Jérôme Lambert

Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), an adoptive chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), has demonstrated high response rates and improved survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. However, all patients eventually relapse, and data on salvage therapy outcomes remain limited. We conducted a national, real-world study of 154 patients relapsing after ide-cel, with a median time to progression of 6.0 months (interquartile range, 3.0-9.9). Salvage therapies included anti-BCMA bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) (n = 79), non-BCMA BsAbs targeting GPRC5D or FcRH5 (n = 12), combinations of immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (n = 40), and others (n = 23). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.12 months (95% confidence interval, 6.6 to not reached), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.48 months (95% CI, 2.6-6.37). The overall response rate (≥ partial response) was higher in patients treated with BsAbs (36%) than others (13%, P = .002). Treatment with non-BCMA BsAbs resulted in significantly higher ORR (67% vs 30%, P = .018), OS (19.48 vs 8.41 months, P = .034) and PFS (9.2 vs 3.81 months, P = .035) compared to anti-BCMA BsAbs. Early relapse after ide-cel (≤6 months) was associated with worse outcomes (OS: 5.95 vs 12.58 months, P = .040), as was extramedullary disease (OS: 13.8 vs 6.28 months, P = .033) and exposure to >3 prior lines of therapy. In summary, anti-BCMA BsAbs offered limited efficacy whereas non-BCMA BsAbs may offer a promising therapeutic approach following ide-cel early relapse. These results underscore the potential benefits of diversifying targets in relapse post-ide-cel treatment strategies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04328298.

Previous results from CASSIOPEIA demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity with the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) induction/consolidation and with daratumumab maintenance vs observation in transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we present long-term MRD status and PFS outcomes after a median follow-up of 80.1 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to daratumumab plus VTd (D-VTd) or VTd induction/consolidation; patients remaining on study were rerandomized to daratumumab maintenance or observation for ≤2 years. MRD status was assessed at predefined time points during each study phase. D-VTd improved overall MRD-negativity rates (10–5) after induction (34.6% vs 23.1%) and consolidation (63.7% vs 43.7%) and provided PFS benefit, regardless of postinduction MRD status, vs VTd alone. Daratumumab maintenance improved overall MRD-negativity rates over observation, regardless of induction/consolidation treatment (D-VTd/daratumumab vs D-VTd/observation, 10–5 [77.3% vs 70.7%] and 10–6 [60.7% vs 52.0%]; VTd/daratumumab vs VTd/observation, 10–5 [70.9% vs 51.2%] and 10–6 [48.4% vs 30.7%]) and improved MRD-negativity rates, regardless of risk status, as defined by cytogenetic abnormalities or the revised International Staging System score. Furthermore, daratumumab maintenance provided PFS benefit vs observation, regardless of induction/consolidation treatment and postconsolidation MRD status. D-VTd followed by daratumumab maintenance consistently produced the highest landmark, cumulative, and sustained MRD-negativity rates (10–5 and 10–6), translating to superior long-term PFS outcomes. These results demonstrate that daratumumab-based induction/consolidation followed by daratumumab maintenance resulted in the deepest and most durable MRD negativity, leading to superior PFS outcomes. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02541383.

For patients with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, induction therapy with a quadruplet regimen before autologous transplant is the standard of care. The phase 3 IFM2020-02-MRD-adapted strategy (MIDAS) study assessed a minimal residual disease (MRD)–driven consolidation and maintenance strategy after induction with isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IsaKRD). We report safety and efficacy outcomes of six 28-day cycles of IsaKRD in 791 patients. The median age was 59 years; 13% had International Staging System (ISS) stage III, 5% Revised-ISS stage III, and 8% high-risk cytogenetics (Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome linear predictor cytogenetic score of >1). Overall, 96% (N = 757) of patients completed induction. The median CD34+ cell yield was 7 × 106/kg, with 94% of patients able to proceed with a potential tandem transplant. The best overall response rate was 95%. In the intent-to-treat population, 91% achieved a very good partial response or better after induction, with MRD-negativity rates of 63% at 10−5 and 47% at 10−6. During induction, 7 patients experienced disease progression, and 5 died due to disease progression (n = 1), cardiac events (n = 2), or other causes (n = 2). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%); only 13% of patients reported any grade peripheral neuropathy. IsaKRD induction yielded deep responses and high MRD-negativity rates while ensuring successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals. Continued follow-up of this ongoing study is required to confirm these findings. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04934475.

