Dhakal, Binod

Summary Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy and bispecific T‐cell engagers (BsAb) have emerged as promising immunotherapeutic modalities in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of CAR‐T and BsAb therapies in MM patients with a prior history of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). Thirty‐three MM patients with prior allo‐HCT received CAR‐T ( n = 24) or BsAb ( n = 9) therapy. CAR‐T therapy demonstrated an ORR of 92% (67% ≥ CR), and 73% were MRD negative. BsAb therapy resulted in an ORR of 44% (44% ≥ CR) and 44% MRD negative. Safety analysis showed grade ≥3 AEs in 92% of CAR‐T and 56% of BsAb patients. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 83% of CAR‐T and 78% of BsAb recipients, while immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in three CAR‐T patients. Infections of grade ≥3 were reported in 50% of CAR‐T and 44% of BsAb recipients. No exacerbation of graft‐versus‐host disease occurred except in one BsAb recipient. CAR‐T and BsAb therapies appear to be feasible, safe and provide deep and durable responses in MM patients with prior allo‐HCT.

Background: The use of CAR-T cell therapy has transformed treatment paradigms in B-cell malignancies. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved for use in RRMM after four or more prior lines of therapy in 2022. While the pivotal studies exclusively treated patients in an inpatient setting, robust infrastructure planning at some centers across US has fostered outpatient administration of the commercially available product. Outpatient administration of CAR-T is more desirable due to superior financial sustainability, lower healthcare resource utilization, and greater patient autonomy during the treatment. Hence, we conducted a qualitative study to evaluate clinical and administrative perspectives and trends in outpatient administration of commercialized cilta-cel with an aim to understand best practices from certified CAR-T centers in the USA. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to better understand current practices around outpatient administration of CAR-T, and inform the development of primary research materials for designing subsequent interviews. Next, two 60-minute exploratory interviews were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=5) from two certified cilta-cel centers, each with significant volume of outpatient administration of cilta-cel. Following the qualitative analysis of interviews, two 90-minute panels were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=14) from six certified cilta-cel centers, including centers from exploratory interviews, focusing on clinical and administrative topics across the patient journey. Results: Each center in the study treated approximately 15-30 patients with cilta-cel in the outpatient setting. Using Likert scales, participants from all centers ranked space/capacity as the most important factor in decision-making process for outpatient cilta-cel administration, and ranked reimbursement incentives as a highly (67% of participants) or a moderately (33%) important factor. All participants agreed that having a dedicated outpatient infrastructure (dedicated space such as bed availability and internal processes including standard operating procedures (SOPs)), 24/7 support, outpatient bone marrow transplant (BMT) or cell therapy experience, and robust multidisciplinary teams were key to setting-up successful outpatient centers for cilta-cel therapy. The participants agreed that cilta-cel can be administered safely in an outpatient setting due to generally predictable, delayed onset of potential AEs, except in patients with significant comorbidities or organ dysfunction. Participants also considered caregiver support and lodging availability as factors of importance for outpatient administration. Institutionally established AE monitoring protocols are critical for safe use of cilta-cel in an outpatient setting. Over 50% of the centers interviewed have recently started to administer tocilizumab to treat mild grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in an outpatient setting. Based on the findings across the phases of research, the patient journey for outpatient administration of cilta-cel was updated (Figure 1). While patients may be admitted for toxicity events, 100% of centers interviewed had 24-hour coverage and bed availability for these patients if needed. Conclusions: Overall, this study further supports the notion that centers can safely administer cilta-cel in an outpatient setting, if appropriate infrastructure is in place. Additional best practices for new outpatient sites include adequate infrastructure, SOPs, a well-trained and multidisciplinary team, and education of patients and caregivers (Table 1). Outpatient management and earlier intervention for low-grade AEs is currently evolving, with more real-world research required. Continued expert sharing of best practices can aid centers in implementing outpatient administration of CAR-T therapies. Funding: This analysis was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC and Legend Biotech USA, Inc

AbstractBackgroundLenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression‐free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high‐risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard‐risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib‐based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.MethodsIn total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel‐agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.ResultsThree hundred fifty‐seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib‐based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib‐based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high‐risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression‐free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).ConclusionsNo superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post‐transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) represents an intermediate stage between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and active myeloma with a high risk of progression to active MM, especially during the initial years after diagnosis. Available clinical risk factors have enabled development of risk stratification systems that allow for identification of patients at the highest risk of progression, opening opportunities for early intervention. Two phase 3 trials using lenalidomide with dexamethasone or lenalidomide alone have both shown benefit for early intervention by decreasing the risk of progression and improving the overall survival in the former. It remains unknown if an approach using a single active drug to delay progression, or one that uses therapies like active myeloma, represent a better approach; both are being studied in phase 3 trials. We designed this phase 2 trial to examine if an intense but limited duration therapy can possibly provide a significant elimination of the tumour burden that can potentially lead to long term responses. Patients and Methods: Patients with SMM (per updated IMWG definition of SMM) with high risk disease (defined by the IMWG updated risk stratification criteria- presence of any two of the following: Serum M spike &gt; 2 gm/dL OR an involved to uninvolved FLC ratio &gt; 20 OR bone marrow PC% &gt; 20%) or a score of ≥9 using the risk scoring system using FLC ratio, serum M spike, marrow plasma cell% and presence of high risk FISH were enrolled provided they had adequate marrow and organ function. Patients with significant comorbidities such as heart disease were excluded from the trial. Treatment consisted of three phases: induction, consolidation and maintenance. Patients received carfilzomib (36 mg/m2 twice weekly or as per updated protocol 56mg/m2 weekly for 2 weeks), lenalidomide (25 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (weekly for 8 doses, every other week for 16 weeks) and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly, in 4 week cycles for 6 cycles as part of induction, the same regimen was administered with daratumumab every 4 weeks and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly for another 6 cycles for consolidation. This was followed by 12 cycles of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (10 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (day 1 every other cycle) of a 4-week cycle. Appropriate antiviral, and thrombosis prophylaxis were mandated. The primary endpoint of this trial is the rate of confirmed sCR as best response across all cycles of treatment. We plan to accrue 83 patients to this trial with one-stage binomial trial design to test the null hypothesis that the true success (sCR) proportion is at most 65% and the alternate hypothesis of 80%. Results: Forty-six patients have been accrued to the trial as of July 14, 2020. The median age of the study population is 63 years (range 47 - 76); 70% are male. Overall, 2% have completed the maintenance, 50% have completed the consolidation, 80% have completed the induction and 15% are in the induction phase; only two patients have gone off treatment. The reasons for going off treatment were patient preference. At least one patient needed a dose modification for each drug; 17%, 2%, 13% and 7% required dose reductions for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively. The relative median dose intensity for the drugs were 85%, 92%, 80% and 98% for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively across the delivered cycles. The adverse events seen in at least 5% of the patients are as shown in the figure. A grade 3 or higher AE was seen in 52% of patients. There were no treatment related deaths observed. Response rate and depth have been as expected for this regimen in myeloma and analysis is pending completed accrual. Figure 1 Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Dhakal:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: AdvIsory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenbaum:Celgene: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Bensinger:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bhutani:Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) with the translocation t(11;14) may have inferior outcomes in comparison with other standard‐risk MM, and it has been suggested to portend a worse prognosis in African Americans in comparison with Whites. This study used the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to examine the impact of t(11;14) on the clinical outcomes of patients with MM of African American and White descent.MethodsThis study evaluated 3538 patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) for MM from 2008 to 2016 and were reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups: African Americans with t(11;14) (n = 117), African Americans without t(11;14) (n = 968), Whites with t(11;14) (n = 266), and Whites without t(11;14) (n = 2187).ResultsAfrican Americans with t(11;14) were younger, had lower Karnofsky scores, and had more advanced stage MM with a higher Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation–Comorbidity Index (HCT‐CI). Fewer African Americans with t(11;14) (21%) had a coexistent high‐risk marker in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (27%). In a multivariate analysis, race and t(11;14) had no association with progression‐free survival. However, overall survival was superior among African Americans with t(11;14) in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30‐0.93; P = .03). Survival was also associated with female sex, stage, time from diagnosis to transplant, a low HCT‐CI, and receipt of maintenance.ConclusionsRace may have a differential impact on the survival of patients with t(11;14) MM who undergo autoHCT and needs to be further studied.

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) &lt;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&lt;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.