Cavo, Michèle

Abstract Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are an effective treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) is a B-cell maturation antigen-targeted CAR T-cell therapy approved for patients with RRMM with ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Developing a better understanding of the relationship between patient age and CAR T-cell therapy outcomes may help guide treatment and clinical practice. This analysis of data from the KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) describes efficacy and safety outcomes in older and younger patients who received either ide-cel or standard therapy regimens. Methods: KarMMa-3 is an open-label, phase 3 trial that includes adults with RRMM who have received 2-4 prior treatment regimens with disease refractory to the last therapy. Enrolled patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either a one-time infusion of ide-cel or 1 of 5 standard regimens. This subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ide-cel compared with standard regimens in KarMMa-3 patients by age group (≥70 vs <70 yrs). Outcome measures assessed include overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and incidence of selected adverse events. Results: A total of 386 patients were evaluated; 19.3% (49/254) of those receiving ide-cel and 20.5% (27/132) of those receiving standard regimens were aged ≥70 yrs. Compared with older patients, younger patients receiving ide-cel exhibited more high-risk baseline characteristics, including high-risk cytogenic abnormalities (44.4% vs 32.7%) and triple-class refractory disease (66.8% vs 55.1%). The median time to progression during the most recent prior anti-myeloma treatment was longer for patients aged ≥70 yrs who received ide-cel vs standard regimens (8.6 mo vs 6.7 mo) but was similar for patients aged <70 yrs (6.5 mo vs 6.9 mo). ORR for patients aged <70 yrs was 68.8% (95% CI: 62.4, 75.1) with ide-cel and 41.0% (95% CI: 31.5, 50.4) with standard regimens (P<0.0001). Patients aged ≥70 yrs treated with ide-cel achieved an ORR of 81.6% (95% CI: 70.8, 92.5) vs 48.1% (95% CI: 29.3, 67.0) with standard regimens (P<0.01). Median PFS for patients aged <70 yrs was longer with ide-cel treatment vs standard regimens (12.5 mo [95% CI: 11.2, 15.4] vs 4.2 mo [95% CI: 3.5, 5.7]; P<0.0001). Similar trends were seen in patients aged ≥70 yrs, where median PFS was 18.9 mo (95% CI: 12.1, 24.5) with ide-cel treatment and 5.7 mo (95% CI: 2.2, 12.2) with standard regimens (P<0.01). Median OS was not reached in older patients in either treatment arm; in younger patients, median OS was 39.5 mo (95% CI: 27.8, NR) with ide-cel and 27.9 mo (95% CI: 20.6, NR) with standard regimens. Incidence of adverse events reported with ide-cel treatment was generally similar between age groups for cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and infections. Analyses of patient-reported QoL data and other relevant safety endpointsare ongoing and will be included in the presentation. Conclusions: In the KarMMa-3 trial, patients aged ≥70 years derived substantial benefit from ide-cel treatment, demonstrated by longer PFS and a notable ORR compared with standard regimens. While efficacy and safety outcomes of ide-cel treatment in older patients were consistent with younger patients, it is important to note that patients in the trial aged ≥70 yrs were more likely to have favorable baseline characteristics and less aggressive and heavily pretreated disease. This may reflect a selection bias towards enrolling older patients considered to be easier to treat. In contrast, real-world data from late-line settings suggest that older patients are undergoing treatment based on less restrictive selection criteria—eg, including those with higher-risk baseline features—reflecting a more representative and broader population. These observations reinforce the potential for durable benefit with a single ide-cel infusion in a real-world context without additional adverse safety signals, supporting its use across age groups.

Despite significant improvements in survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and a significant proportion of patients experience suboptimal outcomes. Importantly, traditional prognostic factors based on data from patients treated with older therapies no longer capture prognosis accurately in the contemporary era of novel triplet or quadruplet therapies. Therefore, risk stratification requires refinement in the context of available and investigational treatment options in routine practice and clinical trials, respectively. The current identification of high-risk MM (HRMM) in routine practice is based on the Revised International Staging System, which stratifies patients using a combination of widely available serum biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities assessed via fluorescence in situ hybridization. In recent years, a substantial body of evidence concerning additional clinical, biological, and molecular/genomic prognostic factors has accumulated, along with new MM risk stratification tools and consensus reports. The International Myeloma Society, along with the International Myeloma Working Group, convened an Expert Panel with the primary aim of revisiting the definition of HRMM and formulating a practical and data-driven consensus definition, based on new evidence from molecular/genomic assays, updated clinical data, and contemporary risk stratification concepts. The Panel proposes the following Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of HRMM which relies upon the presence of at least one of these abnormalities: (1) del(17p), with a cutoff of >20% clonal fraction, and/or TP53 mutation; (2) an IgH translocation including t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) along with 1q+ and/or del(1p32); (3) monoallelic del(1p32) along with 1q+ or biallelic del(1p32); or (4) β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L with normal creatinine (<1.2 mg/dL).

Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and EU for the treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with len-refractory MM after ≥1 line based on the randomized, phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827). At the first interim analysis (15.9-month [mo] median follow-up), cilta-cel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs SoC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26 [protocol-specified weighted analysis]; P&lt;0.0001). At the second interim analysis, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with cilta-cel vs SoC (HR, 0.55; P=0.0009). MRD negativity is a prognostic marker of prolonged survival outcomes for pts with MM. We report MRD negativity, including overall and sustained MRD negativity, overall MRD-negative complete response or better (≥CR), and MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, from the prespecified second interim analysis of CARTITUDE-4. Methods: Eligibility criteria were previously described. Pts were assigned 1:1 to cilta-cel or SoC (pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [PVd]/daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DPd]). Pts in the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis, received bridging therapy (PVd/DPd), and then a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose, 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg) 5-7 days (d) after the start of lymphodepletion. PFS was the primary endpoint; ≥CR rate, overall response rate, overall MRD-negativity rate, and OS were key secondary endpoints. MRD was assessed centrally via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ v2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies). MRD was evaluated at d 56 post infusion in the cilta-cel arm; and in both arms at suspected ≥CR and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo post infusion (cilta-cel arm) or cycle 1 d 1 (SoC arm), as well as yearly until progression/start of subsequent therapy in pts in ≥CR. Sustained MRD negativity (10−5) was defined as confirmed MRD negativity ≥12 mo apart and without MRD positivity in between. Pts were evaluable for sustained MRD negativity if they achieved MRD negativity and had ≥1 evaluable MRD sample ≥12 mo after the first negative result or progressed/died/started subsequent tx &lt;12 mo after the first negative result. Results: 419 pts were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] set; cilta-cel, n=208; SoC, n=211); 176 pts in the cilta-cel arm received cilta-cel as study tx. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up for the study was 33.6 mo. At the 10−5 threshold, 145 pts in the cilta-cel arm and 103 in the SoC arm were evaluable for MRD. MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set and the MRD-evaluable subset were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (ITT, 62% vs 18%; MRD evaluable, 89% vs 38%; both P&lt;0.0001). Across subgroups, cilta-cel vs SoC consistently increased overall MRD-negativity rates (10−5). In the ITT set, 48% of the cilta-cel arm achieved MRD negativity (10−5) by d 56, with the MRD-negative rate rising to 60% by 6 mo post cilta-cel infusion. Overall MRD-negativity rates at the 10−6 threshold in the ITT set were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (57% vs 9%; P&lt;0.0001). In the cilta-cel arm, 119 (57%) pts vs 26 (12%) in the SoC arm achieved overall MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR (P&lt;0.0001). At the 12-mo MRD assessment, 92 (44%) pts in the cilta-cel arm vs 17 (8%) in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001) had MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR. In pts with MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR at mo 12, median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not estimable [NE]-NE) with cilta-cel and 37.8 mo (95% CI, 25.0-NE) with SoC; median OS was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) and NR (95% CI, 37.8 mo-NE), respectively. Sustained MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set were 40% in the cilta-cel arm vs 6% in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001); among 110 and 26 evaluable pts for sustained MRD, sustained MRD-negativity rates were 75% vs 50% (P=0.0159). Among the 176 pts who received cilta-cel as study tx, overall MRD negativity at 10−5 was achieved by 129 (73%) pts (89% of 145 evaluable pts). Conclusions: At 33.6-mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel vs SoC significantly increased overall MRD-negativity rates &gt;3-fold in the ITT set, with pts achieving MRD negativity rapidly post cilta-cel. The prognostic value of MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12 was shown, as median PFS was &gt;3 years in pts with MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, regardless of tx. These data further underscore the benefit of cilta-cel, which led to significant &gt;3-fold increases vs SoC in rates of MRD-negative ≥CR at any time and at mo 12, and sustained MRD negativity. Our MRD data demonstrate higher rates of deep and sustained MRD negativity achieved with cilta-cel vs SoC in tx of len-refractory MM as early as first relapse.

Abstract Outcomes are poor in triple-class–exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P &lt; .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

Introduction: Patients with TCE RRMM have a high disease burden and often report worsening HRQoL with additional lines of therapy. The single-arm, phase 2 KarMMa study demonstrated that ide-cel, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, improved HRQoL from baseline in patients with TCE RRMM who had received ≥ 3 prior regimens (Delforge M, et al. Blood Adv 2022;6:1309-1318). Furthermore, in the phase 3 KarMMa-3 clinical trial (NCT03651128), ide-cel significantly improved progression-free survival and response compared with standard regimens in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014). Here we assessed the comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on HRQoL in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 3-4 prior regimens including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab (an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) using data from the KarMMa-3 study. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. The pre-specified primary domains of interest included EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). PROs were collected at screening (baseline), the day of ide-cel infusion (ide-cel) or first treatment dose (standard regimens), monthly from 2 to 28 months, and thereafter every 3 months. Comparisons were performed on least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through 28 months between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect size was estimated by Hedges' g. The comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and time to confirmed deterioration (defined by prespecified change thresholds) were assessed via stratified Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. All P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple testing. Statistical significance was set at P &lt; 0.05. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced among the patients in the ide-cel arm (n = 167) and the standard regimen arm (n = 93), with a median age of 63 years and a median time of 4.7 years from RRMM diagnosis to study screening. Completion rates of HRQoL assessments were high over time for most visits (&gt; 75%). At baseline, mean HRQoL domain scores were similar between arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to 28 months showed significant differences in favor of ide-cel versus standard regimens (nominal P &lt; 0.05) for 11 domains (effect sizes of 0.26-0.82), and 7 (4 primary: global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, pain, EQ-5D VAS; 3 secondary: dyspnea, insomnia, constipation) of them exceeded the prespecified MID thresholds (Table). Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter (nominal P &lt; 0.05) in the ide-cel arm than in the standard regimen arm for 10 domains, including all primary domains except pain. Time to confirmed deterioration was longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimen arm for most domains, with significant differences in emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, and dyspnea (EORTC QLQ-C30). Finally, side effects of treatment favored the ide-cel versus standard regimen arm (EORTC QLQ-MY20) (Table). Conclusions: These patient-reported findings demonstrate that compared with standard regimens, treatment with ide-cel improved MM-relevant disease symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL of patients with TCE RRMM in the KarMMa-3 trial. These data further substantiate the superior treatment outcomes of ide-cel over standard regimens in this patient population. Overall, treatment with ide-cel may help alleviate detriments to HRQoL in these patients with complex disease.

Background: An interim analysis (data cutoff date April 18, 2022) of the international, open-label, phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) showed the chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) significantly improved progression-free survival and treatment response rates, as well as HRQoL, as compared with standard regimens, in patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014; Delforge M, et al., HemaSphere, 2023;7(S3):P905). The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens (daratumumab [DARA], pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DEX]; DARA, bortezomib, and DEX; ixazomib, lenalidomide, and DEX; carfilzomib and DEX; or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and DEX) on HRQoL in KarMMa-3 trial participants with an extended follow-up of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data collection (data cutoff date April 28, 2023). Methods: In KarMMa-3, HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. HRQoL assessments were completed at screening (baseline); the day of ide-cel infusion or the first dose of standard treatment; and monthly from 2 to 28 months; and every 3 months thereafter. The prespecified primary outcomes of interest were EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through month 25 for ide-cel and standard regimens were compared by constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect sizes were estimated by Hedges' g. The effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and deterioration in HRQoL (defined by prespecified change thresholds and sustained duration) were compared by stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no adjustment for multiple testing, and all P values reported are nominal. Results: Overall, 254 patients were randomized to the ide-cel arm and 132 to the standard regimens arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms; both arms had a median age of 63 years, a median of 3 prior anti-myeloma regimens, and median time from MM diagnosis to screening was 4 years. The baseline HRQoL scores were generally comparable between treatment arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to month 25 showed significant differences (nominal P value &lt; 0.05) in favor of ide-cel for 18 out of 21 HRQoL domains, with effect sizes (Hedges' g) of 0.27 to 0.82 (Table). For 13 of these domains (including 6 primary domains of interest), the difference in overall LS mean change from baseline exceeded the prespecified minimum important difference (MID) threshold. Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for 19 domains, including all primary domains of interest (Table). Time to confirmed deterioration showed trends of being longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for most domains and was significantly longer for emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, dyspnea, and constipation as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. The time to confirmed deterioration in side effects of treatment (based on the EORTC QLQ-MY20) was significantly longer for patients in the ide-cel arm and time to confirmed improvement was significantly faster, as compared with the standard regimens arm (Table). Conclusions: In the KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens, ide-cel significantly and meaningfully improved MM-relevant symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL compared with standard regimens. Confirmed HRQoL improvements in the ide-cel arm occurred sooner than standard regimens. PRO improvements were sustained over more than 2 years, which is notable after a single infusion treatment with ide-cel. These patient-reported findings further support the benefit of ide-cel in this patient population.

