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微核或ciltacabtagene自核治疗复发或难治性多发性骨髓瘤:一项国际多中心研究。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
idacabtagene微核(ide-cel)和ciltacabtagene自核(cilta-cel)已经彻底改变了复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)的治疗,但缺乏直接的比较。利用国际多中心RRMM队列,我们比较了ide-cel (n = 162)和cilta-cel (n = 42)的结果。该研究的共同主要疗效终点是总有效率(ORR)和无进展生存期(PFS)。共同的主要安全终点是细胞因子释放综合征(CRS)和免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征(ICANS)的发生率。idel -cel和cilta-cel的中位间隔时间为47天,而cilta-cel的中位间隔时间为68天(p p p p = 0.06),经多变量调整后,cilta-cel的预后得到改善。CRS和ICANS的发生率相似(cilta-cel组为81%和19%,idea -cel组为85%和19%),而cilta-cel组为10%和7%,idea -cel组为4%和2%,显示严重CRS和ICANS 3-4级,其中idea -cel组CRS发生明显提前(中位数,2天对4天;p = 0.51)。相比于ide- cell, cilta- cell的CAR-T扩增高峰在第14天晚于第7天,而cilta- cell扩增与ICANS相关。我们的研究提供了真实的证据,证明在三级暴露的RRMM中,cilta- cell与idel - cell相比具有更好的结果和不同的细胞动力学。
Idecabtagene vicleucel or ciltacabtagene autoleucel for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: An international multicenter study
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.