Search

Abstract: The efficacies of chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-Ts) and bispecific monoclonal antibodies (BiAbs) for triple-class refractory (TCR) myeloma have not previously been compared, and clinical data on how to rescue patients after relapse from these immunotherapies are limited. A retrospective study of 73 TCR patients included in trials was conducted: 36 received CAR-Ts and 37 received BiAbs. CAR-Ts produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) than BiAbs (97.1% vs 56.8%, P = .002). After a median of follow-up of 18.7 months, no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed between the CAR-T and BiAbs groups (16.6 vs 10.8 months; P = .090), whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the CAR-T than in the BiAbs group (49.2 vs 22.6 months; P = .021). BiAbs after CAR-Ts yielded a higher ORR and longer PFS2 than did nonredirecting T-cell therapies after CAR-Ts (ORR: 87.5% vs 50.0%; PFS2: 22.9 vs 12.4 months). By contrast, BiAbs after BiAbs resulted in an ORR of 33% and PFS2 of 8.4 months, which was similar to that produced by the nonredirecting T-cell therapies (ORR: 28.6%; PFS2: 8.1 months). Although this is a pooled analysis of different trials with different products and the patient profile is different for CAR-Ts and BiAbs, both were effective therapies for TCR myeloma. However, in our experience, although the PFS was similar with the 2 approaches, CAR-T therapy resulted in better OS, mainly because of the efficacy of BiAbs as rescue therapy. Our results highlight the importance of treatment sequence in real-word experience., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Monitoring of the monoclonal protein (M-protein) by electrophoresis and/or immunofixation (IFE) has long been used to assess treatment response in multiple myeloma (MM). However, with the use of highly effective therapies, the M-protein becomes frequently undetectable, and more sensitive methods had to be explored. We applied IFE and mass spectrometry (EXENT&FLC-MS) in serum samples from newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 obtained at baseline (n = 223), and after induction (n = 183), autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 173), and consolidation (n = 173). At baseline, the isotypes identified with both methods fully matched in 82.1% of samples; in the rest but 2 cases, EXENT&FLC-MS provided additional information to IFE with regards to the M-protein(s). Overall, the results of EXENT&FLC-MS and IFE were concordant in >80% of cases, being most discordances due to EXENT&FLC-MS+ but IFE- cases. After consolidation, IFE was not able to discriminate 2 cohorts with different median progression-free survival (PFS), but EXENT&FLC-MS did so; furthermore, among IFE- patients, EXENT&FLC-MS identified 2 groups with significantly different median PFS (P = .0008). In conclusion, compared with IFE, EXENT&FLC-MS is more sensitive to detect the M-protein of patients with MM, both at baseline and during treatment, and provides a more accurate prediction of patients' outcome. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01916252., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Patients with multiple myeloma have experienced a great improvement in survival over the past century because of the introduction of novel therapeutic strategies. However, a subgroup of patients with poorer outcomes than expected is considered high risk and identified by the presence of patient- and disease-based factors such as frailty, extramedullary disease, cytogenetic abnormalities, or even relapses occurring earlier than expected according to the baseline factors. Although the management of patients with high-risk features is not well established because of the lack of specific trials in this subgroup of patients and because of their underrepresentation in the clinical trials, treatment should be planned on 2 pillars: (1) poor prognosis with the presence of high-risk features can be at least improved or even abrogated by achieving a deep and sustained response over time, and (2) this can most likely be obtained through using the best therapeutic options and in a response-adapted way. Some clinical trials that have been planned or are ongoing include only patients with high-risk features, using the most effective therapies (proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies) as well as chimeric antigen receptor T cells and T-cell engagers that will unravel what the best therapeutic approach will be to overcome the poor prognosis of the presence of high-risk features., (Copyright © 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)