Citations

In this 5-year follow-up from the CheckMate 743 study in patients with unresectable pleural mesothelioma (PM), we evaluated updated efficacy and safety outcomes and biomarkers and performed treatment-switching analyses with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 66.8 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated continued overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in all randomly assigned patients (5-year OS rates, 14% v 6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.88]); similar benefit was observed regardless of tumor histology. Of biomarker-evaluable patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 242), high baseline monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (M-MDSC) levels correlated with worse OS versus low M-MDSC levels (HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43]). After adjusting for 24% of patients in the chemotherapy arm who received subsequent immunotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated continued OS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78]). No new safety signals were observed. These results demonstrate long-term, durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy, which continued to be preserved even after treatment-switching adjustment in the chemotherapy arm. Exploratory analyses suggested greater benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the low M-MDSC subgroup. These results further support first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab as standard of care for unresectable PM.

Background Cysteine–cysteine chemokine receptors 2 (CCR2) and 5 (CCR5) contribute to immune suppression in tumor microenvironments. CCR2 and CCR5 antagonists have demonstrated antitumor activity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. This phase 1b/2, open-label study evaluated BMS-813160, a CCR2/5 dual antagonist, in combination with chemotherapy±nivolumab in advanced PDAC or metastatic CRC. Methods Part 1 included patients with metastatic untreated (first-line (1L)) PDAC, 1L CRC, or previously treated (second or third line (2/3L)) microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC. Patients received 2 weeks of BMS-813160 monotherapy (300 mg two times a day, 600 mg once daily, 300 mg once daily, or 150 mg once daily) and then BMS-813160+chemotherapy (gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (gem/nabP; 1L PDAC), 5-fluorouracil+leucovorin+irinotecan (FOLFIRI; 1L CRC)), or nivolumab (2/3L MSS CRC). Part 2 included patients with metastatic 1L PDAC or 2L CRC. Patients received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab (1L PDAC), BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day or 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI (2L CRC), or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics (Part 1) and efficacy (Part 2). Results In Part 1, 22 of 75 (29%) and 54 of 72 (72%) patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event during monotherapy lead-in and overall, respectively. Two dose-limiting toxicities (rash and pericardial effusion with pericarditis, both grade 3) occurred. In Part 2, patients with 1L PDAC who received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 37% (13/35); the median duration of response (DOR) was 45 weeks (95% CI 26.1 to not evaluable). ORRs with BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP and gem/nabP alone were 26% (9/35) and 28% (9/32), respectively; median DORs were 121 and 31 weeks, respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 24 weeks were 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab), 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP), and 50% (gem/nabP). ORRs in 2L CRC were 19% (6/32; BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+FOLFIRI), 13% (4/32; BMS-813160 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI), and 27% (7/26; FOLFIRI). Conclusions In 1L PDAC, BMS-813160 300 two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab demonstrated durable antitumor response and was well tolerated. BMS-813160 combination regimens were tolerable in other cohorts, but clinical efficacy was not demonstrated. Trial registration number NCT03184870 .

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy enriched for a memory-like phenotype may persist and function longer than a nonenriched product, thereby improving duration of response (DOR). We conducted a phase I study with bb21217 (NCT03274219), an anti–B-cell maturation antigen CAR T-cell therapy manufactured in the presence of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor bb007 to enrich for T cells with a memory-like phenotype, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (N = 72). No new safety concerns were raised with bb21217 therapy (three cases each of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome and grade ≥3 neurotoxicity were observed). The objective response rate was 69.4% and the median DOR was 23.8 (95% confidence interval, 16.8–34.8) months. Analysis of the drug product established an association between early memory phenotype and robust expansion and depth of response. Examination of baseline characteristics indicated that tumor burden and prior therapies influenced DOR. The data indicate that generation of CAR T cells early in a disease course when tumor burden is lower and source material exhibits a more naïve phenotype may maximize the clinical benefit potential of the drug product.

