Cowan, Andrew J.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

Background: The FDA package inserts for all approved chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies state that patients should universally refrain from driving for 8 weeks following infusion. However, there are no clear data to support this recommendation, particularly in multiple myeloma (MM) which all CAR-T therapies use 4-1BB as opposed to CD28 costimulatory domains. Specifically, no seizures were reported in the KarMMa, KarMMa-3, CARTITUDE-1, or CARTITUDE-4 trials. Because patients typically return to their referring oncologists after Day (D) +28 following CAR-T infusion, an additional month of driving restrictions can create confusion for referring oncologists, impose significant burdens for patients and caregivers, and potentially even affect the choice of MM therapy for patients living in remote areas. Methods: We conducted a two-part study within the US MM Immunotherapy Consortium. Firstly, we analyzed data from commercial idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) recipients (leukapheresis cutoff December 31, 2023) to identify the prevalence of CRS, ICANS, or death between Weeks 5-8 (D+29 to D+56) following CAR-T (Day 0). Patients with index hospital stays lasting over 4 weeks and patients with <8 weeks of post-CAR-T follow-up were excluded. Secondly, we surveyed Consortium members about the prevalence of impaired driving risk (defined as “anything that could impair a patient's ability to drive safely, e.g. seizures, altered mental status, blindness, etc.”) and used 1-5 Likert scales to gauge the perceived importance of driving restrictions (assuming no FDA guidance existed) during Weeks 0-4 vs 5-8. This anonymous IRB-exempted survey was distributed via email to 63 CAR-T-prescribing physicians within the Consortium. Results: Of 553 analyzed patients, 41% (n=224) had received cilta-cel and 59% (n=329) ide-cel. The median age was 64 (IQR 58-70), 42% (n=231) were female, 78% White (n=434), 13% (n=72) Black, and 9% (n=51) Hispanic. ECOG PS at infusion was ≥2 in 11% (n=63) of patients, and 5% (n=28) had had previous CNS co-morbidities such as prior strokes. One patient (0.2%) developed Grade 2 CRS during Weeks 5-8 (onset D+47, resolution one day later); no patients had de novo ICANS after D+28. There were 16 cases of non-ICANS neurotoxicity (including 2 cases of Parkinsonism) diagnosed a median of 24 days after CAR-T (range: 17-147 days), of which 3 cases (all non-Parkinsonian) were first diagnosed during Weeks 5-8. There were 10 deaths (2%) during Weeks 5-8, one due to infection and the remainder from progressive MM. The survey was completed by 45 oncologists (71% response rate), 41 of whom had managed both >5 ide-cel and >5 cilta-cel recipients. Regarding impaired driving during Weeks 0-4, 20% of physicians felt this was never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 29% a risk for 3-10% of patients, and 16% a risk for >10% of patients. The distribution was significantly different (p < 0.01) for Weeks 5-8: 49% never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 16% a risk for 3-10% of patients, while no respondents felt this remained a risk for >10% of patients. For Weeks 0-4, 73% agreed that patients should be advised not to drive while 9% disagreed. In contrast, for Weeks 5-8, 14% of physicians agreed with driving restrictions while 78% disagreed (p < 0.01 compared to Weeks 0-4). Discussion: Our two-part study demonstrates that driving restrictions following Week 4 after CAR-T therapy in MM may not be required. The incidence of de novo CRS or any-type neurotoxicity being diagnosed during Weeks 5-8 was <1%, and - if such toxicities developed - patients and physicians could be expected to set appropriate restrictions at that juncture. While 73% of CAR-T-prescribing oncologists agreed that patients should refrain from driving during Weeks 0-4, 78% disagreed with this recommendation during Weeks 5-8. These findings complement other real-world studies (Wesson, Dima, et al, TCT 2024; Ahmed et al, Blood Advances 2024) reporting the rarity of CRS and ICANS after the first month in both MM and lymphoma. Our study is limited by a lack of patient-reported data, which was done intentionally to avoid asking patients about activities undertaken against medical advice. Nevertheless, we believe that narrowing universal driving restrictions to Weeks 0-4 following CAR-T therapy would constitute an evidence-based modification to the package inserts for ide-cel and cilta-cel.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and <100, and/or clonal BMPCs >50% to <60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P <0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P <0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P <0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

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.

Introduction: Advances in AI have enabled the generation of synthetic individual patient data (SynthIPD) that mimics the statistical properties of the real IPD, which can help generate subgroup-specific insights in the absence of subgroup-specific IPD. We apply this technology in evaluating Daratumumab treatment benefit in high-risk cytogenetic multiple myeloma subgroup. The addition of daratumumab to standard multiple myeloma (MM) regimens has been associated with improved response rates and clinical outcomes. A systematic review (meta-analysis) enables further evaluation of the effectiveness of daratumumab for MM patients with high-risk cytogenetic factors. However, concerns have been raised about meta-analyses due to the statistical model assumptions they impose. This study aims to address these limitations by employing SynthIPD to provide a more robust analysis. Methods: This study focuses on newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with high-risk cytogenetic profiles. We included six published studies: ALCYONE, CASSIOPEIA, and MAIA for NDMM, and CANDOR, CASTOR, and POLLUX for RRMM. Large language models were used to extract up-to-date clinical evidence from the literature. SynthIPD including cytogenetic risk profile were generated via digitization and an innovative optimization algorithm. Meta-analyses based on random effects models were then conducted, and the results were compared with those from pooled analyses using synthetic data. Results: SynthIPD for cytogenetic high-risk patients were generated for three studies for NDMM: ALCYONE (treatment vs control: n=53 vs n=45), CASSIOPEIA (n=82 vs n=86), MAIA (n=48 vs n=44); and three studies for RRMM: CANDOR(n=48 vs n=26), CASTOR (n=40 vs n=35), POLLUX (n=35 vs n=35). The generated hazard ratios (HRs) for each study closely aligned with the reported HRs for high-risk patients, with a maximum relative error of less than 2%. By pooling these datasets, we obtained SynthIPD datasets for NDMM and RRMM patients. Stratified Cox regression analyses yielded HRs of 0.764 (95% CI 0.529-1.104) for NDMM and 0.431 (95% CI 0.294-0.613) for RRMM. Random-effects meta-analyses showed HRs of 0.764 (95% CI 0.529-1.104) for NDMM and 0.425 (95% CI 0.287-0.621) for RRMM. Compared with traditional meta-analysis techniques, the synthetic data approach provides additional clinical insights that were not available in the original publications. For instance, the clinical results for the six studies within high-risk group (e.g., KM curves in high-risk subgroup) can be reproduced, which were not reported in the original studies. Conclusion: AI-generated synthetic data enhances the robustness of conventional meta-analysis outcomes. The identification of HRs and corresponding confidence intervals through SynthIPD enhances the credibility of our proposed method, offering a reliable approach to evaluating the efficacy of daratumumab in high-risk patients. Since SynthIPD includes individual covariate information, any statistical results derived from the original IPD can be effectively approximated using SynthIPD. Using the SynthIPD, we show that the addition of daratumumab to standard regimens improves PFS for RRMM patients with high-risk cytogenetic factors, although its benefit for NDMM patients is not statistically significant. This analysis can be extended to other multiple myeloma high risk subgroups.

Abstract Despite the widespread use of carfilzomib (K) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), there is no consensus on optimal K dose in milligrams per square meter (mg/m2) or dosing schedule. We assessed three modern K prescribing patterns in RRMM using a large United States electronic health record-derived database. Our final cohort (n = 486) included 136 patients (28.0%) who received K 56 mg/m2 once weekly (K56-1x), 86 (17.7%) who received 56 mg/m2 twice weekly (K56-2x), and 264 (54.3%) who received 70 mg/m2 once weekly (K70-1x). Between 2016 and 2023, once-weekly dosing became more common: K70-1x proportions changed from 21.1% in 2016 to 50.6% in 2023, K56-1x from 15.8% to 37.0%, and K56-2x from 63.2% to 12.3%. Median real-world progression-free survival was 13.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-20.7] for K56-1x, 13.2 months (95% CI 9.0-28.1 months) for K56-2x, and 10.9 months (95% CI 9.9-15.3 months) for K70-1x; these differences were not statistically significant (log-rank p = 0.46). The prevalence of heart failure was comparable (<5% in all cohorts). In summary, our findings do not support improved outcomes with twice-weekly carfilzomib in RRMM. K56-1x may provide the best balance of efficacy, safety, and avoidance of time toxicity from frequent infusions.

Introduction: Most induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) contain bortezomib. In most clinical trials, bortezomib has been prescribed either intravenously or subcutaneously twice per week in 21-day or 28-day cycles. However, several retrospective single-center studies have shown that once-weekly bortezomib has comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy compared to twice-weekly bortezomib ( Sidana et al, PLoS One 2017; Cook et al, AJH 2021). These findings have also been confirmed by a secondary analysis of data from three prospective Phase 3 randomized studies ( Mateos et al, Haematologica 2014). As such, many clinicians have adopted once-weekly bortezomib regimens in routine care in the past decade. However, the real-world (RW) prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly vs twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in a larger population have not yet been characterized. Methods: This study used US nationwide longitudinal Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified data. We included patients aged 18-70 years with newly diagnosed MM between 2017-2022 with ≥ 6 months of follow-up and ≥ 2 clinical visits who were treated with a first-line (1L) bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients aged &gt;70 were excluded a priori given the likelihood of altered practice patterns and more frequent comorbidities. Twice-weekly bortezomib was defined as patients for whom the most frequent interval between two doses of 1L bortezomib within a cycle was 3.0-4.9 days, while once-weekly bortezomib was defined as a corresponding interval of 5.0-9.9 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with once-weekly vs twice-weekly (reference) bortezomib. RW progression free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) from 1L treatment initiation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model including transplant as a time-varying covariate and adjustment for other demographic and clinical factors. Results: Of 2,522 patients included, 927 (36.8%) received twice-weekly while 1,522 (63.2%) received once-weekly bortezomib. Approximately half of patients (50.3%) were non-Latinx White, 21.7% non-Latinx Black, and 8.0% Latinx. Most patients were treated in the community setting (78.8%). Rates of once-weekly bortezomib administration were 66.2% and 62.1% among patients treated at academic and community practices, respectively. The frequency of weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 58.0% between 2017-2019 to 68.8% between 2020-2022. In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; [95% CI 1.14 to 1.99] vs ECOG PS 0), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.14; [95% CI 1.08 to 1.20] per year) were associated with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Conversely, Latinx patients vs non-Latinx White (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.82]) and patients with ≥ 2 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) vs 0 HRCA (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.91]) had lower odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib administration. No significant associations were found between gender, ISS stage, practice setting, insurance category, or baseline creatinine. There was no statistically significant difference in rwPFS among patients receiving once-weekly (median 37.3 months, 95% CI 33.8 to 42.5) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 39.2 months, 95% CI 32.9 to 42.8) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00]) (Figure 1A). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in rwOS with median 25.5 months follow-up (Figure 1B). Median rwOS was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.07]). Discussion: We evaluated US bortezomib prescribing patterns for the first time in the modern era using a large nationwide RW-study. Whereas prescribing patterns have shifted towards once-weekly bortezomib over time, over 30% of patients diagnosed in the last three years received twice-weekly bortezomib. Importantly, once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib performed comparably with regard to rwPFS and rwOS. While our study did not analyze neuropathy or patient quality of life, once-weekly bortezomib is known to be associated with less neuropathy and less time in clinic. These data further support the conclusion that once-weekly bortezomib should be considered the standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with MM.

Background: Bortezomib (Velcade), a mainstay of treatment regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), is often dosed twice-weekly in trials (i.e., Days 1, 4, 8, 11 in 21-day cycles). However, several analyses have shown that once-weekly bortezomib performs comparably and is associated with less peripheral neuropathy (Sidana PLoS One 2017, Mateos L&L 2020, Cook AJH 2021). Many centers thus use once-weekly bortezomib in MM induction regimens regardless of transplant eligibility, e.g. modified VRd or Dara-VRd in 28-day cycles with once-weekly subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 (McCaughan BJH 2022). Physician attitudes and perceptions regarding how bortezomib should be dosed, an important step toward establishing a global standard of care in MM, have not been investigated. Methods: We conducted a global online survey of hematologists/oncologists who had treated ≥1 patient with MM in the past 12 months. The survey was distributed via social media platforms as well as targeted emails to MM physicians, IMWG members, and outreach through professional societies. The survey comprised 14 questions including usage of once- vs twice-weekly bortezomib, usage of SC vs IV bortezomib, attitudinal questions about potential benefits/disadvantages of each approach, and perceived barriers to using once-weekly bortezomib. Statistics were analyzed descriptively with Wilcoxon rank-sum and signed-rank tests. Results: Of 317 webpage visits, 205 responses were recorded (65% completion rate).Most respondents were from US academic practices (25%, n=52), US community practices (22%, n=46), or Australian academic practices (6%, n=13); however, responses were recorded from 38 countries including 22 low- or middle-income countries (LMICs: 29% of responses, n=60).Over a third of respondents (37%, n=76) practiced in community settings, and most respondents (58%, n=119) reported &gt;20 patients with MM under their personal care . 93 respondents (45%) had previously helped write institutional or societal guidelines, including 21 IMWG members.Respondents reported using once-weekly bortezomib most of the time (median 95% of patients, IQR 80%-100%) and almost always used SC bortezomib (IQR 100%-100%).There were no significant differences in bortezomib frequency or route based on academic vs community practice, experience with MM, US vs non-US, or LMIC vs non-LMIC. Large majorities of respondents (Table 1) felt that once-weekly bortezomib is preferred by patients (94%), associated with comparable durations of response (79%), and associated with less peripheral neuropathy (89%). Conversely, 61% of respondents felt that twice-weekly bortezomib in superior in newly diagnosed MM with acute cast nephropathy.Physician estimates of the incidence of any-grade peripheral neuropathy were significantly lower with once-weekly bortezomib (median 30%, IQR 20-43%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 50%, IQR 40-73%). Similarly, Grade 3+ neuropathy estimates were significantly lower with once-weekly (median 10%, IQR 5-17%) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 25%, IQR 15-38%), with p&lt;0.001 in all cases . The most common cited barriers to ordering once-weekly bortezomib (Table 2) were perceived lack of prospective data (31%), difficulty modifying treatment orders (24%), and resistance from pharmacist colleagues who prefer adhering to trial-studied regimens (13%). Discussion: In our survey of over 200 MM-treating physicians from 38 countries (including 22 LMICs), once-weekly subcutaneous bortezomib was overwhelmingly preferred regardless of practice setting or country. The only exception was acute cast nephropathy, where twice-weekly bortezomib may expedite renal recovery and is reasonable to use initially. Neuropathy estimates were similar to published incidences (32% with once-weekly bortezomib vs 47% with twice-weekly bortezomib) from prospective data collected from the ALCYONE, GIMEMA-QW, and VISTA randomized trials (Mateos L&L 2020). Our findings highlight the widening mismatch between what physicians routinely prescribe to patients versus what registrational trials typically require. Given that &gt;90% of physicians personally prefer once-weekly bortezomib and that &gt;90% report that their patients feel similarly, once-weekly bortezomib appears to have become the global standard of care. This consensus should be taken into consideration for clinical trial design in the future.