versus‐host disease occurred except in one BsAb recipient. CAR‐T and BsAb therapies appear to be feasible, safe and provide deep and durable responses in MM patients with prior allo‐HCT.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701