Vorog, Alexander

Abstract Introduction: A number of cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in MM, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and amp1q21. There is a general consensus that treatment with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) benefits pts carrying these CAs (Sonneveld Blood 2016). This meta-analysis of four phase 3 studies assesses PFS benefit in pts receiving the oral PI ixa vs pbo regarding the specific adverse CAs. Methods: Pts in TOURMALINE-MM1 (N=722; relapsed/refractory MM; Moreau N Engl J Med 2016) and MM2 (N=705; newly diagnosed MM; Facon Blood 2021) received ixa plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs pbo-Rd (1:1). Pts in TOURMALINE-MM3 (N=656; Dimopoulos Lancet 2019) and TOURMALINE-MM4 (N=706; Dimopoulos J Clin Oncol 2020) received ixa vs pbo (3:2) as maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant or as post-induction maintenance in transplant-ineligible pts, respectively. In TOURMALINE-MM1/MM2, CAs were centrally assessed on CD138 positive sorted cells from bone marrow samples collected at study entry using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Cutoff values for defining the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were 5%, 3%, and 3% positive cells, respectively, based on the false-positive rates (technical cutoffs) of the FISH probes used, and cutoff values of 3% (MM1) and 20% (MM2) were used for amp1q21. In TOURMALINE-MM3/MM4, cytogenetic assessment was performed locally using FISH or conventional karyotyping with locally defined thresholds for positivity. Results: 270/1227 (22%) vs 227/1019 (22%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)]: 75 vs 62 in MM1, 60 vs 63 in MM2, 61 vs 54 in MM3, and 74 vs 48 in MM4. 957/1227 (78%) vs 792/1019 (78%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 200 vs 216 in MM1, 231 vs 234 in MM2, 252 vs 152 in MM3, and 275 vs 190 in MM4. 555/1142 (49%) vs 479/955 (50%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had expanded high-risk CAs (high-risk CAs ± amp1q21): 155 vs 154 in MM1, 134 vs 146 in MM2, 116 vs 88 in MM3, and 150 vs 91 in MM4. 587/1142 (51%) vs 476/955 (50%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 122 vs 126 in MM1, 164 vs 153 in MM2, 154 vs 89 in MM3, and 148 vs 108 in MM4. After a median follow-up in the pooled analysis of 25.6 months (mos; 12.7, 54.6, 29.7, and 21.3 mos in MM1, MM2, MM3, and MM4, respectively), the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts with high-risk CAs was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.93; median 17.8 vs 13.2 mos) and 0.70, (95% CI 0.62-0.80; median 26.3 vs 17.6 mos) in pts with standard-risk CAs. In the subgroup analyses of expanded high-risk CAs, the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts in the expanded high-risk group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.87; median 18.1 vs 14.1 mos; Figure 1) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.85; median 36.1 vs 21.4 mos) in the complementary standard-risk group. Analyses of PFS according to the presence of individual CAs (Figure 2) indicated differing magnitudes of PFS benefit. Notably, in pts with t(4;14) (n=124 vs n=102), the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy was 0.68 (95% CI 0.48-0.96; median 22.4 vs 13.2 mos), while for pts with amp1q21 (n=380 vs n=312), the HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.93; median 18.8 vs 14.5 mos) and for pts with del(17p) (n=141 vs n=107) the HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59-1.09; median 15.7 vs 13.2 mos). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrated a PFS benefit with ixa-based therapy vs pbo-based therapy regardless of the presence of specific adverse CAs, with a similar magnitude of benefit in pts with (expanded) high-risk CAs and the respective complementary standard-risk groups. However, due to the differences in study eligibility criteria and pt populations, ixa combined with Rd or as single-agent maintenance therapy may not abrogate the negative impact of high-risk CAs. Analyses of PFS in subgroups with specific CAs indicated that the greatest magnitudes of benefit (lowest HRs) with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy were in pts with t(4;14) (HR 0.68) and pts with amp1q21 (HR 0.77), suggesting that the improved outcome with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in the expanded high-risk subgroup was primarily driven by PFS differences in pts with these more common CAs. Further study is needed, and additional sensitivity analyses will be presented in subsequent publications. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chng: BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria. Morgan: Takeda: Honoraria. Iida: Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Moreau: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Dash: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib for the initial treatment of multiple myeloma and as maintenance treatment following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients

Abstract Background: Two global, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled phase 3 studies of single-agent ixazomib (ixa) maintenance therapy are currently ongoing for newly diagnosed MM patients following primary therapy that included autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (MM3, NCT02181413) or excluded ASCT (MM4, NCT02312258). Both trials have demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in their primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS): for MM3, median 26.5 months (mos) ixa vs 21.3 mos pbo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.720, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.582-0.890, P=0.002); for MM4, median 17.4 mos for ixa vs 9.4 mos for pbo (HR 0.659, 95% CI 0.542-0.801, P<0.001). Data for the key secondary endpoint, OS, have not previously been published. Methods: Full methods have previously been reported (Dimopoulos, Lancet 2019; Dimopoulos, J Clin Oncol 2020). Eligible patients (MM3, N=656; MM4, N=706) were randomized 3:2 to receive maintenance therapy with single agent ixa or pbo for a maximum of approximately 24 mos (26 cycles, to the nearest