Wildgust, Mark

Abstract Introduction FD Ibr+Ven is approved as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for CLL/SLL in 78 countries across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Clinical trials with up to 5.5 years (yrs) of follow-up have demonstrated progression-free and overall survival benefits of 1L FD Ibr+Ven in pts with CLL/SLL (Wierda WG, ASH 2024; Jacobs R, EHA 2024). Despite established clinical benefits, there is a lack of RW evidence on the effectiveness and tolerability of FD Ibr+Ven outside of clinical trial settings. Here we present pooled data from REALITY-WW and REALITY-2 to understand the usage, factors for therapy decision, clinical response, and safety of FD Ibr+Ven in routine clinical practice. Methods REALITY-WW and REALITY-2 are prospective observational cohort studies. REALITY-WW is an international study; REALITY-2 is conducted in Germany. Both included previously untreated pts with CLL/SLL from hospitals and medical institutions where Ibr+Ven was routinely used. The decision to start FD Ibr+Ven was made prior to and independent of pt enrollment. Pts aged ≥18 yrs with a confirmed diagnosis of CLL/SLL requiring 1L tx per iwCLL 2018 criteria received 3 cycles of Ibr, followed by 12 cycles of FD Ibr+Ven orally (Ibr, 420 mg/d; Ven, 5-week ramp-up to 400 mg/d). Primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Secondary end points and outcomes of interest included tx-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk, and factors associated with physician decision to initiate FD Ibr+Ven in routine clinical practice. Results At data cutoff (REALITY-WW: May 2025; REALITY-2: March 2025), 129 pts from both studies received FD Ibr+Ven (REALITY-WW, 81; REALITY-2, 48). The median (range) time on study was 6.4 (0.1-19.0) months (mo). Median (range) age was 65.0 (37.0-87.0) yrs, with 46.5% of pts aged <65 yrs and 53.5% of pts aged ≥65 yrs; 62.8% were male. Median (range) time from diagnosis to FD Ibr+Ven initiation was 38.1 mo (0.1-238.0) and median (range) duration of tx was 6.0 mo (0.1-15.9) for Ibr and 3.2 mo (0.1-8.4) for Ven. A Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score of >6 was observed in 12.6% of pts, with a higher score in pts aged ≥65 vs <65 yrs (18.0% vs 6.9%). TP53 mutations were seen in 7.4% of pts; 52.8% had an unmutated IGHV status. ORR was assessed in the 44 pts with ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment in REALITY-WW. Of these, 39 showed a response by the end of 6 tx cycles (3 cycles of Ibr + 3 cycles of FD Ibr+Ven) and 5 had stable disease. ORR at 6 mo per iwCLL 2018 criteria (partial response [PR] with lymphocytosis [PR-L] or better) was 88.6% (95% CI, 79.3-98.0), including complete responses in 29.5%, PR in 34.1%, and PR-L in 25.0% pts. Among 129 treated pts, TEAEs were reported in 61.2%; diarrhea was the most common TEAE (14.0%). Serious TEAEs and grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 12.4% and 8.5% of pts, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 TEAE was myocardial infarction (1.6%). Dose reduction was observed in 13.2% (Ibr) and 2.3% (Ven) of pts, mainly due to tx-associated TEAE/toxicity/TLS. Rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation, dose reduction, and interruption of ≥1 study tx were 4.7%, 10.9%, and 20.9%, respectively. At baseline (n=129), 18.6%, 45.0%, and 14.7% of pts had high, intermediate, and low TLS risk, respectively, while 20.2% were not assessed and 1.6% had missing data. After the 3-cycle Ibr lead-in, the distribution shifted to 9.3%, 24.8%, and 24.0%, respectively, with 14.7% not assessed and 27.1% missing. There were no TEAEs of TLS and no hospitalizations due to TLS. Seven pts (6 aged ≥65 yrs and 1 <65 yrs) were hospitalized prophylactically for TLS. Prophylactic hospitalization was observed in 8.5% (11/129) of pts with high or medium TLS risk and impaired renal function for whom the Ven ramp-up was initiated; no pts were hospitalized due to laboratory/clinical TLS during the Ven ramp-up period. Physician questionnaire responses (n=126) indicated the most common factors associated with decision to initiate FD Ibr+Ven were administration route advantage (91.3%), overall health status (87.3%), anticipated superior efficacy of tx (84.1%), and general risk factors such as high tumor burden/genetic risk factors (81.0%). Conclusions Overall findings suggest that FD Ibr+Ven is an effective and safe tx for pts with CLL/SLL in a RW population, including those aged ≥65 yrs. Data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Background Because patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) do not always receive any treatment beyond first-line (1L) therapy, it is imperative that patients receive the best treatment in the 1L setting. However, the optimal initial treatment remains to be identified. We performed a clinical simulation to assess potential outcomes with different treatment sequences. Patients and Methods We used a partitioned survival model to compare overall survival (OS) with (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) in 1L followed by a pomalidomide- or carfilzomib-based regimen in second line (2L) versus (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L versus (3) lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in 1L followed by a daratumumab-based regimen in 2L. Probabilities of transition between health states (1L, 2L+, and death) were based on published clinical data and real-world data from the Flatiron Health database. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment after 1L (attrition rates) in the base case was estimated with a binomial logistic model using data from the MAIA trial. Results Using D-Rd in 1L conferred a longer median OS compared with delaying daratumumab-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (8.9 [95% CrI 7.58-10.42] vs. 6.92 [5.92-8.33] or 5.75 [4.50-7.25] years). Results of scenario analyses were consistent with the base case. Conclusion Our simulation, which incorporates clinically representative treatments and attrition rates, supports the use of D-Rd as initial therapy, rather than delaying the use of daratumumab until later lines of therapy, in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.

