Mohan, Meera

Abstract Introduction: While the incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) is 2-3 fold higher in Black compared to white individuals, the impact of racial differences on treatment outcomes remains unclear due to the confounding effect of socioeconomic barriers and disparities in access to effective therapies and clinical trials. In this study, we explored the relationship between race, social deprivation, and outcomes in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients (pts) receiving modern therapies with triplet or quadruplet regimens. Methods: Pts with NDMM diagnosis, who received first line treatment between 2015-2025, and had data available on response and survival outcomes were identified through the ASH Research Collaborative MM Data Hub (a real-world database with pts across 11 U.S. institutions). Data on patient demographics (age, race, ethnicity, sex), disease risk status (ISS/R-ISS stage, FISH cytogenetics), treatment regimens (triplet vs quadruplet, anti CD38 monoclonal antibody-based vs not), and disparity measures were abstracted from electronic medical records. Race and ethnicity were self-reported by pts. Social Deprivation Index (SDI) score was calculated based on ZIP code, where higher scores reflect greater deprivation. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from start of treatment until progression or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from start of treatment until death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare PFS and OS between groups, and cox regression models with log-rank tests were used to evaluate the influence of various factors on outcomes. Results: A total of 1,743 patients were identified; 1,116 (63.8%) identified as non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 402 (23.3%) as non-Hispanic Black (NHB) [note: 85 pts (4.9%) were Hispanic but not included due to limited numbers]. The median age (years) at the start of treatment (61.8 vs. 65.6) was lower for NHB compared to NHW pts (p<0.001). The proportion of females was greater in NHBthan NHW pts(53.5% vs. 41.1%, p=0.0016). Median SDI scores were significantly higher for NHBcompared to NHW pts (68.4 vs. 39.4; respectively; p<0.001), reflecting significantly higher rates of social deprivation. While NHB ptshad higher rates of advanced stage disease (ISS III 26.9% vs. 20.9%, p=0.009), lower rates of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (56.7% vs. 63.6%, p=0.014), and longer median time from treatment initiation to ASCT (6.5 vs. 5.9 months, p=0.043), the rates of standard risk cytogenetics on FISH (72.3% vs. 77.6%), and utilization of CD38 monoclonal antibody-based regimen (29.9% vs. 27.7%) were similar between the two groups. Best response after treatment initiation was similar between the NHB and NHW pts (p=0.12) with complete response 45.7% vs. 52.6% and very good partial response 37.3% vs 34.7%; respectively. However, time to best response (months) was longer in NHB pts (7.2 vs. 6.5, p=0.005). Median follow-up for OS was 4.2 years (95% CI 3.9-4.4; 182 OS events) and for PFS was 1.3 years (95% CI: 1.1-1.6; 302 PFS events) across the two groups. Unadjusted PFS was similar for NHB vs NHW pts (HR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.81- 1.36; median: 5.0 vs 4.9 years; 3-year PFS: 66% vs. 71%). Similarly, unadjusted OS was not significantly different in NHB vs NHW pts (HR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.79-1.59; 5-year OS: 86.4% vs 85.6%). Higher SDI scores were significantly associated with worse OS (HR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.12; p=0.0065) but not PFS (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.02; p=0.46). Though not statistically significant, univariate analyses indicated a greater impact of high SDI scores (≥70, 75th percentile across all pts) in NHW (HR=1.45, p=0.068) than in NHB pts (HR=0.78, p=0.35) for OS. Adjusting for age, sex, ISS stage, and SDI, NHB did not appear to have worse OS (HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.60; p=0.46) or PFS (HR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.78-1.96; p=0.37) compared to NHW pts. Conclusions: Our study represents a diverse population enriched for pts who received modern day standard of care frontline therapies including triplet and quadruplet regimens with or without ASCT. Based on SDI scores, higher social deprivation levels were seen in NHB compared to NHW pts without a difference in outcomes between the two races. Our analysis supports that higher social deprivation among different races rather than race and ethnicity alone may drive differential outcomes and adjustment for factors like SDI is critical to interpretation of survival outcomes by race.

Summary Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy and bispecific T‐cell engagers (BsAb) have emerged as promising immunotherapeutic modalities in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of CAR‐T and BsAb therapies in MM patients with a prior history of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). Thirty‐three MM patients with prior allo‐HCT received CAR‐T ( n = 24) or BsAb ( n = 9) therapy. CAR‐T therapy demonstrated an ORR of 92% (67% ≥ CR), and 73% were MRD negative. BsAb therapy resulted in an ORR of 44% (44% ≥ CR) and 44% MRD negative. Safety analysis showed grade ≥3 AEs in 92% of CAR‐T and 56% of BsAb patients. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 83% of CAR‐T and 78% of BsAb recipients, while immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in three CAR‐T patients. Infections of grade ≥3 were reported in 50% of CAR‐T and 44% of BsAb recipients. No exacerbation of graft‐versus‐host disease occurred except in one BsAb recipient. CAR‐T and BsAb therapies appear to be feasible, safe and provide deep and durable responses in MM patients with prior allo‐HCT.

Introduction: Extra copies of chromosome 1q21 (+1q: gain=3 copies, amp=4 or more copies) have been associated with worse outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review to evaluate current reporting of +1q, efficacy of existing regimens for +1q, and prognostic implications of +1q in MM randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched three databases for MM RCTs. Our inclusion criteria were all published MM RCTs from 2012-2022. Each MM RCT was analyzed for reported data on +1q. The following features specific to +1q were collected: +1q reported or not as a high-risk cytogenetic alteration, definition of gain1q with respect to percentage of cells with abnormality detected, documentation of distinction between Gain1q and Amp1q in analysis, prevalence of +1q in enrolled population, outcomes of patients [Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS)] in patients with +1q in the experimental versus control arm and in patients with and without +1q. Results: A total of 124 trials were included. Among these trials, 28 (23%) studies reported data on +1q, including 26 studies that reported data in the primary manuscript and two studies that reported in separate publication. These trials reported a total of 2692 patients with +1q which represented 25% of all the patients enrolled. Out of 28 trials, three trials (11%) specified the criteria for categorizing patients as +1q (example in IKEMA and IFM-99: the presence of at least three copies in at least 30% of analyzed plasma cells was required). Only four trials (14%) reported survival data on gain and amp separately and the remaining 24 (86%) studies reported for gain or did not specify gain vs amp. Amongst the trials that reported +1q, 22 (79%) considered this to be a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality. Amongst trials that met primary endpoint showing improvement in PFS and clearly reported on +1q, the following drugs also improved PFS for those with +1q (when comparing hazard ratio (HR) for intervention versus control arm in the +1q subgroup): lenalidomide (len) maintenance in Myeloma XI, selinexor in BOSTON, and isatuximab in IKEMA and ICARIA. Several trials met their endpoint and showed improvement in PFS in the +1q cohort in same direction as overall study results but had confidence intervals for +1q subgroup that crossed 1. These included addition of carfilzomib in Myeloma XI, addition of carfilzomib vs bortezomib to len and dex for +1q (but not in Amp1q) in ENDURANCE, addition of elotuzumab to pomalidomide and dex, and bortezomib-based treatment before and after autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) vs no bortezomib (Table 2). Seven studies reported HR for patients with +1q in the trial (across both arms) compared to those without. In six studies (all studies other than SWOG1211), worse outcomes were seen with respect to OS and PFS for those with +1q versus without (Table 2). Important interventions for which subgroup analysis of +1q was not presented in trial results, and hence conclusions about the efficacy of the drugs specifically for patients with +1q cannot be ascertained included pomalidomide and ixazomib. Although subgroup analysis of various daratumumab trials has shown improvement for high-risk MM, the effect on gain1q was not isolated. Two recent contemporary trials that isolated effect of auto-SCT (DETERMINATION and IFM-2009) did not report +1q. However, in FORTE Trial, adverse prognostic implications of +1q were not seen in the arm receiving carfilzomib, len, dex and auto-SCT, indicating a possible role of carfilzomib and auto-SCT in ameliorating the adverse prognostic implications of +1q. Although len maintenance improved PFS after auto-SCT as maintenance in Myeloma XI overall for those with +1q, it did not appear to improve PFS for patients with isolated +1q (with no other concurrent genetic abnormalities). Conclusion: This systematic review of MM RCTs finds considerable heterogeneity in the reporting of +1q abnormalities in the literature, and +1q to be inconsistently classified as a poor prognostic factor in subgroup analysis of randomized myeloma trials. Most interventions that have shown to be successful in randomized trials and have clearly reported on the +1q subgroup have shown concordant direction of results and benefit of the applied intervention in the +1q subgroup. A more standardized approach to reporting of this abnormality is needed.

e24078 Background: The addition of anti-CD38 mAbs, daratumumab and isatuximab, to standard anti-myeloma regimens have drawn scrutiny towards long-term safety concerns, including the risk of SPMs. ICARIA-MM study reported SPMs in 3.9% patients (pts.) in the Isatuximab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-Pd) arm compared to 0.7% in the Pd arm. We hypothesized that exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs could potentially increase risk of SPMs due to prolonged immunosuppression. An assessment of this association is warranted, given the improved life expectancy and growing prevalence of pts. with MM. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis on data obtained from RCTs published between January 2005 and April 2022 that compared anti-CD38 mAb-based regimens to other standard anti-myeloma regimens (control) in pts. with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory (r/r) MM. Total number of SPMs (including categories) were extracted for pts. in both groups. Malignant melanomas were included under solid SPM category. Binary outcome data were analyzed using fixed-effect Peto method. Treatment effect estimates were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 > 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Results: 10 RCTs involving 4980 pts. were included, with 2824 (57%) and 2156 (43%) pts. randomized to the anti-CD38 mAb and control arms, respectively (Table). Overall, 191 and 112 SPMs were reported in the anti-CD38 mAb and control arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 35.3 months, anti-CD38 mAb exposure was associated with an increased risk of developing SPMs compared to control (6.8% vs. 5.2%; OR: 1.53 [95% CI: 1.20-1.95]; I2= 0%). Non-melanoma cutaneous cancers were the most common, and higher in the anti-CD38 mAb vs. control arms (92 versus 47; OR: 1.77 [95% CI: 1.25-2.51]; I2= 0%). The increase in solid cancers (including melanoma) (OR: 1.28 [95% CI: 0.85-1.95]) and hematologic SPMs (OR: 1.86; [95% CI: 0.81-4.27] was not significant. On sensitivity analysis, the total number of SPMs were higher in the anti-CD38 mAb arm vs. control arm, regardless of the presence of immunomodulatory drugs in combination regimen. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows an increased risk of SPMs in pts. with MM exposed to daratumumab or isatuximab, particularly that of non-invasive cutaneous tumors. This association should be further investigated in real-world settings using large databases. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: SUMOylation, a post-translational modification analogous to ubiquitination, attaches a small, ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) to target proteins. SUMOylation plays a central role in the immune system by regulating type I interferon (IFN-I) expression, thereby functioning to constrain the innate immune response (Decque Nat Immunol 2016), and limit tumor immune surveillance. The SUMOylation pathway is often overexpressed in multiple myeloma (MM) and is associated with poor outcomes (Driscoll Blood 2010). TAK-981 is a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of SUMO-activating enzyme, which blocks the SUMOylation cascade (Langston J Med Chem 2021) and increases IFN-I production and signaling in innate immune cells (Nakamura AACR 2019). In ex vivo assays, TAK-981 activated the IFN-I pathway, increased phagocytic activity of monocyte-derived macrophages, and increased natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity via IFN-I signaling (Nakamura AACR 2019). The ability of TAK-981 to promote activation of macrophages and NK cells provides a mechanistic rationale for its use in combination with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reliant on antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis; in vivo experiments have demonstrated synergistic activity between TAK-981 and rituximab, and between TAK-981 and the anti-CD38 mAbs daratumumab (dara) (Nakamura SITC 2020) or mezagitamab (meza; TAK-079; Figure 1). Patients with MM who have disease refractory to the three most effective classes of anti-myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors [PIs], immunomodulatory drugs [IMiDs], and anti-CD38 mAbs) have a poor prognosis, with median survival 9.2 months (Gandhi Leukemia 2019). Given the incurable nature of advanced MM and the highly complex mechanisms of resistance, continued efforts to better understand MM biology at the time of relapse and to translate this into effective treatment combinations are needed. Combination therapies that engage the immune system to treat MM may offer substantial clinical benefit. Methods: To be eligible for this multicenter, open-label, Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT04776018), patients must have failed at least 3 prior lines of anti-myeloma therapy, have MM disease that is triple-class refractory (defined as refractory/intolerant to ≥1 PI and ≥1 IMiD, and refractory to ≥1 anti-CD38 mAb), and have demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy. Prior CAR-T therapy is allowed. Patients will be assigned to TAK-981 plus subcutaneous (SC) meza (Phase 1 Part 1) or SC dara (dara and hyaluronidase-fihj; Phase 1 Part 2). The primary objectives of Phase 1b are to determine safety and tolerability, and to select the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule for TAK-981 with each mAb; secondary objectives are to evaluate preliminary antitumor activity, to characterize TAK-981 pharmacokinetics (PK), and to explore pharmacodynamic (PD) markers of TAK-981 target engagement and SUMOylation pathway inhibition. Approximately 30 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 1 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus meza (~15 patients per dosing schedule), and ~15 patients will participate in the Phase 1b Part 2 dose escalation of TAK-981 plus SC dara. The primary objective of Phase 2 is to evaluate the efficacy of TAK-981 at the RP2D in combination with an anti-CD38 mAb; ~36 patients will be enrolled. In Phase 1b, patients will receive TAK-981 via a 1-hour intravenous infusion either on days 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15 (twice weekly; BIW) or on days, 1, 8, 15, and 22 (weekly; QW) for 2x 28-day cycles, then 8x every other week, then monthly. Meza 600 mg SC or dara 1800 mg SC will be given 8x weekly, 8x every other week, then monthly, in a 28-day cycle (Figure 2). Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (max. 24 cycles). TAK-981 dose escalation will proceed from 60 mg BIW, a dose shown to be pharmacologically active in a first-in-human, single-agent TAK-981 study (TAK-981-1002; data on file). Dose escalation will be guided by Bayesian Optimal Internal Design with Informative Prior (iBOIN) plus consideration of other safety, clinical, PK, and PD data. The iBOIN design selects the true maximum tolerated dose (if any) with high accuracy by allocating more patients to dose levels with a prior dose-limiting toxicity probability closest to the target of 0.3. This study is currently enrolling patients, with the first patient dosed in May 2021. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccia: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yimer: Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment. Levy: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Dova: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Epizyme: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Promotional speaker; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Promotional speaker, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Abonour: Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene-BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mohan: Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Girnius: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau. Rosenbaum: Takeda: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Nadeem: Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berg: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Chao: Takeda: Current Employment. Berger: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Nakamura: Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Song: Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Current Employment. Ward: Takeda: Current Employment. Proscurshim: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Celgene: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: Study of the investigational agent TAK-981 in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj or the investigational agent mezagitamab (TAK-079).

Abstract Recent advances in treatment have transformed the management of cancer. Despite these advances, cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death in cancer survivors. Cardio-oncology has recently evolved as a subspecialty to prevent, diagnose, and manage cardiovascular side effects of antineoplastic therapy. An emphasis on optimal management of comorbidities and close attention to drug interactions are important in cardio-oncologic care. With interdisciplinary collaboration among oncologists, cardiologists, and pharmacists, there is potential to prevent and reduce drug-related toxicities of treatments. The cytochrome P450 (CYP450) family of enzymes and the P-glycoprotein (P-g) transporter play a crucial role in drug metabolism and drug resistance. Here we discuss the role of CYP450 and P-g in drug interactions in the field of cardio-oncology, provide an overview of the cardiotoxicity of a spectrum of cancer agents, highlight the role of precision medicine, and encourage a multidisciplinary treatment approach for patients with cancer.