Iftikhar, Ahmad

e20139 Background: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) frequently presents with brain metastases, affecting approximately 20% of the patients at diagnosis. The prognostic impact of baseline brain metastases on survival outcomes in patients treated with contemporary chemo-immunotherapy remains unclear, creating uncertainty in first-line treatment selection for this high-risk population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of baseline brain metastases on treatment outcomes in ES-SCLC. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating PD-1/PD-L1-based chemo-immunotherapy versus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in adults with ES-SCLC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled separately for patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+) and without brain metastases (BM−) using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Analyses were performed using R. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration and immunotherapy regimen. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included. Among patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+), pooled OS from seven studies did not show a significant survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.08, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.145), nor did pooled PFS from five studies (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60–1.79, I² = 0.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity. In contrast, among patients without baseline brain metastases (BM−), pooled OS from nine studies demonstrated a significant survival benefit (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69–0.76, I² = 0.0%, P < 0.001), with corresponding improvement in PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.82, I² = 0.0%). These findings indicate a differential treatment effect according to baseline brain metastasis status. Conclusions: First-line chemo-immunotherapy does not apprear to confer a significant survival benefit in ES-SCLC patients with baseline brain metastases, reflecting a differential treatment effect by brain metastasis status. These findings suggest that baseline brain metastases should be considered in treatment selection and future clinical trial design and highlight the need for optimized systemic strategies for this high-risk population.

e13121 Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks reliable prognostic biomarkers beyond standard clinical staging, limiting individualized risk stratification and treatment planning. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a readily available marker of systemic inflammation, has been proposed as a prognostic indicator in TNBC; however, existing evidence remains inconsistent. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment NLR in the contemporary treatment era. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 1, 2026, for randomized and observational studies reporting associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on NLR cut-off values, follow-up duration, geographic region, and risk of bias. Results: Twenty-three retrospective studies comprising 4,731 patients with TNBC were included. On multivariate analysis, elevated pretreatment NLR was independently associated with poorer OS (HR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.56–3.13) and DFS (HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.65–2.37. Similar associations were observed on univariate analysis (OS: HR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.07–2.72; DFS: HR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.14–2.98). No statistically significant or consistent association was observed between NLR and PFS. Associations between high NLR and adverse OS and DFS remained robust across prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, representing the largest contemporary synthesis of multivariable-adjusted outcomes in TNBC. Key pooled outcome associations are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Elevated pretreatment NLR is independently associated with worse OS and DFS in patients with TNBC, supporting its potential role as a low-cost tool for clinical risk stratification and treatment planning. Given its availability from routine blood tests, NLR may assist in identifying high-risk patients who could benefit from intensified surveillance or therapeutic strategies. Prospective validation in the modern chemo-immunotherapy era is warranted. Summary of pooled associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Outcome Studies (n) Interpretation Overall survival 14 Worse survival Disease-free survival 15 Worse survival Progression-free survival 3 Inconclusive

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe treatment landscape for multiple myeloma continues to evolve. Recently, the addition of anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to the triplet regimen, comprising a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and a steroid, for transplant‐eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TENDMM) has shown promising results.AimsTo evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of quadruplet therapy with an anti‐CD38 mAb compared to a triplet regimen.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2024 identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy and safety outcomes were derived using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Summarized outcomes include hazard ratios (HR) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), odds ratios (OR) for response rates, measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (G ≥ 3 AEs).ResultsFive RCTs involving 2963 patients were included. A statistically significant PFS was observed for quadruplet therapy when compared to the triplet regimen (HR 0.44; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.35–0.56). PFS benefit was consistent for the standard risk (SR) group (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.27–0.52) and high risk (HiR) group (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.92). No statistically significant benefit was observed for OS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.28–1.08). A statistically significant benefit was observed for the overall response rate (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.02–3.06) and MRD negativity rate (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.79–3.99). No significant differences were observed for G ≥ 3 AE (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.92–1.58), lymphopenia (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.62–1.89), and anemia (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.83–1.37). However, a significantly increased risk was observed for all‐grade thrombocytopenia (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.37–1.97), neutropenia (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.67–3.02) and infections (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07–3.31).ConclusionQuadruplet therapy demonstrated a favorable efficacy and safety profile, with consistent benefit across subgroups. The findings support its potential as the new standard of care for TENDMM.

