4.5 Article

KarMMa-RW: comparison of idecabtagene vicleucel with real-world outcomes in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

期刊

BLOOD CANCER JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-021-00507-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Celgene
  2. Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  3. bluebird bio
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrated that Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) significantly improved responses and survival compared with currently available therapies in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients.
Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed (to an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody) have limited treatment options and there is no standard of care. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy, demonstrated efficacy in triple-class exposed RRMM patients in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748). In this retrospective study (KarMMa-RW), patient-level data from triple-class exposed RRMM patients were merged into a single data model and compared with KarMMa using trimmed stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), rate of very good partial response or better (>= VGPR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Of 1949 real-world triple-class exposed RRMM patients, 190 received subsequent (index) line of therapy and met KarMMa eligibility criteria (Eligible RRMM cohort). With a median follow-up of 13.3 months in KarMMa and 10.2 months in Eligible RRMM, ORR, and >= VGPR were significantly improved in KarMMa versus Eligible RRMM (ORR, 76.4% vs 32.2%; >= VGPR, 57.9% vs 13.7%; both P < 0.0001) as were PFS (11.6 vs 3.5 months; P = 0.0004) and OS (20.2 vs 14.7 months; P = 0.0006). This study demonstrated that ide-cel significantly improved responses and survival compared with currently available therapies in triple-class exposed RRMM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据