Guo, Shien

Introduction: Patients with TCE RRMM have a high disease burden and often report worsening HRQoL with additional lines of therapy. The single-arm, phase 2 KarMMa study demonstrated that ide-cel, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, improved HRQoL from baseline in patients with TCE RRMM who had received ≥ 3 prior regimens (Delforge M, et al. Blood Adv 2022;6:1309-1318). Furthermore, in the phase 3 KarMMa-3 clinical trial (NCT03651128), ide-cel significantly improved progression-free survival and response compared with standard regimens in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014). Here we assessed the comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on HRQoL in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 3-4 prior regimens including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab (an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) using data from the KarMMa-3 study. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. The pre-specified primary domains of interest included EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). PROs were collected at screening (baseline), the day of ide-cel infusion (ide-cel) or first treatment dose (standard regimens), monthly from 2 to 28 months, and thereafter every 3 months. Comparisons were performed on least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through 28 months between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect size was estimated by Hedges' g. The comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and time to confirmed deterioration (defined by prespecified change thresholds) were assessed via stratified Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. All P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple testing. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced among the patients in the ide-cel arm (n = 167) and the standard regimen arm (n = 93), with a median age of 63 years and a median time of 4.7 years from RRMM diagnosis to study screening. Completion rates of HRQoL assessments were high over time for most visits (> 75%). At baseline, mean HRQoL domain scores were similar between arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to 28 months showed significant differences in favor of ide-cel versus standard regimens (nominal P < 0.05) for 11 domains (effect sizes of 0.26-0.82), and 7 (4 primary: global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, pain, EQ-5D VAS; 3 secondary: dyspnea, insomnia, constipation) of them exceeded the prespecified MID thresholds (Table). Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter (nominal P < 0.05) in the ide-cel arm than in the standard regimen arm for 10 domains, including all primary domains except pain. Time to confirmed deterioration was longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimen arm for most domains, with significant differences in emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, and dyspnea (EORTC QLQ-C30). Finally, side effects of treatment favored the ide-cel versus standard regimen arm (EORTC QLQ-MY20) (Table). Conclusions: These patient-reported findings demonstrate that compared with standard regimens, treatment with ide-cel improved MM-relevant disease symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL of patients with TCE RRMM in the KarMMa-3 trial. These data further substantiate the superior treatment outcomes of ide-cel over standard regimens in this patient population. Overall, treatment with ide-cel may help alleviate detriments to HRQoL in these patients with complex disease.

Background: An interim analysis (data cutoff date April 18, 2022) of the international, open-label, phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) showed the chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) significantly improved progression-free survival and treatment response rates, as well as HRQoL, as compared with standard regimens, in patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014; Delforge M, et al., HemaSphere, 2023;7(S3):P905). The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens (daratumumab [DARA], pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DEX]; DARA, bortezomib, and DEX; ixazomib, lenalidomide, and DEX; carfilzomib and DEX; or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and DEX) on HRQoL in KarMMa-3 trial participants with an extended follow-up of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data collection (data cutoff date April 28, 2023). Methods: In KarMMa-3, HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. HRQoL assessments were completed at screening (baseline); the day of ide-cel infusion or the first dose of standard treatment; and monthly from 2 to 28 months; and every 3 months thereafter. The prespecified primary outcomes of interest were EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through month 25 for ide-cel and standard regimens were compared by constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect sizes were estimated by Hedges' g. The effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and deterioration in HRQoL (defined by prespecified change thresholds and sustained duration) were compared by stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no adjustment for multiple testing, and all P values reported are nominal. Results: Overall, 254 patients were randomized to the ide-cel arm and 132 to the standard regimens arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms; both arms had a median age of 63 years, a median of 3 prior anti-myeloma regimens, and median time from MM diagnosis to screening was 4 years. The baseline HRQoL scores were generally comparable between treatment arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to month 25 showed significant differences (nominal P value < 0.05) in favor of ide-cel for 18 out of 21 HRQoL domains, with effect sizes (Hedges' g) of 0.27 to 0.82 (Table). For 13 of these domains (including 6 primary domains of interest), the difference in overall LS mean change from baseline exceeded the prespecified minimum important difference (MID) threshold. Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for 19 domains, including all primary domains of interest (Table). Time to confirmed deterioration showed trends of being longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for most domains and was significantly longer for emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, dyspnea, and constipation as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. The time to confirmed deterioration in side effects of treatment (based on the EORTC QLQ-MY20) was significantly longer for patients in the ide-cel arm and time to confirmed improvement was significantly faster, as compared with the standard regimens arm (Table). Conclusions: In the KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens, ide-cel significantly and meaningfully improved MM-relevant symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL compared with standard regimens. Confirmed HRQoL improvements in the ide-cel arm occurred sooner than standard regimens. PRO improvements were sustained over more than 2 years, which is notable after a single infusion treatment with ide-cel. These patient-reported findings further support the benefit of ide-cel in this patient population.

8032 Background: Patients (pts) with TCE RRMM have few treatment (Tx) options and poor HRQoL. Ide-cel, the first in class CAR T cell Tx for pts with TCE RRMM, improved PFS versus standard (std) regimens in the KarMMa-3 trial. We report the PRO results comparing the Tx arms. PROs provide further understanding of Tx benefit of ide-cel from the pts’ perspective. Methods: KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128) is an open-label phase 3 RCT comparing the efficacy and safety of ide-cel with std regimens in pts with TCE RRMM, who had received 2–4 prior regimens. In addition to clinical endpoints, we evaluated the impact of ide-cel compared with std regimens on the changes in HRQoL, measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20, and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. PROs were collected at baseline (screening), day of infusion and monthly from 2–24 months (mo) and thereafter every 3 mo. This interim analysis reports PROs through 20 mo. Comparisons were performed on least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline over time between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Results: In total, 386 pts were randomized (ide-cel, 254; std regimens, 132). PRO compliance was high over time ( > 80%). At baseline, PROs were similar between arms. LSM changes from baseline to 20 mo showed significant differences ( P < 0.05), with effect sizes of 0.3–0.7, in favor of ide-cel for most domains, including global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain (EORTC QLQ-C30); side effects of Tx (EORTC QLQ-MY20); and the EQ-5D-5L VAS. The difference in overall LSM change reached or exceeded the pre-specified between-groups minimal importance difference (MID) for improvement in most domains in favor of ide-cel (Table). Conclusions: Ide-cel showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL, including key MM symptoms and functioning, for pts with TCE RRMM compared with std regimens. The PRO data for ide-cel expands upon the clinical outcomes observed in the KarMMa-3 trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03651128 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Several new agents and regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Comparison of all these is not feasible, yet therapeutic selections need to be made for optimal patient care. Both the MM-002 (Richardson et al., 2014) and MM-003 (San Miguel et al., 2013) trials have demonstrated the clinical benefits of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) in improving survival outcomes for patients with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Daratumumab (DARA) monotherapy was approved in the US for the treatment of RRMM patients, based on the results of a single-arm trial (SIRIUS) (Lonial et al., 2016). To date, there are no head-to-head studies comparing POM+LoDEX with DARA. We performed an indirect comparison of the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between POM+LoDEX and DARA in RRMM patients with ≥2 (median of 5) prior lines of therapy. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (Ishak et al., 2015; Signorovitch et al., 2012) is a method used to conduct indirect comparisons between relative efficacies of treatments after adjusting for imbalances across trials where the study populations were roughly similar. To perform a MAIC, it is necessary that the selected studies are compatible. Both MM-002 and SIRIUS were phase II trials and included mainly patients from North America, while other geographic regions were more widely represented in the phase III MM-003 trial. Thus, the MAIC was conducted using individual patient data from the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of POM+LoDEX from MM-002 and published aggregate data on patient characteristics and outcomes for the ITT population of DARA from SIRIUS. A propensity-score logistic regression equation was used to re-weight the POM+LoDEX patients such that their aggregate characteristics matched exactly those in SIRIUS for all prognostic factors (i.e., full set) which were available in both studies. These factors included age, gender, race, disease duration, immunoglobulin heavy chain type, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, plasmacytoma, creatinine clearance, number of prior therapy lines, prior stem cell transplantation, and refractoriness to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The relative treatment effects were estimated with a weighted logistic regression model for ORR and weighted Cox regression models for PFS and OS. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted by matching on only important prognostic factors (i.e., reduced set), identified from multivariate regression analyses for each endpoint. RESULTS: MM-002 and SIRIUS were generally similar in design and had sufficient overlap in baseline characteristics to allow adjustment for potential confounding. Most prognostic factors were similar between the two arms. However, patients on POM+LoDEX had worse ECOG status, while more patients on DARA had a plasmacytoma and creatinine clearance <60 mL/min and were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both. After re-weighting, the aggregate patient characteristics for patients receiving POM+LoDEX matched those reported for DARA. The results from the analyses adjusting for all available characteristics showed no statistically significant differences in ORR, PFS, or OS between the two treatments. Similar findings were obtained by adjusting for important prognostic factors only (Table 1). OS results should be interpreted with caution as subsequent treatments cannot be adjusted for in a MAIC analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that POM+LoDEX and DARA have similar clinical benefits with respect to ORR, PFS, and OS in RRMM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Treatment choice may be made between these two based on factors other than efficacy alone. MAIC analysis may be helpful in therapeutic decisions where direct comparative trials are not available, however as with any non-randomized study potential for residual confounding may still exist. Disclosures Parikh: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Proskorovsky:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Abouzaid:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Krotneva:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Page:Evidera: Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Pelligra:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Guo:Celgene: Consultancy. Mouro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy.