Teclistamab plus Daratumumab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Teclistamab plus Daratumumab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Teclistamab in Multiple Myeloma with One to Three Previous Lines of Therapy
Author(s): Cyrille Touzeau, M.D., Ph.D.1; Roberto Mina, M.D.2,3; Hang Quach, M.D.4; Vania Hungria, M.D., Ph.D.5; Divaya Bhutani, M.D.6; Wenming Chen, M.D.7; Swarup Kumar, M.D.8; Chakra Chaulagain, M.D.9; Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, M.D.10,11; Nizar J. Bahlis, M.D.12; Senem Maral, M.D.13; Niels W.C.J. van de Donk, M.D., Ph.D.14; Jayr Schmidt Filho, M.D.15; Khalid Saja, M.B., Ch.B.16; Raphael Teipel, M.D.17; Miki Ando, M.D.18; Wilfried Roeloffzen, M.D., Ph.D.19; Ombretta Annibali, M.D., Ph.D.20; Bradley Augustson, M.B., B.S.21; Cirino Botta, M.D., Ph.D.22; Michel Delforge, M.D., Ph.D.23; Emmanuelle Bourgeois, M.D.24; Gabriele Buda, M.D., Ph.D.25; Marek Hus, M.D., Ph.D.26; Aurore Perrot, M.D., Ph.D.27; Meir Preis, M.D., Ph.D.28,29; Meral Beksac, M.D.30; Ludek Pour, M.D.31; Sarah Farmer, M.D., Ph.D.32; Marta Nunes, M.D.33; Albert Oriol, M.D., Ph.D.34; Thomas Melchardt, M.D., Ph.D.35; Yu Hu, M.D.36,37,38; Max Flogegård, M.D.39; Dai Wang, Ph.D.40; Lixia Pei, Ph.D.40; Susan Wroblewski, Ph.D.41; Ingrid M. Ariës, Ph.D.42; Natalia A. Quijano Cardé, Ph.D.41; Tatiana Perova, Ph.D.41; Tertia de Jager, Ph.D.43; Tzu-Min Yeh, M.S.40; Veronique Vanquickelberghe, Ph.D.44; Priya Shah, M.B., B.S.45; Katherine Chastain, M.D.40; Rachel Kobos, M.D.40; Robin Carson, M.D.41; Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D.46; the MajesTEC-9 Trial Investigators*;
Source: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2603870
Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts
It comes as no surprise that bispecific agents are moving up into earlier lines of therapy in multiple myeloma. Here, in the setting of early relapsed, anti-CD38 and –imid exposed patients, single agent teclistimab showed an 18mo progression-free survival benefit over PFd/Kd.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of teclistamab, a bispecific antibody targeting B-cell maturation antigen and CD3, as early-line monotherapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma is unclear.
METHODS
We randomly assigned patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had previously received one, two, or three lines of therapy, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and lenalidomide, to receive teclistamab or the investigator’s choice of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd). Antimicrobial prophylaxis and immune globulin replacement were recommended. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee. Research Summary Teclistamab in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma
RESULTS
A total of 296 patients were assigned to teclistamab and 297 to PVd or Kd. the interim analysis (median follow-up, 17.3 months), teclistamab significantly improved progression-free survival as compared with PVd or Kd (estimated 18-month progression-free survival, 69.8% vs. 26.9%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.38; P
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with multiple myeloma and one to three previous lines of therapy, teclistamab significantly improved progression-free and overall survival as compared with PVd or Kd. Infections of grade 3 or 4 were common. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson; MajesTEC-9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05572515.) Quick Take Teclistamab in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma 2m 44s
Author Affiliations
1Department of Hematology, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France; 2Division of Hematology, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 3Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta; 4University of Melbourne, St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 5Clinica São Germano, São Paulo; 6Columbia University Medical Center, New York; 7Department of Hematology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing; 8Division of Hematology and Oncology, Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center, UConn Health, Farmington, CT; 9Department of Hematology and Oncology, Myeloma and Amyloidosis Program, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston; 10Department of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens; 11Department of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea; 12Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 13Department of Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey; 14Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam; 15Department of Hematology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo; 16Hematology Department, Colchester Hospital, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, United Kingdom; 17Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; 18Department of Hematology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo; 19Department of Hematology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 20Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Dipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome; 21Department of Hematology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia; 22Hematology Unit, “P. Giaccone” University Hospital and Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy; 23Department of Hematology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 24Groupement des Hôpitaux de l’Institut Catholique de Lille, Lille, France; 25Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Hematology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 26Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland; 27Université de Toulouse, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Service d’Hematologie, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse–Oncopole, Cancer Research Center of Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 28Institute of Hematology, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; 29University of Haifa, School of Medicine, Haifa, Israel; 30Department of Hematology, İstinye University, Ankara Liv Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; 31Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; 32Department of Hematology, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark; 33Department of Hematology, Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia e Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal; 34Institut Català d’Oncologia and Institut Josep Carreras, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain; 35Department of Internal Medicine III with Hematology, Medical Oncology, Hemostaseology, Infectiology, and Rheumatology, Cancer Research Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine III, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria; 36Institute of Hematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China; 37Key Laboratory of Biological Targeted Therapy, Ministry of Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China; 38Hubei Clinical and Research Center of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Wuhan, China; 39Department of Internal Medicine, Falun General Hospital, Falun, Sweden; 40Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ; 41Johnson & Johnson, Spring House, PA; 42Johnson & Johnson, Leiden, the Netherlands; 43Johnson & Johnson, Neuss, Germany; 44Johnson & Johnson, Beerse, Belgium; 45Johnson & Johnson, High Wycombe, United Kingdom; 46Sylvester Myeloma Institute, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, MiamiRelated Articles
Dual Targeting of Extramedullary Myeloma with Talquetamab and Teclistamab
This is a very impressive signal in a notoriously difficult population—seeing a 79% response rate and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 15.4 months in true extramedullary, triple-class–exposed myeloma is better than expected. Toxicity is real and management-intensive, but the depth and durability of response make this dual-bispecific approach feel like a meaningful advance.
Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Standard of Care for Second-Line Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma: 3-Year Follow-Up From the Randomized, Phase III TRANSFORM Study
CAR-T therapy outperformed standard of care (SOC) as a second-line treatment, with progression-free survival (PFS) not reached in the CAR-T group compared to 6.2 months in the SOC group. Despite two-thirds of patients crossing over, CAR-T still demonstrated a three-year overall survival rate of 63%, versus 52% with SOC. These are impressive and durable results. The SOC regimen consisted of three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant. This positions CAR-T as a viable second-line option for eligible patients.
Isatuximab Subcutaneous by On-Body Injector Versus Isatuximab Intravenous Plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Phase III IRAKLIA Study
Guess who’s coming as an option beyond AI (OBI)? Yes—this study showed no safety concerns and demonstrated comparable efficacy.
Daratumumab or Active Monitoring for High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma
The AQUILA trial compared daratumumab to active monitoring in high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma, demonstrating a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (84% vs 54% at 48 months) and a trend toward better overall survival (OS) (94% vs 86% at 48 months). Dara also achieved a higher rate of deep responses, with 60% of patients reaching minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity compared to none in the monitoring arm. This looks like a game-changer to delay progression, but we’ll need to weigh the toxicity profile carefully in practice and wait for survival data.