C001 | CILTACABTAGENE AUTOLEUCEL (CILTA-CEL) VS. STANDARD OF CARE IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA: CARTITUDE-4 SURVIVAL SUBGROUP ANALYSES

In CARTITUDE-4, a single cilta-cel infusion significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] weighted, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.22–0.39]) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.55 [0.39–0.79]; P=0.0009) vs SOC in pts with relapsed and lenalidomide-refractory MM after 1–3 prior lines of treatment (pLOT) at 33.6 mo median follow-up (Mateos et al, IMS 2024). PFS and OS from subgroups in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population are reported. Pts randomized to cilta-cel underwent apheresis, received either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) bridging treatment, lymphodepletion, and then cilta-cel infusion. Pts randomized to SOC received physician’s choice of PVd or DPd until progression. HR for PFS was analyzed using unweighted Cox proportional hazards model for the ITT set. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up was 33.6 mo. PFS and OS benefit of cilta-cel over SOC in the ITT analysis was consistent across pts with standard-risk cytogenetics and high-risk cytogenetics, defined as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), or gain/amp(1q) (Table). Comparing cilta-cel (n=21) vs SOC (n=18) in pts with extramedullary disease (EMD), median PFS was 13 mo vs 4 mo (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.49]), respectively, and median OS was not reached (NR) vs 16 mo (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.26–1.47]). In pts with 1, 2, or 3 pLOT (cilta-cel, n=68, 83, 57; SOC, n=68, 87, 56), median PFS was NR with cilta-cel across all pLOT vs 17 mo (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25–0.67]), 12 mo (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19–0.49]), and 8 mo (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.11–0.34]) with SOC, respectively; median OS was NR with cilta-cel across all pLOT vs NR (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.28–1.11]), NR (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.36–1.09]), and 34 mo (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26–0.91]) with SOC. ITT analysis showed that cilta-cel improved PFS and OS vs SOC in all subgroups, including pts with EMD and 1 pLOT and beyond. Compared with SOC, cilta-cel improved PFS and OS in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, suggesting it may overcome the poor prognosis associated with these high-risk features. These data continue to support a positive benefit-risk ratio for cilta-cel in pts with lenalidomide-refractory MM as early as after first relapse.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-09-01
Primary Topic
Chemistry and Stereochemistry Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

C001 | CILTACABTAGENE AUTOLEUCEL (CILTA-CEL) VS. STANDARD OF CARE IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA: CARTITUDE-4 SURVIVAL SUBGROUP ANALYSES

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Chemistry and Stereochemistry Studies
article

C001 | CILTACABTAGENE AUTOLEUCEL (CILTA-CEL) VS. STANDARD OF CARE IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY MULTIPLE MYELOMA: CARTITUDE-4 SURVIVAL SUBGROUP ANALYSES

article en

Abstract

In CARTITUDE-4, a single cilta-cel infusion significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] weighted, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.22–0.39]) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.55 [0.39–0.79]; P=0.0009) vs SOC in pts with relapsed and lenalidomide-refractory MM after 1–3 prior lines of treatment (pLOT) at 33.6 mo median follow-up (Mateos et al, IMS 2024). PFS and OS from subgroups in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population are reported. Pts randomized to cilta-cel underwent apheresis, received either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) bridging treatment, lymphodepletion, and then cilta-cel infusion. Pts randomized to SOC received physician’s choice of PVd or DPd until progression. HR for PFS was analyzed using unweighted Cox proportional hazards model for the ITT set. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up was 33.6 mo. PFS and OS benefit of cilta-cel over SOC in the ITT analysis was consistent across pts with standard-risk cytogenetics and high-risk cytogenetics, defined as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), or gain/amp(1q) (Table). Comparing cilta-cel (n=21) vs SOC (n=18) in pts with extramedullary disease (EMD), median PFS was 13 mo vs 4 mo (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.49]), respectively, and median OS was not reached (NR) vs 16 mo (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.26–1.47]). In pts with 1, 2, or 3 pLOT (cilta-cel, n=68, 83, 57; SOC, n=68, 87, 56), median PFS was NR with cilta-cel across all pLOT vs 17 mo (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.25–0.67]), 12 mo (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19–0.49]), and 8 mo (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.11–0.34]) with SOC, respectively; median OS was NR with cilta-cel across all pLOT vs NR (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.28–1.11]), NR (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.36–1.09]), and 34 mo (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26–0.91]) with SOC. ITT analysis showed that cilta-cel improved PFS and OS vs SOC in all subgroups, including pts with EMD and 1 pLOT and beyond. Compared with SOC, cilta-cel improved PFS and OS in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, suggesting it may overcome the poor prognosis associated with these high-risk features. These data continue to support a positive benefit-risk ratio for cilta-cel in pts with lenalidomide-refractory MM as early as after first relapse.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Poznan University of Medical Sciences (PL), Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES), The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU), Inserm (FR), Medical College of Wisconsin (US), Université de Lille (FR), Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (IL), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), 490 BioTech (United States) (US), Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie et Immunologie Intégrée Nantes Angers (FR), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ES), Universitätsklinikum Würzburg (DE), Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES), Johnson & Johnson (Israel) (IL), Alfred Health (AU), The Ohio State University (US), Monash University (AU), University of Bologna (IT), Stanford University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Chemistry and Stereochemistry Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.