complete cycle) or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. Results: At the most recent data cut-off (MM3, 29 January 2021; MM4, 15 October 2020), with median follow up of 64 mos and 36 mos, respectively, 27% (MM3, 174/656) and 29% (MM4, 203/706) of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population had OS events. In MM3, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for OS was 74% for ixa and 73% for pbo, though the median OS had not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.008, 95% CI 0.744-1.367, P=0.958; Figure). In MM4, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier OS estimate was 55% for ixa and 56% for pbo, though the median OS had also not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.136, 95% CI 0.853-1.514, P=0.382; Figure). No new safety signals were identified, and the incidence of new primary malignancies in both studies was similar between ixa and pbo. Conclusions: These most current OS data for MM3 and MM4 have not demonstrated a statistically significant difference for the ixa or the pbo arm to date. After 64 mos of follow-up in MM3, the risk of OS does not differ between the study arms. After 36 mos of follow-up in MM4, the OS HR shows a trend that favors the pbo arm. Because interim analyses of OS may be overrepresented by deaths in patients who did not benefit from maintenance therapy, it is not known to what extent these results will be reflective of the ITT population at the time of the final analyses. As treatment options, including anti-CD38 mAb and other new mechanisms of action, for salvage therapies following progression continue to expand, OS is increasingly being confounded by subsequent therapies. Hence, demonstrating OS advantage for early line MM therapies is becoming increasingly challenging. OS data continue to be collected in these studies for later analyses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chng: Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Iida: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Mateos: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Fergus: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib as maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

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 Maintenance therapy improves PFS in NDMM pts. Additional active, well-tolerated treatment options that are suitable for long-term administration are required. The international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM4 trial (NCT02312258) of the oral PI ixazomib as maintenance therapy post-induction in non-transplant NDMM pts met its primary endpoint of PFS. Ixazomib demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful benefit vs placebo, with a manageable and well-tolerated toxicity profile. Feasible, tolerable options for long-term therapy are particularly important in this setting, as pts are often elderly and/or frail. We report herein a subgroup analysis of TOURMALINE-MM4 according to age and frailty status. Methods Pts who achieved ≥partial response (PR) after 6-12 months of standard-of-care induction therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib or placebo maintenance for up to 24 months. The sum of 4 components - age (&lt;75 vs 75-80 vs &gt;80 years; score 0 vs 1 vs 2), the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL; &gt;4 vs ≤4, score 0 vs 1), the Lawton Instrumental ADL Scale (&gt;5 vs ≤5, score 0 vs 1), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (≤1 vs ≥2, score 0 vs 1) - was used to classify pts as fit (total score: 0), unfit (score: 1), or frail (score: ≥2). Analyses of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and MY20 modules were conducted to evaluate the effects of treatment on QoL within subgroups defined by frailty status and age. Results In the ixazomib (n=425) vs placebo (n=281) arms, there were similar proportions of pts aged &lt;65, 65-74, and ≥75 years and of pts classified as fit, unfit, and frail (Table 1). Baseline disease and treatment characteristics were generally balanced in ixazomib vs placebo pts across the different age and frailty groups, with some numerical differences observed. In pts aged &lt;65 years, higher rates of International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease and fit pts and a lower rate of complete (CR) or very good partial (VGPR) response post-induction were seen (Table 1). Across frailty groups, a higher rate of CR or VGPR was seen in fit pts, a lower rate of ISS stage III disease was seen in unfit pts, and a higher rate of ISS stage III disease and a lower rate of CR or VGPR were seen in frail pts (Table 1). PFS benefit with ixazomib vs placebo was seen across age groups, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.576 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.299-1.108, p=0.095, median 11.0 vs 9.3 months) in pts aged &lt;65 years, 0.615 (95% CI 0.467-0.810, p&lt;0.001, median 17.9 vs 9.3 months) in pts aged 65-74, and 0.740 (95% CI 0.537-1.019, p=0.064, median 16.7 vs 10.2 months) in pts aged ≥75 years. HRs for time to progression (TTP) were similar to those for PFS. PFS benefit with ixazomib vs placebo was also seen across frailty groups (Figure), with similar HRs for TTP. Rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuation due to TEAEs were higher or similar with ixazomib vs placebo across age and frailty subgroups (Table 2). Rates were generally somewhat higher in older age groups and in unfit/frail pts in both arms; nevertheless, rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs across groups were &lt;20%, even in pts aged ≥75 years and frail pts (Table 2). With ixazomib, rates of common gastrointestinal TEAEs were similar across age groups; rash and liver impairment appeared less common and peripheral neuropathy more common in older pts (Table 2). Covariate-adjusted changes in QoL subscales from baseline were estimated at each cycle using repeated measures linear mixed models stratified by frailty status. In all frailty groups, the mean changes in each treatment arm were small over time (&lt;10 points on a 0-100 scale) and similar between arms, indicating that continued treatment with ixazomib vs placebo maintenance did not adversely affect pts' QoL. Analyses by age were generally consistent with the results by frailty. Conclusions Ixazomib as post-induction maintenance therapy in non-transplant NDMM pts results in PFS benefits vs placebo regardless of age or frailty status. Ixazomib appeared generally well tolerated across groups, with TEAE rates in both arms generally elevated in elderly/frail vs younger/fit pts. Ixazomib is a feasible and effective maintenance option for prolonging PFS across this heterogeneous pt population. Disclosures Bringhen: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vorog:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Wang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Cherepanov:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Cain:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Manne:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not undergoing stem cell transplantation

