Indirect comparison of linvoseltamab versus elranatamab for triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).
Year: 2025
Type: conference-abstract
Abstract: 7531 Background: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing anti-BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibodies in TCE RRMM, this study used an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare the efficacy of linvoseltamab and elranatamab. Methods: Patient (pt)-level data from LINKER-MM1 (117 pts receiving linvoseltamab 200 mg, data cut-off [DCO] 7/2024, median follow-up [mFU] 21.3 months [mos]) and published data from MagnetisMM-3 Cohort A (123 elranatamab pts, DCO 9/2024, mFU 33.9 mos) were analyzed. Ten LINKER-MM1 pts with prior BCMA antibody–drug conjugate exposure were excluded to align with MagnetisMM-3. LINKER-MM1 pts were weighted to match MagnetisMM-3 pts on prespecified prognostic factors deemed most important by an international expert panel: cytogenetic risk, age, refractory status, R-ISS stage, ECOG PS, extramedullary and/or paramedullary disease. Objective response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) rates, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. DOR and PFS in LINKER-MM1 were recalculated to match MagnetisMM-3 censoring rules. Additional MAICs matched all available prespecified prognostic factors, included all 117 LINKER-MM1 pts, or matched to a MagnetisMM-3 subgroup with ECOG PS 0/1. Results: After matching, linvoseltamab effective sample size (ESS) was 71.3 (range of patient weights: 0.04–2.90). Linvoseltamab demonstrated statistically significantly higher ORR and ≥CR rate, a numerically higher ≥VGPR rate, and longer DOR, PFS, and OS vs elranatamab (Table). The additional MAICs yielded directionally consistent findings. Conclusions: Linvoseltamab demonstrated significantly higher ORR and ≥CR rate, numerically better ≥ VGPR rate, DOR, PFS, and OS compared with elranatamab, though the follow-up was shorter. These results highlight the potential of linvoseltamab as a highly effective treatment option for TCE RRMM. Elranatamab Linvoseltamab Linvoseltamab Linvoseltamab vs elranatamab Linvoseltamab vs elranatamab N=123 Unadjusted N=107 Adjusted ESS= 71.3 Unadjusted Adjusted % % % OR (CI) OR (CI) ORR 61 71 71 1.57 (1.04–2.37)* 1.60 (1.00–2.57)* ≥VGPR 56 64 65 1.36 (0.93–2.00) 1.45 (0.94–2.24) ≥CR 37 52 50 1.84 (1.26–2.68)* 1.71 (1.12–2.61)* Median, mos (CI); 12-mo landmark % Median, mos (CI); 12-mo landmark % Median, mos (CI); 12-mo landmark % HR (CI) HR (CI) DOR NR (29.4–NE); 73.9 NR (NE–NE); 82.8 NR (NE–NE); 84.4 0.93 (0.53–1.66) 0.82 (0.43–1.55) PFS 17.2 (9.8–NE); 56.4 NR (15.7–NE); 65.5 NR (16.2–NE); 64.7 0.86 (0.59–1.27) 0.86 (0.55–1.34) OS 24.6 (13.4–NE); 62.3 31.4 (27.8–NE); 75.5 NR (27.8–NE); 74.6 0.70 (0.47–1.04) 0.67 (0.42–1.05) OR >1 or HR <1 favor linvoseltamab. *Statistically significant at p<0.05. CI: 95% confidence interval, HR: hazard ratio, NE: not estimable, NR: not reached, OR: odds ratio.
Source: Journal of Clinical Oncology
Authors: Sundar Jagannath, Hans C. Lee, Joshua Ryan Richter, Jeffrey A. Zonder, James E. Hoffman, Zheng-Yi Zhou, Viviana Garcia Horton, Mirko Fillbrunn, Hongjue Wang, Matthew Mattera, Timothy J. Inocencio, Yingxin Xu, James Harnett, Tito Roccia, Glenn Scott Kroog, Karen Rodriguez-Lorenc, Kate Knorr, Qiufei Ma, Naresh Bumma
Institutions: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Wayne State University, The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, University of Miami Health System, Analysis Group (United States), Regeneron (United States), The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute
Language: English
Subfield: Hematology
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
Funder: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
OpenAlex ID: W4410810000