Antigen escape as a shared mechanism of resistance to BCMA-directed therapies in multiple myeloma.

B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting therapeutics have dramatically improved outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, whether the mechanisms of resistance between these therapies are shared and how the identification of such mechanisms before therapy initiation could refine clinical decision-making remains undefined. We analyzed outcomes for 72 RRMM patients treated with teclistamab, a CD3 x BCMA bispecific antibody (BsAb), 42% (30/72) of whom had prior BCMA-directed therapy exposure. Malignant plasma cell BCMA expression was present in all BCMA therapy-naïve patients. Prior therapy-mediated loss of plasma cell BCMA expression before teclistamab treatment, measured by immunohistochemistry, was observed in 3 patients, none of whom responded to teclistamab, and one of whom also did not respond to ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Whole exome sequencing of tumor DNA from one patient revealed biallelic loss of TNFRSF17 following treatment with belantamab mafodotin. Low-to-undetectable peripheral blood soluble BCMA levels correlated with the absence of BCMA expression by bone marrow plasma cells. Thus, although rare, loss of BCMA expression following TNFRSF17 gene deletions can occur following any BCMA-directed therapy and prevents response to subsequent anti-BCMA-directed treatments, underscoring the importance of verifying the presence of a target antigen.

Comparison of infectious complications with BCMA-directed therapies in multiple myeloma.

B-cell-maturation-antigen (BCMA)-directed therapies are highly active for multiple myeloma, but infections are emerging as a major challenge. In this retrospective, single-center analysis we evaluated infectious complications after BCMA-targeted chimeric-antigen-receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T), bispecific-antibodies (BsAb) and antibody-drug-conjugates (ADC). The primary endpoint was severe (grade ≥3) infection incidence. Amongst 256 patients, 92 received CAR-T, 55 BsAb and 109 ADC. The incidence of severe infections was higher with BsAb (40%) than CAR-T (26%) or ADC (8%), including grade 5 infections (7% vs 0% vs 0%, respectively). Comparing T-cell redirecting therapies, the incidence rate of severe infections was significantly lower with CAR-T compared to BsAb at 1-year (incidence-rate-ratio [IRR] = 0.43, 95%CI 0.25-0.76, P = 0.004). During periods of treatment-emergent hypogammaglobulinemia, BsAb recipients had higher infection rates (IRR:2.27, 1.31-3.98, P = 0.004) and time to severe infection (HR 2.04, 1.05-3.96, P = 0.036) than their CAR-T counterparts. During periods of non-neutropenia, CAR-T recipients had a lower risk (HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.21-0.93, P = 0.032) and incidence rate (IRR:0.32, 95% 0.17-0.59, P < 0.001) of severe infections than BsAb. In conclusion, we observed an overall higher and more persistent risk of severe infections with BsAb. Our results also suggest a higher infection risk during periods of hypogammaglobulinemia with BsAb, and with neutropenia in CAR-T recipients.

Patterns of CRS with Teclistamab in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma patients with Prior T-Cell Redirection Therapy.

Teclistamab (Tec) is a first-in-class BCMA X CD3 bispecific T-cell engager antibody approved for treating multiple myeloma progressing after at least 4 lines of therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in patients who were treated with commercial Tec and had prior exposure to other T-cell redirection therapies. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who completed the Tec step-up dosing phase between November 2022 and November 2023. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on prior exposure to T-cell redirection therapy (cohort 1: T-cell redirection therapy experienced; cohort 2: T-cell redirection therapy naïve). The primary objective was to compare the differences in the rates of CRS between the two cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between CRS rates with Tec and prior treatment with T-cell redirection therapy. A total of 72 patients were included in the analysis (27 in cohort 1 and 45 in cohort 2). The CRS rates were significantly lower in cohort 1 (37%, n=10) compared to cohort 2 (80%, n=36; p=0.0004). Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, patients without prior exposure to T-cell redirection therapy (cohort 2) had about a 4-fold increase in the incidence of CRS (95% CI: 1.40-14.90, p=0.0002) with Tec. In our study, prior exposure to T-cell redirection therapy reduced the risk of CRS with Tec during the step-up dosing phase. This observation will allow for the optimization of CRS prophylactic strategies for Tec.

Unscheduled healthcare interactions in multiple myeloma patients receiving T cell redirection therapies.

