Back to Authors

Cowan, Andrew J

0000-0002-1880-7094

Mayo Clinic

BC Cancer, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Citations 3

Leveraging AI to Evaluate Minimal Residual Disease Endpoint Surrogacy in Multiple Myeloma

Cancer Research Communications | May 2, 2026 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1206-1212

10.1158/2767-9764.crc-25-0393 | PMID 42068235

Abstract Minimal residual disease (MRD) has been endorsed by the FDA Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee as an endpoint for accelerated approval in multiple myeloma based on individual patient data collected from randomized trials. However, emerging data from recent trials were not included. A novel artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted framework is proposed, which automates information identification and extraction, providing up-to-date analyses that confirm moderate trial-level and strong individual patient–level associations between MRD− rates at suspected complete response (MRD-CR) and survival endpoints in multiple myeloma. Specifically, this study utilized an AI-assisted framework that identifies relevant studies and filters critical information to analyze published data via 2 independent objectives. First, we examined the trial-level association using the coefficients of determination (R2) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on published statistics of treatment effects on MRD and various endpoints. Next, we generated synthetic individual patient data with covariates through AI-curated tools to estimate the individual-level association. The AI tool searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCT). A total of 20 two-arm comparisons from 19 RCTs were analyzed. Trial-level analysis showed an R2 of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52–0.89) pooling disease subpopulations. Furthermore, AI techniques were applied to create synthetic individual data, combining information extracted from Kaplan–Meier curves and subgroup analyses from published literatures. Using generated synthetic data, we estimated the individual-level correlation between MRD-CR rates and progression-free survival outcomes with a bivariate copula model and calculated a global odds ratio of 7.28 (95% CI, 5.60–8.95). Significance: (i) A novel AI-assisted framework is proposed, which automates information identification and extraction, providing rapid up-to-date analyses. (ii) Moderate trial-level and strong individual patient–level associations between MRD and various clinical endpoints in multiple myeloma are confirmed.
Functional high‐risk phenotype predicts poor survival in multiple myeloma independent of front‐line treatment: A secondary analysis of CIBMTR data

British Journal of Haematology | April 23, 2026 | Volume: 208 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 2134-2142

10.1111/bjh.70490 | PMID 42023513

Summary Functional high‐risk (FHR) multiple myeloma (FHRMM) is often defined as progression within 12–24 months of front‐line autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). For patients with early progression after suboptimal front‐line therapies, it is challenging to assign the disease progression to a true FHR phenotype versus less effective front‐line therapy. In this study, we combined data from three Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research studies (MM18‐02, MM19‐01 and MM20‐03). We included patients who received front‐line AHSCT between 2008 and 2018 and had progression <12 (FHR12, n = 465), <18 (FHR18, n = 672) or <24 months (FHR24, n = 853) after AHSCT. We classified induction therapy as standard lenalidomide‐containing triplets (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [VRD]/carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [KRD]) versus other (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone [VTD]/bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone [VCD]/bortezomib, dexamethasone [VD]/lenalidomide, dexamethasone [RD]) and studied the impact of front‐line therapy on post‐FHR overall survival (OS). In the FHR12 cohort (follow‐up 48 months), the OS after VRD/KRD ( n = 238) was 21 versus 17 months with other regimens ( n = 227, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6–1.06). In a multivariable model, the HR for OS was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.7–1.3, p = 0.69) for VRD/KRD versus other regimens. There was no significant interaction between type of first‐line (1L) therapy and time from 1L AHSCT to first relapse in predicting OS. Similar results were seen for FHR18 and FHR24. FHRMM remains a negative prognostic factor irrespective of front‐line therapy and warrants consideration of T‐cell engagers' second‐line therapy.
Real-World Experience with Teclistamab for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma from the US Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium

Blood Cancer Discovery | July 9, 2025 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 561-571

10.1158/2643-3230.bcd-24-0354 | PMID 40629516

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