Maximilian Merz, Anca-Maria Albici, Bastian von Tresckow, Kristin Rathje, Roland Fenk, Tobias Holderried, Fabian Müller, Natalia Tovar, Aina Oliver-Cáldes, Vladan Vucinic, Soraya Kharboutli, Ben-Niklas Bärmann, Francis Ayuk, Uwe Platzbecker, Friedrich Stölzel, Nathalie Schub, Friederike Schmitz, David Fandrei, Patrick Born, Cyrus Khandanpour, Christine Hanoun, Keven Hörster, Marcel Teichert, Barbara Jeker, Michele Hoffmann, Nicolaus Kröger, Carlos Fernández de Larrea, Thomas Pabst, Nico Gagelmann
{"title":"Idecabtagene vicleucel or ciltacabtagene autoleucel for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: An international multicenter study","authors":"Maximilian Merz, Anca-Maria Albici, Bastian von Tresckow, Kristin Rathje, Roland Fenk, Tobias Holderried, Fabian Müller, Natalia Tovar, Aina Oliver-Cáldes, Vladan Vucinic, Soraya Kharboutli, Ben-Niklas Bärmann, Francis Ayuk, Uwe Platzbecker, Friedrich Stölzel, Nathalie Schub, Friederike Schmitz, David Fandrei, Patrick Born, Cyrus Khandanpour, Christine Hanoun, Keven Hörster, Marcel Teichert, Barbara Jeker, Michele Hoffmann, Nicolaus Kröger, Carlos Fernández de Larrea, Thomas Pabst, Nico Gagelmann","doi":"10.1002/hem3.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), but direct comparisons are lacking. Leveraging an international multicenter RRMM cohort, we compared the outcome of ide-cel (<i>n</i> = 162) versus cilta-cel (<i>n</i> = 42). Co-primary efficacy endpoints of the study were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Co-primary safety endpoints were the incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune-effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Median turnaround time between apheresis and infusion was 47 days for ide-cel versus 68 days for cilta-cel (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Cilta-cel showed significantly higher ORR (93% vs. 79%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), with complete response at Day 30 of 48% versus 26% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The 10-month PFS and overall survival (OS) was 82% and 90% for cilta-cel versus 47% and 77% ide-cel (<i>p</i> < 0.001 and <i>p</i> = 0.06), and improved outcome for cilta-cel was confirmed after multivariable adjustment. Incidence of CRS and ICANS appeared similar (81% and 19% for cilta-cel versus 85% and 19% for ide-cel), while 10% and 7% in the cilta-cel group versus 4% and 2% in the ide-cel group showed severe CRS and ICANS grade 3–4, with CRS occurring significantly earlier for ide-cel (median, 2 days vs. 4 days; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Nonrelapse mortality was 5% for cilta-cel versus 3% for ide-cel (<i>p</i> = 0.51). Cilta-cel showed later peak of CAR-T expansion at Day 14 versus Day 7 for ide-cel, while cilta-cel expansion was associated with ICANS. Our study provides real-world evidence that cilta-cel was associated with superior outcomes and distinct cellular dynamics versus ide-cel in triple-class exposed RRMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":12982,"journal":{"name":"HemaSphere","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11735948/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HemaSphere","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hem3.70070","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), but direct comparisons are lacking. Leveraging an international multicenter RRMM cohort, we compared the outcome of ide-cel (n = 162) versus cilta-cel (n = 42). Co-primary efficacy endpoints of the study were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Co-primary safety endpoints were the incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune-effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Median turnaround time between apheresis and infusion was 47 days for ide-cel versus 68 days for cilta-cel (p < 0.001). Cilta-cel showed significantly higher ORR (93% vs. 79%; p < 0.001), with complete response at Day 30 of 48% versus 26% (p < 0.001). The 10-month PFS and overall survival (OS) was 82% and 90% for cilta-cel versus 47% and 77% ide-cel (p < 0.001 and p = 0.06), and improved outcome for cilta-cel was confirmed after multivariable adjustment. Incidence of CRS and ICANS appeared similar (81% and 19% for cilta-cel versus 85% and 19% for ide-cel), while 10% and 7% in the cilta-cel group versus 4% and 2% in the ide-cel group showed severe CRS and ICANS grade 3–4, with CRS occurring significantly earlier for ide-cel (median, 2 days vs. 4 days; p < 0.001). Nonrelapse mortality was 5% for cilta-cel versus 3% for ide-cel (p = 0.51). Cilta-cel showed later peak of CAR-T expansion at Day 14 versus Day 7 for ide-cel, while cilta-cel expansion was associated with ICANS. Our study provides real-world evidence that cilta-cel was associated with superior outcomes and distinct cellular dynamics versus ide-cel in triple-class exposed RRMM.
期刊介绍:
HemaSphere, as a publication, is dedicated to disseminating the outcomes of profoundly pertinent basic, translational, and clinical research endeavors within the field of hematology. The journal actively seeks robust studies that unveil novel discoveries with significant ramifications for hematology.
In addition to original research, HemaSphere features review articles and guideline articles that furnish lucid synopses and discussions of emerging developments, along with recommendations for patient care.
Positioned as the foremost resource in hematology, HemaSphere augments its offerings with specialized sections like HemaTopics and HemaPolicy. These segments engender insightful dialogues covering a spectrum of hematology-related topics, including digestible summaries of pivotal articles, updates on new therapies, deliberations on European policy matters, and other noteworthy news items within the field. Steering the course of HemaSphere are Editor in Chief Jan Cools and Deputy Editor in Chief Claire Harrison, alongside the guidance of an esteemed Editorial Board comprising international luminaries in both research and clinical realms, each representing diverse areas of hematologic expertise.