Citations

Introduction: Teclistamab (TEC) is a bispecific BCMA-CD3 directed T-cell antibody (BsAb), recently approved by EMA and FDA. Approval was based on the MajesTEC-1 study showing high overall response rates (≥PR in 63.0%) in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM). Few reports have described Real-World experience despite that TEC can induce unique side effects including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity (ICANS) and a high incidence of infection (MajesTEC-1: incidence 76.4%; ≥Gr3: 44.8%). Thus, we performed a Real-World analysis of TEC therapy from 7 International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) associated MM academic centers. Methods: Patients treated with standard-of-care TEC were included. Data was collected until 7/28/2023. Results: 103 pts were included; median age 63 (range 33-91y); 15 pts. (14.5%) >75 yrs; 56.5% were male, 71.8% Caucasian, 11.6% Hispanic, and 12.6% Asian. Pts received a median of 6 PLT (range 1-16); 75% were triple-class-refractory (n=41/52 (79%), 30/85 (35%) had high-risk cytogenetics/FISH and 32/80 (40%) had 1q21 gain. At least 57/76 (75%) of pts would not have been eligible for MajesTEC-1 (mostly from prior BCMA (n=28 CAR-T, n=14 ADC; n=3 BsAb; n=5 CAR-T+ADC). 14 pts had CrCl <30ml/min with 2 on HD. Median number of hospital days was 8 (n= 72) but 31 patients were treated entirely as outpatients (Mayo clinic (MN, AZ, FL)). CRS was seen in 52 (50.4%) (all grade 1: except 6 Gr2, 1 Gr4), generally resolved within 24 hrs and was managed with tocilizumab alone (n= 27) or dex alone (n=9) or dex+toci (n=12). CRS was more common with inpatient (56.9%) vs outpatient (35.4%) TEC Rx. CrCl <30 ml, did not appear to alter the incidence or severity of CRS (50%; 1 Gr4). ICANS was infrequent (n=5; 4.85%), 1 pt with Gr 4-Sz requiring HD-steroids and TEC discontinuation). Infections were common, seen in 54 (52.4%) of patients, the majority were viral URI or CMV reactivation (n=26; 3 pts receiving CMV Rx, 1 pt with CMV organ disease). IVIG was given in 43/67 (64%) pts. The overall response rate for evaluable patients (n=82) was 63%; (sCR/CR 14; VGPR 23; PR 15; MR 2, SD 14; PD 14). In evaluable pts treated with prior BCMA (n=43), the ORR was 53% (sCR/CR 4; VGPR 14; PR 5; 1 MR; SD 10; PD 9). The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was PD (26.2%). 14 pts have died by the time of data cut-off (7/28/23), with the most common cause of death being disease progression. Conclusions: In this Real-World evaluation of TEC, a high ORR was seen, similar to the MajesTEC-1 study. Responses were rapid and are expected to deepen over time (median f/u 5m). CRS rates were similar to MajesTEC-1 and no new toxicity signal was noted. The rates of infection appear low but may be related to short follow-up. Details regarding the incidence and types of infection and the global use of IVIG will be described. With longer follow-up, additional efficacy/toxicity data will be presented.

8037 Background: Both daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are endorsed by NCCN guidelines as preferred regimens for the treatment of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). DRd and VRd have each demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naive comparisons of efficacy across the 2 trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas S0777 enrolled a mixed transplant-not-intended (TNI) population, which included both TIE patients and patients choosing to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). Methods: The present study leveraged individual patient-level data (IPD) from both trials to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison of DRd vs VRd, adjusting for differences in trial eligibility criteria and baseline patient characteristics. Harmonized inclusion criteria (NDMM, age ≥65 years, ECOG performance status ≤2) were applied to both trial populations. Age ≥65 years served as a proxy for TIE status since S0777 enrolled a mixed TNI population. Propensity score (PS) reweighting was used to balance the 2 trial populations on key baseline prognostic factors including age, sex, ISS stage, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin, eGFR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and cytogenetic risk. Missing data were addressed with multiple imputation. After alignment of inclusion criteria and PS reweighting, an anchored indirect comparison was performed wherein within-trial progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) for DRd vs Rd and VRd vs Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for DRd vs VRd. Results: 727 MAIA participants and 198 S0777 participants were eligible for inclusion. After PS reweighting, the trial populations were balanced on the key baseline prognostic factors identified above (standardized difference < 0.1 for each). The adjusted PFS HRs were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.41–0.68; P< 0.0001) for DRd vs Rd in MAIA and 0.88 (0.63–1.23; P= 0.46) for VRd vs Rd in S0777. In the adjusted Rd-anchored indirect comparison, the PFS HR for DRd vs VRd was 0.60 (0.39–0.90; P= 0.02). Conclusions: In this adjusted indirect treatment comparison based on IPD from the MAIA and S0777 trials, PFS was significantly longer for DRd relative to VRd. In the absence of a head-to-head trial comparing DRd and VRd, the present study may help to inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.