Session: 705. Cellular Immunotherapies: Late Phase and Commercially Available Therapies: Poster III
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Research, Clinical Research, Plasma Cell Disorders, Diseases, real-world evidence, Lymphoid Malignancies
Methods: Three US academic centers, part of the US Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative, contributed data to this retrospective analysis, which included pts who had undergone apheresis up until 5/15/2023 and who were infused with SOC ide-cel. We compared our cohort (SOC cohort) with the KarMMa cohort for safety outcomes, including cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), infections, and hematologic toxicities, as well as efficacy outcomes, including overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Binomial exact test and Kaplan Meier method were used for statistical analysis.
Results: 120 pts were leukapheresed, 77 (64%) did not meet the KarMMa eligibility criteria, and 69 (58%) of them proceeded with ide-cel infusion and had at least 30-day follow-up available for safety and efficacy assessments. Among the 69/120 SOC ide-cel recipients included in the analysis, median age was 64 (range 41–79) years and 49% were male. The main reasons for not meeting KarMMa inclusion criteria were: baseline 3-4 cytopenia (39%), prior BDT (26%), renal impairment (CrCl <45 ml/min) (19%), ECOG PS ≥2 (14%) and history of other malignancy (13%); the rest are summarized in Table 1. Pts were heavily pretreated with a median of 6 (4-18) prior LOT and 36% had high-risk cytogenetics (del-17p, t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20]) prior to ide-cel infusion. The SOC cohort had more extramedullary disease (52% vs 39%, p=0.02), whereas the KarMMa cohort had higher median bone marrow plasma cell percentage (51% vs 29%, p=0.0002); other baseline characteristics including age, gender, prior LOT, high-risk cytogenetics, and prior refractoriness were similar among the two cohorts. CRS occurred in 81% (grade ≥3, 4%) of SOC pts vs 84% (grade ≥3, 5%) of KarMMa pts (p=0.51). ICANS occurred in 28% (grade ≥3, 3%) of SOC pts vs 18% (grade ≥3, 3%) of KarMMa pts (p=0.04). Infection rate < 8 weeks post-infusion for SOC vs KarMMa cohorts was 38% vs 49% (p=0.39) (bacterial 22% vs 13%, viral 13% vs 12%, fungal 0% vs 5%). Grade 3-4 cytopenias post-infusion for SOC vs KarMMa cohorts were as follows: anemia 48% vs 60% (p=0.10), neutropenia 87% vs 89% (p=0.43), and thrombocytopenia 65% vs 52% (p=0.02). With a median follow-up of 10 and 13.3 months (mo) for SOC and KarMMa cohorts, respectively, ORR was paradoxically higher for the SOC cohort (93% vs 73%, p=0.0008); likewise, ≥CR rate was also higher for the SOC cohort (48% vs 33%, p=0.04). The median PFS of SOC pts (7.6 mo, 95% CI, 6.2-10.9) (Figure 1) was comparable to KarMMa pts (8.8 mo, 95% CI, 5.6-11.6) (c-index 0.96). Likewise, median PFS of SOC pts who achieved ≥CR (10.9 mo, 95% CI, 9-18.3) was comparable to KarMMa pts (20.2 mo, 95% CI, 12.3-NR) (c-index 0.75). The median OS of SOC vs KarMMa cohorts were similar 19.4 mo (95% CI, 12.5-NR) vs 19.4 mo (95% CI, 18.2-NR) (c-index 0.7).
Conclusion: Most safety aspects including CRS, infections and hematological toxicities (except thrombocytopenia) were similar between our real-world cohort and the pts who received ide-cel in the KarMMa study. ICANS was higher in the SOC cohort, however, rate remained low, and most events were grade 1-2. The survival outcomes were comparable between the two cohorts, with responses being, interestingly, higher in the SOC cohort. Our results demonstrate that ide-cel has comparable efficacy and safety in the real-world population, including those with prior BCMA therapy exposure, grade 3-4 cytopenias, ECOG ≥2 and significant comorbidities. These findings support broadening the inclusion criteria of future trials evaluating ide-cel in an effort to improve accessibility across RRMM pts.
Disclosures: Khouri: GPCR Therapeutics: Other: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events. Hashmi: Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Jannsen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Allovir: Consultancy, Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ahmed: Kite, a Gilead company: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy.