P870: EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ELRANATAMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PRIOR B-CELL MATURATION ANTIGEN (BCMA)-DIRECTED THERAPIES: A POOLED ANALYSIS FROM MAGNETISMM STUDIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: 14. Myeloma and other monoclonal gammopathies - Clinical Background: Studies in the elranatamab MagnetisMM program (MM-1, NCT03269136; MM-3, NCT04649359; MM-9, NCT05014412) enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with prior BCMA-directed therapies. Aims: The efficacy and safety of elranatamab monotherapy in patients with RRMM and prior exposure to BCMA-directed therapy was evaluated in a pooled analysis. Methods: Eligible patients received at least 1 proteasome inhibitor, 1 immunomodulatory drug, 1 anti-CD38 antibody, and 1 BCMA-directed therapy (antibody drug conjugate [ADC] and/or CAR-T cells). Pooled analysis included patients in MM-1 (n=13) who received SC elranatamab 215−1000 µg/kg; MM-3 (n=64) and MM-9 (n=9) who received the RP2D, SC 76 mg QW. Efficacy endpoints were assessed by investigator per IMWG criteria. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were graded by CTCAE (MM-1, v4.03; MM-3 & MM-9, v5.0); cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were graded by ASTCT criteria. Results include data up through ~10 mo after last patient initial dose in all pooled studies. Results: In total, 86 patients were included. Median age was 66.0 y (range, 40−84); 47.7% male. At baseline, 69.8% had an ECOG PS ≥1; 24.4% had high risk cytogenetics; 54.7% had extramedullary disease. Patients received a median of 7.0 (3−19) prior lines of therapy, including BCMA-directed ADC (67.4%) and/or CAR T-cells (41.9%), 9.3% received both. 96.5% and 54.7% of patients were triple-class and penta-drug refractory, respectively; among patients who received ADC and CAR-T cells respectively, 79.3% and 27.8% were refractory to ADC and CAR-T cells. After a median follow-up of 10.3 mo (0.3−32.3), median duration of treatment was 3.3 mo (0.03−30.4). At data cut-off, 24.4% of patients remained on treatment; most common reason for permanent treatment discontinuation was progressive disease (44.2%). Objective response rate (ORR) was 45.3% (95% CI 34.6−56.5), with complete response or better achieved in 17.4% of patients. ORR for patients with prior BCMA-directed ADC and CAR-T cells was 41.4% (95% CI 28.6−55.1) and 52.8% (95% CI 35.5−69.6), respectively. Among responders, median time to objective response was 1.9 mo (0.3−9.3). Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached by 10 mo; the DOR rate at 9 mo was 72.4% (95% CI 54.7−84.2). DOR rate (95% CI) for patients with prior BCMA-directed ADC and CAR-T cells were 67.3% (43.1−83.0) and 78.9% (53.2−91.5) at 9 mo, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.8 mo (95% CI 1.9−7.7), and median overall survival was not reached by 10 mo, with a rate of 60.1% (95% CI 48.9−69.6) at 9 mo. Most common (≥25% of patients) TEAEs were CRS (65.1% [G3 1.2%]), anemia (59.3% [G3/4, 46.5%]), neutropenia (44.2% [G3/4, 40.7%]), thrombocytopenia (40.7% [G3/4, 29.1%]), diarrhea (33.7% [G3/4, 0%], and lymphopenia (32.6% [G3/4, 30.2%]). ICANS was reported in 5.8% (G3, 2.3%) of patients. Summary/Conclusion In patients with RRMM and prior exposure to BCMA-directed therapies, elranatamab was efficacious and well tolerated; no new safety signals were observed vs the BCMA-naïve population. Results support treatment with elranatamab in patients with RRMM post BCMA-directed therapy. Keywords: Clinical trial, B-cell maturation antigen, Bispecific, Multiple myeloma
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".