Shah, Nina

Background: 24-hour urine (24HRU) assessments are a key component of International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma (MM) and are requested longitudinally in clinical trials even if not routinely used in real-world practice. Several analyses have suggested a limited role for 24HRU if serum immunofixation or free light chain (LC) testing is abnormal (Dejoie Blood 2016, Lahuerta Blood 2023). Adopting urine-free response criteria (with 24HRU removal from every level of IMWG response) may change responses in <5% of patients (Natsuhara et al, Leuk Lymph 2023) but not have been studied in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) in a larger population. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Phase 3 BMT CTN 0702 (STaMINA) trial (Stadtmauer et al, JCO 2019) studying post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) strategies. Only patients evaluable for Day +56 response following ASCT were included, and patients with progressive disease (PD, n=8) at this timepoint were excluded. Post-ASCT responses relative to diagnosis were calculated by two sets of criteria. First, traditional responses were calculated per IMWG criteria (Kumar et al, Lancet Onc 2016) as stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), very good PR (VGPR), or complete response (CR, including stringent CR). Second, urine-free response assessments were calculated as follows: negative 24HRU immunofixation no longer required for CR, 24HRU M-protein < 100 milligrams (mg) per day no longer required for VGPR, and no 24HRU M-protein thresholds (e.g., < 200 mg per day or > 90% reduction) required for PR. PFS was estimated (using PD by traditional IMWG criteria or death as events) using proportional hazard models. Results: Of 636 evaluable patients (84% of all BMT CTN 0702 participants), LC-only disease was noted in 18.9% (n=120). Pre-enrollment 24HRU testing at diagnosis was done in 28.9% of patients (n=184). IMWG responses were as follows: CR, 29.4% (n=187) traditional vs 29.7% (n=189) urine-free; VGPR, 37.0% (n=235) traditional vs 36.6% (n=233) urine-free; PR, 30.7% (n=195) for both; SD, 3.0% (n=19) for both. A total of 4 responses (0.6%) changed with urine-free criteria. Three patients were ‘upgraded’ (VGPR to CR, n=2, PR to VGPR, n=1) because 24HRU requirements for CR/VGPR were no longer required. One patient without a measurable serum paraprotein was ‘downgraded’ from a traditional VGPR (with negative 24HRU immunofixation) to a urine-free PR based on LC-only criteria. Among the subset of 184 patients with 24HRU electrophoresis results at diagnosis, there were no differences between traditional and urine-free IMWG responses. Median PFS and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were the same at each depth of both traditional and urine-free criteria: 63.0 months (50.8 - 71.4 months) for CR, 49.6 months (42.6 - 55.1 months) for VGPR, 44.9 months (37.2-54.8 months) for PR, and 34.4 months (14.0-51.5 months) for SD. Urine-free IMWG criteria were highly prognostic for PFS (p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.05-1.36). The achievement of urine-free CR vs urine-free ≤CR was also prognostic (p = 0.005, 95% CI 0.54 - 0.89). Urine-free VGPR vs urine-free ≤VGPR was of borderline significance (p = 0.102, 95% CI 0.66 - 1.04), with median PFS 53.8 months (48.0 - 57.6 months) vs 44.6 months (36.3 - 54.7 months) respectively. Discussion: In this secondary analysis of a Phase 3 trial, omitting 24HRU assessments from IMWG criteria changed <1% of responses and had no impact on PFS prediction at any response depth. 24HRU assessments had been performed for less than a third of patients as standard of care prior to study entry, underscoring its infrequent use outside of trials. Urine-free IMWG assessments would reduce time toxicity and discomfort for patients, particularly for those with limited dexterity. If implemented in trials, they would also simplify study logistics and lower operational costs. Outside of situations such as AL amyloidosis where 24HRU assessments remain critical or for patients with urine as their only measurable MM biomarker, our results support the removal of 24HRU assessments from future iterations of IMWG response criteria. Funding: Grants #U10HL069294 and #U24HL138660 to the BMT CTN from the NHLBI and the NCI; contributions by Celgene Corporation and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; funding by The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and SWOG.

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.

Abstract The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P &lt; .001 and HR 5.01, P &lt; .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P &lt; .001 and HR 8.13, P &lt; .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post–auto-HSCT.

PURPOSE ABBV-383, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, has demonstrated promising results in an ongoing first-in-human phase I study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03933735 ) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes of this phase I dose escalation/expansion study. METHODS Patients with RRMM (≥ three prior lines including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) were eligible. ABBV-383 was administered intravenously over 1-2 hours once every 3 weeks, without any step dosing. A 3 + 3 design with backfilling for dose escalation was used (intrapatient escalation to highest safe dose permitted) followed by initiation of dose expansion. RESULTS As of January 8, 2022, 124 patients (dose escalation [0.025-120 mg], n = 73; dose expansion [60 mg], n = 51) have received ABBV-383; median age was 68 years (range, 35-92 years). The most common hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were neutropenia (all grades: 37%) and anemia (29%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs were cytokine release syndrome (57%) and fatigue (30%). Seven deaths from TEAEs were reported with all considered unrelated to study drug by the investigator. For all efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 122; all doses), the objective response rate (ORR) was 57% and very good partial response (VGPR) or better (≥ VGPR) rate was 43%. In the 60 mg dose expansion cohort (n = 49), the ORR and ≥ VGPR rates were 59% and 39%, respectively; and in the ≥ 40 mg dose escalation plus dose expansion cohorts (n = 79) were 68% and 54%, respectively. CONCLUSION ABBV-383 in patients with RRMM was well tolerated with an ORR of 68% at doses ≥ 40 mg. This novel therapy's promising preliminary antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients warrants further clinical evaluation.

8057 Background: Following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto HCT), maintenance therapies improve survival, reduce relapse risk in multiple myeloma (MM), and are the de facto standard-of-care. However, clinical trials have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM) with maintenance therapy, including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We examined data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to evaluate the impact of SPM on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and the utilization of allogeneic HCT in patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with MM who underwent first auto HCT in the United States with a melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011-2018 and subsequently received maintenance therapy were included (N=3948). The primary endpoint of interest was the impact of SPM and SHM on OS. Multivariate analytic (MVA) modelling was applied, accounting for competing risks while integrating significant covariates to determine the impact of SPM on PFS and OS. Finally, we studied the utilization and survival following allogeneic HCT for SHM. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Maintenance regimens used were lenalidomide (2836, 72%), bortezomib (370,9 %) or lenalidomide + bortezomib (372, 9%) based combinations. At a median follow up of 37 months, 175 (5%) pts developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid 36 (21%) myeloid, and 27 (15%) lymphoid cancers. In MVA, the development of SPM and SHM was associated with an inferior PFS (HR 2.62, P<0.001 and HR 5.01, P<0.001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P<0.001 and 8.13, P<0.001, respectively). The two commonest causes of death were MM (42%) and SPM (30%) for those developing SPM. Similarly, MM (53%) and SHM (18%) were the two commonest causes of death for those developing SHM. Nine (14%,5 t-MDS and 4 t-AML) of 63 patients with SHM underwent an allogeneic HCT. Patients undergoing allogeneic HCT were more likely to have Karnofsky score ≥90 (100% vs. 50%, P=0.02) compared to those who did not. One year survival from allo SCT was 66.7% (CI 34.6-92%). Conclusions: The three-year cumulative incidence of SPM was 3.3 (2.6-4)% in this large contemporaneous CIBMTR cohort. Disease relapse remains the primary cause of death in MM patients who develop SPM or SHM. Given the median OS for MM is now > 10 years, longer follow-up is needed to assess the SPM and SHM risks with maintenance therapy post-auto HCT.

