Talquetamab outcomes in relapsed/refractory myeloma with extramedullary and paraskeletal soft tissue plasmacytomas
Abstract
Abstract Background: Talquetamab (Talq), a GPRC5D-targeting bispecific antibody, shows promising activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, outcomes in patients (pts) with soft tissue plasmacytoma (STP) remain poorly characterized. Method: We retrospectively analyzed 463 RRMM pts treated with Talq at 15 U.S. centers by Dec 2024. Pts were grouped by presence of STP at Talq start: (1) extramedullary disease (EMD; lesions not contiguous with bone), (2) paraskeletal disease (PSK; bone-contiguous), (3) EMD + PSK, and (4) No-STP. Those receiving Talq as a bridge-to-CAR T (n=103, 22%) were censored at CAR T infusion if progression had not occurred. Time-to-event endpoints were calculated from Talq step-up, using Kaplan-Meier/Cox models. Result: Median age was 66 years (y) (35–89); 54 (11.7%) had EMD, 26 (5.6%) PSK, 60 (13%) EMD+PSK, and 320 (69%) No-STP. EMD pts were younger than No-STP (62 vs 66 y, p=.009), while PSK (66.5) and EMD+PSK (64.5) were similar to No-STP. Median prior lines were higher in PSK (7) vs EMD (5), EMD+PSK (6) and No-STP (6) (p=.035). Median time from diagnosis to Talq was shortest in EMD (3.8 y), followed by EMD+PSK (4.6 y), vs PSK (6.4 y), and No-STP (5.9 y) (p=.015). Among pts with any EMD (EMD or EMD+PSK), 81 (69%) had visceral involvement and 85 (73%) had multiple lesions. Rates of prior BCMA- or GPRC5D-directed therapy, plasma cell leukemia (≥5% circulating plasma cells at the time of Talq), and penta-refractoriness were similar across groups. ECOG ≥ 2 at Talq was more common in EMD (42%), PSK (39%), EMD+ PSK (37%) than in No-STP (23%) (p = .002). Other baseline features were similar. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) rate/severity were similar across groups. The immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was more frequent in PSK (38%) vs EMD (11%), EMD + PSK (18%), and No-STP (11%), with the most PSK cases (60%, 6/10) being grade ≥2 (p=.006). No difference in CRS/ICANS onset or duration. Infection rates were lower in No-STP (36%) vs EMD (55%), PSK (46%), and EMD+ PSK (48%) (p=.025). Best overall response rates (ORR) were 71% in EMD, 68% in PSK, 67% in EMD+PSK, and 71% in No-STP (p=.9). Complete response (CR) rates were 14% in EMD, 20% in PSK, 13% in EMD+ PSK, and 25% in No-STP (p=.1) [CRs were not required to be confirmatory, which may not meet full IMWG criteria]. Radiographic response was evaluable in 41 EMD (86%), 16 PSK (61.5%), and 48 EMD+PSK (80%) pts, with partial response (PR) or better observed in 48%, 27%, and 38%, respectively. Among pts with any STP, 34% received radiation (XRT) (4 as bridge-to-CAR T), 24 (51%) were evaluable, and 71% (n=17) achieved ≥PR. The median follow-up from Talq initiation was 10.1 months (mo) (95% CI: 8.8–11.4) and was longest in EMD (13.9 mo) compared with PSK (10.8 mo), EMD+PSK (12.4 mo), and No-STP (9.8 mo) (p = .040). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.3 mo (95% CI: 3.6–5.06) in EMD, 4.8 mo (95% CI: 2.2–7.3) in PSK, 3.8 mo (95% CI: 3.1-4.5) in EMD+ PSK, and 8.3 mo (95% CI: 7.0–9.6) in No-STP (p <.001). Among pts receiving XRT for any STP (within 4 weeks prior to or during Talq), responders had longer PFS vs non-responders (15.4 vs. 2.4 mo; p=.009). Multivariable analysis (MVA) showed inferior PFS with EMD (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.3; p=.029), EMD+PSK (HR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.2–2.8; p = .001), ECOG ≥ 2 (HR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04–1.9; p = .024), and del(17p) at any timepoint (HR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.1–3.5; p=.017), while longer time from diagnosis to Talq was modestly protective (HR 0.95 per year; p = .016), likely reflecting less aggressive biology in those reaching 5th+ line later. PSK alone showed a non-significant trend toward inferior PFS (HR 1.5; p = .1). Median overall survival (OS) was 13.0 mo (95% CI: not reached [NR]–NR) in EMD, 12.9 mo (95% CI: 6.9–18.9) in PSK, 10.9 mo (95% CI: NR–NR) in EMD+PSK, and NR (95% CI: NR–NR) in No-STP (p = .017). The primary cause of death was disease-related across all groups (p = .6). MVA for OS showed worse outcomes with EMD+PSK (HR 1.7; p=.033), ECOG ≥ 2 (HR 1.98; p <.001), and active PCL at Talq (HR 2.1; p =.010). Conclusion: Soft tissue plasmacytoma, particularly EMD and EMD+PSK, remain strong adverse prognostic factors in Talq-treated patients, with significantly shorter PFS and OS despite similar response rates. Radiation to STP sites was associated with improved outcomes in select cases. Prospective strategies are needed to optimize management for this high-risk population.
Article Details
Authors (53)
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.
Oren Pasvolsky
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
Saurabh Zanwar
Mahmoud Gaballa
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Aishwarya Sannareddy
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Danai Dima
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
Utkarsh Goel
6Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
Hossam M. Ali
10Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, United States
Kelley Julian
6The University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, United States
Andre Corraes
4Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Raffaella Cassano
6Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
Murali Janakiram
10City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Scott Goldsmith
7City 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
Lindsay Fogel
9Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, United States
Eli Zolotov
11Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, United States
Megan Herr
15Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
Hamza Hassan
7Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
Leyla Shune
Jeries Kort
1The University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, United States
Susan Bal
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Luciano Costa
42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
J Christine Ye
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Laura Joiner
1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
Shahzad Raza
Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland
Faiz Anwer
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Jack Khouri
1Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Cleveland, United States
Rahul Banerjee
Andrew Portuguese
2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, United States
Surbhi Sidana
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
Masooma Rana
8Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
Lekha Mikkilineni
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States
Hitomi Hosoya
Shebli Atrash
Levine Cancer Institute–Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC
Christopher Ferreri
7Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, United States
Cindy Varga
7Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, United States
Douglas Sborov
9University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt lake City, United States
Shonali Midha
13Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
Omar Nadeem
Ariel Grajales-Cruz
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Rachid Baz
1Department of Malignant Hematology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL
Brandon Blue
Naval Research Enterprise Internship Program Student Residing in the Electronics Sciences and Technology Division, United States Naval Research Laboratory
Ciara Louise Freeman
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Frederick Locke
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Hematology and Oncology, Tampa, United States
Krina Patel
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Yi Lin
Shaji Kumar
Doris Hansen
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States
Larry Anderson
5UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, United States
Peter Voorhees
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Omar Alexis Castaneda Puglianini
1H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States