Abstract Background We aimed to describe the real-world durability of clinical and endoscopic outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed an ongoing multi-center cohort of UC patients(pts) in the United States who were started on UPA for active disease. Primary outcome was clinical remission at 1yr assessed by partial Mayo score(pMS)(resolution of all UC related symptoms and physician global assessment). Secondary outcomes assessed at various timepoints, including after re-escalation, included clinical response(>50%reduction in symptoms utilizing the pMS), endoscopic response (Mayo endoscopic score≤1or absence of erosions/ulcerations) and histological remission(defined as normal or chronic inactive). Durable secondary outcomes achieved at both 6months and at 1yr and beyond were also assessed. Descriptive statistics were performed. Adverse events(AEs) investigated included cardiovascular events and herpes zoster (HZ). Results 416pts were included(Table 1) with median values for age at initiation of36.00yrs(range27-48), disease duration7.00yrs(range3-14)and follow-up 993days(IQR,672-1103), with206(49.52%)with follow-up at 1yr or beyond. Of these, 66.1%had extensive colitis. Induction duration was8wks in 86.5%and16wks in 4.8 %(20/416). Most received an induction dose of45mg(97.1%)and maintenance dose of30mg(85.8%). Among the evaluable population at1yr and beyond, 62.5%(45/80)were in clinical remission, 75.9%(22/29)in endoscopic response with58.6%(17/29) in remission and66.6%(20/30)in histological remission. At 6months, clinical remission was51.6%(42/93), endoscopic response was 75%(24/32) of which43.75%(14/32)were in remission and histologic remission was seen in 40.8%(20/49).Durable secondary outcomes of clinical remission were seen in 71.4%(30/42), endoscopic improvement in 45.8%(11/24), and histologic remission in35%(7/20). Re-escalation to 45mg occurred in 35pts, of which48.6%(17/35)were re-escalated due to incomplete induction clinical response with all achieving response(11 in remission). The rest(18/35)were re-escalated for clinical relapse after initial remission where72.2%(13/18)were able to recapture remission. After re-escalation,54.3%(19/35)continued on 45mg daily. AEs were reported in12.7%with HZ in 7pts(2.1%). One pt aged53yrs had an episode of TIA after 1yr on UPA at 15mg, without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and UPA use is ongoing at the same dose. There were no reported episodes of worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or DVT/PE. Conclusion UPA is durably effective and safe in a real-world clinical setting with re-escalation to 45mg capturing response in a majority of the pts. Ongoing recruitment will provide further evidence on long term effectiveness and safety. Conflict of interest: Ms. Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Chandnani, Arun: No conflict of interest Samaan, Sami: None Tan, Tingyi: I have no conflict of interests to declare. Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Conlon, Caroline: No conflict of interest Klein, Jeremy: None Reddy, Nikhil: No conflict of interest Ayoub, Malek: None Cervantes Limon, Gabriela: none Myers, Melissa: None Bucaram, Martha: No conflict of interest Lieto, Stephen: No conflict of interest Scalzo, Nicholas: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: Abbvie - consulting and speaking ALPCO - consulting J & J Innovative Medicine - consulting Takeda - consulting and speaking Emmes Biopharma Services LLC - DSMB Pfizer - consulting Mohamed, Islam: nothing to declare Ciorba, Matthew: Advisory Board: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Consulting: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Grant contracts: Janssen, Pfizer, Incyte Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Wright, Michael: None Xu, An Tao: No conflict of interest Chowla, Navreet: No conflict of interest Ogholikhan, Sina: Abbvie Medical Director Kujawski, Michelle: Abbvie Scientific Director Dulaney, David: Speaker bureau - Regeneron Speaker bureau - Sanofi Speaker bureau - Takeda Speaker bureau - Eli Lilly Fenster, Marc: none Benson, Caroline: No conflict of interest Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Berinstein, Jeffrey: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.

Multiplex immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry (mIF/IHC) are increasingly employed antibody-based technologies that use tissue sparingly and facilitate the detection of co-localized or neighboring biomarkers. Specifically, these platforms enable spatial analyses of the tumor microenvironment as well as extended applications, for example, describing normal tissue anatomy, autoimmunity, infectious diseases, etc. mIF/IHC has greatly enhanced biomarker discovery efforts, and a growing number of studies suggest superiority to traditional IHC. Standardization of staining approaches, reporting of image analysis strategies and resultant data is critical for facilitating cross-study comparisons, validation, deployment, and generalization of findings. To address this challenge, The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) previously published two articles providing best practice guidelines for mIF/IHC staining, image analysis, and data sharing. Here, SITC convened stakeholders to develop the third article in the series, a consensus checklist for scientific reporting of mIF/IHC data to support and complement the best practice guidelines. The checklist includes critical components of mIF/IHC applications to be defined within publications such as detailed descriptions of analytical validation; image acquisition, selection, and registration methods; and cell clustering and spatial analysis strategies, amongst others. Such information will help with data reproducibility and comparison across studies towards future drug and assay development.

ABSTRACT Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) and T-cell engager (TCE) therapies targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) are transforming the treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite impressive initial response rates, most patients eventually relapse. To investigate this unmet medical need, we applied whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to MM cells from cohorts of 102 relapsed patients treated with anti-BCMA CART and TCE therapies. Several genomic alterations were associated with clinical outcomes, particularly primary refractoriness, including high genomic complexity and mutations in genes regulating plasma cell identity, which predicted resistance to therapy. Single-cell RNA sequencing further revealed that MM cells from refractory patients exhibited high proliferation signatures and reduced expression of TNFRSF17 (encoding BCMA), while were less enriched for plasma cell–associated transcriptional programs, a phenomenon we term “plasma cell identity escape.” This profile was strongly associated with immune dysregulation of CD8 T cells including increased activation and exhaustion. This evolution of MM toward a more proliferative and lineage-divergent state, refractory to the anti-BCMA T-cell redirecting therapies, was functionally validated in preclinical MM mouse models. Collectively, our results comprehensively define the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying primary resistance to anti-BCMA therapies.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have historically experienced poor clinical outcomes, prompting the development of novel therapeutic options. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for this population, while teclistamab became the first approved bispecific antibody. Both target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and are increasingly used in real-world (RW) settings. Most comparative evidence to date is derived from single-arm clinical trials with cross-trial adjustments. RW studies offer an opportunity to directly compare these therapies and assess their relative effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of ide-cel and teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM using RW data from the United States Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived, deidentified database (January 2011 to April 2025 data cut). Adults who received either index therapy at any line of treatment after becoming TCE (ie, previously exposed to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) were included. Exclusion criteria were prior exposure to CAR T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, or belantamab mafodotin; absence of index treatment; or lack of post-index follow-up. Index dates (T0) represent the date of infusion for ide-cel and the start of treatment for teclistamab. Seventeen prognostic covariates were selected a priori based on published rankings and used to balance treatment groups via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with average treatment effect weights. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate unadjusted and IPTW-adjusted HRs with 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). As the ide-cel cohort only included infused patients, additional analyses were performed to emulate a real-world intention-to-treat population given the potential immortal time bias (patients in the ide-cel cohort were required to survive between apheresis and infusion). Specifically, patients in the teclistamab cohort who died within the first 24 days (median turnaround time for ide-cel manufacturing in United States in 2024) were excluded and 2 scenarios were performed to re-align T0 based on this 24-day period (either shifting teclistamab T0 forward or ide-cel T0 backward). Lastly, sensitivity analyses assessed differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST) at 12 and 24 months. Results: A total of 281 patients met the inclusion criteria (ide-cel, N=106; teclistamab, N=175), with median follow-up of 22.4 and 13.7 months, respectively. IPTW adjustment balanced all covariates between groups (effective sample size: ide-cel, n=68; teclistamab, n=135). Adjusted analyses showed improved PFS with ide-cel versus teclistamab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97), with median PFS of 11.3 versus 6.5 months. OS was also improved with ide-cel (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35–0.98); median OS was not reached in either group due to insufficient follow-up. There was a consistent trend of HRs favoring ide-cel versus teclistamab for both PFS and OS in both scenario analyses addressing the potential immortal time bias. Further, sensitivity analyses using dRMST confirmed statistically significant improvements in both PFS and OS with ide-cel across all scenarios at all time points evaluated. Conclusions: In this RW analysis, ide-cel was associated with superior PFS and OS compared with teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM. These findings support emerging RW evidence favoring BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapies over bispecific antibodies and may inform treatment sequencing decisions in this high-risk population.

