Hayman, Suzanne R.

Abstract Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who do not respond to initial therapy have worse outcomes than primary responders, and effective treatments are lacking in this population. However, the outcomes of primary refractory disease in the modern treatment era have not yet been studied. We reviewed patients with MM treated with triplet/quadruplet therapy at our institution to assess the incidence of primary refractory disease and the impact of salvage therapies in this population. We identified 1127 patients, of whom 1086 were evaluated for hematologic responses after 4 to 6 cycles. Of these, 93.3% (1013) had evidence of response, whereas 6.7% (73) had primary refractory disease. With a median overall survival (OS) of 51.3 months, patients with primary refractory disease had an increased risk of shorter survival in univariable and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.5-4.9]; HR, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.6-6.9], respectively). In the subgroup analysis of patients with primary refractory disease, those who received second-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) had increased second progression-free survival (20.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .01) and second OS (74.7 vs 31.3 months; P = .02) compared with patients who did not. We conclude that early progression remains a significant factor for shorter OS in the current era, and salvage ASCT could be the most beneficial option for this population.

e20032 Background: The introduction of anti-CD38 antibodies (daratumumab) in the treatment landscape of multiple myeloma (MM) has increased the progression-free survival (PFS) in recent years. Still, the ideal combination (Dara-IMiD vs. Dara-PI) of these drugs in patients with relapsed MM is unclear. Methods: We reviewed MM patients treated with daratumumab as second-line therapy at our institution from 2016 to 2022 to assess the outcomes with the different combination therapies. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate PFS from the first relapse. Results: We identified 329 patients with a median age of 63.6 years (range: 27.1 – 90.4). Most of the patients received triplet induction therapy (95%) and upfront transplant (67%) as primary therapy. At the time of Dara initiation, 41% were refractory to IMiDs, 22% to PIs, 18% to both, and 18% to neither drug. Patients treated with Dara-IMiD had significantly better PFS than Dara-PI (28.7 months vs. 18.5 months, p < 0.01, respectively). In a subgroup analysis based on the FISH results, high-risk patients had similar PFS outcomes (24.3 vs. 10.2 months, p = NS, respectively), while standard-risk patients benefited significantly from the Dara-IMiD regimen (48.3 vs. 19.2 months, p < 0.01, respectively). Among patients treated with Dara-IMiD, those already refractory to IMiDs from the first line had significantly shorter PFS than those without IMiD resistance (14.9 vs. 43.3 months, p < 0.01, respectively). In addition, the lenalidomide-based combination resulted in significantly better PFS compared to pomalidomide in our cohort (40.5 vs. 19.2 months, p < 0.01, respectively). However, no difference was found in the IMiD refractory population (12.3 vs. 15.1 months, respectively). Finally, no significant differences were seen between Dara-IMiD and Dara-PI in patients only refractory to IMiDs (16.1 vs. 12.8 months, p = NS, respectively). Conclusions: While further studies are required to adjudicate the best combination, we conclude that Dara-IMiD might be more effective in patients with relapsed MM, especially for patients not refractory to IMiD at first line. [Table: see text]

e20011 Background: Drug refractoriness is an important factor determining choice of next therapy and prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM). It is debatable whether refractoriness to a drug varies among patients (pts) with MM progressing on different administration schedules of the drug. Outcomes of MM pts refractory to different doses of lenalidomide have been previously described, but similar data about proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are limited. In this study, we assessed the impact of refractoriness to different schedules of bortezomib (V) on outcomes with subsequent therapies in MM pts. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MM pts at our center diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2018, who progressed on/ after receiving first line therapy with V containing regimens. At first relapse, we divided pts into 3 groups- MM progressing on or within 60 days of receiving (1) 1-1.3 mg/m2 V once weekly or more frequently (Standard Dose Refractory), (2) 1-1.3 mg/m2 V once every 2 weeks or less frequently (Low Dose Refractory), and (3) MM progressing at least 60 days after stopping V (Not Refractory). In addition to V, we classified pts as being refractory to cyclophosphamide and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) at first relapse. We classified salvage regimens into daratumumab (Dara), PI, IMiD, PI+IMiD, and VDTPACE like regimens. We then assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for next line therapy, and for next V containing therapy using Kaplan Meier and Cox models. Results: A total of 302 pts were included. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years and 60% pts were male. Overall, 23%, 31%, and 27% were International Staging System (ISS) stage I, II, and III respectively; 40% had high risk FISH as per mSMART. Of the 302 pts, 134 (44%) pts received another V containing regimen after the first line therapy at any time during the disease course. Using a multivariable Cox model to adjust for ISS, high risk FISH, refractoriness to other drugs, duration of first line therapy, and treatment received at relapse, the Not Refractory Group had a better PFS for both 2nd line therapy and the next V containing line of therapy, while no significant differences were seen between the Standard Dose Refractory and Low Dose Refractory groups. OS differences followed the same trend but were not statistically significant (Table). Conclusions: On multivariable analysis, the PFS did not differ among standard dose vs low dose refractory pts, and both were significantly inferior to pts not refractory to V. These data suggest that refractoriness to V might not be a dose dependent phenomenon. [Table: see text]

8051 Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that do not respond to initial therapy have worse outcomes compared to primary responders, and effective treatments are lacking in this population. However, the outcomes of primary refractory disease in the modern treatment era have not been studied. Methods: From 2007-2019, we reviewed MM patients treated with triplet/quadruplet therapy in our institution to assess the incidence of primary refractory disease and the impact of salvage therapies in this population. Primary refractory disease was defined as either progressive disease or stable disease at 4-6 cycles. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for survival probabilities. PFS and OS were calculated from MM diagnosis to progression, escalation/change of treatment, or death, respectively. For the primary refractory group, the second PFS and second OS were measured from the start of second-line therapy. The Cox regression model was used for multivariable analysis with the following variables (age, ISS, induction therapy, FISH, and bone marrow plasma cells at diagnosis). Results: We identified 1127 patients, of which 1086 were evaluated for hematologic response after 4-6 cycles. Of these, 93.3% (1013) had evidence of response, while 6.7% (73) had primary refractory disease. With a median OS of 50.7 months, patients with primary refractory disease had an increased risk for shorter survival in univariable and multivariable analysis (HR: 3.6, 95% CI = 2.61 – 4.96, HR = 3.89, 95% CI = 2.68 – 5.65, respectively). In subgroup analysis of primary refractory patients, the median second PFS and second OS from the first relapse were 11.9 months (95% CI: 8.7 – 17.3 months) and 43.4 (95% CI: 31.4– 75.9 months), respectively. Patients that received 2nd line ASCT had increased second PFS (20.9 vs. 8.1 months, respectively, p < 0.01) and second OS (74.7 vs. 31.3 months, respectively, p = 0.02) compared to patients that did not. Patients that took daratumumab as the second line did not have any significant survival differences compared to those who did not, p = NS. Conclusions: We conclude that early progression remains a significant factor for shorter OS in the current era, and salvage ASCT could be the most beneficial option for this population. [Table: see text]

8043 Background: Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma (EMM) has an aggressive clinical course and can present at diagnosis [primary EMM, (pEMM)] or relapse [secondary EMM, (sEMM)]. Here, we report clinical characteristics and outcomes of EMM, and predictive factors for the development of sEMM. Methods: We identified 299 patients with biopsy-proven EMM between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2021. Patients with solitary plasmacytomas, paraskeletal MM and primary plasma cell leukemia were excluded. A 1:1 matched pair analysis (matched for year of diagnosis of MM for comparable follow-up and treatment eras) was performed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes for patients with and without sEMM. Results: The median follow-up from the diagnosis of MM was 11.5 years (95%CI: 9.3-14.8). Of 299 patients, 204 (68%) patients had sEMM and 95 (32%) had pEMM, with largely comparable baseline characteristics (Table). The median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of sEMM was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6-0.9) years compared to 3.6 (95%CI: 2.4-5.6) years for pEMM (p<0.0001). For sEMM, mutlvariable analysis (MVA) for OS identified visceral organ involvement (eg. liver, lung/pleura, brain, pancreas, etc.) to be associated with inferior OS [HR 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1-2.4), p=0.01]; high-risk cytogenetics (HR-CTG), ISS-3 stage, and age did not impact OS from sEMM. For pEMM, HR-CTG [HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 -4.8), p=0.03] and ISS-3 stage [HR 3.1 (95% CI 1.5-6.7), p=0.003] were associated with inferior OS on MVA whereas visceral EMM or age did not impact OS from pEMM. On univariate analysis, patients with sEMM were younger (median age 58.7 vs 61 years, p=0.006), had a higher proportion of 1q duplication (32% vs 17%, p=0.001), t(4;14) [16% vs 9%, p=0.047] and elevated LDH (30% vs 19%, p=0.04), compared to the matched cohort of patients without sEMM. On MVA, younger age at diagnosis, t(4;14) and 1q duplication at diagnosis of MM were independent predictors of development of sEMM. The median OS from diagnosis of MM was 5.4 years (95%CI: 4.1-6.2) for patients with sEMM versus 7.5 years (95% CI: 6.4-10.1; p <0.001) for the matched cohort. Secondary EMM was an independent poor prognostic marker for OS from the diagnosis of MM [HR 1.6 (95%CI: 1.2-2.1); p=0.004] in addition to age, ISS3 disease and HR-CTG. Conclusions: Outcomes of patients with EMM, especially sEMM, remain dismal. Patients with sEMM have higher rates of 1q duplication and t(4;14) at diagnosis of MM and carried an independent adverse prognosis in a matched cohort. [Table: see text]

8024 Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma (MM). MRD is usually assessed in the bone marrow (BM) by flow cytometry or NGS. MRD by FDG PET/CT provides a global representation of the tumor burden, including response assessment of extramedullary disease. We examined MRD status in MM pts using both BM and PET/CT at Mayo Clinic. Methods: Medical records were reviewed retrospectively for MM pts who received CAR-T between 4/2018 and 12/2022. All PET/CT scans were assessed by radiologists. BM MRD was assessed by flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 10-5. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among the 157 CAR-T pts, including 89 pts who received FDA-approved CAR-T, median age was 63 years, 59% (92/157) were males, 42% (66/157) had high risk cytogenetics with median of 5 prior lines of therapy, 36% (57/157) had plasmacytoma. Incidence of CRS was 83%, 5% grade ≥ 3 CRS. Incidence of ICANS was 19%, 4% grade ≥ 3 ICANS. CR/sCR rate was 37%. One hundred and thirty-seven pts (87%) had evaluable BM at month (mo) 1, 85% (117/137) were BM MRDneg at mo 1. Baseline demographics were comparable between the two groups except age, % BM plasma cells and use of bridging therapy. Among the MRDneg pts, CR/sCR rate was 44% (51/117) and 95% (111/117) had sFLC below normal. At median follow-up of 13.8 months, median PFS among pts with BM MRDneg at 1 mo was 12 mo (95% CI: 11, 30) vs 3 mo (95%CI: 2, 7) for BM MRDpos (p<0.001). Median OS among pts with BM MRDneg at 1 mo was 34 mo (95% CI: 24, NR) vs 22 mo (95%CI: 7, NA) for BM MRDpos (p<0.01). At month 1, 112 pts had both BM and PET/CT assessments available, 64/112(57%) were both BM MRDneg/PET MRDneg, 38/112 (34%) were MRDneg for either BM or PET and 10/112 (9%) were positive for both BM and PET (MRDpos/PET MRDpos). Baseline demographics except age were comparable between the 2 groups (Table). Rate of conversion from MRDpos to MRDneg was low. Rate of sustained BM and PET MRDneg at mo 12 was 44% (8/18). The median PFS and OS for BM MRDneg/PET MRDneg was significantly longer as compared to others (Table). Conclusions: Achieving FLC below normal, BM MRDneg and PET MRDneg at 1 month, regardless of IMWG response at that time, is prognostic for both PFS and OS in MM pts receiving CAR-T. Failure to achieve any of these confers poor prognosis. [Table: see text]

8022 Background: Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma (EMM) is an aggressive entity with a dismal prognosis. Immune effector therapies (IETs), including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies and bispecific T-cell engaging antibodies (BsAb), have demonstrated excellent efficacy in relapsed/refractory MM with limited data for efficacy in EMM. Here, we report the treatment outcomes for patients with EMM. Methods: We identified 299 patients with EMM diagnosed between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2021 after excluding solitary plasmacytomas, paraskeletal MM and primary plasma cell leukemia. The IMWG criteria were used for response definition. Results: Of the 299 patients, 204 (68%) patients had secondary EMM (sEMM) and 95 (32%) patients had primary EMM (pEMM). For sEMM (n=204), the median progression free survival (PFS) with initial therapy was 2.9 (95% CI: 2.4-3.2) months. Initial treatment strategies for sEMM were heterogenous and demonstrated in the table; 44% patients achieved ≥partial response (PR) with initial treatment for sEMM. The median PFS in patients with ≥PR was 5.8 (95%CI: 4.5-6.9) months vs 1.8 (95%CI: 1.4-2; p <0.0001) months for <PR. For patients with pEMM (n=95), the median PFS was 12.9 (95% CI: 6.7-18) months; the median PFS was 17.4 (95%CI: 12.9-25.4) months for patients with ≥PR versus 1 month (95%CI: 0.8-2) in patients with <PR. Thirty patients (all sEMM and triple class refractory) were treated with IET after development of EMM: 18 with BCMA-directed CAR-T, 10 with BsAbs, and 2 with both CAR-T and BsAbs. In patients receiving CAR-T therapy, 75% (15/20) achieved ≥PR with 40% (n=8) achieving MRD negative (by flowcytometry) complete response. Fifteen (75%) patients receiving CAR-T had progressive disease (PD); 7 with systemic and EMM PD and 4 patients each with isolated EMM or systemic PD. The median PFS for patients treated with CAR-T was 4.9 months [3.1- not reached (NR)]. Among patients achieving a ≥PR with CAR-T, the median PFS was 5.8 (95%CI: 4.7-NR) months vs 1.4 months [(95%CI: 0.8-NR), p<0.001] for <PR. Among patients treated with BsAbs (10-BCMA, 1 each against FcRH5 and GPRC5D), 33% (4/12) achieved a ≥PR. Ten (83%) patients had PD on BsAb; 8 with both EMM and systemic PD and 1 patient each with isolated EMM or PD. The median PFS with BsAb was 2.9 months (95%CI: 2.2-NR). Conclusions: Patients with EMM continue to have dismal outcomes with conventional therapies. High response rates were noted with CAR-T therapy, but these tend to be short-lived. [Table: see text]

1533 Background: FDA-approved chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) and bispecific T cell engager (TCE) therapy are most commonly managed inpatient. Here we report our experience with hospital-based outpatient (HBO) management of patients (pts) receiving FDA-approved CAR-T or TCE and a predictive model for increased risk of early hospitalization (≤3 days post CAR-T). Methods: We reviewed the outcomes of pts who received FDA-approved CAR-T (axi-cel, brexu-cel, ide-cel, cilta-cel) or TCE (teclistamab) in the HBO unit between 3/2021 and 1/2023 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Results: HBO is closely integrated with inpatient practice and includes the same specialty trained clinical team. It is the first point of contact 24/7 for pts and triage evaluations. CAR-T and TCE are given on HBO followed by monitoring per REMS and as clinically needed until admission criteria is met. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) tools were used as part of outpatient monitoring. Out of 169 CAR-T pts, 87 (51%) were dosed with new indication/products (follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, myeloma). Among those, 80 (92%) pts were dosed outpatient, among whom 21 (27%) were never hospitalized. CRS and ICANS incidences were comparable to that reported in registration studies. Median time to first admission from CAR-T infusion was 1 day (range, 0-9), with 31% (n=18/59) of admissions after day 3 post infusion. The most common cause of hospitalization was fever (n=40, 59%). Median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range, 1-49). Median time to tocilizumab (n=45, 80%), steroid (n=1, 2%), escalation of oxygen support (n=7, 12%), vasopressor (n=2, 3%), ventilator (n=1, 2%), hemodialysis (n=1, 2%) and ICU transfer (n=3, 5%) was 1 day (range, 0-31) after first admission. Use of bridging therapy, elevated CRP and LDH were predictive of early admission (ROC AUC 0.62). Four pts received teclistamab on HBO and enrolled in RPM. Data from more pts will be reported at ASCO. Conclusions: Our expanded study in CAR-T and TCE confirms that HBO is feasible and that CAR-T and TCE can be safely dosed outpatient. Approximately 31% of pts were admitted after 3 days from CAR-T infusion, and 27% of our pts were never admitted. Variables associated with aggressive disease can predict early hospitalization in pts receiving FDA-approved CAR-T. Extension of HBO practice to TCE is feasible.[Table: see text]

Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 mAb, used frequently in combination with lenalidomide and pomalidomide. No studies compared daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) to daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) in lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma. We identified 504 consecutive multiple myeloma patients who received daratumumab at Mayo Clinic between January 2015 and April 2019. We excluded patients who received daratumumab in the first line, received more than four lines of therapy prior to daratumumab use, did not receive lenalidomide prior to daratumumab, or had an unknown status of lenalidomide exposure, and patients who received daratumumab combinations other than DRd or DPd. We examined the impact of using DRd compared to DPd on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Out of 504 patients, 162 received DRd or DPd and were included; 67 were lenalidomide-exposed and 95 were lenalidomide-refractory. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) patients. In lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 34.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.8–44.6] for DRd compared to 25.2 months (95% CI, 4.9–35.3) for DPd, P = 0.2. In lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 18.6 months (95% CI, 13–32) for DRd compared to 9 months (95% CI, 5.2–14.6) for DPd, P = 0.09. No difference in median OS was observed in DRd compared to DPd. Our study shows combining daratumumab with lenalidomide in patients with prior lenalidomide use is a viable and effective treatment option.

Abstract Lenalidomide‐containing (R) triplet and quadruplet regimens are the standard of care for multiple myeloma (MM) and have been shown to increase the risk of thrombosis. The association between thromboembolism (TE) and survival in the novel multidrug era is not yet delineated. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of TE during the first year of MM diagnosis, its association with the type of induction regimen, and its impact on overall survival. We studied 672 newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients who received a triplet or quadruplet lenalidomide‐based induction at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. TE was diagnosed in 83 patients (12.4%). Of these, 56 (8.3%) had a deep venous thrombosis (DVT), 23 (3.4%) had a pulmonary embolism (PE) with or without the DVT, and 4 (0.6%) patients had a stroke. Carfilzomib‐Rd (KRd) had the highest risk of TE (21.1%, 18/85), followed by quadruplets (11.1%, 5/45), bortezomib‐Rd (9.6%, 51/531), and 0/11 (0%), treated with other lenalidomide‐containing regimens. The difference in TE risk between KRd and the other regimens was statistically significant (OR = 2.6, p < .01). Nine patients developed a TE before being exposed to any treatment. Survival was significantly lower among patients that developed a TE (66 vs. 133 months, p < .01). The association of TE with reduced survival demonstrated in univariate analysis (HR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.6–3.3) was maintained in the multivariable analysis adjusted for high‐risk interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), sex, age, receipt of an upfront transplant, the response at induction, and the International Staging System (ISS) (HR = 2.61, CI = 1.74–3.9). We conclude that TE is an important aspect of MM management, and effective management is especially relevant in the novel treatment era.