Citations

ABSTRACT Talquetamab is a GPRC5D × CD3 bispecific antibody approved for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This is the first real‐world study to comprehensively report muco‐cutaneous toxicities, infections, and efficacy of talquetamab in 151 patients across five countries with the longest follow‐up reported enabling better efficacy and toxicity estimates. The median age was 64 years; high‐risk cytogenetics were present in 42%; ECOG ≥ 2 in 22%; 12% had creatinine clearance < 30; and 55% would not have met MonumenTAL‐1 eligibility. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, 53% were penta‐refractory, and 75% received prior BCMA therapy. Talquetamab was associated with skin toxicity in 39.7%, nail toxicity in 75.5%, dysgeusia in 60.4%, and oral toxicities in 62.9%, with grade ≥ 3 events uncommon (≤ 4%) and dose interruptions infrequent (9.6% for skin toxicity, 6.9% for dysgeusia, and 4.0% for oral toxicities). These findings underscore the need for improved supportive care for muco‐cutaneous toxicities. In multivariate analysis, only platelet count < 50 (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.15–2.83) was associated with inferior PFS, while penta‐refractory status, absolute lymphocyte count < 0.4, and prior BCMA‐targeted therapy were not statistically significant. With a median follow‐up of 12.7 months, the overall response rate was 67.6%, median progression‐free survival was 7 months, and 12‐month overall survival was 65%. This study shows that talquetamab efficacy is maintained in a heavily pretreated real‐world population with high prior BCMA exposure and notable comorbidity burden.

Abstract Introduction: The GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) Talquetamab (Talq) has shown promising results for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the MonumenTAL-1 clinical trial (Chari et al. NEJM 2022). However, there are limited data on the use of Talq in the real-world setting. Methods: All pts with RRMM who started Talq between 8/2023-3/2025 across 15 US academic centers were included. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain/amplification 1q21. Time-to-event analyses were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicities including CRS and ICANS were graded using CTCAE v5.0 or ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 484 pts were included, with a median age of 65 years (range 35-89), and 83 pts (17%) were aged ≥75 years. 20% of pts were black. 21% had baseline CrCl&lt;40, 65% had HRCA and 29% had &gt;1 HRCA (i.e Ultra high-risk MM). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (IQR 4, 8). 50% were penta-refractory, 69% received at least one prior BCMA-directed therapy (46% CART; 32% BsAb). Prior to initiation of Talq, 11 pts (2%) had CNS MM, 29 (6%) had PCL and 126 (26%) had true extramedullary disease (EMD). 70% would have been ineligible for the MonumenTAL-1 trial. For most pts (n=405; 84%) the dosing strategy from Cycle 2 was 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. and the 0.4 mg/Kg weekly dosing was used in 28 patients (6%). In 6% of pts, an additional drug was added to Talq, mostly pomalidomide (n=20) or daratumumab (n=10). 101 pts (21%) received Talq as bridging for CART. Median duration of Talq treatment was 102 days. 62% developed CRS (Grade ≥3, 2%; including one Grade 5 event). 15% developed ICANS (Grades 3-4, 4%). Steroids were used in 213 patients (44%), tocilizumab in 145 (30%) and anakinra in 9 (2%). 22 patients (5%) required ICU stay during the first cycle, for a median of 6 days (range 1-31). A total of 200 pts (41%) had infections (median 1 infection each, range 1-6), including 99 (20%) with bacterial infections, 113 (23%) viral infections and 21 (4%) fungal infections. IVIG was used in 261 pts (54%). 79% of patients (n=384) developed Talq-related oral toxicity, 55% (n=269) skin toxicity and 199 (41%) nail toxicity. 157 patients died after a median follow up of 11.5 months (mos), and the leading causes of death were MM progression (n=120) and infection (n=10). 8 pts (1.7%) developed invasive second primary malignancies. The ORR was 73%, including 46% ≥VGPR. The median PFS (mPFS) for the entire cohort was 7.8 mos (95% CI 6.9-9.4) and the 12 months PFS rate was 39%. The median OS had not been reached and the 12 months OS rate was 63%. For pts who would have been eligible for MonumenTAL-1, the mPFS was 12.2 mos (95% CI 9.7 – not reached (NR); for trial-ineligible pts, the mPFS was 6.9 mos (5.8 – 8.0; p=0.003). For BCMA-naive pts, the mPFS was 15.7 mos (11.8-NR); for BCMA-exposed pts, the mPFS was 6.8 mos (6.0-7.8; p=0.0002). For patients who received Talq as bridging prior to CART, the median PFS was NR (14.1 – NR); for those who did not receive Talq as bridging the mPFS was 6.5 mos (5.3-7.6; p&lt;0.0001). In multivariable analyses, worse OS and PFS were associated with trial ineligibility [(HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03-1.86; p=0.03) and (2.33, 1.31-4.14; p=0.004)], BMI&lt;30 [(1.42,1.06-1.89; p=0.02) and (1.50, 1.01-2.22; p=0.045)] and true EMD at baseline [(1.95, 1.49-2.56; p&lt;0.001) and (1.65, 1.16-2.36; p=0.005). On the other hand, use of Talq as bridging to CART was associated with better PFS (0.27, 0.17-0.43; p&lt;0.001) and OS (0.13, 0.05-2.56; p&lt;0.001). Ultra high-risk MM (1.40, 1.06-1.84; p=0.02) and baseline albumin &lt;3 (1.68, 1.18-2.37; p=0.004) were associated with worse PFS; ECOG ≥2 (1.68, 1.18-2.40; p=0.004), and baseline Plt&lt;50K (2.14, 1.48-3.10; p&lt;0.0001) was associated with worse OS. Conclusions: In this large real-world analysis of 484 Talq recipients, the ORR was comparable to MonumenTAL-1 but the median PFS was shorter. This likely reflects differences in patient selection, with 70% of patients in our cohort being trial-ineligible. Patients who received Talq as pre-CAR-T bridging had superior survival outcomes. Rates of toxicities were similar to MonumenTAL-1, including &gt;70% of patients developing dysgeusia.

Abstract Introduction: Bispecific T-cell engagers (TCE) targeting BCMA (teclistamab, elranatamab) and GPRC5D (talquetamab) are important therapeutic options in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). However, data on the independent prognostic impact of individual cytogenetic abnormalities and functional high-risk MM on outcomes with TCEs remains limited. Methods We included RRMM patients treated with BCMA TCEs (teclistamab, elranatamab) and talquetamab across 15 centers in the US. Patients where TCEs were used only as bridging therapy to CAR-T were excluded. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) included del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), 1q gain/amplification (1q21+), del(1p) before initiation of TCE. Functional high-risk disease (FHRMM) was defined as PFS &lt;18 months with frontline therapy. Extramedullary disease (EMD) included visceral or soft tissue disease and excluded paraskeletal disease. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated from TCE initiation using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of PFS in the entire cohort and the subcohorts of BCMA TCEs and talquetamab (Talq). Results We analyzed 943 treatment initiations with TCEs in RRMM, comprising 577 BCMA-directed TCEs [teclistamab (n=436) and elranatamab (n=141)] and 366 talquetamab initiations. The median follow-up from TCE initiation was 13.4 months (95% CI: 12.5–14.2) and median age was 68 years (interquartile range 61-75 years). Two ore more HRCAs were noted in 30% of the cohort (34% in Talq vs. 28% in BCMA TCEs, p=0.04), EMD was present in 21% of patients (26% in Talq vs. 18% in BCMA TCEs, p=0.002), and 45.5% of patients had FHRMM (47% in Talq vs. 45% in BCMA TCE, p=0.54). The median prior lines of therapy was 6 (interquartile range: 5-8), with 92% being triple-class refractory (TCR); 60% received prior BCMA-directed therapy (85% in Talq vs. 45% in BCMA TCE, p&lt;0.0001) and 45% had prior CAR-T in 45% (57% in Talq vs. 37% in BCMA TCE, p&lt;0.001). The best overall response rate (ORR) was 67.1 % for the entire cohort (66.4% for BCMA cohort and 68.2% for Talq), with 32.5% patients achieving a ≥ complete response. The median PFS was 7.7 months (95% CI: 6.7–8.6) for the entire cohort, with a median PFS of 10.1 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.4) for teclistamab and 10.1 months (95% CI: 3.9-NR) for elranatamab. In the more heavily pretreated talq cohort, the median PFS was 6.4 months (95% CI: 5.1-7.5). In a univariate analysis (UVA), several HRCAs were associated with inferior PFS−del(17p) (HR 1.59), t(4;14) (HR 1.43), del(1p) (HR 1.54), and ≥2 HRCAs (HR 1.64), all p&lt;0.01. Apart from HRCAs, adverse disease characteristics included FHRMM (HR 1.20) and EMD (HR 1.46); all p&lt;0.05. Among laboratory markers, hemoglobin &lt;9 g/dL (HR 2.10), platelet count &lt;75 ×10⁹/L (HR 1.96), and elevated ferritin (≥600 ng/mL; HR 2.17) (all p&lt;0.01) were prognostic for PFS. ECOG ≥2 (HR 1.62), prior BCMA-directed therapy (HR 1.56), and prior CAR-T (HR 1.44) (all p&lt;0.001) were also associated with inferior PFS. In a multivariable analysis (MVA), prior BCMA therapy (HR 1.72, p&lt;0.0001), ferritin &gt;600 ng/mL (HR 1.68, p&lt;0.0001), hemoglobin &lt;9 g/dL (HR 1.53, p=0.001), ECOG PS ≥2 (HR 1.52, p=0.0009), del(17p) (HR 1.44, p=0.0034) and FHRMM (HR 1.26, p=0.047), were associated with inferior PFS. Within the talq cohort (n=366), EMD (HR 1.64), del(17p) (HR 1.42), del(1p) (HR 1.54), FHRMM (HR 1.34), ECOG ≥2 (HR 1.56), ferritin &gt;600 (HR 1.88), hemoglobin &lt;9 g/dL (HR 1.6), platelet count &lt;75 ×10⁹/L (HR 1.36) and leukopenia &lt;0.25 x 10⁹/L (HR 1.52) were adverse prognostic markers on UVA. A MVA confirmed the independent impact of ferritin &gt;600 ng/mL (HR: 1.77), ECOG ≥2 (HR 1.61) and functional high-risk status (HR 1.52) on PFS, whereas del(17p) and EMD were trending toward significance. Within the BCMA TCE cohort (n=577), prior BCMA therapy (HR 1.9), ferritin &gt;600 (HR 1.79), ECOG ≥2 (HR 1.55), Hb &lt;9 g/dL (HR 1.54), and del(17p) (HR 1.52) were independently associated with inferior PFS on a MVA.Conclusions: In this large real-world cohort of TCE, outcomes varied by fitness, disease biology, and treatment history. The ECOG PS, elevated ferritin, functional high-risk status and del(17p) were consistently associated with inferior PFS. Prior BCMA exposure was an independent risk factor for inferior PFS in the BCMA TCE cohort, but not with talquetamab.

Abstract Background: BCMA- and GPRC5D-targeting immunotherapies including CART cell therapy and Bispecific antibodies are currently approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. However, clinical outcomes after dual antigenic exposure remain undefined. Herein we report the first report of BCMA-GPRC5D dual targeted multiple myeloma (DEMM). Methods: We conducted a retrospective multi-center study of RRMM patients treated with both BCMA- and GPRC5D-targeted treatments (TT) (CAR T, bispecific antibodies, ADCs) between November 1, 2022, and July 1, 2025. Outcomes included PFS1 (post-dual exposure), and overall survival (OS). Kaplan-Meier estimates and event-free probabilities were calculated. Results: One hundred and fifty patients who underwent TCE treatments were included and 49 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Median age was 65 years, 22.4% had creatinine clearance &lt;=30 and ECOG 2 or greater was present in 22.2%; 57% had high-risk cytogenetics (IMWG 2016), and 60.5% were penta-refractory. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (LOT) before 1st TCE and 9 prior LOT before DEMM. 65.3% received 1 TCE, 30.6% received 2 TCE and 4.1% received 3 TCE before DEMM. Similarly, 67.3% received 1 BCMA, 24.5% received 2 BCMA TT and 4.1% received 3 BCMA TT before DEMM. Prior TT included- BCMA CART (57.1%), BCMA Bispecific (57.1%), BCMA ADC (18.4%), other TCE (10.2%). The last dual exposure was GPRC5D Bispecific in 91.8%, BCMA Bispecific in 6.1% and BCMA CART in 2%. The median followup post relapse was 3.4 months (range 0.0-16 mos). The median PFS during the last dual exposure TT was 3.98 months (95% CI: 2.96–6.70). 32.7% did not receive any subsequent LOT and died due to progressive disease. 67.3% of patients had progressive MM and received next LOT. Median PFS1 was 1.77 months (95% CI: 1.28–6.21) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month event-free probabilities of 44%%, 19% and 0% respectively. Median OS was 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.53-12.16) for DEMM from the time of refractoriness to dual antigenic targets. Conclusions: Patients dual-exposed to BCMA- and GPRC5D-directed therapies have a poor prognosis, 32.7% had not received further treatment and in those who received treatment the PFS1 was less than 2 months and an OS of 5.7 months from progression. This reflects an area of high unmet need for the patients that are dual-exposed to BCMA- and GPRC5D-directed therapies. Further data on the cohort will be updated at the meeting. Acknowledgements include, the International Myeloma Foundation, IMWG.

Introduction: Talquetamab (Talq) is a GPRC5D targeting bispecific antibody recently approved for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (MM) based on the MonumenTAL-1 study. Real World Evidence (RWE) is needed to understand the safety and efficacy of Talq in patients treated outside of a clinical trial as they may have different outcomes and toxicities. Here we report outcomes of 118 patients treated with Talq. Methods: Patients treated with standard-of-care Talq were included. Data was collected through a retrospective chart review from 01/2023 until 7/2024 from 7 International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) associated MM academic centers. Results: 118 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 64, 37% had HR disease, 22% had EMD at presentation. The median LOT was 6, median number of immunotherapies before TAL was 2 (range 1,4) and 71% received prior BCMA therapy. 72% were triple refractory and 44% were penta refractory. 25% (n=60) would not have been eligible for TAL clinical trial due to exclusion criteria and15% had an ECOG of 2 or greater. 18% (n=97) received TAL as an outpatient and the median number of hospital days was 9 (0,37) for inpatients. CRS during Step up Dose (SUD) 1 was present in 30% Gr 1 (57%), Gr2 (11%), Gr 3 (6%), CRS during SUD 2 was present in 31%, Gr 1 (65%), Gr 2 (11%), CRS during SUD 3 when administered was present in 14% , Gr 1 (82%), Gr 2 (6%) and with first full dose was 12% , Gr 1 (71%), unknown (29%). ICANS occurred in 6% (7/97), Gr 1 (14%), Gr 2 (29%), Gr 3 (14%) and unknown in 43% there was no evidence of HLH. Skin toxicity was present in 62% of patients (n=105/118) with 4% needing dose interruptions and presented as rash (20%), dryness (42%) and itching (20%). Nail toxicity was present in 20% (n=65/118), with 9% needing dose interruptions. Dysgeusia was present in 51% (n=97/118), with 10% needing dose interruptions. Oral toxicity manifest as stomatitis (10%), glossitis (1%), ulcerations (2%), dry mouth (27%), was present in 34% (n=61/118), with 12.5% needing dose interruptions. Infections were present in 34% (n=82/118) and CMV reactivation in 23% while only 1 patient needed treatment for CMV. The Overall Response Rate (ORR) was 64.9% with a VGPR rate or higher of 43.3% in this population. Updated efficacy data including PFS will be reported at the time of presentation Conclusions: This is the first largest RWE of the safety and efficacy of Talq in a heavily pretreated population with a high prior BCMA exposure. The ORR is consistent with a prior study by Jakubowiak et al which showed an ORR OF 65.7% after prior T cell engagers. The safety profile - CRS, ICANS, skin and oral toxicities was similar to the MonumenTAL study, CMV reactivation was higher and this may be related to treatment with prior immunotherapies and should be monitored in the future. This report shows that Talq has a similar safety and efficacy profile in the real world when sequenced after prior BCMA therapies.

Background: Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed exclusively in the B-cell lineage, and at a higher level on multiple myeloma (MM) cells than on normal B cells. Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody that facilitates T cell-mediated killing of MM cells. In an ongoing Phase I dose-escalation and dose-expansion study (GO39775; NCT03275103), cevostamab monotherapy demonstrated target dose (TD)-dependent activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with heavily pretreated RRMM (Trudel et al. ASH 2021). We report updated efficacy and safety data from pts who received cevostamab once every 3 weeks (Q3W) at the 160mg TD level. Methods: Eligible pts were those with RRMM for which no established therapy was available or appropriate. Cevostamab was initiated with Cycle (C) 1 single-step (SS) dosing, double-step (DS) dosing (Trudel et al. ASH 2021), or triple-step (TS) dosing (step doses on D1, D2 [or D3 or D4 depending on the emergence and resolution of cytokine release syndrome [CRS] with the previous administration], and D8, TD on D9 [or D10 or D11]). Cevostamab was then continued at the TD on D1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. Cevostamab was continued for 17 cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Results: As of February 23, 2024, 167 pts (median age: 66 years, range: 40-90; ECOG PS: 0, 35% or 1, 65%; median time from first MM therapy: 6.3 years, range: 0.3-21.8) had received cevostamab at the 160mg TD level (SS: n=10; DS: n=97; TS: n=60); 28% of pts had extramedullary disease and 38% of pts with a conclusive assay result (38/100) had high-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p)). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-18). Almost all pts (95.8%) were triple-class refractory and 73.7% were penta-drug refractory; 85.0% were refractory to their last prior therapy. A majority (57%) of pts had received ≥1 prior B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapy. Twenty four percent of pts had received ≥1 prior bispecific antibody. Median observation time was 11.3 months (range: 0.5-42.8). The overall response rate (ORR) in all pts who received cevostamab at the 160mg TD level was 43.1% (72/167 pts); 6.6% achieved a stringent complete response (CR), 6.6% a CR, 12.6% a very good partial response (VGPR), and 17.4% a partial response (PR). The VGPR or better rate was 25.7%. Median time to first response (PR or better) was 1.4 months (range: 0.6-4.6) and to best response was 2.4 months (range: 0.7-13.4). Median duration of response was 10.4 months (95% CI: 6.8, 10.5). ORR was 30.2% (29/96) in pts with ≥1 prior BCMA-targeted therapy and 60.6% (43/71) in those without. ORR was 30.0% (12/40) in pts with ≥1 prior bispecific antibody, 33.3% (20/60) with ≥1 prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell, and 41.2% (14/34) with ≥1 prior antibody-drug conjugate. Common (≥20%) adverse events (AEs) included CRS (74.3%; Grade [Gr] 1: 52.7%; Gr 2: 19.8%; Gr 3: 1.2%; Gr 4: 0.6%), neutropenia (31.1%; Gr 1-2: 3.0%; Gr 3: 12.0%; Gr 4: 16.2%), cough (30.5%; Gr 1-2: 29.9%; Gr 3: 0.6%), nausea (28.1%; Gr 1-2: 27.5%; Gr 3: 0.6%), diarrhea (24.0%; all Gr 1-2), anemia (23.4%; Gr 1-2: 5.4%; Gr 3: 17.4%; Gr 4: 0.6%), and fatigue (21.0%; Gr 1-2: 19.8%; Gr 3: 1.2%). Possible immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 13.2% of pts (Gr 1: 6.0%; Gr 2: 5.4%; Gr 3: 1.8%). Infections occurred in 53.9% of pts, with serious events and Gr ≥3 events in 22.2% and 19.2%, respectively. Treatment-related AEs leading to cevostamab discontinuation occurred in 11 pts (6.6%) and treatment-related Gr 5 (fatal) AEs in 3 pts (1.8%; hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, n=2; disseminated intravascular coagulation and pseudomonal sepsis, n=1). In the 0.3/1.2/3.6/160mg TS cohort, CRS occurred in 19/30 pts (63.3%) and was all Gr 1 (46.7%) or Gr 2 (16.7%). Pts with CRS were managed with tocilizumab (47.4%), steroids (21.1%), or both agents (10.5%). No pts discontinued cevostamab due to CRS and all events were resolved at cut-off. Conclusions: Cevostamab demonstrates clinically meaningful activity and manageable safety at the 160mg TD level in pts with heavily pretreated RRMM. C1 TS dosing provides effective CRS mitigation. Cevostamab combination studies may use the 0.3/1.2/3.6mg TS regimen and the Q3W 160mg TD (or similar TD exposure).

Background: 24-hour urine (24HRU) assessments are a key component of International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma (MM) and are requested longitudinally in clinical trials even if not routinely used in real-world practice. Several analyses have suggested a limited role for 24HRU if serum immunofixation or free light chain (LC) testing is abnormal (Dejoie Blood 2016, Lahuerta Blood 2023). Adopting urine-free response criteria (with 24HRU removal from every level of IMWG response) may change responses in &lt;5% of patients (Natsuhara et al, Leuk Lymph 2023) but not have been studied in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) in a larger population. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Phase 3 BMT CTN 0702 (STaMINA) trial (Stadtmauer et al, JCO 2019) studying post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) strategies. Only patients evaluable for Day +56 response following ASCT were included, and patients with progressive disease (PD, n=8) at this timepoint were excluded. Post-ASCT responses relative to diagnosis were calculated by two sets of criteria. First, traditional responses were calculated per IMWG criteria (Kumar et al, Lancet Onc 2016) as stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), very good PR (VGPR), or complete response (CR, including stringent CR). Second, urine-free response assessments were calculated as follows: negative 24HRU immunofixation no longer required for CR, 24HRU M-protein &lt; 100 milligrams (mg) per day no longer required for VGPR, and no 24HRU M-protein thresholds (e.g., &lt; 200 mg per day or &gt; 90% reduction) required for PR. PFS was estimated (using PD by traditional IMWG criteria or death as events) using proportional hazard models. Results: Of 636 evaluable patients (84% of all BMT CTN 0702 participants), LC-only disease was noted in 18.9% (n=120). Pre-enrollment 24HRU testing at diagnosis was done in 28.9% of patients (n=184). IMWG responses were as follows: CR, 29.4% (n=187) traditional vs 29.7% (n=189) urine-free; VGPR, 37.0% (n=235) traditional vs 36.6% (n=233) urine-free; PR, 30.7% (n=195) for both; SD, 3.0% (n=19) for both. A total of 4 responses (0.6%) changed with urine-free criteria. Three patients were ‘upgraded’ (VGPR to CR, n=2, PR to VGPR, n=1) because 24HRU requirements for CR/VGPR were no longer required. One patient without a measurable serum paraprotein was ‘downgraded’ from a traditional VGPR (with negative 24HRU immunofixation) to a urine-free PR based on LC-only criteria. Among the subset of 184 patients with 24HRU electrophoresis results at diagnosis, there were no differences between traditional and urine-free IMWG responses. Median PFS and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were the same at each depth of both traditional and urine-free criteria: 63.0 months (50.8 - 71.4 months) for CR, 49.6 months (42.6 - 55.1 months) for VGPR, 44.9 months (37.2-54.8 months) for PR, and 34.4 months (14.0-51.5 months) for SD. Urine-free IMWG criteria were highly prognostic for PFS (p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.05-1.36). The achievement of urine-free CR vs urine-free ≤CR was also prognostic (p = 0.005, 95% CI 0.54 - 0.89). Urine-free VGPR vs urine-free ≤VGPR was of borderline significance (p = 0.102, 95% CI 0.66 - 1.04), with median PFS 53.8 months (48.0 - 57.6 months) vs 44.6 months (36.3 - 54.7 months) respectively. Discussion: In this secondary analysis of a Phase 3 trial, omitting 24HRU assessments from IMWG criteria changed &lt;1% of responses and had no impact on PFS prediction at any response depth. 24HRU assessments had been performed for less than a third of patients as standard of care prior to study entry, underscoring its infrequent use outside of trials. Urine-free IMWG assessments would reduce time toxicity and discomfort for patients, particularly for those with limited dexterity. If implemented in trials, they would also simplify study logistics and lower operational costs. Outside of situations such as AL amyloidosis where 24HRU assessments remain critical or for patients with urine as their only measurable MM biomarker, our results support the removal of 24HRU assessments from future iterations of IMWG response criteria. Funding: Grants #U10HL069294 and #U24HL138660 to the BMT CTN from the NHLBI and the NCI; contributions by Celgene Corporation and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; funding by The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and SWOG.

