Citations

Patients with plasma cell leukemia (PCL) are generally excluded from pivotal T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody (BsAb) trials. We evaluated real-world outcomes in a multicenter retrospective study of 122 patients with primary or secondary PCL across 15 academic centers, categorized as 'active' (≥5% circulating plasma cells within 30 days of BsAb initiation) or 'historical'. In a heavily pretreated population, patients received teclistamab (37%), elranatamab (11%), talquetamab as a line of therapy (Tal LOT, 42%), or talquetamab as bridging therapy to CAR-T (Tal Bridge, 11%). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was grade 1-2 in 56% and grade 3-4 in 4%, whereas neurotoxicity was grade 1-2 in 16% and grade 3-4 in 5%. Among 110 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 55%, including 61% with Tal LOT, 58% with Tal Bridge, 46% with elranatamab, and 33% with teclistamab. With a median follow-up of 8.3 months, talquetamab demonstrated superior survival. Tal LOT showed a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.5 months and a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.5 months, and both were unreached in the Tal Bridge cohort. In contrast, teclistamab and elranatamab showed a mPFS of 1.2 and 1.6 months and mOS of 8.1 and 3.6 months, respectively (P=0.007, P=0.023). In active PCL, Tal LOT achieved mPFS/mOS of 6.9/12.2 months versus 0.7/1.4 months with teclistamab and 1.0/3.1 months with elranatamab, respectively (P<0.001, P=0.002). Multivariable analysis associated active PCL with worse survival and Tal LOT with improved outcomes. BsAbs were safe in PCL, with talquetamab showing superior outcomes compared with BCMA-directed BsAbs.

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with plasma cell leukemia (PCL) were excluded from key trials, so we assessed their outcomes with standard of care bispecific antibodies (BsAbs). Methods Our multicenter retrospective US Myeloma consortium study included PCL pts treated with BsAbs. PCL was defined as ≥5% circulating plasma cells, including primary PCL, secondary PCL, historical PCL, and active PCL within 30 days of BsAb initiation. Endpoints were toxicity rates, overall response (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Our study involved 122 PCL pts from 15 US centers with: 27% primary PCL, 65% secondary PCL, 51% active PCL, 53% women, median age of 65 years (range 31-83), 77% white, 15% black, 60% high-risk cytogenetics, 45% high bone marrow burden (≥50% plasma cells), 5% CNS myelomatosis, and 20% EMD. Median prior lines of therapy (tx) were 6 (IQR 5-9), 94% triple-refractory, 57% penta-refractory, 73% prior transplant, and 57% prior BCMA tx (70% in talquetamab group, 41% in BCMA BsAb group). Treatments included 4 cohorts: 37% teclistamab, 11% elranatamab, 42% talquetamab definitive tx, and 11% talquetamab bridge to CAR-T. BsAb was used either as monotherapy (94%) or in combination (6%) with other agents. CRS grade (G) 1 was 41%, G2 14.8%, G3 2.5%, and G4 1.6%, while ICANS G1 was 8.2%, G2 7.4%, G3 3.3%, and G4 1.6%. Infections occurred in 34% and median hospitalization was 10 days (IQR 8-15). Of 110 evaluable pts, ORR was 54.5%, with 24.5% CR, 13.6% VGPR, and 16.4% PR. The ORR was 60.8% for talquetamab definitive tx (21.6% CR, 23.5% VGPR, 15.7% PR), 46.2% for elranatamab (38.5% CR, 7.7% PR), and 33.3% for teclistamab (20% CR, 4.4% VGPR, 8.9% PR). Talquetamab bridge to CAR-T in 12 evaluable pts had a pre-CAR-T day 30 ORR of 58.3% (16.7% CR, 8.3% VGPR, 33.3% PR). With a median follow-up of 8.3 months (mo), the median (m) PFS was 3.2 mo, and mOS was 9.2 mo, with similar outcomes between primary vs. secondary PCL (p=0.37 for PFS, p=0.18 for OS). Talquetamab definitive tx had better outcomes with a mPFS of 5.5 mo, mOS of 11.5 mo, 10-mo PFS of 31.2%, and 10-mo OS of 55.7%, and further improved when used as a bridge to CAR-T, with unreached mPFS, unreached mOS, 10-mo PFS of 53.8%, and 10-mo OS of 62.7%. BCMA BsAbs had inferior outcomes, with teclistamab yielding a mPFS of 1.2 mo, mOS of 8.1 mo, 10-mo PFS of 15.3%, and 10-mo OS of 44.3%, while elranatamab showed a mPFS of 1.6 mo and mOS of 3.6 mo (p=0.007 for PFS, p=0.023 for OS). In BCMA naive pts, BCMA BsAbs' outcomes remained inferior to talquetamab with a mPFS of 1.2 mo and mOS of 3.4 mo (p=0.003, 0.001). Sixty pts with active PCL had a poor mPFS (1.6 vs. 4.4 mo, p=0.036) and mOS (5.3 vs. 10.7 mo, p=0.004) compared to pts with only historical PCL. However, in active PCL, talquetamab definitive tx (n=29) showed superior outcomes with a mPFS of 6.9 mo and mOS of 12.2 mo (p=0.003, 0.012). Talquetamab bridge to CAR-T (n=3) showed a mPFS of 3.2 mo and mOS of 5.2 mo. BCMA BsAbs had inferior outcomes: teclistamab with a mPFS of 0.7 mo and mOS of 1.4 mo, while elranatamab showed a mPFS of 1.0 mo and mOS of 3.1 mo (p=0.003, 0.012). In BCMA naive pts, BCMA BsAbs' efficacy remained poor with a mPFS of 0.7 mo and mOS of 1.4 mo (p=0.006, 0.002). While in pts with only historical PCL (without active PCL), BCMA BsAbs in BCMA naive pts led to similar outcomes with a mPFS of 5.2 mo and mOS of 8.5 mo, compared to a mPFS of 3.7 mo and mOS of 10.4 mo with talquetamab (p=0.90, 0.86). Multivariable analysis (MVA) associated active PCL with worse PFS (p=0.035, HR=1.93, CI 1.05-3.55) and OS (p=0.017, HR=2.3, CI 1.16-4.60), talquetamab with improved PFS (p=0.009, HR=0.41, CI 0.21-0.81) and OS (p=0.012, HR=0.40, CI 0.19-0.82), and talquetamab bridge to CAR-T with improved PFS (p=0.042, HR 0.28, CI 0.08-0.95) without reaching statistical significance for OS (p=0.11, HR 0.29, HR 0.07-1.3). MVA results remained similar when the talquetamab bridge to CAR-T cohort was excluded. Conclusions Despite PCL's poor prognosis, talquetamab was superior to BCMA BsAbs in active PCL, with a mPFS of 6.9 mo and mOS of 12.2 mo, aligning with the broader cohort. BCMA BsAbs had poor efficacy in active PCL, even in BCMA naive pts, with a mPFS of 0.7 mo and mOS of 1.4 mo. In historical PCL without active PCL, BCMA BsAbs in BCMA-naive pts showed comparable outcomes to talquetamab. In the overall cohort, talquetamab bridge to CAR-T improved PFS without reaching significance for OS benefit in MVA.

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

Abstract Outcomes of bispecific antibodies in patients with renal impairment (RI) are not well characterized, given the exclusion of these patients from clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and RI treated with standard-of-care teclistamab. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) <40 mL/min. CrCl <30 mL/min or dialysis dependence was defined as severe RI. Of the 384 included patients, 81 (21%) had RI, including 45 (18%) with severe RI, and 18 (5%) on dialysis. Patients with RI were more likely to be older (median age, 71 vs 67 years; P = .002) and have a higher median number of previous lines of therapy (7 vs 6; P = .04). Rates and severity of cytokine release syndrome (51% vs 59%; grade ≥3: 1.2% vs 1%) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (16% vs 13%; grade ≥3: 2.5% vs 2.6%) were similar in patients with and without RI, respectively. Patients with RI had higher baseline and day 30 post-teclistamab grade ≥3 anemia and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. Renal function did not worsen after teclistamab initiation in most patients with RI outside of the context of disease progression. Overall response rate (52% vs 56%; P = .61) and survival outcomes (median progression-free survival, 4.6 vs 6.5 months; P = .62) were comparable in patients with and without RI, respectively, after a median follow-up of 9.9 months. No differences in overall survival or non-relapse mortality were noted. Our findings suggest that treatment with teclistamab is feasible in patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with a similar safety and efficacy profile to patients without RI.

PURPOSE Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), two B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compare safety, efficacy, and survival among patients with RRMM treated with standard-of-care (SOC) ide-cel or cilta-cel. METHODS Data were from a retrospective chart review of patients with RRMM leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with the intent to receive SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel at 19 institutions. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type. RESULTS A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with ide-cel (n = 386) and cilta-cel (n = 255). Five hundred eighty-six patients were infused (n = 350 for ide-cel; n = 236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 12.6 and 13.0 months for ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well balanced. Cilta-cel was associated with higher likelihood of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS; odds ratio [OR], 6.80 [95% CI, 2.28 to 20.33]), infections (OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.92]), second primary malignancies (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.89 to 3.56]), and delayed neurotoxicity (OR, 20.07 [95% CI, 4.46 to 90.20]). Cilta-cel was also associated with better treatment responses (≥complete response: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.63 to 3.60]), longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.63]), and longer overall survival (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97]). No associations were observed between therapy type and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenia at days 30 and 90, or nonrelapse mortality. We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time period as Food and Drug Administration approval for cilta-cel (≥March 2022). CONCLUSION Cilta-cel demonstrated superior efficacy and survival, with higher incidence of certain toxicities, compared with ide-cel.

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