Incidence, timing, and management of infections in patients receiving teclistamab for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the MajesTEC-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma are at increased risk of infection. Infections during treatment with teclistamab, the first B-cell maturation antigen-directed bispecific antibody approved for triple-class-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, was examined in the phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study. METHODS: Patients (N = 165) received subcutaneous teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg weekly after a step-up dosing schedule (0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg, each separated by 2-4 days). Patients were monitored frequently for infections; prophylaxis and management were per institutional guidelines. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 22.8 months (range, 0.3-33.6), infections were reported in 132 patients (80.0%). Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 91 patients (55.2%), including COVID-19 (21.2%), respiratory infections (19.4%), Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (4.2%), viral infections (4.2%), and gastrointestinal infections (1.2%). Twenty-one patients died from infections (18 from COVID-19). Median time to first onset of any-grade and grade 3 to 5 infections was 1.7 and 4.2 months, respectively. Overall, 70.9% of patients had ≥1 postbaseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) level <400 mg/dL; median time to IgG <400 mg/dL was 1.2 months (range, 0.2-19.8) and 46.1% received ≥1 dose of IgG replacement. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 65.5% of patients (median time to grade ≥3 neutropenia/febrile neutropenia was 2.3 months [range, 0-18.1]). CONCLUSION: Based on the infection profile of B-cell maturation antigen-targeted bispecific antibodies such as teclistamab, it is recommended that clinicians and patients remain vigilant for a range of infection types throughout treatment to facilitate prompt intervention. Appropriate screening, prophylaxis, and management of infections, hypogammaglobulinemia, and neutropenia are important. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03145181/NCT04557098 (ClinicalTrials.gov) PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Before starting teclistamab, patients should be up to date with vaccinations (including COVID-19) and screened for hepatitis B and C and HIV. Teclistamab should not be given to patients with any active infections. Prophylactic antimicrobials should be administered per institutional guidelines. Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and herpes simplex/varicella zoster virus is recommended during teclistamab treatment. Close monitoring of infections and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels should continue throughout teclistamab treatment. IgG replacement (administered every 3-6 weeks) should be used to maintain IgG ≥400 mg/dL. Growth factors should be considered for grade ≥3 neutropenia with infection/fever and grade 4 neutropenia.

Fixed-duration ibrutinib-venetoclax versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (GLOW): 4-year follow-up from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the GLOW study, fixed-duration ibrutinib-venetoclax showed superior progression-free survival versus chlorambucil-obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who were older or had comorbidities, or both, at a median follow up of 27·7 months. In this Article, we report updated outcomes from GLOW after a 46-month median follow-up. METHODS: GLOW was a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study done at 67 hospital centres across 14 countries. Patients aged 65 years and older or 18-64 years with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and a cumulative illness rating scale score of more than 6 or creatinine clearance less than 70 mL/min, or both, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web system with permuted blocks (block size of four) and stratified by IGHV mutational status and the presence of del11q aberration to the ibrutinib-venetoclax group (three cycles of ibrutinib lead-in [420 mg/day, orally], followed by 12 cycles of ibrutinib plus venetoclax [400 mg/day, orally, including a 5-week dose ramp-up]) or the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (six cycles of chlorambucil [0·5 mg/kg, orally, on days 1 and 15 of each cycle], and obinutuzumab [1000 mg, intravenously, on days 1 (or 100 mg on day 1 and 900 mg on day 2), 8, and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6]). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, assessed by an independent review committee. The safety population included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03462719) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2017-004699-77). FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2018, and April 5, 2019, 211 patients (122 [58%] were male and 89 [42%] were female) were randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib-venetoclax (n=106) or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (n=105). At a median of 46 months (IQR 43-47) of follow-up, progression-free survival remained superior for the ibrutinib-venetoclax group (hazard ratio 0·214 [95% CI 0·138-0·334]; p<0·0001); 42-month progression-free survival rates were 74·6% (95% CI 65·0-82·0) for ibrutinib-venetoclax and 24·8% (16·5-34·1) for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. Following the primary analysis, one patient in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group had a serious adverse event of myelodysplastic syndrome. Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving ibrutinib-venetoclax (cardiac failure, pneumonia, and sinus node dysfunction) and in one patient receiving chlorambucil-obinutuzumab (pneumonia). There were 15 deaths in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group (of which three were due to post-treatment infections) and 30 deaths in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (of which 10 were due to post-treatment infections). INTERPRETATION: After 4 years of follow-up, ibrutinib-venetoclax continues to significantly prolong progression-free survival (vs chemoimmunotherapy) in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, supporting its use as a first-line option. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Pharmacyclics.

Daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma: LYRA study.

This United States community study evaluated the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (D-VCd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). Patients received 4-8 induction cycles of bortezomib 1·5 mg/m2 , cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered as approved except for a split-first dose in Cycle 1. Eligible patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. All patients received ≤12 daratumumab maintenance doses monthly. Eighty-six NDMM and 14 RMM patients received ≥1 treatment dose. In NDMM patients, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and overall response rates after 4 induction cycles were 44% (primary endpoint) and 79%, respectively, and 56% and 81% at end of induction. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 87%. Efficacy was also observed in RMM patients. Fatigue (59%) and neutropenia (13%) were the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and grade 3/4 TEAE, respectively. Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients, primarily during the first dose, and were mild (2% grade 3). The first 2 daratumumab infusions were 4·5 and 3·8 h (median). Overall, D-VCd was well tolerated, split-first daratumumab dosing was feasible, the ≥VGPR rate after 4 cycles was 44% and the 1-year PFS rate was 87%.

Talquetamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness in Patients With Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Talquetamab is approved for treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of talquetamab in the MonumenTAL-1 study versus real-world physician's choice (RW) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An external control arm for MonumenTAL-1 was created from patients in the Flatiron Health database who satisfied MonumenTAL-1 eligibility criteria (n = 629 with 1169 eligible lines of therapy). Patient-level data from MonumenTAL-1 were included for patients who received subcutaneous talquetamab 0.4 mg/kg QW (n = 143) and 0.8 mg/kg Q2W (n = 145). After adjusting for baseline covariate imbalances, comparative effectiveness was assessed for progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline covariates were comparable across cohorts after adjustment. Talquetamab 0.4 mg/kg QW and 0.8 mg/kg Q2W cohorts, respectively, showed significant improvement in PFS (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.44-0.69; P < .0001; median, 7.5 vs. 4.0 months] and 0.40 [95% CI, 0.31-0.53; P < .0001; median, 14.2 vs. 4.0 months]), TTNT (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.47-0.74; P < .0001; median, 9.1 vs. 5.1 months] and 0.45 [95% CI, 0.35-0.59; P < .0001; median, 13.3 vs. 5.1 months]), and OS (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.40-0.78; P = .0007; median, NR vs. 16.5 months] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.70; P = 0.0002; median NR vs. 15.9 months]) versus RW treatment. CONCLUSION: Both talquetamab schedules demonstrated superior effectiveness over RW treatment for all outcomes assessed. These data suggest talquetamab as an effective immunotherapy option in patients with TCE RRMM.

Treatment Outcomes and Roles of Transplantation and Maintenance Rituximab in Patients With Previously Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results From Large Real-World Cohorts.

PURPOSE: Commonly used first-line (1L) treatments for mantle cell lymphoma include high-dose cytarabine-based induction followed by autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) for younger patients and several chemoimmunotherapy regimens for older patients. Continuous debates exist on the role of ASCT in younger patients and maintenance rituximab (MR) after bendamustine plus rituximab (BR). METHODS: Retrospective data from 4,216 patients with mantle cell lymphoma in the Flatiron Health electronic record-derived deidentified database diagnosed between 2011 and 2021, mostly in US community oncology settings, were evaluated for treatment patterns and outcomes. The efficacy findings with ASCT and MR were validated in an independent cohort of 1,168 patients from 12 academic centers. RESULTS: Among 3,614 patients with documented 1L treatment, BR was the most used. Among 1,265 patients age < 65 years, 30.5% received cytarabine-based induction and 23.5% received ASCT. There was no significant association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03; P = .10) or overall survival (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.18; P = .4) among ASCT-eligible patients. Among MR-eligible patients, MR after BR versus BR alone was associated with a longer real-world time to next treatment (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.38; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.92; P < .001). The efficacy findings were consistent in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients treated primarily in the US community setting, only one in four young patients received cytarabine or ASCT consolidation, suggesting the need to develop treatments that can be delivered effectively in routine clinical practice. Together with the validation cohort, data support future clinical trials exploring regimens without ASCT consolidation in young patients, whereas MR should be considered for patients after 1L BR and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone.

Comparative Efficacy of Teclistamab Versus Physician's Choice of Therapy in the Long-term Follow-up of APOLLO, POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS Clinical Trials in Patients With Triple-class Exposed Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of teclistamab in patients with RRMM who received ≥3 prior lines of therapy and were triple-class exposed (TCE) are being evaluated in the single-arm, multicohort, phase I/II MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT04557098). We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of teclistamab versus physician's choice (PC) of therapy in TCE RRMM patients. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from MajesTEC-1 patients who received teclistamab (1.5 mg/kg weekly; clinical cutoff March 16, 2022) were included. An external control arm was created from patients in long-term follow-up of 4 clinical trials of daratumumab who were treated with PC therapy after discontinuation of trial treatments. In the primary analysis, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in 9 baseline covariates. A fully adjusted model included 5 additional prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). RESULTS: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. In the primary analysis, outcomes were significantly improved with teclistamab versus PC: ORR (OR [95% CI] 4.81 [3.04-7.72]; P < .0001); ≥VGPR rate (OR, 12.07 [6.91-22.11]; P < .0001); OS (HR, 0.54 [0.40-0.73]; P < .0001); PFS (HR, 0.59 [0.46-0.78]; P = .0001); and TTNT (HR, 0.32 [0.24-0.42]; P < .0001). Results of the fully adjusted model were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Teclistamab showed significantly improved effectiveness versus PC on all outcomes, highlighting its clinical benefit in patients with TCE RRMM and limited treatment options.

Teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Materials & methods: MajesTEC-1 eligibility criteria were applied to the RWPC cohort. Baseline covariate imbalances were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time to next treatment were compared. Results: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (teclistamab, n = 165; RWPC, n = 364 [766 observations]). Teclistamab treated patients had numerically better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.59-1.14]; p = 0.233) and significantly greater progression-free survival (HR: 0.43 [0.33-0.56]; p < 0.0001) and time to next treatment (HR: 0.36 [0.27-0.49]; p < 0.0001) versus the RWPC cohort. Conclusion: Teclistamab offered clinical benefit over RWPC in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment-emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design setting and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non-central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Impact of Minimal Residual Disease on Progression-Free Survival Outcomes After Fixed-Duration Ibrutinib-Venetoclax Versus Chlorambucil-Obinutuzumab in the GLOW Study.

PURPOSE: In GLOW, fixed-duration ibrutinib + venetoclax showed superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in older/comorbid patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The current analysis describes minimal residual disease (MRD) kinetics and any potential predictive value for PFS, as it has not yet been evaluated for ibrutinib + venetoclax treatment. METHODS: Undetectable MRD (uMRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing at <1 CLL cell per 10,000 (<10-4) and <1 CLL cell per 100,000 (<10-5) leukocytes. PFS was analyzed by MRD status at 3 months after treatment (EOT+3). RESULTS: Ibrutinib + venetoclax achieved deeper uMRD (<10-5) rates in bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB), respectively, in 40.6% and 43.4% of patients at EOT+3 versus 7.6% and 18.1% of patients receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab. Of these patients, uMRD (<10-5) in PB was sustained during the first year post-treatment (EOT+12) in 80.4% of patients receiving ibrutinib + venetoclax and 26.3% receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab. Patients with detectable MRD (dMRD; ≥10-4) in PB at EOT+3 were more likely to sustain MRD levels through EOT+12 with ibrutinib + venetoclax versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab. PFS rates at EOT+12 were high among patients treated with ibrutinib + venetoclax regardless of MRD status at EOT+3: 96.3% and 93.3% in patients with uMRD (<10-4) and dMRD (≥10-4) in BM, respectively, versus 83.3% and 58.7% for patients receiving chlorambucil + obinutuzumab. PFS rates at EOT+12 also remained high in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) receiving ibrutinib + venetoclax, independent of MRD status in BM. CONCLUSION: Molecular and clinical relapses were less frequent during the first year post-treatment with ibrutinib + venetoclax versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab regardless of MRD status at EOT+3 and IGHV status. Even for patients not achieving uMRD (<10-4), PFS rates remained high with ibrutinib + venetoclax; this is a novel finding and requires additional follow-up to confirm its persistence over time.