Abstract BACKGROUND Children exposed to poverty during frontline therapy for B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) experience inferior overall survival (OS), higher relapse rates, and earlier relapse than their peers. Real-world data describing treatment patterns and survival after relapse of B-ALL are lacking and, as a result, the impact of poverty following relapse remains poorly understood. This study evaluated the association of poverty exposure, proxied by insurance status, with post-relapse survival and explored potential explanatory mechanisms, including disease biology and therapy utilization. METHODS Data from Retrospective Study of Contemporary Approaches to First Relapse in B-ALL (ReCALL-1), a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients < 30 years old with first relapse of B-ALL from 2018-2022, were used. The primary exposure was poverty, proxied by insurance status at relapse, categorized as any private insurance (poverty unexposed), public-only insurance (poverty exposed), no insurance, or unknown; the latter two were not included in comparative analyses due to low numbers. The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative second complete remission (CR2), relapse after CR2, non-relapse mortality (NRM), with relapse treated as a competing risk, and receipt of cellular and immunotherapies. RESULTS Among 462 patients from 31 U.S. institutions, 41% had private insurance, 47% public-only insurance, 2% no insurance, and 10% unknown. Compared to privately insured patients, those with public insurance were more likely to be Hispanic (56% vs 19%, p<0.001) and have non-English preferred language (30% vs 6%, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients comprised 9% of those with public insurance and 5% of those with private insurance. Disease characteristics that differed by insurance status at relapse included: Ph-like cytogenetics, more common in publicly insured (23% vs 11%, p=0.002), and infant ALL, more common in privately insured patients (10% vs 5%, p=0.06). Publicly insured patients were more likely to have experienced major organ toxicity during frontline therapy (32% vs 18%, p=0.002) and very early relapse (<18m from diagnosis: 43% vs 32%, p=0.07). Other demographic and disease characteristics, including relapse site and cytomolecular features, were similar by insurance status. With a median follow-up of 51 months from relapse, 4-year OS differed by insurance (log-rank p=0.02): 72% for private vs 56% for public insurance. After adjusting for race/ethnicity and language, public insurance increased the hazard of death by 65% (aHR 1.65 95% CI 1.13-2.42, p=0.004). The association remained, but was attenuated, when unbalanced disease characteristics (time to relapse, infant ALL, Ph-like cytogenetics, prior organ dysfunction) were included (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16, p=0.05). Rates of MRD-negative CR2 were similar (85% public vs 87% private). However, point estimates suggested publicly insured patients had more relapse after CR2 (44% vs 37%, p=0.42) and higher 4-year NRM (16% vs 10%, Gray's test p=0.12), though neither were significant. Treatment choices for first relapse did not differ by insurance status. Utilization of intensive reinduction (91% vs 95% for public vs private, p=0.18) and clinical trial enrollment (22% for both) were similar. Receipt of cellular therapies did not significantly differ by public vs private insurance: Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T cells (CAR-T: 38% vs 34%, p=0.41), hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT: 42% vs 47%, p=0.32). Use of blinatumomab trended higher in those with private insurance (36% vs 45%, p=0.07), and inotuzumab was similar (11% for both, p=0.87). Median time from relapse to CAR-T or HCT was comparable (to CAR-T 102 vs 100 days, to HCT 117 vs 114 days). CONCLUSION This is the first study to demonstrate differential survival by insurance type, a proxy for poverty exposure, after first relapse of B-ALL. In this large multicenter, real-world cohort, patients with public insurance had worse OS after relapse than those with private insurance. The survival disparity existed independent of other SDOH factors. Adjustment for known high-risk disease features only partially accounted for the observed differences in OS. In contrast, rates of MRD-negative CR2 and receipt of CAR-T and HCT were comparable across insurance types. These findings highlight the urgent need to identify effective interventions that will ensure equitable outcomes after relapse.