e19534 Background: Immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors plus dexamethasone are the standard triplet induction regimen for TENDMM. We analyzed the efficacy of adding either anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or anti-SLAMF7 antibody to the triplet therapy. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and published abstracts were systematically searched from each database’s inception through 01-31-2024 to identify II/III trials assessing quadruplet therapy versus triplet therapy in TENDMM patients. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), odds ratios (OR) for overall response rates (ORR), measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (with sensitivity of 10 -5) and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (G≥3 TRAE) were summarized using random effects meta-analysis via inverse variance approach. Additional subgroup analyses based on the cytogenetic risk were performed. P-value of interaction (Pint ) < 0.1 was pre-specified as statistically significant for the difference between the two groups. Results: 3806 studies were screened and seven trials were included with a total of 3546 patients. Four trials (2303 patients) assessed the addition of anti-CD-38 mAbs and three (1243 patients) assessed anti-SLAMF7 mAb, elotuzumab to the triplet regimen. Quadruplet therapy significantly improved PFS as compared to triplet (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43-0.92), and the PFS benefit was also observed in standard risk group (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.2-0.9); however, results were insignificant for high-risk group (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.62-1.93). No significant OS benefit was observed (HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.49–1.26); however, data for three trials (CASSIOPEIA, DSMM XVII, PERSEUS) is immature, with longer-term follow-up ongoing. Quadruplet therapy showed significant results for very good partial response or better (OR: 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.36), stringent complete response (OR: 1.74; 95% CI 1.27-2.07) and complete response or better (OR: 1.91; 95% CI 1.19-3.06). MRD rate shows benefit with quadruplet therapy (OR: 2.59; 95% CI 2.22-3.01). Improved MRD rate was also observed for high-risk (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.4-3.2) and standard-risk group (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.68-3.94). Secondary analysis for efficacy of anti-CD38 mAbs showed benefit for PFS (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56), ORR (OR: 1.77;95% CI: 1.02-3.06), and MRD (OR: 2.98; 95% CI 1.8-4.8). G ≥3 TRAE did not significantly differ between the groups (OR: 1.05; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). However, quadruplet therapy showed significant risk of infection (OR: 1.2; 95% 1.05-1.35) and thrombocytopenia (OR: 1.41; 95% CI 1.24-1.59). Conclusions: Quadruplet therapy improved PFS, ORR, and MRD rates compared to triplet regimen and has demonstrated promising benefits to be considered the new standard of care for TENDMM patients.

Introduction Amyloidosis is a rare disease and there are currently no FDA approved therapies for AL amyloidosis. Most of the therapeutic and disease data come from expert guidelines, consensus and retrospective review papers. There is a paucity of data specifically for relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis (RRAL). We conducted this systematic review of clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies to evaluate patterns of relapse and therapeutic options for RRAL. Methods PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies on RRAL. Studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. Cross-trial comparison of included studies and meta-analysis could not be performed for a number of reasons but mainly due to a limited number of studies on one particular treatment regimen. Results From a total of 511 studies, 11 studies (n= 698 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Five were phase I/II clinical trials, five retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. Most studies had less than 50 patients. The largest study, a retrospective cohort by Tandon et al. included 366 patients. Mean age was 61.2. Three studies reported 2 median prior lines of therapy (n= 22, 28, and 84 patients); two reported 3 median prior lines of therapy (n= 25 and 24) and 6 studies didn't specify this data. Prior treatment options included proteasome inhibitors (PI), most commonly bortezomib (n= 259), followed by melphalan (n=211), high dose melphalan and stem cell transplant (HDM/SCT [n= 207]) and IMiDs most commonly lenalidomide (n=154). Time to progression (TTP) from first-line treatment was reported in only 4 studies as 1 month, 5 months, 5 months and 34 months respectively. The study reporting a TTP of 34-months had 11 patients who received HDM/SCT as first line treatment. Three studies reported information about their criteria for initiation of subsequent treatment. Subsequent treatment was mostly a combination regimen with dexamethasone or an alkylating agent. The only agent evaluated as single agent was bortezomib in a phase I/II clinical trial by Reece et al. Therapeutic options for RRAL are PI (non-specific) based therapy (n= 145), lenalidomide (n= 105), bortezomib (n= 99), IMiD (non-specific) based therapy (n=83), melphalan based therapy (n= 33), carfilzomib (n=28), pomalidomide (n=27), ASCT (n= 25), daratumumab (n=25) and bendamustine (n=22). Efficacy: Hematologic responses were reported to be following: bortezomib + dexamethasone/melphalan (85%, n=17/20), daratumumab + dexamethasone (76%, n= 19/25), HDM/ASCT (73%, n= 8/11), single agent bortezomib (67%, n=23/34), carfilzomib ± dexamethasone (63%, n= 15/24), lenalidomide + dexamethasone (61%, n=51/84), bendamustine + dexamethasone (55%, 11/22) and pomalidomide + dexamethasone (50%, 12/24). Five of eleven studies reported organ responses which ranged from 18% to 23%. The studies which reported organ responses had evaluated the following agents: single agent bortezomib, carfilzomib ± dexamethasone, lenalidomide + dexamethasone, and bendamustine + dexamethasone. Best survival outcomes were seen with bortezomib with median overall survival (OS) 62 months. With bendamustine and dexamethasone (retrospective cohort study n=22) median OS was 31 months. With lenalidomide + dexamethasone (prospective cohort study n=24 ) median OS was 14 months. For the remaining studies, the median OS was either not reported or not reached at the time of presentation of data. Conclusion AL amyloidosis patients progressing after front line therapy show good responses with bortezomib (median overall survival of 62 months). Novel combinations using lenalidomide, pomalidomide, carfilzomib, daratumumab, and bendamustine show promising efficacy. Ongoing trials of daratumumab (AMYDARA trial) and ixazomib (TOURAMALINE-AL1) will bring further insight into therapeutic armamentarium for RRAL patients. After relapse, a salvage HDM/ASCT can be considered. Comparisons of regimen efficacy between studies are not practical because of multiple factors which include but are not limited to heterogenous nature of AL patients, small sample sizes, variable prior treatments, exposure to novel agents, observational study versus clinical trial and variable endpoints. Table Disclosures Anwer: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau.