Indirect treatment (tx) comparison of teclistamab (tec) in MajesTEC-1 versus physician’s choice of therapy in the long-term follow-up of the CASTOR, POLLUX, EQUULEUS, and APOLLO trials in patients (pts) with triple-class exposed (TCE), relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

Authors

null

Maria-Victoria Mateos

University Hospital of Salamanca/IBSAL/CIC/CIBERONC, Salamanca, Spain

Maria-Victoria Mateos , Ajai Chari , Saad Zafar Usmani , Hartmut Goldschmidt , Katja Weisel , Keqin Qi , Anil Londhe , Sandhya Nair , Xiwu Lin , Lixia Pei , Eric Ammann , Rachel Kobos , Jennifer Smit , Trilok V. Parekh , Mary Slavcev , Philippe Moreau

Organizations

University Hospital of Salamanca/IBSAL/CIC/CIBERONC, Salamanca, Spain, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center of Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, NJ, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, NJ, Belgium, Janssen Global Services, Horsham, PA, Janssen Research & Development, Raritan, NJ, Janssen Global Services, Raritan, NJ, Janssen Research & Development, Spring House, PA, Janssen Research & Development, Bridgewater, NJ, Hematology Clinic, University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, France

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Tec is a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody currently being evaluated in the single-arm, phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT04557098) in pts with RRMM who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT) and were TCE to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The aim of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of tec versus physician’s choice of therapy, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. Methods: An external control arm for MajesTEC-1 was created from pts in the long-term follow-up of 4 clinical trials of daratumumab (CASTOR, POLLUX, EQUULEUS, and APOLLO) who met the eligibility criteria for MajesTEC-1. These pts (N = 427) were subsequently treated with physician’s choice of therapy after discontinuing trial txs, and disease progression and best tx response were based on the investigator’s assessment. Individual pt-level data from MajesTEC-1 pts who received tec (1.5 mg/kg weekly) at a clinical cutoff of Sep 7, 2021 were included. Inverse probability of tx weighting (IPTW) with average tx effect on the treated population was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates of prognostic significance: refractory status, progression on last LOT, cytogenetic risk, International Staging System stage, number of prior LOT, extramedullary plasmacytoma, time since diagnosis, age, and hemoglobin. Overall response rate (ORR), rate of complete response or better (≥CR), rate of very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next tx (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. For binary endpoints (ORR, ≥CR rate, ≥VGPR rate), the relative effect of tec vs physician’s choice of therapy was estimated with an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) derived from a weighted logistic regression analysis. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for time-to-event endpoints (PFS, OS, and TTNT). Several sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: After IPTW, baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Pts treated with tec had improved outcomes vs physician’s choice of therapy: ORR (OR 4.58; 95% CI 2.83–7.53; P< 0.0001); ≥CR rate (OR 12.62; 95% CI 5.20–38.55; P< 0.0001); ≥VGPR rate (OR 11.64; 95% CI 6.49–21.98; P< 0.0001); PFS (HR 0.62; 95%CI 0.45–0.84; P= 0.0024); TTNT (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.27–0.52; P< 0.0001); and OS (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32–0.69; P= 0.0001). Results were similar for all sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Tec showed improved efficacy versus physician’s choice of therapy in all clinical outcomes, highlighting its therapeutic potential to address unmet needs in pts with TCE RRMM who received ≥3 prior LOT.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Hematologic Malignancies—Plasma Cell Dyscrasia

Track

Hematologic Malignancies

Sub Track

Multiple Myeloma

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr 8034)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.8034

Abstract #

8034

Poster Bd #

458

Abstract Disclosures