Atrash, Shebli

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

*Authors contributed equally. Introduction. Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have been FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Prior work from our consortium identified racial and ethnic differences in safety and response to ide-cel among patients treated in the standard of care (SOC) setting; despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity. Here, we extend this work to investigate racial and ethnic differences in safety, efficacy, and outcomes in a larger cohort of patients treated with SOC ide-cel with longer follow-up and patients treated with SOC cilta-cel. Methods. Data for RRMM patients who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2022 and were treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel were pooled across 19 institutions in the U.S. Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We compared Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (any race) patients, excluding other racial and ethnic groups due to small sample sizes that precluded sub-group investigations. Separately for each CAR T-cell therapy, racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics, safety, and treatment responses were examined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to examine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by race and ethnicity. Results. Among 332 RRMM patients treated with ide-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 17% and 10% of the cohort, respectively. Hispanic patients were younger at infusion compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White patients (55.5 vs. 63 vs. 66 years, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher disease burden (≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cell percentage) compared to Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients (35% vs. 20% vs. 19%, p=0.05), while a higher proportion of Non-Hispanic White patients had high-risk cytogenetics compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (37% vs. 23% vs. 10%, p=0.003). Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to develop severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 30 (p<0.001) and day 90 (p=0.01) post-infusion, and these differences were particularly driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients at these time points. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to achieve a best response of partial response (PR) or better (82%) compared to Non-Hispanic Black (75%) and Hispanic patients (63%, p=0.02). No other racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics (including cytopenias), safety, PFS, and OS were observed (p>0.05). Among 222 RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 12% and 9% of the cohort, respectively. At baseline, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have anemia (p=0.01), and Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have thrombocytopenia (p=0.02) and neutropenia (p=0.06) compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. No other differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed by race and ethnicity. While not statistically significant, a higher rate of severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 90 post-infusion was observed among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (33% vs. 44% vs. 21%, p=0.07), similar to the ide-cel cohort. This finding was primarily driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients and higher rates of anemia among Hispanic patients. No other racial and ethnic differences in safety, responses to cilta-cel, PFS, or OS were not observed in the cilta-cel cohort (p>0.05). Conclusion. In a large cohort of RRMM patients treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel, we observed a higher rate of cytopenias post-infusion and inferior ide-cel responses among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity, suggesting that both available CAR T-cell therapies for RRMM patients can be utilized across all populations. Future studies that include larger patient cohorts of racially and ethnically diverse patients should be conducted to confirm these findings and additionally evaluate long-term outcomes.

Background: Daratumumab (DARA) has demonstrated clinical benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) and is approved for the treatment of both newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed refractory MM (RRMM). While single-center studies have shown the benefit of DARA retreatment in patients (pts) who are refractory to DARA (D-Ref), there is a lack of real-world data on the characteristics of pts who are retreated with DARA across multiple lines of treatment (LOTs). In this study, we examine DARA retreatment patterns and outcomes among pts who are D-Ref and those who are sensitive to DARA (D-Sens) after the first DARA exposure in the US real-world clinical practice. Methods: This study used the Flatiron MM Core Registry data to identify pts with MM treated with a DARA-containing regimen in ≥2 separate LOTs between November 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024. The first DARA-based LOT was defined as D1, and the second DARA-based LOT was defined as the retreatment LOT (D2). The following criteria, developed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, were used to classify pts as Dara-retreated: 1) pts treated with the same DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated if there was a gap of >90 days between D1 and D2, 2) pts treated with different DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated, 3) pts treated with DARA-containing regimens had ≥1 LOTs between D1 and D2 they were classified as Dara-retreated, regardless of whether the regimens were the same or different. Derived disease progression reported in the Flatiron data was used for this analysis. If disease progression was reported during D1, or within 60 days of discontinuing D1, the pt was considered as D-Ref, otherwise, the pt was considered as D-Sens. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were conducted to evaluate duration of D2, proportion of pts not receiving subsequent treatment after D2, and progression-free survival (PFS) rates during D2. Results: Data for 201 pts retreated with DARA were identified in this analysis, 150 were D-Sens and 51 were D-Ref. In the D-Sens group, the median age at D2 initiation was 71 years, 44.0% of pts were female, 27.3% were ISS stage II and 16.0% were African American. In the D-Ref group, the median age at D2 initiation was 67 years, 45.1% of pts were female, 21.6% were ISS stage II, and 25.5% were African American. At D2 initiation, 64.7% (D-Sens) and 60.8% (D-Ref) of pts were frail, and 56.0% (D-Sens) and 52.9% (D-Ref) of pts had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥3, indicating a high burden of comorbidities. About 31% of pts in both groups had high cytogenetic risk abnormalities, and about 20% had a 1q21 gain or amplification. The median time from MM diagnosis to start of D1 and to start of D2 was shorter in the D-Sens group (10.8 and 34.9 months) than in the D-Ref group (18.4 and 44.4 months). D-Sens pts were less likely to receive D1 in the third LOT or later compared to D-Ref pts (30.0% vs 45.1%). The median number of LOTs before D2 was three in both groups. The median gap between D1 and D2 was 9.3 months in D-Sens pts and 9.0 months in D-Ref pts, however, more D-Sens pts received D1 and D2 LOTs consecutively compared to D-Ref pts (62.0% vs 51.0%). The most common regimen used in D1 was DARA + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (dex; 18.7%) and DARA + bortezomib + dex (18.7%) among D-Sens pts, and DARA + pomalidomide + dex (23.5%) among D-Ref pts. The most common regimen used in D2 was DARA mono (31.3%) in D-Sens pts, and DARA mono (17.6%) and DARA + carfilzomib + dex (17.6%) in D-Ref pts. Overall, 32.0% of D-Sens and 35.3% of D-Ref pts received agents from the same drug class in D1 and D2. The KM median duration of D2 was 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.5-9.5) among D-Sens pts and 6.4 months (95% CI: 3.8-23.5) among D-Ref pts. The proportion of pts that had not received subsequent treatment after D2 was 38.7% and 29.5% at 12 months in the D-Sens and D-Ref groups, respectively. PFS rates at 12 months after D2 initiation were 77.1% in the D-Sens group and 49.4% in the D-Ref group. Conclusion: DARA retreatment is utilized frequently and is effective in the real-world, suggesting the ability to use this approach in subsequent LOTs among pts with RRMM. In the absence of other feasible alternatives, this may be a treatment strategy for patient benefit, regardless of whether they are D-Sens or D-Ref. Future studies are needed to definitively investigate the benefit of DARA retreatment in combination with drugs with novel mechanisms of action.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

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

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved in 2022 for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report outcomes with cilta-cel in the standard-of-care setting. Patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis for cilta-cel manufacturing between 1 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 at 16 US academic medical centers were included. Overall, 255 patients underwent leukapheresis and 236 (92.5%) received cilta-cel, of which 54% would not have met CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria. In treated patients (N = 236), cytokine release syndrome was seen in 75% (grade ≥3, 5%), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 14% (grade ≥3, 4%), and delayed neurotoxicity in 10%. Overall and complete response rates were as follows: all patients who received cilta-cel (N = 236), 89% and 70%; patients receiving conforming cilta-cel (n = 191), 94% and 74%; and conforming cilta-cel with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion (n = 152), 95% and 76%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 10%, most commonly from infection. After a median follow-up of 13 months from cilta-cel, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, with 12-month estimate being 68% (95% confidence interval, 62-74). High ferritin levels, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease were independently associated with inferior PFS, with a signal for prior B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy (P = .08). Second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers were seen in 5.5% and myeloid malignancies/acute leukemia in 1.7%. We observed a favorable efficacy profile of standard-of-care cilta-cel in RRMM, despite more than half the patients not meeting the CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria.