Outcomes for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients have dramatically improved following the development and now growing utilization of B cell maturation antigen targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapy. However, healthcare utilization as a quality-of-life metric in these growing populations has not been thoroughly evaluated. We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating the frequency and cause of unscheduled healthcare interactions (UHIs) among RRMM patients responding to B-cell maturation antigen targeted BsAbs and CAR T cell therapies (N = 46). This included analysis of remote UHIs including calls to physicians' offices and messages sent through an online patient portal. Our results showed that nearly all (89%) RRMM patients receiving these therapies required a UHI during the first 125 days of treatment, with a mean of 3.7 UHIs per patient. RRMM patients responding to BsAbs were significantly more likely to remotely contact their physicians' offices (1.8-fold increase, p = 0.038) or visit an urgent care center (>3-fold increase, p = 0.012) than RRMM patients responding to CAR T cell therapies. This was largely due to increased reports of mild upper respiratory tract infections in BsAb patients. Our results underscore the need to develop preemptive management strategies for commonly reported symptoms that RRMM patients experience while receiving CAR T cell or BsAb therapies. This preemptive management may significantly reduce unnecessary healthcare utilization in this vulnerable patient population.

Thromboembolic risk of carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thrombosis represents a frequent and potentially severe complication in individuals diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). These events can be driven by both the disease as well as the therapies themselves. Overall, available evidence is inconclusive about the differential thrombogenicity of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd). This meta-analysis compares the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE; including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE; including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) with KRd versus VRd as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Out of 510 studies identified after deduplication, one randomized controlled trial and five retrospective cohort studies were included. We analyzed 2304 patients (VRd: 1380; KRd: 924) for VTE events and 2179 patients (VRd: 1316; KRd: 863) for ATE events. Lower rates of VTE were observed in the VRd group when compared with the KRd group (6.16% vs. 8.87%; odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.88; p = .01). Both treatment groups exhibited minimal ATE incidence, with no significant difference between them (0.91% vs. 1.16%; OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.24-4.20; p = .99). In view of potential biases from retrospective studies, heterogeneity of baseline population characteristics, and limited access to patient-level data (e.g., VTE risk stratification and type of thromboprophylaxis regimen used) inherent to this meta-analysis, additional research is warranted to further validate our findings and refine strategies for thrombosis prevention in MM.

Comparison of Infectious Complications with BCMA-directed Therapies in Multiple Myeloma.

B-cell-maturation-antigen (BCMA)-directed therapies are highly active for multiple myeloma, but infections are emerging as a major challenge. In this retrospective, single-center analysis we evaluated infectious complications after BCMA-targeted chimeric-antigen-receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T), bispecific-antibodies (BsAb) and antibody-drug-conjugates (ADC). The primary endpoint was severe (grade ≥ 3) infection incidence. Amongst 256 patients, 92 received CAR-T, 55 BsAb and 109 ADC. The incidence of severe infections was higher with BsAb (40%) than CAR-T (26%) or ADC (8%), including grade 5 infections (7% vs 0% vs 0%, respectively). Comparing T-cell redirecting therapies, the incidence rate of severe infections was significantly lower with CAR-T compared to BsAb at 1-year (incidence-rate-ratio [IRR] = 0.43, 95%CI 0.25-0.76, P = 0.004). During periods of treatment-emergent hypogammaglobulinemia, BsAb recipients had higher infection rates (IRR:2.27, 1.31-3.98, P = 0.004) and time to severe infection (HR 2.04, 1.05-3.96, P = 0.036) than their CAR-T counterparts. During periods of non-neutropenia, CAR-T recipients had a lower risk (HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.21-0.93, P = 0.032) and incidence rate (IRR:0.32, 95% 0.17-0.59, P < 0.001) of severe infections than BsAb. In conclusion, we observed an overall higher and more persistent risk of severe infections with BsAb. Our results also suggest a higher infection risk during periods of hypogammaglobulinemia with BsAb, and with neutropenia in CAR-T recipients.

Progression-Free Survival of Daratumumab Versus Bortezomib Triplet Combination With Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: TAURUS Chart Review Study.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are preferred regimens for transplant ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Both DRd and VRd demonstrated superior efficacy versus Rd in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but there is no head-to-head (H2H) clinical trial comparing their efficacy. Differing populations in the MAIA and S0777 trials make an unadjusted comparison of outcomes challenging and biased. The current TAURUS study is the first real-world H2H study comparing progression-free survival (PFS) among TIE NDMM patients treated with DRd or VRd as first-line (1L) in similar clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter chart review study was conducted at nine sites across the United States. All TIE patients treated with DRd and a randomly selected population of VRd patients were included. TIE NDMM patients aged ≥65 were included if they initiated 1L DRd/VRd between January 2019 and September 2021. PFS was defined as the time from DRd/VRd initiation until disease progression or death. A doubly-robust multivariable Cox regression model combined with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology was used to compare PFS between cohorts. RESULTS: Weighted cohorts comprised 91 DRd and 87 VRd patients. Thirteen DRd and 24 VRd patients experienced progression/death. Patients treated with DRd had a lower risk of progression/death versus VRd (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95% confidence interval: [0.17; 0.73]). CONCLUSION: DRd is associated with a significantly lower risk of disease progression or death compared to VRd as 1L treatment for TIE NDMM patients.

Bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) vs carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone with bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) are commonly used induction regimens in the U.S. This single-center, retrospective study evaluated outcomes and safety of VRd and KRd. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Of 389 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 198 received VRd and 191 received KRd. Median PFS was not reached (NR) in both groups; 5-year PFS was 56% (95%CI, 48-64%) for VRd and 67% (60-75%) for KRd (P = 0.027). Estimated 5-year EFS was 34% (95%CI, 27-42%) for VRd and 52% (45-60%) for KRd (P < 0.001) with corresponding 5-year OS of 80% (95%CI, 75-87%) and 90% (85-95%), respectively (P = 0.053). For standard-risk patients, 5-year PFS was 68% (95%CI, 60-78%) for VRd and 75% (65-85%) for KRd (P = 0.20) with 5-year OS of 87% (95%CI, 81-94%) and 93% (87-99%), respectively (P = 0.13). For high-risk patients, median PFS was 41 months (95%CI, 32.8-61.1) for VRd and 70.9 months (58.2-NR) for KRd (P = 0.016). Respective 5-year PFS and OS were 35% (95%CI, 24-51%) and 69% (58-82%) for VRd and 58% (47-71%) and 88% (80-97%, P = 0.044) for KRd. Overall, KRd resulted in improved PFS and EFS with a trend toward improved OS compared to VRd with associations primarily driven by improvements in outcome for high-risk patients.

Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (VRd) vs Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (KRd) as Induction Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone with bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) are commonly used induction regimens in the U.S. This single-center, retrospective study evaluated outcomes and safety of VRd and KRd. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Of 389 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, 198 received VRd and 191 received KRd. Median PFS was not reached (NR) in both groups; 5-year PFS was 56% (95%CI, 48%-64%) for VRd and 67% (60%-75%) for KRd (P = 0.027). Estimated 5-year EFS was 34% (95%CI, 27%-42%) for VRd and 52% (45%-60%) for KRd (P < 0.001) with corresponding 5-year OS of 80% (95%CI, 75%-87%) and 90% (85%-95%), respectively (P = 0.053). For standard-risk patients, 5-year PFS was 68% (95%CI, 60%-78%) for VRd and 75% (65%-85%) for KRd (P = 0.20) with 5-year OS of 87% (95%CI, 81%-94%) and 93% (87%-99%), respectively (P = 0.13). For high-risk patients, median PFS was 41 months (95%CI, 32.8-61.1) for VRd and 70.9 months (58.2-NR) for KRd (P = 0.016). Respective 5-year PFS and OS were 35% (95%CI, 24%-51%) and 69% (58%-82%) for VRd and 58% (47%-71%) and 88% (80%-97%, P = 0.044) for KRd. Overall, KRd resulted in improved PFS and EFS with a trend toward improved OS compared to VRd with associations primarily driven by improvements in outcome for high-risk patients.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change. RESULTS: Of 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) . CONCLUSIONS: Second-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Targeting BCMA in Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite considerable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in the last decade, a significant number of patients still progress on current available therapies. Here, we review treatment modalities used to target BCMA in the treatment of MM, specifically antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), bispecific antibody constructs, and chimeric antibody receptor (CAR) modified T-cell therapies. We will provide an overview of therapies from these classes that have presented or published clinical data, as well as data on mechanisms of resistance to these novel agents. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical trials exploring different BCMA-targeting modalities to treat multiple myeloma are underway and demonstrate promising results. In relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, anti-BCMA ADCs and bispecific antibody constructs are showing impressive efficacy with manageable side effect profiles. In parallel, adoptive cellular therapy has induced dramatic durable responses in multiply relapsed and refractory myeloma patients. Therapeutic approaches targeting BCMA hold significant potential in the management of multiple myeloma and will soon be incorporated in combination with current standard therapies to improve outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. In addition, novel approaches are being evaluated to overcome resistance mechanisms to anti-BCMA therapies.

Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) involves the infusion of hematopoietic progenitor cells into patients with hematologic disorders with the goal of re-establishing normal hematopoietic and immune function. HCT is classified as autologous or allogeneic based on the origin of hematopoietic cells. Autologous HCT uses the patient's own cells while allogeneic HCT uses hematopoietic cells from a human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor. Allogeneic HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of hematologic malignancies, and autologous HCT is primarily used to support patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. Advances in HCT methods and supportive care in recent decades have led to improved survival after HCT; however, disease relapse and posttransplant complications still commonly occur in both autologous and allogeneic HCT recipients. Allogeneic HCT recipients may also develop acute and/or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which results in immune-mediated cellular injury of several organs. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation focus on recommendations for pretransplant recipient evaluation and the management of GVHD in adult patients with malignant disease.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Bortezomib.

Proteasome inhibitors disrupt multiple pathways in cells and the bone marrow microenvironment, resulting in apoptosis and inhibition of cell-cycle progression, angiogenesis, and proliferation. Bortezomib is a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma after one prior therapy. It is also effective in other plasma cell disorders and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. The main mechanism of action of bortezomib is to inhibit the chymotrypsin-like site of the 20S proteolytic core within the 26S proteasome, thereby inducing cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. The pharmacokinetic profile of intravenous bortezomib is characterized by a two-compartment model with a rapid initial distribution phase followed by a longer elimination phase and a large volume of distribution. Bortezomib is available for subcutaneous and intravenous administration. Pharmacokinetic studies comparing subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib demonstrated that systemic exposure was equivalent for both routes; pharmacodynamic parameters of 20S proteasome inhibition were also similar. Renal impairment does not influence the intrinsic pharmacokinetics of bortezomib. However, moderate or severe hepatic impairment causes an increase in plasma concentrations of bortezomib. Therefore, patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should start at a reduced dose. Because bortezomib undergoes extensive metabolism by hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 and 2C19 enzymes, certain strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers and inhibitors can also alter the systemic exposure of bortezomib. This article critically reviews and summarizes the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bortezomib at various dosing levels and routes of administration as well as in specific patient subsets. In addition, we discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of bortezomib.

Combination antiretroviral therapy accelerates immune recovery in patients with HIV-related lymphoma treated with EPOCH: a comparison within one prospective trial AMC034.

Drug-drug interactions between cART and chemotherapy may impact HIV and lymphoma control or lead to increased toxicities. No prospective comparative data informs potential harms and benefits. In AMC034, HIV-associated high-grade B-cell NHL patients received DA-EPOCH with rituximab. cART was given with EPOCH or delayed until chemotherapy completion per investigator choice. Pharmacokinetic, immunological, and treatment effects of concurrent cART were evaluated. CD4 counts dropped during EPOCH in both groups but recovered to higher than baseline 6 months post-EPOCH only in the cART group. HIV viral load decreased during chemotherapy in the cART group but increased in the non-cART group. Incidence of grade ≥3 infectious, hematologic, or neurological toxicities was similar. Concurrent cART was not associated with 1-year EFS or OS. cART with EPOCH was well-tolerated and allowed for faster immune recovery. While we did not observe differences in outcome, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of combining cART with chemotherapy.

Circulating Tumor Cells Versus Circulating Tumor DNA in Colorectal Cancer: Pros and Cons.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are emerging noninvasive multifunctional biomarkers in liquid biopsy allowing for early diagnosis, accurate prognosis, therapeutic target selection, spatiotemporal monitoring of metastasis, as well as monitoring response and resistance to treatment. CTCs and ctDNA are released from different tumor types at different stages and contribute complementary information for clinical decision. Although big strides have been taken in technology development for detection, isolation and characterization of CTCs and sensitive and specific detection of ctDNA, CTC-, and ctDNA-based liquid biopsies may not be widely adopted for routine cancer patient care until the suitability, accuracy, and reliability of these tests are validated and more standardized protocols are corroborated in large, independent, prospectively designed trials. This review covers CTC- and ctDNA-related technologies and their application in colorectal cancer. The promise of CTC-and ctDNA-based liquid biopsies is envisioned.

Biomarker-driven EGFR therapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

As new data from randomized studies comparing EGFR-targeting therapies with VEGF inhibitors emerge, the treatment landscape for metastatic colorectal cancer is expected to change. Although both the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab and the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab are approved in the first-line setting, they have not until recently been compared directly in randomized studies. Unlike targeted therapy in the EGFR pathway, there are no biomarkers guiding VEGF treatment. Recent data, discussed in this review, demonstrate that patients with KRAS/NRAS wild-type tumors benefit from anti-EGFR therapy in the first-line setting and that anti-EGFR therapy may be superior when compared with anti-VEGF approaches. This review focuses on the clinical utility of targeting EGFR by revisiting the biologic rationale for EGFR inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer and providing new insight on the advancements in biomarker analyses with the potential to change practice.