Cowan, Andrew J.

Background HPN217 is a B Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA)-targeting tri-specific T cell engager (TCE). HPN217 contains three binding domains including anti-BCMA for MM cell binding, anti-albumin for half-life extension, and anti-CD3 for T cell engagement and activation. HPN217 is a small (~50 kDa) globular protein, designed to increase the therapeutic window by minimizing off-target toxicities and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). HPN217 is under investigation in patients (pts) with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Methods This study is designed to assess the safety, pharmacology and early clinical activity of HPN217 using fixed and step-dose (prime dose followed by target doses) regimens in dose escalation cohorts along with expansion of selected regimens for further evaluation. Pts with RRMM who have received at least 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and CD38-targeted therapy are eligible. Prior exposure to a BCMA-targeting agent is permitted. Primary objectives include evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of the Recommended Phase 2 Dose(s) (RP2D). Secondary objectives include preliminary efficacy. HPN217 is administered IV once weekly or once every 2 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by CTCAE 5.0, and ASTCT for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and ICANS. Clinical activity is assessed per IMWG Response Criteria. Results Dose escalation has been completed. 97 pts were enrolled across 15 dose escalation cohorts and expansion of 3 regimens with the highest target dose levels from dose escalation (12mg weekly; 24mg every 2 weeks; 24mg weekly for 1 cycle followed by 24mg every 2 weeks). As of 26 June 2023, across all cohorts, 94 pts were treated and had received a median (range) of 6 (2-19) prior lines of treatment (62% penta-exposed, 17% BCMA-targeted therapy, 68% prior transplantation). Median age was 70 (38-85) years. 36 pts (38%) remain on treatment. The most common (≥25%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across all cohorts and in the 12mg and 24mg cohorts are summarized in Table 1. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) of reversible transaminitis (Gr 3, n=1; Gr 4, n=1) in 2 pts at 2.86 mg fixed dose during dose escalation informed the choice of 2.15 mg as priming dose in the highest step dose cohorts; a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) has not been reached in step dose cohorts. All CRS events were grade 1-2 except one event of grade 3 CRS at 24 mg. Grade 1 ICANS was reported in 2 pts. Responses were observed at doses ≥ 2.15 mg. Among the 12mg and 24mg cohorts, 55% (22/40) of efficacy-evaluable pts currently have had a confirmed response (PR or better) including 2 pts with prior BCMA directed CAR-T cell therapy; disease assessments for recently enrolled patients are pending. Among pts with a response, 73% (16/22) have had a confirmed response of VGPR or better. Across all dose levels, the median time on treatment for pts with a confirmed response was 40 weeks (range 8.3-114 weeks), including 9 patients on treatment for over 12 months, with data maturing to include longer follow-up on patients recently enrolled. HPN217 exhibited linear and dose proportional PK across all dose groups with a median half-life of 68 hours (range 26-197 hours). Transient cytokine increases were higher with the initial/priming dose compared to subsequent/target doses. Conclusions Dose escalation of HPN217, a novel half-life extended BCMA-targeting T-cell engager, has been completed; the MTD was not reached in step dose cohorts. The 12mg and 24mg target doses are well tolerated with manageable adverse event profiles similar to those at lower dose levels and are associated with robust and durable clinical responses. Additional follow up of recently enrolled pts in 12 mg and 24 mg cohorts will inform the choice of the RP2D(s), and complete data on all pts enrolled will be presented. NCT04184050

Background: Dex is a key component of induction regimens for NDMM despite common toxicities including insomnia and anxiety. The E4A03 randomized trial (Rajkumar, Lancet Oncol 2010) demonstrated that dex dosed at 40 mg weekly outperformed higher-intensity dex and established this regimen as the standard of care for NDMM. In standard practice as well as clinical trials, however, dex doses are often reduced to 20 mg weekly or lower (if not stopped entirely) among older patients or among patients experiencing toxicities. As a first step toward establishing the equipoise of planned dex dose reductions in NDMM, we investigated outcomes with patients from two previous SWOG trials to understand the impact of dex dose reductions on post-induction outcomes. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from two completed NDMM studies, S0777 (comparing VRd vs Rd) and S1211 (comparing Elo-VRd vs VRd). For this secondary analysis, we analyzed the subset of patients who completed all eight 3-week cycles of induction (or six 4-week cycles in the S0777 Rd arm). As shown in Figure 1A, we defined DEX fullDose as patients for whom the starting dex dose (either 40 mg once per week or 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of 21-day cycles) did not change during induction. In contrast, DEX lowered was defined as patients for whom the end-of-induction dex dose and/or frequency were lower than their starting values. As an exploratory analysis, we also compared PFS and OS between the DEX fullDose (no changes to dex strength during induction) and DEX veryLow (dex dosing reduced ≥50% during induction) subgroups. All analyses were landmarked from the end of induction, defined as 24 weeks from registration, to account for the time-dependent nature of dex treatment received. Survival curves were based on the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were made using the log-rank test. Results: Of 541 evaluable patients ( n = 441 from S0777, n = 100 from S1211), dex was reduced during induction in 76% ( n = 410). Compared to DEX fullDose patients, DEX lowered patients were more likely to be anemic (37% vs 26%, p = 0.02) but had similar distributions of age ≥70 (24% of DEX lowered vs 26% of DEX fullDose), Performance Status > 1 (15% vs 12%), ISS stage 3 disease (33% vs 27%), ≥ 60% bone marrow plasma cell burden (37% vs 31%), M-spike > 3 g/dL (48% vs 48%) platelets < 150,000 cells/mm 3 (18% vs 14%), baseline LDH ≥ 190 U/L (36% vs 41%), and baseline CRP ≥ 8 mg/L (27% vs 30%). PFS (Figure 1B) was comparable between DEX lowered (median 36 months, 95% CI 29 to 39 months) and DEX fullDose (median 33 months, 95% CI 24 to 48 months) with p = 0.90. Similarly, OS (Figure 1C) was comparable between DEX lowered [median 77 months, 95% CI 68 months to not reached (NR)] and DEX fullDose (median 92 months, 95% CI 65 months to NR) with p = 0.93. In the DEX veryLow subgroup with ≥50% reduction in dex dosing during induction, median PFS was 39 months (95% CI 34 to 50 months) and median OS was NR (95% CI NR to NR). As shown in Figure 1D and Figure 1E, PFS and OS were comparable between these patients and DEX fullDose patients. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of dex dosing strength in NDMM since E4A03. In two separate randomized trials, over half of patients required dex reductions below a starting dose of ~40 mg weekly. Dex dose reductions during induction had no impact on post-induction PFS and OS, even in the subset of patients who required significant dose reductions. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include heterogeneity between dex dosing schedules and lack of cytogenetic data for all patients. We could not discern specifically why dex was lowered, and it is possible that dex might have been lowered disproportionately commonly in patients who had achieved early responses and thus independently did better. Regardless, these results strongly suggest that maintaining dex 40 mg weekly for the entirety of NDMM induction may be unnecessary in the modern era. Cooperative efforts to study a planned dex de-escalation protocol (i.e., once no longer needed for symptom management or as a pre-medication) alongside patient-reported outcome assessments of symptom burden are being planned. Funding: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, U10CA180820; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now part of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and by Celgene.

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]

Background: Here we describe an online network of patients with cancer, clinicians and researchers, layered on top of a comprehensive real world database of treatments and outcomes, continuously updated in near real time, and initially focused on multiple myeloma. Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma register at www.all4cure.com and sign HIPAA release forms to provide access to all of their medical records from all of the institutions from which they have received care. From the medical records, a structured dataset of treatments and lab results is extracted by a myeloma-dedicated team for display on each patient's de-identified, personalized dashboard. A discussion panel allows more than 1200 participating patients, clinicians and researchers to post comments or questions regarding each patient's specific circumstances. For each patient, lines of therapy and responses are determined according to IMWG and published criteria (Blood [2015] 126: 921-922). Here we report initial results from the treatments and responses among patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Results: A total of 493 patients includes 26 with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 51 with smoldering myeloma, 408 with multiple myeloma, and 8 with primary plasma cell leukemia. Among patients with multiple myeloma, 42 (10.3%) had antecedent MGUS and/or smoldering myeloma. The average age is 65.6 (+/- 9.7). 50.9% are male and 49.1% are female. 42 states in the U.S. and 8 other countries are represented. Two patients with multiple myeloma had not started treatment by the time of this report. The remaining 414 patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received 1 to 16 lines of therapy. Among the 414 patients that received at least one line of therapy, a remarkable 89 distinct first line therapies were administered. The most common first line therapies were lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=92), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=50), lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone + autologous stem cell transplant + lenalidomide maintenance (n=41), lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=29), and bortezomib and dexamethasone (n=22). 62 patients received a first line therapy that was not received by any other patient in our database. This variation was attributable to participation in clinical trials, variation in the availability of drugs over time and different geographic locations, and the very large number of distinct combinations associated with multi-agent regimens. Seventy six percent of patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received a second line of therapy, 52% received a third line of therapy, 34% received a fourth line of therapy, 23% received a fifth line of therapy, and 18% received a sixth line of therapy. We observed a trend toward a decline in favorable responses with successive lines of therapy (Table 1) consistent with previous reports, with a correlation coefficient between the line of therapy and overall response rate of -0.74. Among the 76 patients who received 6 or more lines of therapy (247 lines of therapy in total), only 7 achieved stringent complete responses (sCRs), of which 5 were associated with a CAR-T therapy. Table 1 also shows a trend toward more rapid changes in treatment associated with later lines of therapy. 57 of 493 patients (12%) are deceased. Conclusions: Our findings reveal remarkable variation in the treatment of myeloma and provide a potentially valuable resource of up to date and current clinical features, prognosis, treatments, side effects, and outcomes of patients with myeloma in the real world. Table 1. Summary of lines of therapy and outcomes across 414 patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. The percentages of patients achieving sCR, ≥ PR (overall response rate - ORR), and ≥MR (clinical benefit rate - CBR) are shown for each line of therapy. Also depicted is the interval mortality and the mean and median number of days between the beginning of a line therapy and the beginning of the next line of therapy. Table Disclosures Richter: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; X4 pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive biotechnologies: Consultancy; Secura bio: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy. Chhun:All4Cure: Current Employment. Zheng:All4Cure: Current Employment. Piboonvaranggoon:All4Cure: Current Employment. Mallick:All4Cure: Current Employment. Wren:All4Cure: Current Employment. Nam:All4Cure: Current Employment. Lopez Barquilla:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Blau:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Cowan:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bensinger:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Anderson:Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blau:All4Cure: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company.