Background CD38 is highly expressed on MM cells, hence anti-CD38 agents are of interest as a therapeutic approach in MM. The anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dara, as mono- or combination therapy, has substantially improved efficacy outcomes in RRMM, including in heavily pretreated pts. However, many pts relapse and new therapeutic approaches are needed, particularly for pts R/R to dara. TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit. Its unique mechanism of action involves specific binding to CD38+ cells, forced internalization into the target cells, retrograde transport to the cytosol, and irreversible, enzymatic inactivation of target cell ribosomes to cause apoptosis. TAK-169 showed potent, rapid in vitro activity on CD38-expressing cell lines and in vivo efficacy in MM mouse xenograft tumor models with a wide CD38 expression range when administered intravenously (IV) once weekly (QW) or once every 2 weeks (Q2W). Activity was also shown in ex vivo assays from 6 pt bone marrow aspirate (BMA) samples, including from a dara-resistant pt (EC50 5 nM). TAK-169 retained in vitro activity in the presence of dara with modest shifts in EC50 noted at higher dara concentrations. In contrast to dara, TAK-169 has direct tumor cell kill activity that is independent of a pt's immune function status and may therefore be effective in a dara-resistant setting. Accordingly, this phase 1 study will assess safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of TAK-169 in RRMM. Methods This first-in-human, multicenter, open-label study (NCT04017130; Figure) comprises dose escalation (Part 1) and expansion (Part 2). Eligible pts must be aged ≥18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. Pts enrolled in Part 1 should not be candidates for available therapies known to confer clinical benefit in RRMM. In part 2, pts enrolled should have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, or ≥2 if one included a PI and IMiD combined. Prior anti-CD38 therapy (including dara) is permitted, except in the Part 2 anti-CD38 therapy-naive expansion cohort. In Part 1, the primary objective is to assess safety/tolerability of TAK-169 in pts with RRMM, and determine maximum tolerated dose/recommended Phase 2 dose (MTD/RP2D). Secondary objectives include efficacy, PK, PD and immunogenicity of TAK-169. Approximately 60 pts are planned to be enrolled to receive IV TAK-169 QW on Days 1/8/15/22 in 28-day cycles. Dosing will start at 50 μg/kg, with subsequent dose levels of 100, 200, 335, 500, 665 μg/kg. A 2nd Q2W dose escalation cohort may be initiated, starting at the QW MTD. The Bayesian Logistic Regression Model with overdose control will be used for dose escalation cohort 2 and for all subsequent dose escalation cohorts, and other non-DLT-safety, clinical, PK, and PD data will be considered. In Part 2, the primary objective is preliminary evaluation of TAK-169 clinical activity in RRMM. Secondary objectives include further evaluating safety, efficacy, PK, PD, and immunogenicity of TAK-169. Part 2 will enroll approximately 54 pts into dara RR (QW and Q2W dosing) and anti-CD38 therapy-naïve (QW dosing) cohorts. TAK-169 will be administered at the MTD/RP2D (QW and Q2W) determined in Part 1. Response will be monitored longitudinally using orthogonal approaches. M-protein levels in serum and urine will be measured each cycle to determine objective responses by International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Minimal residual disease status in pts suspected to be at complete response will be assessed. Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) will be collected from longitudinal plasma samples for disease monitoring. Baseline cytogenetic data will be collected, and TAK-169 efficacy will be assessed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. Serial blood samples will be used to characterize PK and PD of TAK-169 after IV administration, and to assess the presence of antidrug antibodies. BMA samples collected at screening will be used to evaluate baseline expression of candidate biomarkers. Toxicity will be evaluated using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) version 5. Efficacy analyses will use descriptive statistics with a 95% confidence interval and the Kaplan-Meier method. PK parameters and immunogenicity status will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Recruitment is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy. Landgren:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: IDMC; 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; Theradex: Other: IDMC; Adaptive: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Higgins:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Willert:Molecular Templates: Employment. Waltzman:Molecular Templates, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Lublinsky:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dash:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Hanley:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Manoharan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Leichter:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Ottinger:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Newcomb:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vorog:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit