在英国,elranatamab和现实世界治疗三级暴露复发和难治性多发性骨髓瘤的结果比较。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Carmen Tsang, Joseph E O'Reilly, Lewis Carpenter, Charles Duffield, Filipa Tunaru, Jamie Wallis, Alycia Perkins, Thomas Price, Sam Wood, Karthik Ramasamy
{"title":"在英国,elranatamab和现实世界治疗三级暴露复发和难治性多发性骨髓瘤的结果比较。","authors":"Carmen Tsang, Joseph E O'Reilly, Lewis Carpenter, Charles Duffield, Filipa Tunaru, Jamie Wallis, Alycia Perkins, Thomas Price, Sam Wood, Karthik Ramasamy","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-14624-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with triple class exposed (TCE), relapsed and refractory (RR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Elranatamab, a bispecific BCMA-targeted antibody, is an investigational treatment for RRMM with demonstrated efficacy and safety in MagnetisMM-3, a single-arm, multi-centre, phase-2 study. This study aimed to characterise outcomes for real world TCE RRMM patients and to estimate the treatment effect of elranatamab compared to treatments available in routine clinical care for TCE RRMM in the NHS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational, external control arm (ECA) study combining participants from a single arm, multi-centre phase 2 study, MagnetisMM-3, receiving elranatamab to compare patient characteristics and median survival using a comparator cohort of TCE RRMM patients treated with real world regimens in five UK centres between 2015 and 2023. Both naive and adjusted treatment effect estimates for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards models and differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST). Quantitative bias analysis was used to assess the robustness of effect estimates to unmeasured confounding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 5,535 patients identified with a diagnosis of MM, 81 were identified as eligible for inclusion in the ECA. A total of 13 different regimens were recorded as being initiated from the real world RRMM at index date, the most common regimen was pomalidomide + dexamethasone (48.15%). Clinical outcomes in the ECA were poor (median PFS 3.71 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.73-4.73], median OS 11.00 months [8.02-18.10]). In unadjusted analyses the elranatamab cohort had significant improvements in PFS (dRMST 6.95 months [4.08-9.61]) and OS (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.66 [0.45-0.96]). Adjusted analyses showed similar effects for PFS (dRMST 6.45 [3.05-9.45]) but were equivocal for OS (HR 0.75 [0.46-1.26]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides recent real world evidence of poor outcomes in TCE RRMM in the UK. PFS was longer among patients who received elranatamab compared with treatments for TCE RRMM in routine UK clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"1219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of outcomes with elranatamab and real world treatments in the UK for triple class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Tsang, Joseph E O'Reilly, Lewis Carpenter, Charles Duffield, Filipa Tunaru, Jamie Wallis, Alycia Perkins, Thomas Price, Sam Wood, Karthik Ramasamy\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12885-025-14624-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with triple class exposed (TCE), relapsed and refractory (RR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Elranatamab, a bispecific BCMA-targeted antibody, is an investigational treatment for RRMM with demonstrated efficacy and safety in MagnetisMM-3, a single-arm, multi-centre, phase-2 study. This study aimed to characterise outcomes for real world TCE RRMM patients and to estimate the treatment effect of elranatamab compared to treatments available in routine clinical care for TCE RRMM in the NHS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational, external control arm (ECA) study combining participants from a single arm, multi-centre phase 2 study, MagnetisMM-3, receiving elranatamab to compare patient characteristics and median survival using a comparator cohort of TCE RRMM patients treated with real world regimens in five UK centres between 2015 and 2023. Both naive and adjusted treatment effect estimates for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards models and differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST). Quantitative bias analysis was used to assess the robustness of effect estimates to unmeasured confounding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a total of 5,535 patients identified with a diagnosis of MM, 81 were identified as eligible for inclusion in the ECA. A total of 13 different regimens were recorded as being initiated from the real world RRMM at index date, the most common regimen was pomalidomide + dexamethasone (48.15%). Clinical outcomes in the ECA were poor (median PFS 3.71 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.73-4.73], median OS 11.00 months [8.02-18.10]). In unadjusted analyses the elranatamab cohort had significant improvements in PFS (dRMST 6.95 months [4.08-9.61]) and OS (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.66 [0.45-0.96]). Adjusted analyses showed similar effects for PFS (dRMST 6.45 [3.05-9.45]) but were equivocal for OS (HR 0.75 [0.46-1.26]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides recent real world evidence of poor outcomes in TCE RRMM in the UK. PFS was longer among patients who received elranatamab compared with treatments for TCE RRMM in routine UK clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14624-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14624-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:三级暴露(TCE)、复发和难治性(RR)多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者的治疗选择有限,预后差。Elranatamab是一种双特异性bcma靶向抗体,是一种治疗RRMM的研究性药物,在一项单臂、多中心、2期研究MagnetisMM-3中显示出疗效和安全性。本研究旨在描述真实世界TCE RRMM患者的结局,并与NHS中TCE RRMM常规临床护理中可用的治疗方法相比,估计elranatamab的治疗效果。方法:一项回顾性、观察性、外部对照组(ECA)研究,纳入单臂、多中心2期研究MagnetisMM-3的参与者,接受elranatamab,比较2015年至2023年间在英国5个中心接受真实方案治疗的TCE RRMM患者的患者特征和中位生存期。使用治疗加权(IPTW) Cox比例风险模型的逆概率和限制平均生存时间(dRMST)的差异,获得无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)的初始和调整治疗效果估计值。定量偏倚分析用于评估效应估计对未测量混杂的稳健性。结果:在共5535例确诊为MM的患者中,81例被确定为符合纳入ECA的条件。在索引日期,共有13种不同的方案被记录为从真实世界RRMM开始,最常见的方案是泊马度胺+地塞米松(48.15%)。ECA的临床结果较差(中位PFS为3.71个月[95%可信区间(CI) 2.73-4.73],中位OS为11.00个月[8.02-18.10])。在未经调整的分析中,elranatamab队列在PFS (dRMST为6.95个月[4.08-9.61])和OS(风险比(HR) 0.66[0.45-0.96])方面有显著改善。调整后的分析显示,PFS (dRMST为6.45[3.05-9.45])的效果相似,但OS (HR为0.75[0.46-1.26])的效果不明确。结论:这项研究为英国TCE RRMM的不良预后提供了最新的真实证据。在英国常规临床实践中,与TCE RRMM治疗相比,接受elranatamab治疗的患者PFS更长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of outcomes with elranatamab and real world treatments in the UK for triple class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Background: Patients with triple class exposed (TCE), relapsed and refractory (RR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Elranatamab, a bispecific BCMA-targeted antibody, is an investigational treatment for RRMM with demonstrated efficacy and safety in MagnetisMM-3, a single-arm, multi-centre, phase-2 study. This study aimed to characterise outcomes for real world TCE RRMM patients and to estimate the treatment effect of elranatamab compared to treatments available in routine clinical care for TCE RRMM in the NHS.

Methods: A retrospective, observational, external control arm (ECA) study combining participants from a single arm, multi-centre phase 2 study, MagnetisMM-3, receiving elranatamab to compare patient characteristics and median survival using a comparator cohort of TCE RRMM patients treated with real world regimens in five UK centres between 2015 and 2023. Both naive and adjusted treatment effect estimates for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards models and differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST). Quantitative bias analysis was used to assess the robustness of effect estimates to unmeasured confounding.

Results: From a total of 5,535 patients identified with a diagnosis of MM, 81 were identified as eligible for inclusion in the ECA. A total of 13 different regimens were recorded as being initiated from the real world RRMM at index date, the most common regimen was pomalidomide + dexamethasone (48.15%). Clinical outcomes in the ECA were poor (median PFS 3.71 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.73-4.73], median OS 11.00 months [8.02-18.10]). In unadjusted analyses the elranatamab cohort had significant improvements in PFS (dRMST 6.95 months [4.08-9.61]) and OS (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.66 [0.45-0.96]). Adjusted analyses showed similar effects for PFS (dRMST 6.45 [3.05-9.45]) but were equivocal for OS (HR 0.75 [0.46-1.26]).

Conclusion: This study provides recent real world evidence of poor outcomes in TCE RRMM in the UK. PFS was longer among patients who received elranatamab compared with treatments for TCE RRMM in routine UK clinical practice.

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
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信