Schjesvold, Fredrik

7516 Background: With the growing use of anti-CD38 therapies in early multiple myeloma (MM) management, there is a need for data in patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 therapy to guide decision making. In the Phase 3 IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166), patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) received the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneously (SC) delivered via an innovative on-body injector (OBI) or intravenously (IV), with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). In this post hoc analysis, we examined outcomes in IRAKLIA patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Methods: RRMM patients ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized to receive Isa SC (n=263) or IV (n=268) weekly in Cycle 1, then every 2 weeks, with Pd. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure <9 months (mos) before randomization or intolerance to anti-CD38 were excluded. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to achieve minimal response on treatment or had progression within 60 days after last dose. Patients receiving Isa SC or IV were pooled. Results: Overall, 67 patients (12.6%) had prior anti-CD38 exposure with a median washout period of 20.2 mos, of which 26 (38.8%) were anti-CD38 refractory. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent between patients with or without prior anti-CD38 exposure; the median follow-up for the overall population was 12 mos. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 52.2%, 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 40.6%, and median PFS of 8.5 mos. In patients without prior exposure, an ORR of 73.5%, 12-mo PFS of 68.8%, and non-estimable (NE) median PFS were reported. Anti-CD38 non-refractory vs refractory patients had an ORR of 48.8% vs 57.7%, 12-mo PFS of 38.9% vs 42.2%, and median PFS of 9.0 vs 7.5 mos. Patients with a longer washout period (>median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 63.6%, 12-mo PFS of 61.8% and NE median PFS, whereas patients whose prior anti-CD38 therapy ended more recently (≤median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 41.2%, 12-mo PFS of 19.2%, and median PFS of 6.7 mos. The safety profile of Isa + Pd was similar in patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Conclusions: Isa + Pd demonstrated clinical benefit across anti-CD38–naïve, anti-CD38–exposed, and anti-CD38–refractory patients. A washout period >median of 20.2 mos resulted in outcomes comparable to those in anti-CD38–naïve patients, and outcomes were consistent between anti-CD38–exposed and anti-CD38–refractory patients after a >9-mo washout period. Efficacy of Isa + Pd in patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure from the IRAKLIA trial presents an opportunity to address an unmet need in a difficult-to-treat patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 .

Abstract Introduction : Current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), is observation until progression to active MM. Increasing evidence suggests that patients (pts) with SMM at high risk for progression to active MM may benefit from early treatment (tx). In AQUILA, a phase 3 study in pts with high-risk SMM (NCT03301220), daratumumab (Dara) monotherapy significantly reduced risk of progression to active MM or death with a trend of extending overall survival (OS) vs active monitoring (ActMon), with no new safety concerns. Given the evolution in SMM risk stratification, a post hoc analysis was performed to assess outcomes using the IMWG 2020 and IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk models to assess which AQUILA pts benefited most from Dara monotherapy. Safety and efficacy analysis by age and stem cell collection outcomes were also assessed. Methods: Eligible pts with a confirmed diagnosis (≤5 y) of high-risk SMM per IMWG 2014 criteria, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (IgA SMM, serum protein ≥30 g/dL, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain [I/U FLC] ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC &gt;50% to &lt;60%) at study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous Dara or ActMon for 39 cycles, 36 months, or until confirmed disease progression (PD), whichever came first. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee, defined as progression to active MM (based on IMWG SLiM-CRAB diagnostic criteria) or death. Secondary endpoints included time to first-line (1L) MM tx and OS. For this post hoc analysis, we assessed outcomes by age, IMWG 2020 high-risk SMM criteria (BMPC &gt;20%, monoclonal spike &gt;2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio &gt;20; ≥2 factors=high risk; also known as the Mayo 2018 or the 20-2-20 criteria), and the IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic criteria (IMWG 2020 criteria + presence of ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q and/or del13q]; ≥3 factors=high risk). Results : Dara tx showed a PFS benefit across all IMWG 2020 risk subgroups (low: hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; intermediate: HR, 0.70), with the largest benefit in the high-risk subgroup, where the PD/death rate in the ActMon arm was ~1.6-fold that in the Dara arm (62.8% vs 37.5%; HR, 0.36). This benefit of Dara vs ActMon was preserved over time, with 5-year PFS rates of 78.2% vs 71.6%, 56.2% vs 42.9%, and 60.4% vs 23.6% in IMWG 2020 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. There was a positive trend favoring Dara for time to 1L MM treatment across all IMWG 2020 risk groups (low-risk HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.80; intermediate-risk HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.92; high-risk HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25–0.62). IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk classification results will be available at the time of presentation. When comparing the younger (&lt;65y HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79) vs the older (≥65y, HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.77) pt population, a PFS benefit was observed regardless of age. Similarity was also observed in TEAE incidence rate when looking into &lt;65, 65 to &lt;75, and ≥75 y subgroups (82.7%, 81.1%, and 87.5% with ActMon; 96.2%, 98.5%, and 95.2% with Dara); however, serious TEAEs were more frequently observed in older ActMon pts (12.2%, 18.9%, and 50.0% with ActMon; 24.8%, 35.8%, and 28.6% with Dara). Across all pts treated/monitored in AQUILA, 23 (11.9%) and 41 (20.9%) pts in the Dara and ActMon arms, respectively, received autologous stem cell transplant as part of their first tx after progressing to active MM, with very limited plerixafor use (Dara, 3 [1.6%] vs ActMon, 9 [4.6%]). Median (range) CD34+ cell yield was 5.0 (2–20)×106 cells/kg body weight among 22 pts in the Dara arm and 5.1 (2–21)×106 cells/kg body weight among 39 pts in the ActMon arm. Conclusions : In this analysis, pts with high-risk SMM from the phase 3 AQUILA study treated with Dara monotherapy experienced long-term PFS benefit across IMWG 2020 subgroups, with the most pronounced benefit in the high-risk subgroup. No notable differences in PFS or safety were observed across age subgroups. Early Dara tx for high-risk SMM did not have a detrimental impact on stem cell yield. Although mature OS analyses are forthcoming, overall, these results further support early intervention with Dara monotherapy vs ActMon among pts with high-risk SMM, regardless of risk stratification criteria used.

Abstract Introduction: IRAKLIA is an international, open-label, non-inferiority (NI) trial (NCT05405166) investigating isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneous (SC) vs intravenous (IV) administration, plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) and the first Phase 3 multiple myeloma (MM) trial using an on-body injector (OBI). IRAKLIA demonstrated NI in its co-primary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR) and steady state trough concentration (Ctrough; Cycle(C) 6 Day(D) 1 predose). IsaOBI offers hands-free administration of flat-dose Isa, a small, hidden, retractable needle to prevent sharps injury and low-pressure delivery. Here, we examine the effect of body weight (BW) on pharmacokinetics (PK) as well as efficacy and safety outcomes with flat-dose IsaOBI vs IV + Pd in IRAKLIA. Methods: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM ≥18 years (yr) with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) were randomized 1:1 to IsaOBI (1400mg; n=263) or IV (10mg/kg; n=264 weekly in C1, then every 2 weeks + P (4mg/day, D1–21) + d (40mg [20mg if ≥75yr] weekly) in 4-week cycles. This analysis is run by BW (≤65kg, &gt;65–≤85kg, &gt;85kg) which was a stratification factor, and extreme BW (≤50kg, &gt;50–≤100kg, &gt;100kg). Results: Number of pts per BW group were: ≤50kg [OBI n=16, IV n=14], ≤65kg [OBI n=84, IV n=85], &gt;65–≤85kg [OBI n=117, IV n=118], &gt;85kg [OBI n=62, IV n=65], and &gt;100kg [OBI n=22, IV n=22]. Baseline (BL) demographic and disease characteristics were generally balanced across BW groups for IsaOBI vs IV, including age (median 66yr) and prior LOT (median 2). However, in the &gt;100kg group, more IsaOBI vs IV pts exhibited poor prognostic characteristics including plasmacytoma, International Staging System Stage II/III disease, beta 2-microglobulin level ≥5.5mg/L, estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt;60mL/min/1.73m2 and a lower very good partial response (VGPR) rate as best overall response at last regimen. Flat-dose IsaOBI showed adequate exposure (C2D1 Ctrough) for all BW groups, with geometric mean ratios (90% CI) vs IV &gt;1: ≤65kg (1.628 [1.294–2.048]), &gt;65–≤85kg (1.303 [1.089–1.560]) and &gt;85kg (1.006 [0.817–1.239]). IsaOBI ORRs were comparable to IV across BW: ≤65kg, 66% vs 71% (relative risk [RR]: 0.928), &gt;65–≤85kg, 70% vs 70% (RR: 1.009), and &gt;85kg, 81% vs 72% (RR: 1.115). For extreme BW groups, ORRs (95% CI) were similar between IsaOBI and IV for ≤50kg group [56% vs 60%] and for &gt;50–≤100kg [72(66–78)% vs 70(63–76)%] but lower [68% vs 86%] in &gt;100kg group. An exposure-response (E-R) analysis showed the impact of BW on response: IsaOBI pts ≤50kg tended to respond less vs IsaOBI pts &gt;50kg despite correct exposure because they were confounded by BL disease characteristicsincluding a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics and plasma cells in the bone marrow vs other BW group pts. For IsaOBI and IV, Grade (Gr)≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs decreased with increasing BW. They were similar between arms in ≤65kg group (OBI vs IV, Gr≥3 TEAEs: 87% vs 88%; Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs: 73% vs 77%). A similar trend was observed in extreme BW groups along with similar incidences between arms in ≤50kg group. While TE serious AEs (TESAEs) and treatment-related TESAEs decreased with increasing BW for IsaIV, incidence was stable in the IsaOBI arm. OBI arm OBI Gr5 TEAEs were similar between groups and arms, except for higher incidence in ≤65kg group (12% vs 5%) with OBI vs IV that was not reflected in ≤50 or &gt;50–≤100kg groups. Treatment discontinuation rates for all drugs with IsaOBI vs IV were 14% vs 6% (≤65kg), 8% vs 10% (&gt;65–≤85kg), and 2% vs 10% (&gt;85kg). Similar incidence of Gr≥3 laboratory (lab) neutropenia was observed across BW in IsaOBI: 86.9% (≤65kg), 83.5% (&gt;65–≤85kg) and 83.9% (&gt;85kg). Higher rates of Gr≥3 lab neutropenia were observed in ≤50kg group (93.8%, IsaOBI vs 71.4%, IsaIV), which did not translate into higher rates of neutropenic complications (18.8% vs 14.3%). The E-R analysis revealed no relationship between Isa PK exposure and safety for OBI and IV arms. Conclusions: No notable impact from IsaOBI flat dosing was observed across BW groups. Flat-dose Isa OBI showed consistent safety and efficacy across different BW groups, with differences likely linked to BL disease characteristics according to the E-R analysis. The IsaOBI C2D1 Ctrough, a time-independent predictor of efficacy, was similar to, or higher vs IsaIV in each BW group, supportive of a flat dose providing adequate exposure without need for adjustment.

PURPOSE To report the results of the multicenter, open-label IRAKLIA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05405166 ) of isatuximab subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV), plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), to our knowledge, the first phase III MM trial using an on-body injector (OBI). METHODS Patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to Isa OBI (1,400 mg) or IV (10 mg/kg) once weekly in cycle (C)1 and then every 2 weeks, plus pomalidomide (4 mg once daily, day [D]1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly [age ≥75: 20 mg]) and treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR; noninferiority margin, 0.839) and Isa C trough (C6D1 predose; noninferiority margin, 0.8). Noninferiority of OBI versus IV was demonstrated if both coprimary end points achieved noninferiority. RESULTS IRAKLIA randomly assigned 531 patients (OBI, n=263; IV, n=268). After 12-month median follow-up, the ORR was 71.1% (OBI) and 70.5% (IV; relative risk, 1.008 [95% CI, 0.903 to 1.126]; lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin). The mean (standard deviation) C6D1 C trough was 499 (259) μg/mL (OBI) and 340 (169) μg/mL (IV). The C trough geometric mean ratio (90% CI) was 1.532 (1.316 to 1.784); lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event incidences were 81.7% (OBI) and 76.1% (IV); infusion reaction incidences were 1.5% and 25.0%. Injection site reactions occurred in 0.4% of OBI injections (all grade 1-2); 99.9% of injections completed without interruption. CONCLUSION IRAKLIA demonstrated efficacy and pharmacokinetic noninferiority between Isa OBI and IV. No unexpected safety signal was observed, with excellent local tolerability of Isa OBI. Efficacy and safety were comparable with Isa IV in ICARIA-MM, except the lower OBI infusion reaction rate. These results support potential use of the OBI, designed to improve practice efficiency.

7506 Background: IV Isa-Pd is approved to treat RRMM patients (pts) based on the ICARIA-MM study. A Phase 1b study showed safety and efficacy of Isa SC via an OBDS, an investigational wearable bolus injector, plus Pd, in RRMM pts. Isa SC offers shorter duration, fixed dose and smaller administration volume. Here, we report results of the IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166); Isa SC vs IV + Pd in RRMM pts, the first Phase 3 myeloma trial reporting the use of an OBDS. Methods: This multicenter, open-label study enrolled pts aged ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT). Pts were randomized 1:1 to Isa SC (1400 mg) or Isa IV (10 mg/kg) weekly in Cycle (C)1, then every 2 weeks + P (4 mg/day, Day [D]1–21) + d (40 mg [20 mg if age ≥75 years] weekly). Pts had 4-week cycles until progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient request. Co-primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR; non-inferiority [NI] margin of 0.839) and Isa trough level (C trough ) at steady state (predose at C6D1; NI if lower limit of 90% CI of geometric mean ratio ≥0.8). Results: 531 pts (SC n=263; IV n=268 [4 not treated]) were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced (median age 66 years; median 2 prior LOT). After median 12 months follow-up, ORR was 71% (SC arm) and 71% (IV arm; relative risk [95% CI] = 1.008 [0.903–1.126]; lower CI > NI margin). Mean (SD) C trough at C6D1 was 499 (259) μg/mL for SC and 340 (169) μg/mL for IV. C trough geometric mean ratio (90% CI) was 1.532 (1.316–1.784); lower CI > NI margin. Co-primary and all 4 key secondary endpoints including pt experience are in the Table. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 82% (SC) and 76% (IV) of pts; with treatment discontinuation rates of 8% and 9%. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred in 4% (11/263) of the SC arm and in 19 (0.4%) of 5145 SC injections (all Grade 1–2). 99.9% of OBDS injections were completed without interruption. Conclusions: IRAKLIA met its co-primary endpoints, showing efficacy and pharmacokinetic NI between Isa SC vs IV + Pd. No new safety signal besides a low ISR incidence was observed, showing excellent Isa SC tolerability. Far fewer infusion reactions and higher pt satisfaction were also noted for SC vs IV. Efficacy and safety are comparable to Isa IV in ICARIA-MM. These results support potential use of Isa SC delivered via the OBDS, designed to improve pt experience and practice efficiency. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 . Isa SC + Pd Isa IV + Pd Efficacy, % N=263 N=268 ORR 71 71 ≥VGPR 46 46 PK*, µg/mL N=131/121 N=126/121 Geometric mean Isa C trough at C2D1 / C6D1 360/426 277/278 Safety, % N=263 N=264 All grade IR 2 25 Pt satisfaction with injection method at C5D15, % 70 53 *PK was analyzed at C6D1 with PP PK population and at C2D1 with PP CT4W population. CT4W, C trough at 4 weeks; IR, infusion reaction; PK, pharmacokinetics; PP, per protocol; VGPR, very good partial response.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, and/or clonal BMPCs &gt;50% to &lt;60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P &lt;0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P &lt;0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P &lt;0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

Background: SAR442257 (SAR'257) is a trispecific antibody that targets CD38, CD3 and CD28. Simultaneous CD3 and CD28 binding triggers T cell co-signaling, and additional CD38 recognition directs the T cells to CD38+ cancer cells such as multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This is a first-in-human phase 1 study investigating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of SAR'257 in patients (pts) with refractory and relapsed (rr) MM and rrNHL. Methods: This is a multicenter, international, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT04401020) of SAR'257 in pts with rrMM refractory to standard-of-care (SOC) options, including anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and in pts rrNHL without any SOC options. SAR'257 was administered intravenously with lead-in doses (Day 1−5) in the first week, followed by twice weekly (BIW) or once weekly (QW) dosing; 11 target dose levels (TDLs) in pts with rrMM (9 TDLs: 0.06-11 µg/kg BIW; 2 TDLs: 18-27 µg/kg QW), and 2 TDLs in pts with rrNHL (2 µg/kg BIW and 4 µg/kg QW). Results: As of February 19, 2024, 47 pts (rrMM, n=40; rrNHL, n=7) received SAR'257. The median ages (years) were 64 (rrMM; range: 40−84) and 70 (rrNHL; range: 18−75). The median number of prior lines was 5 (range: 3−12) for rrMM and 5 (range: 2−7) for rrNHL cohort. In rrMM cohort, all (100%) pts had prior exposure to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MAb) and were refractory to anti-CD38 and in rrNHL cohort all were anti-CD38 naïve. The median time from last anti-CD38 dose was 2.7 (range: 1−65) months for rrMM cohort. Safety analysis revealed that 68% (n=32) pts had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 26 pts in rrMM and 6 pts in rrNHL); 21.3% pts (n=10) Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs (7 in rrMM and 3 in rrNHL). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common TEAE, occurring in 52.5% of rrMM pts across all TDLs (n=21; G≥3 in 1 pt from 11 µg/kg BIW TDL) and in 57.1% of rrNHL pts (n=4; no G≥3) at the two TDLs tested. Repetitive CRS episodes (&gt;1 episode) were more frequent at higher TDLs. Infusion-related reactions (IRRs; any G) were observed in 22.5% pts with rrMM (n=9; no G≥3) and in 28.5% pts with rrNHL (n=2; G≥3 in 1 pt). Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection/reactivation was reported in 17.5% (n=7; G≥3 in 4 pts) and 28.6% (n=2; no G≥3) pts with rrMM and rrNHL respectively. Further, 15% (n=6, G≥3 in 2 pts) from rrMM and 14.3% (n=1; G2 CMV reactivation) pts from rrNHL cohort reported cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation. One case of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was reported (G4) in the rrNHL cohort. Four dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the rrMM cohort [1 at 4 µg/kg BIW (G3 hepatotoxicity); 1 at 11 µg/kg BIW (G5 CRS−EBV reactivation; and 2 at 27 µg/kg QW (G3 CMV infection reactivation and G3 febrile neutropenia in same pt)]. Three DLTs were observed in the rrNHL cohort (2 at 2 µg/kg BIW [G4 neutropenia and G4 thrombocytopenia; same pt] and 1 at 4 µg/kg QW [ICANS G4]). For pts with rrMM, the maximum plasma concentration of SAR'257 reached within or above the theoretical efficacious range (0.1−1nM; extrapolated from ex vivo models), starting at 8 µg/kg BIW and 18 µg/kg QW in the first treatment cycle. As of July 08, 2024, the overall response rate (ORR), defined as partial response (PR) or better, was 5% (n=2) in the rrMM cohort: 1 pt exhibited stringent complete response (duration of response [DOR]=8.1 months, on-going) and 1 showed a complete response (CR) at 27 µg/kg QW TDL. In rrNHL cohort, the ORR was 14.3%, 1 pt achieved PR (DOR=7.1 months) at 2 µg/kg BIW TDL. The disease control rate (stable disease or better for &gt;8 weeks) was 60% (n=24) and 28.6% (n=2) in the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts respectively. For both cohorts exploratory biomarker analysis revealed that: (1) SAR'257 treatment activated peripheral blood T cells and reduced regulatory T cell numbers and CD4/CD8 ratio; (2) CD38 expression on plasma cells positively corelated with time since the last anti-CD38 MAb dose; (3) Among the pts experiencing CRS, the peak values of cytokines (Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and C-reactive protein) were significantly higher during the first cycle in comparison to subsequent cycles. Conclusion: This Phase 1 study of SAR'257 showed an anti-tumor response in a small number of pts from the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts. Due to safety concerns, in particular high rates of EBV and CMV reactivation and recurrent episodes of CRS in the higher dose levels, the study was terminated during dose escalation.

8020 Background: MM patients (pts) often receive several lines of therapy with multiple drug combinations and, as lenalidomide (R)-containing regimens are commonly used as first-line therapy, R-free options for subsequent lines are necessary. Additionally, as pts age and become less tolerant to treatment, more convenient regimens, such as all-oral options, with less toxicity are needed. Dexamethasone (dex)-based doublets are effective and tolerable in this setting. Methods: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-exposed and/or intolerant and R-refractory pts who had ≥2 prior therapies (N = 122) were randomized 3:2 to receive: ixazomib (ixa) 4 mg (5.5 mg from cycle 2 if tolerated) on day (d) 1, 8, 15, and dex 20 mg (≥75 years [yrs], 10 mg) on d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23; or pomalidomide (pom) 4 mg on d 1–21, and dex 40 mg (≥75 yrs, 20 mg) on d 1, 8, 15, 22, in 28-d cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by age ( < 65 vs ≥65 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at study entry (I/II vs III), and prior lines of therapy (2 vs ≥3). The study was powered to test the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the ixa-dex (n = 73) vs pom-dex (n = 49) arms, median age was 72 vs 68 yrs (36% vs 18% ≥75 yrs), 25% vs 22% of pts had ISS stage III MM, and 52% vs 53% had received ≥3 prior therapies (per stratification). At data cutoff (5/31/2020), 19% vs 20% of pts were ongoing on treatment with ixa-dex vs pom-dex; primary reasons for discontinuation were PD (47% vs 57%) and adverse events (AEs; 23% vs 12%). With median follow-up of 15.3 vs 17.3 months (mos), median PFS (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 mos with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.847; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.535–1.341; p = 0.477); the Table shows mPFS by prior lines, and secondary endpoints. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with both ixa-dex (range 1–25) and pom-dex (range 1–27); 64% of ixa-dex pts were able to escalate to a 5.5 mg dose of ixa. 69% vs 81% of ixa-dex vs pom-dex pts had grade (G) ≥3 AEs, 51% vs 53% had serious AEs, 39% vs 36% had an AE leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EORTC QLQ-C30/MY20, and EQ-5D-5L) was maintained, and similar between arms. Conclusions: Ixa-dex prolonged PFS vs pom-dex in these heavily pretreated, PI-exposed and/or intolerant, R-refractory pts, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ixa-dex was well tolerated, with lower G≥3 AE rates vs pom-dex, and comparable HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03170882.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs &gt;75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients &gt;75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.