Abstract Introduction: Despite recent treatment (tx) advances that have improved overall survival (OS), multiple myeloma (MM) remains a mostly incurable malignancy. Txs become less effective with each successive line of therapy (LOT). The rapidly evolving tx landscape has raised questions about the optimal tx sequence; recent trial data may be useful to develop and test hypotheses about tx sequencing. However, real-world (RW) data have shown that while most patients (pts) with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) receive first-line (1L) tx, attrition rates are high in later LOT, with up to 50% of transplant ineligible (TIE) pts receiving no tx beyond 1L. As many pts will not have an opportunity to be salvaged with later LOT, achieving the longest possible progression-free survival (PFS) upfront is critical. In the MAIA trial, daratumumab (DARA), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated significant PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.53, P<0.0001) and OS (HR=0.68, P=0.0013) benefit vs Rd. In a subgroup of pts ≥65 years old in the SWOG S0777 study, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) had no significant OS benefit vs Rd. In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing different tx sequences, clinical trial data can be used to explore different scenarios. Published models suggest that delaying DARA until later LOT is a viable tx strategy. Limitations of these models include basing conclusions on tx sequences other than those recommended in clinical guidelines, not accounting for the attrition rates from 1L to subsequent LOT and relying on inappropriate clinical inputs for second-line (2L) tx and beyond. While addressing those limitations, we examined different clinical scenarios to explore the clinical value of using DARA first vs saving it until a later LOT. Methods: We examined 3 potential clinical tx sequences using a lifetime three-health state clinical simulation to estimate survival outcomes in pts with TIE NDMM. The 3 health states were: 1L (time on tx + any subsequent tx-free interval), 2L (time on 2L + any subsequent LOT), and death. Tx sequences were reflective of clinical guidelines: D-Rd in 1L followed by pomalidomide (POM)- or carfilzomib (CAR)-based regimens in 2L and VRd or Rd in 1L followed by DARA-based regimens in 2L (Figure). Pt characteristics were assumed to be similar to those of pts in MAIA. Time spent in the 1L health state with D-Rd and Rd was based on time to next tx or death (TTNT) curves derived from MAIA; TTNT curves with VRd were derived by applying PFS HRs estimated in the PEGASUS study. The attrition rate for the base case analysis (58.8%) was based on MAIA data. Although similar to published studies, it includes pts who were lost to follow-up and may be an overestimate. A sensitivity analysis evaluated a more conservative estimate (27.2%) excluding censored pts. Attrition rates were assumed to be the same across tx arms. Time spent in the 2L health state with DARA-based and POM- or CAR-based regimens was based on RW OS curves derived from the nationwide EHR-derived deidentified Flatiron Health database. RW data were used as pts in published 2L trials are younger than in MAIA and many have had prior ASCT. We evaluated median OS and 5- and 10-year survival rates. Results: Using D-Rd in 1L improved median OS by 2.5 or 3.5 years compared with delaying DARA-based regimens until 2L after VRd or Rd, respectively (Table). The probability of being alive at 5 and 10 years was higher with D-Rd than with VRd or Rd as initial therapy (Table). Changes in attrition rates impacted the expected median OS, but the absolute difference in median OS was maintained, with an incremental OS benefit consistently >2 years. Conclusions: Unlike previous attempts to examine outcomes with different tx sequences, we incorporated clinically representative sequences for pts with NDMM, included attrition rates, and explored their impact on OS with different tx sequences. Our approach shows that achieving the longest possible PFS in 1L drives OS outcomes. Saving agents until later LOT does not take into account that many pts do not reach 2L, as evidenced by published data on attrition rates in MM. Our findings show that in pts with TIE NDMM, starting with D-Rd may provide up to 3.5 years of additional OS gain with the currently available 2L tx. This gain could increase with new 2L agents currently in development, reinforcing the importance of using the best agents first, to increase the probability of pts benefitting from tx currently in development. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Fonseca: Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Hashim: Johnson and Johnson: Current Employment. Nair: Janssen Research & Development: Current Employment. He: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ammann: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wildgust: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: 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.