Ide-cel与标准疗法在三联疗法复发和难治性多发性骨髓瘤中的应用:最新的KarMMa-3分析。

IF 21 1区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Blood Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1182/blood.2024024582
Sikander Ailawadhi, Bertrand Arnulf, Krina Patel, Michele Cavo, Ajay K Nooka, Salomon Manier, Natalie Callander, Luciano J Costa, Ravi Vij, Nizar J Bahlis, Philippe Moreau, Scott Solomon, Ingerid Weum Abrahamsen, Rachid Baz, Annemiek Broijl, Christine Chen, Sundar Jagannath, Noopur Raje, Christof Scheid, Michel Delforge, Reuben Benjamin, Thomas Pabst, Shinsuke Iida, Jesús Berdeja, Sergio Giralt, Anna Truppel-Hartmann, Yanping Chen, Xiaobo Zhong, Fan Wu, Julia Piasecki, Laurie Eliason, Devender Dhanda, Jasper Felten, Andrea Caia, Mark Cook, Mihaela Popa McKiver, Paula Rodríguez-Otero
{"title":"Ide-cel与标准疗法在三联疗法复发和难治性多发性骨髓瘤中的应用:最新的KarMMa-3分析。","authors":"Sikander Ailawadhi, Bertrand Arnulf, Krina Patel, Michele Cavo, Ajay K Nooka, Salomon Manier, Natalie Callander, Luciano J Costa, Ravi Vij, Nizar J Bahlis, Philippe Moreau, Scott Solomon, Ingerid Weum Abrahamsen, Rachid Baz, Annemiek Broijl, Christine Chen, Sundar Jagannath, Noopur Raje, Christof Scheid, Michel Delforge, Reuben Benjamin, Thomas Pabst, Shinsuke Iida, Jesús Berdeja, Sergio Giralt, Anna Truppel-Hartmann, Yanping Chen, Xiaobo Zhong, Fan Wu, Julia Piasecki, Laurie Eliason, Devender Dhanda, Jasper Felten, Andrea Caia, Mark Cook, Mihaela Popa McKiver, Paula Rodríguez-Otero","doi":"10.1182/blood.2024024582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Outcomes are poor in triple-class-exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P < .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.</p>","PeriodicalId":9102,"journal":{"name":"Blood","volume":" ","pages":"2389-2401"},"PeriodicalIF":21.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ide-cel vs standard regimens in triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: updated KarMMa-3 analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Sikander Ailawadhi, Bertrand Arnulf, Krina Patel, Michele Cavo, Ajay K Nooka, Salomon Manier, Natalie Callander, Luciano J Costa, Ravi Vij, Nizar J Bahlis, Philippe Moreau, Scott Solomon, Ingerid Weum Abrahamsen, Rachid Baz, Annemiek Broijl, Christine Chen, Sundar Jagannath, Noopur Raje, Christof Scheid, Michel Delforge, Reuben Benjamin, Thomas Pabst, Shinsuke Iida, Jesús Berdeja, Sergio Giralt, Anna Truppel-Hartmann, Yanping Chen, Xiaobo Zhong, Fan Wu, Julia Piasecki, Laurie Eliason, Devender Dhanda, Jasper Felten, Andrea Caia, Mark Cook, Mihaela Popa McKiver, Paula Rodríguez-Otero\",\"doi\":\"10.1182/blood.2024024582\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Outcomes are poor in triple-class-exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P < .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2389-2401\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":21.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2024024582\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2024024582","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

三类暴露(TCE)复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)的治疗效果不佳。在3期KarMMa-3(clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03651128)试验中,接受过2-4种治疗方案的TCE RRMM患者以2:1的比例随机接受idecabtagene vicleucel(ide-cel)或标准治疗方案(SRs)。中期分析(IA)显示,中位无进展生存期(PFS;主要终点;13.3 个月 vs 4.4 个月;P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ide-cel vs standard regimens in triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: updated KarMMa-3 analyses.

Abstract: Outcomes are poor in triple-class-exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P < .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Blood
Blood 医学-血液学
CiteScore
23.60
自引率
3.90%
发文量
955
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Blood, the official journal of the American Society of Hematology, published online and in print, provides an international forum for the publication of original articles describing basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations in hematology. Primary research articles will be published under the following scientific categories: Clinical Trials and Observations; Gene Therapy; Hematopoiesis and Stem Cells; Immunobiology and Immunotherapy scope; Myeloid Neoplasia; Lymphoid Neoplasia; Phagocytes, Granulocytes and Myelopoiesis; Platelets and Thrombopoiesis; Red Cells, Iron and Erythropoiesis; Thrombosis and Hemostasis; Transfusion Medicine; Transplantation; and Vascular Biology. Papers can be listed under more than one category as appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信