Safety and efficacy of talquetamab in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with and without renal impairment (RI)
Abstract
Abstract Background Talquetamab (talq) is a GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The pivotal monumenTAL-1 clinical trial did not include patients with renal impairment (RI, creatinine clearance<40 mL/min) and therefore, data for the use of this agent in RI is lacking. Methods We examined the outcomes of patients with RRMM treated with standard of care (SOC) talq in a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) <40 mL/min. For each patient we recorded demographics, disease characteristics, prior therapies, incidence and severity of adverse events of special interest, namely cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune-cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), along with response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We compared binary variables between different groups using Chi-squared test and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Patients who received talq as a bridge therapy prior to chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART cells) were censored for PFS analysis at the time of subsequent therapy. Results We included 417 patients who received SOC Talq and had complete datasets. 91 (22%) had RI, including 20 (5%) on dialysis. The median age was 68 and 65 years for patients with and without RI. Patients with RI were more likely to be female (64% vs. 51%), less likely to have prior CART cells (35% vs. 48%). There were no differences in performance status, race, presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), gain/amplification 1q], lines of prior therapy (median 6 vs. 6), prior ASCT (68% vs. 72%), presence of CNS disease (4% vs. 4%), prior plasma cell leukemia (8% vs 9%), prior BCMA therapy (54% vs. 61%) and triple class refractory disease (90% vs. 94%) among patients with and without RI. Rates of CRS (63% vs. 56%, P=0.21) were similar in the two groups, while severe CRS (grade ≥3: 6% vs 2%, P=0.02) was more common in patients with RI. Any grade (20% vs 14%, P=0.21) and high grade ICANS (grade ≥3: 4% vs 4%, P=0.97) were similar in patients with and without RI. There was no difference between groups on risk of infection (P=0.65) with cumulative risk at 6 months of 39% vs. 40%. With 11.1 months of median follow up, the overall response rate (60% vs 67%; P = 0.12), and progression-free survival (median 7.3 vs. 6.5 mo.; P = 0.9) were comparable between the two groups. There was no difference in outcomes according to RI in both patients previously treated with BCMA-directed therapy and BCMA-naïve. Conversely, among patients with RI, median PFS was 4.6 and 8.5 mo. for patients with and without prior BCMA therapy. Similarly, among patients without RI, median PFS was 6.5 and 6.2 mo, respectively. Among BCMA-naïve patients, there was no difference in OS between patients with and without RI (median not reached, 12 mo. OS rate 71% vs. 73%, P=0.53), while among patients with prior BCMA-directed therapy there was a trend towards better OS for patients without RI (median 8.9 vs. 13.8 mo; 12 mo. OS rate 43% vs 59%, P=0.06). Five patients (25%) became dialysis independent following talq therapy. On multivariable analysis, ECOG >1 (HR 1.62, 95% C.I. 1.25-2.10, P<0.001) and deletion of 17p (HR 1.55, 95% C.I. 1.17-2.06, P=0.003) but not RI or prior BCMA-directed therapy affected PFS. OS was affected by ECOG >1 (HR 2.37, 95% C.I 1.71-3.30, P<0.001), triple-class refractoriness (HR 3.03, 95% C.I. 1.12-8.21, P=0.03) and prior BCMA-directed therapy (HR 1.79, 95% C.I. 1.24-2.59, P=0.002) but not by RI. Conclusion Our findings support the feasibility of talq in patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with similar safety and efficacy profile to patients without RI. While neither prior BCMA-directed therapy nor RI affect PFS, refractoriness to conventional agents and prior exposure to BCMA-directed therapy adversely affects OS. This observation likely reflects better post progression survival following talq due to the availability of efficacious therapeutic options, including those directed at BCMA.
Article Details
Authors (47)
Laura Joiner
1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
Oren Pasvolsky
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, 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.
Saurabh Zanwar
Rahul Banerjee
Raffaella Cassano Cassano
2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
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
Ariel Grajales-Cruz
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Melissa Alsina
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, United States
Utkarsh Goel
6Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
Andre Corraes
4Mayo Clinic, 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
Hossam M. Ali
10Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
Aishwarya Sannareddy
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Douglas Sborov
9University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt lake City, United States
Azra Borogovac
11City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, United States
Murali Janakiram
10City of Hope, 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
Hamza Hassan
7Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
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
Shonali Midha
13Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
Omar Nadeem
Omar Alexis Castaneda Puglianini
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Kenneth Shain
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
Muhammad Bilal Abid
2MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Peter Voorhees
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Jack Khouri
1Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland, United States
Andrew Portuguese
2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
Yi Lin
Surbhi Sidana
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
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
Luciano Costa
42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
Susan Bal
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Larry Anderson
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States