e20021 Background: CAR T cell therapies are FDA approved for patients with triple refractory multiple myeloma (MM) and >4 lines of therapy. The median survival of this is group is less than 12 months so salvage therapies need to be implemented quickly. Real-world access to CAR T remains challenging due to supply chain limitations impacting manufacturing. The goal of this study was to evaluate how centers are handling the challenges of CAR T slot allocation. Methods: MM CAR T physician leaders at each CAR T treatment center certified for idecabtagene vicleucel across the US were surveyed. Results: We received responses from 15/20 centers. Summary of CAR T volumes and outcomes of patient on waitlists are shown in the table. The median time on the waiting list was 6 months with only 25% of patients receiving CAR T eventually. For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced CART physicians to ensure consistency. Selection committee included: primary MD (n=9), CAR T MD (n=12), social workers (n=3), CAR T RN (n=10), APP (n=2), pharmacists (n=2) and ethicists (n=1). To ensure transparency, centers have clear selection criteria (n=10), priority score (n=8) and selection timeline (n=11) . To ensure accountability, centers document priority scores (n=5) and have pre-specified criteria (n=9) for selection. Centers also reported using ethical principles for selection: a) equal treatment: time spent on waiting list (n=8); b) priority to the worst-off: limited therapeutic options (n=10), MM burden (n=7), ineligible for trials (n=2); c) maximize benefit: most likely to complete apheresis (n=8) or infusion (n=8) or achieve response (n=6) and d) social value: younger pts (n=2). Maximizing benefit was considered the most important criterion by 7 centers. Conclusions: More stringent GMP manufacturing requirements with FDA approved CAR T and real-world practice with broader patient demographics can present challenges to implementation of CAR T in standard of practice. Our study is the first attempt to evaluate and highlight existing issues with MM CAR T access and the variability and challenges in patient selection. Learning from other models of resource allocation (ex: UNOS) and sharing experience across centers can help providers optimize slot allocation to improve accrual. Increasing supplies of key reagents and novel manufacturing methods(eg: non-viral vectors and allogeneic CAR) could help overcome these limitations. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score &lt;90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) is the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after four or more prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. bb21217 is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) directed CAR T cell therapy which uses the same CAR molecule as ide-cel, with the addition of a PI3K inhibitor (bb007) during ex vivo culture to enrich the drug product (DP) for memory-like T cells and decrease the proportion of highly differentiated or senescent T cells. We hypothesize that DPs enriched for memory like CAR T cells will persist and function longer than non-enriched DPs and this increased persistence will positively influence duration of response (DOR). We previously demonstrated patients with sustained response are more likely to have drug product enriched for naïve gene signatures and depleted of effector gene signatures compared to patients without a sustained response. Methods: CRB-402 (NCT03274219) is a multi-center phase 1 trial of bb21217 in RRMM patients who received ≥3 prior lines of antimyeloma therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, or are double-refractory to both classes. In expansion, patients were required to have prior exposure to an anti-CD38 antibody and were required to be refractory to their last line of therapy. Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine (30 mg/m 2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2) daily for 3 days, then received a single infusion of bb21217 at 150, 300 or 450 x 10 6 CAR+ T cells. The primary outcome measure is incidence of adverse events (AEs), including dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Additional outcome measures include overall response rate and DOR by IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Exploratory analyses include correlation of outcome with the molecular characteristics of materials collected temporally through the treatment course, including PBMCs at apheresis, CAR+ T cells from drug product and CAR+ T cells collected from patients around the time of peak expansion. Results: Asof Feb 16, 2021, 72 patients received bb21217, 12 at 150, 14 at 300 and 46 at 450 x 10 6 CAR+ T cells; median follow up for all patients is 9.0 (&lt;1-36) months (M). Patients had a median of 6 (3-17) prior lines of therapy with 49/72 (68%) triple refractory. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) developed in 54/72 (75%) patients and was predominately G1/2 (51 pts), with 1 G3 event and 2 deaths (previously reported). Median time to first onset of CRS was 2 days (1-20); tocilizumab (38 pts) + corticosteroids (12 pts) was used to manage CRS. Eleven (15%) patients developed neurotoxicity [8 G1/G2, 2 G3, 1 G4] with median time to first onset of 7 (2-24) days. Response was assessed per investigator for 72 patients treated with bb21217 (Table). CAR+ T cells remained detectable in 30/37 (81%) patients and 9/15 (60%) patients at 6 and 12 M respectively, post bb21217 infusion. Of the 15 patients evaluable for MRD with ≥CR, 14 (93%) were MRD negative at 10 -5 by NGS. Analysis of peripheral blood samples collected 15 days post bb21217 infusion demonstrated patients with higher than the median number of CD8+ CAR+ T cells expressing CD27 and CD28 had significantly longer DOR (p=0.0024), compared to patients with lower than the median values. This suggests less differentiated, more proliferative CAR+ T cells at peak expansion are associated with prolonged disease response (median DOR in high vs low: 27.2M (95% CI; 16.8, NE) vs 9.4M (95% CI; 5.1, NE). Conclusions: Adverse events are consistent with known toxicities of CAR T cell therapies. Efficacy results are encouraging with a median DOR estimate of 17M, CR rate continues to mature. Patients with higher levels of proliferative, less differentiated memory like CAR+ T cells at peak expansion are more likely to experience prolonged DOR, continuing to support the hypothesis that the memory like T cell phenotype associated with bb21217 results in prolonged DOR. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Raje: Caribou: Other; Janssen: Other; bluebird bio: Other; Amgen: Other; Celgene: Other; BMS: Other. Shah: Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding. Kaufman: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tecnofarma SAS, AbbVie: Honoraria; Incyte, celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte, TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Heidelberg Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Fortis Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche/Genetech, Tecnopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro, Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Siegel: Celularity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Munshi: Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: scientific founder, Patents & Royalties; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Rosenblatt: Parexel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imaging Endpoints: Consultancy; Attivare: Consultancy; Wolters Kluwer Health Inc: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gracell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Timm: bluebird bio: Current Employment. Yeri: bluebird bio: Current Employment. Martin: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campbell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Finney: bluebird bio: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Truppel-Hartmann: bluebird bio: Current Employment. Petrocca: blue bird bio: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Berdeja: Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Prognosis is poor for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; median overall survival: &lt;1 year), indicating a clear need to identify agents with novel mechanisms of action. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) has recently emerged as a novel treatment target for MM due to its highly selective expression in plasma cells. TNB-383B, a BCMA x CD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, was designed to overcome the toxicity limitations of existing BCMA therapies and has demonstrated promising results in an ongoing first-in-human phase 1 study in pts with RRMM (Rodriguez C, et al. Blood 2020;136[suppl 1]:43-44). Herein, we report the updated efficacy and safety outcomes of this phase 1 study. Methods This multicenter, phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation/expansion study (NCT03933735) enrolled pts with RRMM (≥3 prior lines of therapy that included a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min as calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula, and ECOG performance status ≤2. Prior BCMA-targeted therapy is prohibited. Primary objectives include safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); secondary objectives include assessment of clinical activity (per IMWG criteria 2016). TNB-383B is administered intravenously over 1-2 hours every 3 weeks (Q3W) with the first dose administered inpatient. The study uses a 3+3 design with backfilling for dose and permits intrapatient dose escalation to highest safe dose. Dose expansion was initiated on selection of RP2D. Pts are treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria are met. The efficacy-evaluable population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of TNB-383B and have at least 1 postdose assessment. The safety population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of study drug; adverse events (AEs) are graded according to NCI CTCAE v5.0. Results As of 10 May 2021, 103 pts (dose escalation, n=73; dose expansion, n=30) have been treated with TNB-383B (0.025-120 mg). The RP2D of 60 mg Q3W was selected on the basis of tolerability, safety, PK, and clinical activity. Pt demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in dose escalation (platelet count decreased: grade [Gr] 4, 60 mg; cytokine release syndrome [CRS]: Gr 3, 90 mg and 120 mg); none were reported as serious. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 79 (77%) pts, with Gr ≥3 and serious AEs occurring in 33 (32%) and 23 (22%) pts, respectively. The most common TRAEs (Table 2) include CRS (n=54, 52%), neutropenia (n=18, 17%), and fatigue (n=14, 14%). At the RP2D (n=39), the Gr ≥3 CRS rate was 3% (n=1). Onset of CRS typically occurred on the same or next day following the first dose and all pts recovered using tocilizumab or standard supportive care measures. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) of infusion-related reactions were reported in 8 (8%) pts and infections occurred in 29 (28%) pts; pneumonia (n=5, 5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (n=4, 4%) were the most common. Five deaths from TEAEs were reported; all were unrelated to study drug. Forty-two (40%) pts discontinued treatment due to disease progression. In the dose-escalation cohorts of ≥40 mg Q3W (n=24), the objective response rate (ORR) was 79% (19/24), with a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate of 63% (15/24), and a complete response (CR) rate of 29% (7/24) at the data cutoff date; these pts have the longest follow-up (ie, mature data) with median time on study of 6.1 months (Figure 1). At doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation and -expansion cohorts (n=44), the observed ORR, ≥VGPR, and CR rates were 64% (28/44), 43% (19/44), and 16% (7/44), respectively; these pts have shorter follow-up (ie, immature data) with median time on study of 3.1 months. Twenty-nine (66%) of the 44 pts administered ≥40 mg were triple-class refractory and reported an ORR of 55% (16/29). Conclusions TNB-383B in pts with RRMM is well tolerated with an ORR of 79% observed at doses ≥40 mg in the dose-escalation cohorts. Despite having a shorter follow-up period, this trend was also observed at doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation/expansion cohorts (ORR: 64%). Enrollment into the dose-expansion arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. D'Souza: Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy. Shah: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Rodriguez: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Voorhees: AbbVie Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Consulting Agreement: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Committee; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring. Bueno: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Buelow: Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Freise: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Yue: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pothacamury: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Polepally: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria.