Bladé, Joan

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.

7517 Background: Thalidomide plus dexamethasone (Thal/Dex) yields superior response rates versus dexamethasone (Dex) but its impact as primary therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) is unknown. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible and were randomized in this double-blind trial to Thal/Dex (Arm A) or placebo plus Dex (Arm B). Pts in Arm A received Thal 50 mg PO daily, escalated to 100 mg on day 15, and to 200 mg from day 1 of cycle 2; Dex 40 mg PO was given on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Pts in Arm B received placebo instead of Thal, and Dex as in Arm A. Cycles were 28 days long, repeated until progression or undue toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) defined using EBMT criteria. All analyses were intent to treat. Planned sample size was 218 eligible pts in each arm. Full information for one-sided log rank test with significance level of 0.025 (allowing for 1interim analysis) to have 80% power to detect a 40% improvement in TTP (16.8 mo in Arm A vs. 12 mo in Arm B) would be achieved when 282 pts have progressed. A pre-planned interim analysis of the primary endpoint and safety was performed by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). P value < 0.0015 at this interim analysis would indicate that Arm A is superior to Arm B based on an alpha-spending function of the O’Brien-Fleming type. The DMC recommended release of results. Results: 470 pts were enrolled: 235 randomized to Thal/Dex and 235 to placebo/Dex. Median follow-up was 25 months. Median age was 65 yrs. TTP was significantly superior with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, median TTP 17.4 months (95% CI: 8.1 months-NE) vs 6.4 months (95% CI: 5.6–7.4 months), respectively, P < 0.000065, crossing the upper boundary for superiority. DVT was higher with Thal/Dex vs placebo/Dex, 15.4% vs 4.3%, respectively. Median survival was not reached in either arm. Conclusions: Thal/Dex is significantly superior to Dex alone as first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]