For the past decade, it has become commonplace to provide rapid answers and early patient access to innovative treatments in the absence of randomized clinical trials (RCT), with benefits estimated from single-arm trials. This trend is important in oncology, notably when assessing new targeted therapies. Some of those uncontrolled trials further include an external/synthetic control group as an innovative way to provide an indirect comparison with a pertinent control group. We aimed to provide some guidelines as a comprehensive tool for (1) the critical appraisal of those comparisons or (2) for performing a single-arm trial. We used the example of ciltacabtagene autoleucel for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after 3 or more treatment lines as an illustrative example. We propose a 3-step guidance. The first step includes the definition of an estimand, which encompasses the treatment effect and the targeted population (whole population or restricted to single-arm trial or external controls), reflecting a clinical question. The second step relies on the adequate selection of external controls from previous RCTs or real-world data from patient cohorts, registries, or electronic patient files. The third step consists of choosing the statistical approach targeting the treatment effect defined above and depends on the available data (individual-level data or aggregated external data). The validity of the treatment effect derived from indirect comparisons heavily depends on careful methodological considerations included in the proposed 3-step procedure. Because the level of evidence of a well-conducted RCT cannot be guaranteed, the evaluation is more important than in standard settings.

Supplementary Figure from Frequency and Genomic Aspects of Intrinsic Resistance to Vismodegib in Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose:Vismodegib is approved for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), but some cases demonstrate intrinsic resistance (IR) to the drug. We sought to assess the frequency of IR to vismodegib in laBCC and its underlying genomic mechanisms.Experimental Design:Response to vismodegib was evaluated in a cohort of 148 laBCC patients. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic profiling was performed in a subset of five intrinsically resistant BCC (IR-BCC).Results:We identified that IR-BCC represents 6.1% of laBCC in the studied cohort. Prior treatment with chemotherapy was associated with IR. Genetic events that were previously associated with acquired resistance (AR) in BCC or medulloblastoma were observed in three out of five IR-BCC. However, IR-BCCs were distinct by highly rearranged polyploid genomes. Functional analyses identified hyperactivation of the HIPPO-YAP and WNT pathways at RNA and protein levels in IR-BCC. In vitro assay on the BCC cell line further confirmed that YAP1 overexpression increases the cell proliferation rate.Conclusions:IR to vismodegib is a rare event in laBCC. IR-BCCs frequently harbor resistance mutations in the Hh pathway, but also are characterized by hyperactivation of the HIPPO-YAP and WNT pathways.

A recent systematic review reported that trials involving patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) show marked heterogeneity both in the choice and definitions of primary and secondary endpoints, thus hampering comparability between trials. The main objective of this study was to reach consensus, through a Delphi process, on the definitions of four time‐to‐event endpoints in MZL trials, by surveying clinicians and methodologists involved in the conduct of clinical trials including patients with MZL. We polled a panel of leading international experts involved in MZL trials by means of self‐administered sequential questionnaires in 2021. Of these 105 experts, 62 responded to the Round 1 questionnaire regarding the definitions of progression‐free survival (PFS), event‐free survival (EFS), time‐to‐failure (TTF), and time‐to‐next‐treatment (TTNT). Afterward, we therefore focused the Round 2 and 3 questionnaires among principal investigators, coinvestigators, and trial methodologists. Consensus was reached when there was a >80% agreement on all potential events (11 choices) of each endpoint. Participants in our survey reached consensus on three of the four time‐to‐event endpoints definitions. Consensus was reached on the definitions of PFS and TTNT after Round 1, of TTF after Round 2, and was not reached for EFS after Round 3. The disagreement concerned the event “treatment discontinuation” in EFS definition. The main interest of our study was to elicit investigator's interest in the importance of consistently defining endpoints in MZL trials and to highlight that composite endpoints should not be encouraged. Fifteen years after the last consensus statement on time‐to‐event endpoints definitions issued in Lugano (2007), both the review of literature and survey of international investigators agree on the inconsistency of endpoints definitions used within the MZL community. Hopefully, revised standardized definitions of endpoints shall be provided at the upcoming International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma in 2023.