Real world outcomes of bispecific T-cell engagers in plasma cell leukemia
Abstract
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.
Article Details
Authors (46)
Mahmoud Gaballa
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Kelley Julian
6The University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, United States
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.
Doris Hansen
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Utkarsh Goel
6Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
Andre De Menezes Silva Corraes
1Mayo Clinic, Hematology, Rochester, United States
Danai Dima
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
Masooma Rana
8Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
Hitomi Hosoya
Lekha Mikkilineni
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
Lindsay Fogel
9Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, United States
Shahzad Raza
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
Rahul Banerjee
Saurabh Zanwar
Oren Pasvolsky
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
Aishwarya Sannareddy
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Azra Borogovac
11City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, United States
James Davis
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
Kimberly Green
14Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States
Noa Biran
11Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, 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
Shebli Atrash
Levine Cancer Institute–Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
Christopher Ferreri
7Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, United States
Tiffany Richards
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Muhammad Bilal Abid
2MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Susan Bal
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Hossam M. Ali
10Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
J Christine Ye
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Shambavi Richard
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York
Gurbakhash Kaur
Kenneth Shain
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
Omar Alexis Castaneda Puglianini
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Adriana Rossi
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Larry Anderson
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Peter Voorhees
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Jack Khouri
1Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland, United States
Surbhi Sidana
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
Andrew Portuguese
2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
Murali Janakiram
10City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Hans Lee
3Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, United States
Yi Lin
Ariel Grajales-Cruz
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Krina Patel
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Douglas Sborov
9University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt lake City, United States