MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7108441195 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-252

Tumor clearance, T-cell fitness, and minimal residual disease (MRD) outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with cevostamab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone: Biomarker analyses from CAMMA 1 Arm B

2025· article· en· W7108441195 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreAlberta Cancer FoundationMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideMultiple myelomaBiomarkerDexamethasoneRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointLenalidomideMinimal residual disease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is ubiquitously expressed on multiple myeloma cells. Cevostamab, a FcRH5xCD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody, has shown encouraging activity and manageable safety as monotherapy in late-line RRMM (Richter et al. ASH 2024). Combining cevostamab with anti-myeloma agents that augment T-cell activity could enhance efficacy. Pomalidomide (Pom) is an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) that exhibits T-cell co-stimulatory effects and is clinically active when given alone or with dexamethasone (dex) in RRMM (San Miguel et al. 2013). In the Arm B randomized dose-expansion stage of the Phase Ib CAMMA 1 study (NCT03275103), cevostamab plus Pom-dex induced deep and durable responses and had manageable safety in patients (pts) with RRMM (Mian et al. IMS 2025). We report exploratory biomarker analyses from Arm B that aimed to characterize tumor kinetics, MRD, and immune correlates of response. Methods In the Arm B randomized dose-expansion cohorts, eligible pts had RRMM and had received ≥1 prior IMiD and ≥1 prior proteasome inhibitor as part of ≥1 prior line. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive 70mg (low-dose [LD]) or 105mg (high-dose [HD]) cevostamab given Q2W in Cycles (C) 1–6 (28-day cycle) and Q4W in C7+, after a pre-phase with double or triple step-up dosing. Pom (2mg Day [D] 1–21) and dex (20mg D1, 8, 15, and 22) were given from C1+. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Soluble B-cell maturation antigen (sBCMA), a surrogate biomarker for tumor burden, and cytokines were measured in plasma using LC/MS and multiplex ELISA assays on ELLA platform. MRD was assessed using Adaptive clonoSEQ® (sensitivity: 10−4 to 10−6). Immunophenotyping was carried out using multiparameter conventional and spectral flow. Given the negative impact of prior exposure to BCMA-targeted agents on outcomes (Richter et al. ASH 2024), analyses were conducted in BCMA-naïve pts only. Results As of June 11, 2025, 64 pts were randomized and treated in the Arm B dose-expansion cohorts (LD, n=32; HD, n=32). Of these, 29 pts in the LD group and 25 pts in the HD group were BCMA naïve (median age: 65 years in both groups [range: LD, 40–76; HD, 48–80]; male: 48.3% and 56.0%, respectively). Among these pts, median number of prior lines of therapy was 2 [range: 1–6] in both groups and the majority were refractory to their last line of therapy (LD, 72.4%; HD, 68.0%). At data cut-off, median time on study in BCMA-naïve pts was 10.4 months (range: 6.3–15.5) in the LD group and 8.3 months (range: 3.3–15.7) in the HD group. The objective response rate (ORR) and very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate were 86.2% and 72.4% in the LD group and 88.0% and 76.0% in the HD group. At cut-off, 84.0% of BCMA-naïve responders in the LD group and 86.4% in the HD group remained in response, with deepening responses observed over time. Baseline sBCMA levels and effector-to-target ratios in BCMA-naïve pts were comparable in the LD and HD groups. CD8⁺ T-cell subset distribution and activation markers also showed no difference between groups, while heatmap clustering confirmed immunological comparability for T-cell fitness. In BCMA-naïve pts, cevostamab plus pom-dex induced rapid, deep, and durable declines in sBCMA levels. Median sBCMA decreases were 54.9% by C1D1 pre-infusion (after the first target dose in the cevostamab pre-phase), 83.0% by C1D15 and 90.9% by C2D1 pre-infusion. Notably, no significant difference in sBCMA kinetics or the depth of sBCMA depletion was observed between the LD and HD groups. In the BCMA-naïve group, 25 pts achieved a complete response or better (CR+) and 20 pts were evaluable for MRD assessment. Of these, 14 pts achieved best MRD negativity at the 10−6 threshold level, 3 pts at the 10−5 threshold and 1 patient at the 10−4 threshold. Two pts had calibration failure at screening, and 5 pt samples were not reconciled at cut-off. There was no significant difference for CR+MRD-negativity rate between the LD (9/13, 69.2%) and HD (8/12, 66.7%) groups at the 10−5 threshold in CR+ pts.Conclusions Cevostamab plus Pom-dex induces high ORR and VGPR or better rates, and durable remissions, in BCMA-naïve pts with RRMM. Combination treatment is also associated with deep and durable declines in sBCMA levels and high rates of CR+MRD-negativity. Updated biomarker data will be presented, including baseline immune fitness and correlation with MRD negativity.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→