MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreAlberta Cancer FoundationMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideMultiple myelomaBiomarkerDexamethasoneRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointLenalidomideMinimal residual disease

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→