The use of 4-drug induction regimens for treatment naïve newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is associated with improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS). However, head-to-head trials of 4-drug combinations are lacking, and instead, these regimens are typically compared to 3-drug backbones; limiting the ability to discern whether any additional benefit (or toxicity) is simply additive or represents a synergy (or interaction). We conducted a meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that randomized treatment naïve NDMM patients to either a 4-drug or 3-drug induction regimen. We included 11 trials which represented 6509 unique patients. PFS for all trials in the meta-analysis was 54 months with a 4-drug induction and 8.9 months with a 3-drug induction (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.45; 0.54), but there was no benefit to using a 4-drug induction that did not include an anti-CD38 antibody (PFS 4-drug 8.1 months, PFS 3-drug 8.0 months; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86; 1.06). Adverse events were more frequent with the quadruplet regimens but were predominately mild. High-grade (≥3) adverse events (AEs) that were more common with 4-drug regimens were infections (RR: 1.34; 95% CI 1.17; 1.54) and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.39; 95% CI 1.12; 1.74). This study suggests that 4-drug induction regimens which include an anti-CD38 antibody improve efficacy although with additional toxicity in NDMM patients.

Introduction: Lymphodepletion (LD) chemotherapy is critical for the efficacy of CAR-T therapy by eradicating immunosuppressive cells, inducing costimulatory molecules, and promoting expansion and persistence of CAR-T cells. It also can contribute to an increased risk of infections, cytopenia, and other toxicities. We evaluated the utilization of varying LD regimens used in standard-of-care (SOC) autologous B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) CAR-T therapy with ide-cel or cilta-cel for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and the effect on outcomes and toxicity. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RRMM who underwent LD and CAR-T cell infusion by December 31, 2022, from 13 US academic institutions with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel. Response rates and other categorical variables, specifically LD regimen, were tested for association using Wilcoxon rank-sum (or Kruskal-Wallis for three or more groups) or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Results: A total of 523 patients were infused at the time of data cut-off with 489 patients evaluable for safety and survival analyses; 368 (75%) were infused with ide-cel and 121 (25%) with cilta-cel. The median age was 65 years old (range 30-90) with 206 females (42%) and 283 males (58%), and 13% with ECOG performance status ≥ 2 at time of LD. Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) LD was used in 422 patients while 67 patients received other LD regimens including bendamustine-based (n = 35, 52%), cladribine-based (n = 25, 37%) or cyclophosphamide alone (n = 7, 10%). The primary reason for use of Flu/Cy LD was institutional guidance or SOC in 378 patients (90%), while the primary reason for use of other LD regimens was due to the fludarabine shortage in 65 patients (97%) with 3% citing physician's choice or institutional guidance. No significant difference was identified among response outcomes, with those receiving Flu/Cy LD achieving an ORR of 84% compared to 81% with other LD regimens (p = 0.59) and no difference observed in rates of ≥ VGPR (66% Flu/Cy LD vs 60% other LD; p = 0.48). Of those evaluable for MRD at 1 and 3 months, the MRD negative rate at 10 -6 for those with Flu/Cy LD was 77% (n= 137) and 77% (n=113) and with other LD regimens was 66% (n=35) and 79% (n=28), respectively. At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, no statistically significant difference was noted in median progression free survival (mPFS) with Flu/Cy vs other LD regimens (9.3 mos vs NR) or overall survival (OS) (19.4 mos vs NR). When stratified by type of CAR-T therapy, treatment with bendamustine-based LD was associated with an inferior mPFS compared to those receiving Flu/Cy LD in patients treated with ide-cel (3.8 vs 8.5 mos; p=0.0056), though not by multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis of patients treated with ide-cel between Flu/Cy and bendamustine LD did not reveal any significant differences in age, gender, ECOG, R-ISS stage, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics or renal dysfunction (Cr < 45 ml/min). LD regimen was not a predictor for PFS on multivariable analyses amongst patients treated with ide-cel, while ECOG ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR]= 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.40, 14.08) and t(4,14) (HR= 2.02, 95% CI=1.14, 3.59) were associated with worse PFS. No difference in mPFS by LD regimen was observed in patients receiving cilta-cel, which was a smaller cohort (mPFS: Flu/Cy 11.7 mos, bendamustine-based NR, cladribine-based NR, cyclophosphamide NR). Rates of all grade CRS (81% vs 70%), Grade ≥ 3 CRS (3% vs 3%), all grade ICANS (19% vs 12%, and Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (4% vs 2%) were similar among those receiving Flu/Cy or other LD regimens, respectively. Patients receiving Flu/Cy LD were less likely to have any grade cytopenia at 1 month (33% vs 55%, p < 0.001) and 3 months (52% vs 69%, p < 0.001), with no observed difference in infection rate. Conclusions: The fludarabine shortage experienced in the US in late 2022 necessitated the use of alternative LD regimens with BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy with most centers relying on bendamustine- or cladribine-based regimens. Use of bendamustine-based LD was associated with inferior PFS in patients receiving ide-cel on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis after adjusting for other prognostic factors. In summary, there is no clear difference in efficacy or safety between Flu/Cy and non-Flu/Cy LD in patients receiving BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy. *Authors contributed equally

