Gahvari, Zhubin

Abstract Lineage switch (LS), defined as the immunophenotypic transformation of acute leukemia, has emerged as a mechanism of relapse after antigen-targeted immunotherapy, which is associated with dismal outcomes. Through an international collaborative effort, we identified cases of LS after a host of antigen-targeted therapies (eg, CD19, CD22, CD38, and CD7), described how LS was diagnosed, reviewed treatment approaches, and analyzed overall outcomes for this form of postimmunotherapy relapse. Collectively, 75 cases of LS were evaluated, including 53 (70.7%) cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) transforming to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 17 (22.7%) cases of B-ALL transforming to mixed phenotypic acute leukemia (MPAL)/acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (ALAL), and 5 (6.7%) cases of rare LS presentation (ie, T-cell ALL to AML). An additional 10 cases with incomplete changes in immunophenotype, referred to as “lineage drift” were also described. With a primary focus on the 70 cases of LS from B-ALL to AML or MPAL/ALAL, LS emerged at a median of 1.5 months (range, 0-36.5) after immunotherapy, with 81.4% presenting with LS within the first 6 months from the most proximal immunotherapy. Although most involved KMT2A rearrangements (n = 45, 64.3%), other rare cytogenetic and/or molecular alterations were uniquely observed. Treatment outcomes were generally poor, with remission rates of <40%. The median overall survival after LS diagnosis was 4.8 months. Outcomes were similarly poor for those with rare immunophenotypes of LS or lineage drift. This global initiative robustly categorizes lineage changes after immunotherapy and, through enhanced understanding, establishes a foundation for improving outcomes of LS.

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and comprehensive care of patients with MDS based on a review of recent clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts is convened at least on an annual basis. During the annual meeting, the panel evaluates new and emerging data to inform their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights review the recent updates, including treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, preference stratification of therapeutic agents, and emerging data on novel therapeutics.

Introduction: Lineage switch (LS) refers to the transformation of acute leukemia from one cell lineage to another (e.g., lymphoid (ALL) to myeloid (AML)). This rare phenomenon, distinct from treatment induced malignancy (i.e., t-AML) and mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), is increasingly being observed following cell surface antigen targeting. Given challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of LS, Project EVOLVE was developed to globally identify cases of LS following immunotherapy. Methods: A protocol and data collection form for this IRB exempt study was widely disseminated to capture deidentified LS case information across multiple centers and cancer consortia. This included collection of data from published reports of LS, with authors contacted to obtain additional information. For this analysis, LS was defined by the emergence of cell-surface markers warranting reclassification of the original leukemia as a different lineage derivation based on the immunophenotype, including cases of AML emerging alongside the original ALL. “Confirmed” LS cases included those where retention of original cytogenetic or molecular aberrations and/or the clonal immunoglobulin rearrangement patterns were verified to confirm the clonal relationship. “Suspected” LS cases included those where samples to confirm clonality marker retention could not be obtained, but the clinical presentation was consistent with LS. The term “transition” was applied when immunophenotypic shifts were transient. Cases with new cytogenetic abnormalities unrelated to the original diagnosis and compatible with t-AML were excluded. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. Data cut-off was July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 58 cases were identified, including 19 cases referenced in prior publications. Of the 58, 11 cases were excluded from this initial analysis, including: 4 cases of t-AML, 2 cases of T-ALL to AML, and 5 “transition” cases. Collectively, 47 cases of LS (43 “confirmed”; 4 “suspected”), spanning across 3 continents and 8 countries, were analyzed. (Fig. 1A) Cases included transition from B-ALL to AML in 36 (76.6%) and to MPAL/biphenotypic/ambiguous lineage in 11 (23.4%). Two likely had MPAL at diagnosis and a third with chronic myeloid leukemia. The median age at initial diagnosis was 8.4 years (range, 1 day-76.5 years); median age at LS presentation was 11.0 years (range 0.4-77.3 years). Twenty-three (48.9%) were male and 19 (40.4%) had prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Baseline cytogenetics showed KMT2A rearrangement in 27 (57.4%). Baseline myeloid antigen co-expression was seen in 22 of 23 patients with submitted data, but variation in degree of expression across patients and antigens was substantial. The most proximal immunotherapy prior to development of LS was CAR T-cells in 23 (48.9%) and blinatumomab in 24 (51.1%). The median time from the most proximal immunotherapy to development of LS was 1.6 months (range, 7 days-36.5 months). In 7 (29.2%) patients receiving blinatumomab, LS developed during the infusion. LS presented as isolated marrow relapse in 27 (57.4%), isolated CNS in 2 (4.3%), isolated non-CNS extramedullary disease in 3 (6.4%), combined relapse in 14 (29.8%) and unreported in 1. First line treatment for LS was chemotherapy induction in 31 (66.0%), palliative care/no therapy in 8 (17.0%), and alternative therapies in the remaining 8 (17.0%). In 35 (74.5%) patients, remission induction was the goal of first line therapy. Fifteen (31.9%) achieved a complete remission (CR) of whom 2 were treated with palliative intent. Across all patients, 8 (17.0%) are alive in remission, the longest being 4.7 years from LS diagnosis; 2 (4.3%) are alive with active LS and 37 (78.7%) died from LS, their original disease, or complications of treatment of LS (Fig 1B). For those alive in CR (n=8), 7 (87.5%) proceeded to a consolidative SCT for treatment of LS and 1 patient, an octogenarian remains in remission after AML directed therapy. Conclusions: LS is emerging as an important mechanism of immune escape following immunotherapy. Project EVOLVE provides the largest dataset of patients with LS to date. This systematic, international effort reveals substantial complexity and variability in diagnosing and managing LS. Unfortunately, outcomes following LS are grim, underscoring the critical need to identify risk factors of and optimal therapies for this leukemia transformation.

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) <10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p<0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have significantly improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Refractoriness to PIs and IMiDs results in poor outcomes with a median survival of about 13 months.Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) with remarkable activity in relapsed and refractory MM. The outcome of MM patients in US clinical practice who becomes refractory to CD38 MoABs is unknown. The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study is to investigate the natural history of patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoABs (Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure: MAMMOTH study). Methods We identified patients from 14 academic institutions in the US with diagnosis of active MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination. Patients were considered refractory to CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. The time when patients met the above criteria of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data including patient-disease characteristics and all therapies administered before and after T0 were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. For survival outcome analysis, patients were classified into three groups: "Penta-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 2 PIs + 2 IMiDs), "Triple-refractory and quad-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 1 PI + 1/2 IMiDs, or 1 CD38 MoAB + 1/2 PIs + 1 IMiD), and "Not triple-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB, and not both of a PI and an IMiD). Responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients were included in this study; median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90). Fifty five percent of patients were males, 52% had IgG isotype, 29% had ISS stage III disease, and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Median interval from diagnosis of MM to T0 was 50.1 months (mo) (range 2.5-230.1). Patients received a median of 4 lines of treatment (1-16) prior to the CD38 MoAB-containing regimen; 72% underwent prior autologous transplant. Daratumumab-refractory patients formed a majority (256, 93.1%) of this cohort. Most of the patients were refractory to lenalidomide (77%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (68%), and carfilzomib (47%). Seventy patients (25.5%) were "penta-refractory" and 148 (53.8%) were "triple-refractory and quad-refractory". Median follow-up from T0 for survivors was 10.6 mo (range 1.9-42.3 mo). The median overall survival (OS) from T0 for the entire cohort was 8.6 mo (95% C.I. 7.2-9.9); OS for the groups based on refractoriness to prior treatments are shown (Figure). Two hundred and forty-nine patients (90.5%) received at least one line of treatment after T0, (median 2, range 1-10). The response rates and depth of responses to each line of treatment post T0 are shown (Table). Among patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent treatment, the median PFS and OS from T0 were 3.4 (95% C.I. 2.8-4.0) mo and 9.3 (95% C.I. 8.1-10.6) mo, respectively; the median OS for the 26 patients who received no further treatment was only 1.3 (95% C.I. 0.6-1.9) mo. By multivariate analysis, penta-refractoriness (HR 2.4, p <0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.5, p=0.01), elevated LDH (HR 2, p<0.001) and creatinine > 2 (HR 2.4, p=0.01) at the onset of CD38-based therapy predicted inferior OS. Conclusions Patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoAB are increasingly less responsive to subsequent therapies. While survival is particularly dismal for penta-refractory patients, the outcomes are poor even for patients who are not refractory to other mainstream MM agents. The MAMMOTH study defines a MM population in urgent need for new therapies, and provides benchmark OS, PFS and response data for subsequent investigational therapies in this setting. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vij:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.