Introduction A single ide-cel infusion showed significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) vs std regimens (13.3 vs 4.4 months [mo], HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, P &lt; 0.001) with deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated TCE RRMM at an interim analysis (IA) of KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128); safety data were consistent with prior studies (Rodríguez-Otero et al. NEJM 2023). Ide-cel benefits were consistent across pts in high-risk subgroups and across 2-4 prior lines of therapy (Tx). Results of the preplanned final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3 with 12.3 mo additional follow-up are reported. Methods In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, pts with RRMM who received 2-4 prior regimens, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab, and were refractory to last regimen were randomized 2:1 to ide-cel or a std regimen (DPd, DVd, IRd, Kd, or EPd). In the ide-cel arm, pts could receive ≤ 1 cycle of optional bridging Tx for disease control. Pts in the std regimens arm could receive ide-cel after confirmed disease progression (PD). The primary endpoint was IRC-assessed PFS in the ITT population; final PFS was planned to be analyzed with ~289 events. Key secondary endpoints were IRC-assessed overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); other secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) status, time to next anti-myeloma Tx (TTNT; time from randomization to next anti-myeloma Tx [MTx]), event-free survival (EFS; time from randomization to first PD, next MTx or any-cause death, whichever is first), PFS2 (time from randomization to second objective PD or any-cause death, whichever is first), safety, and health-related quality of life (QOL). Results Of 386 randomized pts (ide-cel, n = 254; std regimens, n = 132), 225 received ide-cel and 126 received a std regimen. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. Median follow-up from randomization to data cutoff (April 28, 2023) was 30.9 mo (range 12.7-47.8). Ide-cel significantly improved median PFS (95% CI) vs std regimens (13.8 [11.8-16.1] vs 4.4 [3.4-5.8] mo), representing a 51% reduced risk of PD or death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.63; Figure); 18 mo PFS rates were 41% vs 19%, respectively. Ide-cel significantly improved ORR vs std regimens (71% vs 42%) with deeper (CRR 44% vs 5%; ≥CR and MRD negative status [sensitivity level 10 -5], 22% vs 1%), more durable responses (median DOR 16.6 vs 9.7 mo; Table). PFS and ORR benefits of ide-cel vs std regimens were consistent with the IA. Interim OS will be included in the presentation. In pts who received ide-cel (n = 225) or a std regimen (n = 126), median PFS (95% CI) was 15.7 (12.5-18.9) vs 4.4 (3.4-5.8) mo, respectively. In the ITT population, median TTNT, EFS, and PFS2 were numerically longer with ide-cel vs std regimens. Median (range) TTNT was 20.9 (16.6-24.2) vs 7.0 (5.3-8.5) mo. Median (95% CI) EFS was 13.3 (11.3-15.7) vs 3.9 (3.0-5.3) mo. Median PFS2 (95% CI) was 23.5 (18.4-27.9) vs 16.7 (12.2-20.3) mo; ide-cel was next MTx in 70 (53%) pts in the std regimens arm. In the treated population, grade (gr) 3/4 infections occurred in 66/249 (27%) pts in the ide-cel arm vs 25/126 (20%) in the std regimens arm. In the ide-cel safety population, any gr cytokine release syndrome occurred in 197/225 (88%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 11 (5%); median time to first onset was 1 d (1-14), median duration was 4 d (1-51). Any gr investigator-identified neurotoxicity occurred in 34/225 (15%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 7 (3%); median time to onset was 3 d (range 1-317); median duration was 2.5 d (range 1-252). Ide-cel continued to demonstrate durable, clinically meaningful improvements in pt-reported outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, and QOL vs std regimens. Conclusions In this final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3, significantly longer PFS was maintained with ide-cel; PD or death risk reduced by 51%; responses were deeper and more durable vs std regimens. CRR with ide-cel increased since the IA, indicating a deepening response, but were unchanged with std regimens. A single ide-cel infusion vs continuous treatment with std regimens resulted in longer median TTNT and PFS2, indicating improved long-term disease control. The ide-cel safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no parkinsonism or Guillain-Barré syndrome reported. These data continue to support use of ide-cel in pts with TCE RRMM. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.