Clinical Outcomes of Subsequent Therapies in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Following Talquetamab Treatment: Analyses from the Phase 1/2 MonumenTAL-1 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Talquetamab (tal) is an off-the-shelf, T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody (BsAb) targeting G protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D. Results from the phase 1/2 MonumenTAL-1 (NCT03399799/NCT04634552) trial showed overall response rates (ORRs) of >71%, which were durable, and a manageable safety profile with the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2Ds) of subcutaneous (SC) tal, 0.4 mg/kg weekly (QW) or 0.8 mg/kg every other week (Q2W), in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Data with tal also demonstrated preservation of B cells throughout treatment, contributing to relatively few severe infections. To date, there is a paucity of data describing pt outcomes after T-cell redirection therapies. Here, we report outcomes for pts who received subsequent antimyeloma therapies (SATs) after discontinuing tal in MonumenTAL-1, including pts who went on to receive subsequent T-cell redirection therapies. Methods: Pts eligible for MonumenTAL-1 were intolerant to or progressed on established therapies (phase 1) or had ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including ≥1 proteasome inhibitor (PI), ≥1 immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and ≥1 anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb) (phase 2). Pts received step-up doses and the QW or Q2W RP2Ds of SC tal until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Following tal discontinuation, SAT, start/end date of SAT, best response to SAT, and date of PD on SAT were recorded, if available. Data are pooled for the QW and Q2W RP2D cohorts. Response to SAT is based on investigator-reported assessment. Efficacy is presented for first SAT received post tal discontinuation. Results: As of 17 Jan, 2023, 288 pts with no prior exposure to T-cell redirection therapies received tal at the RP2Ds (0.4 mg/kg QW [n=143] or 0.8 mg/kg Q2W [n=145]). Median prior LOT was 5. In the QW and Q2W cohorts, respectively, 74.1% and 69.0% were triple-class refractory, 29.4% and 23.4% were penta-drug refractory, and 15.4% and 11.0% had prior belantamab mafodotin exposure. Overall, 135 pts received ≥1 SAT post tal discontinuation: chemotherapy-based regimens (n=60 [44.4%]), a PI-, IMiD-, or other anti-neoplastic-containing regimen (n=40 [29.6%]), anti-CD38 mAb-containing regimens (n=36 [26.7%]), BsAbs (mostly monotherapy, n=23 [17.1%]: n=18 [13.3%] anti-B-cell maturation antigen [BCMA]; n=5 [3.7%] anti-Fc receptor-like protein 5 [FcRH5]), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy (n=20 [14.8%]; of whom n=18 [13.3%] were reported as receiving anti-BCMA-targeting CAR-T therapy), or anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugates (n=13 [9.6%]). Time from tal discontinuation to the start of first SAT was generally similar across all drug classes (median, 1.1 months [range, 0.1-7.4]), including T-cell redirection therapies and bridging therapy in pts receiving CAR-T therapy: 1.5 months (range, 0.1-7.4) with CAR-T, 1.7 months (range, 1.0-3.5) with anti-BCMA BsAbs, and 1.0 month (range, 1.0-2.3) with anti-FcRH5 BsAbs. Best responses for each treatment class are shown in the Table. Pts had deep responses to CAR-T therapy as the first SAT post tal discontinuation with an ORR of 66.7% (8/12) (Table). ORR was 33.3% (2/6) in pts treated with anti-BCMA BsAbs as the first SAT post tal and 66.6% (2/3) with subsequent anti-FcRH5 BsAb therapy. Conclusions: Pts from MonumenTAL-1 who discontinued tal were effectively treated with several classes of therapy. Subsequent treatment with T-cell redirection therapies appears feasible, with 25.0% of pts achieving a complete response or better with CAR-T therapy post tal. Further investigation in larger pt populations is warranted to better understand the sequencing of T-cell redirecting therapies after tal to optimize outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".