← 返回前沿论文

ide-cel 早期复发后 BCMA 靶向双特异性抗体治疗结局不佳:一项法国真实世界研究

英文原题:Poor outcomes with BCMA-targeting bispecific antibodies following early relapse from ide-cel: a real-world French study.

PubMed 2026/02/24(内容时间) Blood Adv Q1 · IF 7.7(JCR 2025)

研究概要

抗BCMA BsAb疗效有限,而非BCMA BsAb可能在ide-cel早期复发后提供一种有前景的治疗方法。

中文摘要

Idecabtagene vicleucel(ide-cel)是一种靶向B细胞成熟抗原(BCMA)的过继性CAR-T 细胞疗法,在复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤患者中已显示出高缓解率和改善的生存期。然而,所有患者最终都会复发,且关于挽救治疗结局的数据仍然有限。我们开展了一项全国性真实世界研究,纳入154例ide-cel后复发的患者,中位至进展时间为6.0个月(四分位距,3.0-9.9)。挽救治疗包括抗BCMA双特异性抗体(BsAbs)(n = 79)、靶向GPRC5D或FcRH5的非BCMA BsAbs(n = 12)、免疫调节剂、蛋白酶体抑制剂和抗CD38单克隆抗体联合方案(n = 40)以及其他治疗(n = 23)。中位总生存期(OS)为12.12个月(95%置信区间,6.6至未达到),中位无进展生存期(PFS)为3.48个月(95% CI,2.6-6.37)。接受BsAbs治疗的患者总体缓解率(≥部分缓解)高于其他治疗(36% vs 13%,P = .002)。与抗BCMA BsAbs相比,非BCMA BsAbs治疗带来了显著更高的ORR(67% vs 30%,P = .018)、OS(19.48 vs 8.41个月,P = .034)和PFS(9.2 vs 3.81个月,P = .035)。ide-cel后早期复发(≤6个月)与更差的结局相关(OS:5.95 vs 12.58个月,P = .040),髓外病变(OS:13.8 vs 6.28个月,P = .033)以及既往接受>3线治疗亦如此。总之,抗BCMA BsAbs疗效有限,而非BCMA BsAbs可能为ide-cel早期复发后提供一种有前景的治疗策略。这些结果强调了在ide-cel后复发治疗策略中多样化靶点的潜在获益。该试验已在www.clinicaltrials.gov注册,注册号为#NCT04328298。

展开英文摘要原文

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.

论文信息

作者
Cayla S、Karlin L、Lambert J、Lazareth A、Talbot A、Mohty M、Malard F、Petillon MO
单位
Immuno-Hématologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.France
期刊
Blood advances2026 Feb 24
原文标识
PubMed 40966637 · DOI 10.1182/bloodadvances.2025017597