Background: Daratumumab-based combination with proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have revolutionized the treatment outcomes of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Several daratumumab-based triplet combinations have been approved for the management of RRMM, but outcomes of daratumumab-based triplets in patients with high-risk cytogenetics RRMM (HC-RRMM) are not well described in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of daratumumab-based regimens in patients with HC-RRMM who are daratumumab-naïve. Methods: A retrospective review of 110 patients with HC-RRMM who received daratumumab-containing regimens from 6/2016 through 2/2023 at the University of Kansas Medical Center, in collaboration with the U.S Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC) was conducted. Daratumumab was combined with bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd), carfilzomib/dexamethasone (DKd), and pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DPd) for treatment of RRMM. HC-RRMM was defined as patients with one or more cytogenetic abnormalities (on FISH panel) including -17/del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), or amplification of 1q. Responses to therapy including overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR), and very good partial response (VGPR) were evaluated using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient and disease characteristics, along with efficacy outcomes. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of the 110 patients with HC-RRMM, the median age was 66 years (range 43-84), 83 (75%) were Caucasian, 60 (54%) had IgG isotype, 41 (37%) had revised international staging system (R-ISS) stage III disease, 35 (32%) had extramedullary disease (EMD), 57 (52%) patients had one high-risk cytogenetic (HC) abnormality, 49 (44%) had 2 HC abnormalities, while four (4%) had 3 HC abnormalities. The median number of previous lines of therapy was 2 (1-4). Eighty-eight patients (80%) were lenalidomide refractory, while 53 patients (48%) had double refractory disease to both a PI and IMiD treatment. A total of 19 (17%), 27 (25%), and 64 (58%) patients received DVd, DKd, and DPd, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) for the entire patient population was 73%, 45% had VGPR or better, and 35% achieved ≥CR. Median follow-up was 28 months (12.07-53.57), the median OS was 28 months (95% CI 23.2 - 43.9) and PFS was 8.03 months (95% CI 5.8 - 12.2) for all treatment groups. The median PFS for 1 HC vs ³ 2 HC was 14.8 vs 4.57 months (HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.17-2.72 p = 0.006), respectively. Similarly, median OS for 1 HC vs ³ 2 HC was 43.93 vs 22.47 months (HR 1.87, 95%CI 1.15-3.05, p = 0.011), respectively. (Figure 1). On multivariate analysis, R-ISS stage III, -17/del(17p), and the presence of more than one HC abnormality were associated with poor OS. The most common cause for treatment discontinuation was progressive disease, accounting for 73% of patients in the whole cohort. As for each daratumumab-based triplet, discontinuation due progression occurred in 78%, 48%, and 83% in DVd, DKd, and DPd, respectively. Other causes of discontinuation included > grade 3 neuropathy, which occurred in 16% of patients receiving DVd, and cardiac events, which occurred in 11% of patients receiving DKd. Treatment-related mortality occurred in 2% of patients in the whole cohort. At the time of evaluation, 14 patients remain on treatment. Conclusion: Advanced stage R-ISS disease at diagnosis, presence of -17/del(17p), and 2 or more HC abnormalities were associated with poor prognosis reflected by worse PFS and OS in HC-RRMM treated with daratumumab-based therapies. A larger cohort or a prospective study in patients with HC-RRMM is needed to compare long-term outcomes between daratumumab-based therapies (DKd, DVd, and DPd).