Horvath, Noemi

Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and EU for the treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with len-refractory MM after ≥1 line based on the randomized, phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827). At the first interim analysis (15.9-month [mo] median follow-up), cilta-cel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs SoC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26 [protocol-specified weighted analysis]; P<0.0001). At the second interim analysis, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with cilta-cel vs SoC (HR, 0.55; P=0.0009). MRD negativity is a prognostic marker of prolonged survival outcomes for pts with MM. We report MRD negativity, including overall and sustained MRD negativity, overall MRD-negative complete response or better (≥CR), and MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, from the prespecified second interim analysis of CARTITUDE-4. Methods: Eligibility criteria were previously described. Pts were assigned 1:1 to cilta-cel or SoC (pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [PVd]/daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DPd]). Pts in the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis, received bridging therapy (PVd/DPd), and then a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose, 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg) 5-7 days (d) after the start of lymphodepletion. PFS was the primary endpoint; ≥CR rate, overall response rate, overall MRD-negativity rate, and OS were key secondary endpoints. MRD was assessed centrally via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ v2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies). MRD was evaluated at d 56 post infusion in the cilta-cel arm; and in both arms at suspected ≥CR and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo post infusion (cilta-cel arm) or cycle 1 d 1 (SoC arm), as well as yearly until progression/start of subsequent therapy in pts in ≥CR. Sustained MRD negativity (10−5) was defined as confirmed MRD negativity ≥12 mo apart and without MRD positivity in between. Pts were evaluable for sustained MRD negativity if they achieved MRD negativity and had ≥1 evaluable MRD sample ≥12 mo after the first negative result or progressed/died/started subsequent tx <12 mo after the first negative result. Results: 419 pts were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] set; cilta-cel, n=208; SoC, n=211); 176 pts in the cilta-cel arm received cilta-cel as study tx. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up for the study was 33.6 mo. At the 10−5 threshold, 145 pts in the cilta-cel arm and 103 in the SoC arm were evaluable for MRD. MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set and the MRD-evaluable subset were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (ITT, 62% vs 18%; MRD evaluable, 89% vs 38%; both P<0.0001). Across subgroups, cilta-cel vs SoC consistently increased overall MRD-negativity rates (10−5). In the ITT set, 48% of the cilta-cel arm achieved MRD negativity (10−5) by d 56, with the MRD-negative rate rising to 60% by 6 mo post cilta-cel infusion. Overall MRD-negativity rates at the 10−6 threshold in the ITT set were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (57% vs 9%; P<0.0001). In the cilta-cel arm, 119 (57%) pts vs 26 (12%) in the SoC arm achieved overall MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR (P<0.0001). At the 12-mo MRD assessment, 92 (44%) pts in the cilta-cel arm vs 17 (8%) in the SoC arm (P<0.0001) had MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR. In pts with MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR at mo 12, median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not estimable [NE]-NE) with cilta-cel and 37.8 mo (95% CI, 25.0-NE) with SoC; median OS was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) and NR (95% CI, 37.8 mo-NE), respectively. Sustained MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set were 40% in the cilta-cel arm vs 6% in the SoC arm (P<0.0001); among 110 and 26 evaluable pts for sustained MRD, sustained MRD-negativity rates were 75% vs 50% (P=0.0159). Among the 176 pts who received cilta-cel as study tx, overall MRD negativity at 10−5 was achieved by 129 (73%) pts (89% of 145 evaluable pts). Conclusions: At 33.6-mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel vs SoC significantly increased overall MRD-negativity rates >3-fold in the ITT set, with pts achieving MRD negativity rapidly post cilta-cel. The prognostic value of MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12 was shown, as median PFS was >3 years in pts with MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, regardless of tx. These data further underscore the benefit of cilta-cel, which led to significant >3-fold increases vs SoC in rates of MRD-negative ≥CR at any time and at mo 12, and sustained MRD negativity. Our MRD data demonstrate higher rates of deep and sustained MRD negativity achieved with cilta-cel vs SoC in tx of len-refractory MM as early as first relapse.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P<0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P<0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image