Introduction: BCMA-directed CAR-T and Bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) therapies have shown remarkable overall response rates in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This has led to the approval of idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel and teclistamab by the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. We performed a global survey on accessibility, practice patterns, and toxicity management of commercially available CAR-T and BiTE therapies. Methods: An online survey was completed by clinicians attending the International Myeloma Society's Immune Effector Cell Therapies in Multiple Myeloma Workshop, in-person or virtually, made available for 30 days after the meeting held in March 2023, Boston, MA. Results: 87 clinicians from 16 countries completed the survey, most practicing in an academic practice (86%) and in an urban environment (89%). Sixty-four percent of the respondents practice in North America followed by Europe (25.3%) including Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece, and Cyprus, and 6.9% from Asia and 3.4% from Australia. Seventy-seven percent reported CAR-T cell therapy was approved in their country with 44.8% treating 1-5 patients and 14.9% treating &gt;5 patients per month; 67% reported BiTE therapy was approved in their country with 14.9% treating &gt;5 patients per month. Of evaluable responses (n = 40), 62% administered CAR-T therapy inpatient and 15% administered CAR-T therapy outpatient ≥ 50% of the time. Length of time between decision to treat with CAR-T therapy to infusion was 6-12 weeks for 42% of responders and &lt;6 weeks for only 20%. Most (75%) reported inpatient administration of BiTE therapy step-up dosing; 17.5% reported outpatient step-up dosing administered ≥ 50% of the time. Use of institutional or practice SOPs for CAR-T and BiTE therapy patient selection was reported by 85% and 58%, respectively, with the factors influencing SOP outlined in Table 1. Of available CAR-T therapies, 53% prefer cilta-cel and 23% reported CAR-T therapy preference depended most on patients' co-morbidities/frailty (89%), timing of next available apheresis (67%), age (56%), CNS disease (44%) and other factors. Maintenance therapy after CAR-T therapy was reportedly used by 25% and 5% of respondents in 1-10% and 11-50% of their patients, respectively, to “maintain level of response achieved” (50%) or “achieve a deeper level of response” (25%). About half (43%) of the respondents reported using an SOP or particular criteria for secondary Hemophagocytic Lympho-Histiocytosis/Macrophage Activation Syndrome/CAR-related-HLH (sHLH/MAS/CarHLH) management that varied between the use of ASTCT Working Group IEC associated HLH-like syndrome Criteria (47%) (Hines 2023), CARTOX HLH Criteria (24%) (Neelapu 2017) and HLH-2004 criteria (6%). Tocilizumab was used as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis only by one responder. Keppra neurologic prophylaxis was used by 47.5% and 15% of responders for CAR-T and BiTE therapy, respectively. Delayed neurotoxicity with CAR-T was reported in 1-5% of patients by 57.5% of responders and 6-10% of patients by 15% of responders; most common manifestations were other movement/neuromuscular disorder (62%), nerve palsy (55%), and Parkinsonism (45%). Infectious prophylaxis was used to protect against HSV (92.5%), PJP (90%), bacterial pathogens (55%), fungal pathogens (60%), and IVIG (77.5%). However, criteria for infectious prophylaxis use varies widely incorporating IgG levels, infectious history, CD4+ count, B-cell aplasia and cytopenias (48.1 - 88.9%). Most respondents (46.3 - 86.5%) reported completing an infectious work-up including CMV, EBV, Hep B/C, and HIV ( Table 2). Conclusions: Trends of CAR-T and BiTE therapy use and patterns of concurrent prophylactic and supportive care in MM vary widely among academic centers across the globe, demonstrating a need for further understanding of toxicity pathogenesis, toxicity management and consistent guidelines. This survey also demonstrates the great unmet need for access beyond urban centers among the international myeloma community. Prospective studies and claims data analysis should be utilized to evaluate the longitudinal cost of care, quality of life, duration of response and management of infectious disease, neurological or related complications of CAR-T and bispecific TCE therapies.

Abstract Background: Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed exclusively in the B-cell lineage, and at a higher level on myeloma cells than on normal B cells. Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody (BsAb) that facilitates T cell-directed killing of myeloma cells. Initial data from the dose-escalation phase of the ongoing Phase I study (NCT03275103) of cevostamab monotherapy in patients (pts) with heavily pre-treated RRMM demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety, along with near ubiquitous FcRH5 expression on myeloma cells (Cohen et al. ASH 2020; Sumiyoshi et al. EHA 2021). We present updated safety and efficacy data from a larger cohort of pts, including results comparing Cycle (C) 1 single step-up (SS) and double step-up (DS) dosing for the mitigation of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Methods: Participants have RRMM for which no established therapy is available or appropriate. Cevostamab (intravenous infusion) is administered in 21-day cycles. In the SS cohorts, the step dose (0.05-3.6mg) is given on C1 Day (D) 1 and the target dose (0.15-198mg) on C1D8. In the DS cohorts, the step doses are given on C1D1 (0.3-1.2mg) and C1D8 (3.6mg), and the target dose (60-160mg) on C1D15. In both regimens, the target dose is given on D1 of subsequent cycles. Cevostamab is continued for a total of 17 cycles, unless progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity occurs. CRS is reported using ASTCT criteria (Lee et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019). Results: At data cut-off (18 May 2021), 160 pts had been enrolled (median age: 64 years, range: 33-82 years; male: 58.1%); 21.3% of pts had extramedullary disease. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-18). Most pts (85.0%) were triple-class refractory (PI, IMiD, anti-CD38 antibody). 28 pts (17.5%) had received ≥1 prior CAR-T, 13 pts (8.1%) ≥1 prior BsAb, 27 pts (16.9%) ≥1 prior antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), and 54 pts (33.8%) ≥1 prior anti-BCMA targeting agent. Median follow-up in exposed pts was 6.1 months. Almost all had ≥1 adverse event (Table). The most common was CRS (128/160 pts [80.0%]; Grade [Gr] 1: 42.5%; Gr 2: 36.3%; Gr 3: 1.3%). Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) associated with CRS was observed in 21 pts (13.1%) and in 34/211 (16.1%) CRS events (Gr 1: 8.5%; Gr 2: 6.2%; Gr 3: 1.4%). Most CRS events occurred in C1 (87.2%), arose within 24 hours of cevostamab administration (70.5%), and resolved within 48 hours of onset (83.4%). In the pts with CRS, tocilizumab was used for CRS management in 43.8% and steroids in 25.8% (both agents: 18.0%). In SS dose-escalation (68 pts), 3.6mg was chosen as the most effective C1D1 SS dose for limiting CRS in C1, with no target dose-dependent increase in the rate or severity of CRS observed after the C1D8 administration. Likewise, in DS dose-escalation (30 pts), 0.3/3.6mg was identified as the preferred C1D1/C1D8 DS dose for limiting CRS in C1. Notably, the overall rate of CRS was lower in the pts who received the 0.3/3.6mg/target DS regimen than in those who received the 3.6mg/target SS regimen (77.3% [34/44] vs 88.2% [75/85], respectively). The rate of ICANS associated with CRS was also lower in the 0.3/3.6mg/target DS cohort than in the 3.6mg/target SS cohort (4.5% [2/44] vs 21.2% [18/85], respectively). At data cut-off, 158/160 pts were efficacy evaluable. In dose-escalation, responses were observed at the 20-198mg target dose levels, and data suggested a target dose-dependent increase in clinical efficacy. Median time to response was 29 days (range: 20-179 days). Two dose-expansion cohorts were opened: ORR was higher at the 160mg dose level (54.5%, 24/44 pts) than at the 90mg dose level (36.7%, 22/60). At target dose levels &gt;90mg, ORRs in pts with prior exposure to CAR-Ts, BsAbs, ADCs, and anti-BCMA targeting agents were 44.4% (4/9 pts), 33.3% (3/9), 50.0% (7/14), and 36.4% (8/22) respectively. Median follow-up among all responders (n=61) was 8.1 months; estimated median duration of response was 15.6 months (95% CI: 6.4, 21.6). Conclusions: Cevostamab monotherapy continues to show clinically meaningful activity in a large cohort of pts with heavily pre-treated RRMM, with a target dose-dependent increase in ORR, but no increase in CRS rate. Responses appear durable, and are observed in pts with prior exposure to CAR-Ts, BsAbs, and ADCs. Compared with SS dosing, DS dosing at the 0.3/3.6mg level appears to be associated with a trend for an improved C1 safety profile. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Trudel: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Cohen: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Krishnan: MAGENTA: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; City of Hope Cancer Center: Current Employment; REGENERON: Consultancy; SANOFI: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca: Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Spencer: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berdeja: Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding; Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding. Lesokhin: Serametrix, Inc: Patents & Royalties; Behringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Iteos: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; bristol myers squibb: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy. Forsberg: University of Colorado: Current Employment; Karyopharm, Sanofi, Genentech: Research Funding. Costa: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez-Otero: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Regeneron: Honoraria; Clínica Universidad de Navarra: Current Employment. Kaedbey: Takeda, Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS, Janssen: Honoraria; Royal Victoria Hospital Lakeshore Hospital: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Jewish General Hospital - McGill University: Current Employment. Richter: Janssen, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Karyopharm, Antengene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tisch Cancer Institute: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai: Current Employment. Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Thomas: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding. Wong: Genentech: Current Employment; CTMX, UBX, BMRN: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: Genentech/Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Choeurng: Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vaze: Roche/Genentech: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Samineni: Genentech: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Sumiyoshi: Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Cooper: Genentech: Current Employment; Roche: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Harrison: Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/ Juno/ BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Eusa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Terumo BCT: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody that facilitates T cell-directed killing of myeloma cells. Cevostamab is an investigational agent.