Outcomes of bispecific T-cell engagers in MM patients with central nervous system (CNS) involvement
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma and CNS involvement (CNS MM) have poor outcomes, and we recently showed that CAR-T has activity and is reasonable in this population (Gaballa et al., 2025). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Bispecific T-cell engagers (BsAbs) in CNS MM pts, with specific interest in evaluating ICANS. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of CNS MM pts treated with BsAbs via the MM immunotherapy consortium. Primary endpoints were toxicity rates, with a specific focus on ICANS. Secondary endpoints were systemic responses, CNS responses, and survival outcomes. CNS MM was defined as involvement of the brain parenchyma, spinal cord tissue, leptomeningeal disease, or CSF positivity. CNS response was determined based on CSF and imaging, as complete CNS response, partial CNS response, and non-response/progression. Results The study included 24 pts from 13 US institutions treated with teclistamab (33%), talquetamab (50%), elranatamab (17%), and were used as monotherapy in 83% while 17% received them in combination with either daratumumab or IMiDs. The median age was 64.5 (range 41-82), 50% female, 79% white, and 17% black. High-risk cytogenetics were identified in 39%, 4% had prior primary PCL, and 21% had secondary PCL (2 active within 30 days of BsAb initiation). All pts were triple-refractory, 33% were penta-refractory, and 39% had non-CNS EMD. Pts received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (IQR 4-7), 71% prior transplant, and 21% prior CAR-T. Prior BCMA therapy was received in 83% of the talquetamab group and 17% of the BCMA BsAbs group (teclistamab and elranatamab). CNS disease was determined based on both imaging and CSF findings in 58%, imaging only in 33%, and CSF only in 8%. Site of CNS disease included 42% brain/cranial nerves, 13% spinal cord, or 46% with both. CNS disease was diagnosed prior to BsAb in 19 pts, with a median interval of 46 days (IQR 7-234), and 3 pts were identified within 2 weeks after BsAb initiation. Two pts identified at days 68 and 121 were included in the safety evaluation but excluded from the efficacy assessments. One pt received teclistamab and intrathecal chemotherapy (IT chemo) as a bridge to CAR-T and achieved a complete CNS response before CAR-T. CNS-directed therapy consisted of: 30% radiotherapy (RT), 30% IT chemo, 13% RT + IT chemo, 9% RT + surgery, and 4% steroids. CRS grade (G) 1-2 occurred in 50%, with no G3-4 CRS. ICANS G 1, 2, and 3 occurred in 13%, 21%, and 4%, respectively, with no G 4 ICANS. One pt developed delayed parkinsonism, and another developed leukoencephalopathy; both had CNS MM diagnosed pre-BsAbs and achieved a CNS response (1 complete, 1 partial). Infections occurred in 67% of pts, with 42% being severe, and 1 infection-related death. The systemic ORR of 18 evaluable pts was 67%, including 22% CR, 17% VGPR, and 28% PR. The overall CNS response of 19 evaluable pts was 58%, including 37% complete CNS response and 21% partial CNS response. Of 11 pts achieving a CNS response, 82% didn't have subsequent CNS progression. In 9 pts achieving CNS response after BsAb initiation, the median time to CNS response was 0.9 months (range 0.03-2.8), with an unreached median duration of CNS response. With a median follow-up of 11 months, the median PFS was 5.0 months (95% CI 2.5-NA) and OS was 12.2 months (95% CI 7.7-NA). No significant difference in median PFS (10.6 vs 4.6 months, p=0.11) or OS (20.2 vs 9.3 months, p=0.37) was observed between BCMA BsAbs (n=11) and talquetamab (n=11). Due to small sample limitation, no significant difference was observed in the median PFS (4.6 vs 8.2 months, p=0.48) or OS (20.2 vs 9.9 months, p=0.73) between BsAb monotherapy (n=19) and BsAb combination therapy (n=3). One pt who received teclistamab as a bridge to CAR-T achieved a complete CNS response and remains progression-free to date, demonstrating the best long-term outcome with a PFS of 674 days. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that BsAb use in pts with CNS MM is safe without increased incidence of ICANS. The use of BsAbs in combination with a multimodal CNS-directed approach led to an overall CNS response rate of 58% and an unreached median duration of CNS response. Previous studies (Gaballa et al., 2025) reported a 100% CNS response rate with CAR-T. In this study, 1 pt treated with BsAb as a bridge to CAR-T had the longest PFS, warranting further research to evaluate this combination's efficacy in this very high-risk population.
Article Details
Authors (44)
Mahmoud Gaballa
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Lei Feng
Aimaz Afrough
Myeloma, Waldenstrom’s, and Amyloidosis Program, Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy Program, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (A.A.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Rahul Banerjee
James Davis
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
Azra Borogovac
11City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, United States
Saurabh Zanwar
Kelley Julian
6The University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, United States
Noa Biran
11Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, United States
Omar Alexis Castaneda Puglianini
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Lekha Mikkilineni
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
Christopher Ferreri
7Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, United States
Megan Herr
15Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
Leyla Shune
Evguenia Bhurtel
1The University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, United States
Danai Dima
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
Oren Pasvolsky
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
Kimberly Green
14Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States
Murali Janakiram
10City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Hamza Hassan
7Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
Nilesh Kalariya
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Andre Corraes
4Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Lindsay Fogel
9Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, United States
Ruchi Singhal
2The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Houston, United States
Ariel Grajales-Cruz
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Brandon Blue
Naval Research Enterprise Internship Program Student Residing in the Electronics Sciences and Technology Division, United States Naval Research Laboratory
Asad Haider
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Aishwarya Sannareddy
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Sherif Seif
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Sheeba Thomas
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Masooma Rana
8Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
J Christine Ye
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Tiffany Richards
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Hitomi Hosoya
Shebli Atrash
Levine Cancer Institute–Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
Larry Anderson
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Scott Goldsmith
7City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, United States
Surbhi Sidana
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
Peter Voorhees
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Douglas Sborov
9University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt lake City, United States
Yi Lin
Andrew Portuguese
2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
Doris Hansen
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Krina Patel
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States