Borgsten, Fredrik

7569 Background: MAIA and CEPHEUS trials demonstrated that daratumumab (Dara) with standard of care (SOC) VRd or Rd significantly improved clinical outcomes versus SOC in TIE NDMM. Here we describe efficacy and safety in TIE pts from both trials by age and baseline (BL) frailty using the latest data cuts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to DRd (n=368) or Rd (n=369) in MAIA and 1:1 to DVRd (n=144) or VRd (n=145) in CEPHEUS. Progression-free survival (PFS), complete response or better (≥CR), overall MRD negativity (neg) at 10 -5 with ≥CR, sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (confirmed MRD neg ≥12 ± 1 months [mo] apart without MRD positivity in between), and safety were assessed by age (<70, 70–<75, or ≥75 years [y]) and BL frailty (assessed by IFM simplified frailty score: 0–1, non-frail; ≥2, frail). Results: Median follow-up was 64.5 mo in MAIA and 76.0 mo in CEPHEUS. In MAIA, 155 (21%) pts were <70 y, 261 (35%) 70–<75 y, and 321 (44%) ≥75 y; 341 (46%) pts were frail, 88.0 % of whom were ≥70 y. In CEPHEUS TIE pts, 70 (24%) pts were <70 y, 133 (46%) 70–<75 y, and 86 (30%) ≥75 y; 83 (29%) pts were frail, 86% of whom were ≥70 y. DRd or DVRd improved PFS, MRD neg rates, sustained MRD neg rates, and ≥CR rates vs Rd or VRd arms across age and frailty subgroups in both trials (Table). Safety was consistent with established individual drug profiles, and adverse event rates were generally comparable across treatment arms and subgroups within both trials. Additional data on patient-specific factors relevant to these subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens improved efficacy outcomes across subgroups in MAIA and CEPHEUS trials, reinforcing Dara-based regimens as SOC in TIE NDMM regardless of age or frailty. These data offer clinically relevant insights to help guide treatment selection for TIE pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03652064 ; NCT02252172 . PFS, hazard ratio (95% CI) ≥CR rate, % MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Age/ Frailty status MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** <70 y 0.35 (0.21–0.56) 0.60 (0.31–1.18) 56.4 vs 31.2 85.7 vs 68.6 35.9 vs 11.7 74.3 vs 42.9 25.6 vs 3.9 62.9 vs 28.6 70–<75 y 0.64 (0.45–0.89) 0.60 (0.37–0.99) 56.2 vs 31.3 77.9 vs 69.2 36.2 vs 12.2 55.9 vs 47.7 20.8 vs 5.3 45.6 vs 38.5 ≥75 y 0.59 (0.44–0.79) 0.46 (0.22–0.94) 44.4 vs 28.6 80.5 vs 44.4 26.9 vs 9.9 58.5 vs 26.7 13.8 vs 3.1 43.9 vs 15.6 Frail 0.64 (0.48–0.85) 0.62 (0.32–1.18) 44.8 vs 33.1 72.9 vs 54.3 25.6 vs 13.0 56.3 vs 34.3 15.7 vs 4.1 39.6 vs 17.1 Non-frail 0.48 (0.36–0.64) 0.51 (0.34–0.78) 56.6 vs 27.5 84.4 vs 63.6 37.8 vs 9.5 63.5 vs 41.8 21.4 vs 4.0 54.2 vs 32.7 *MAIA: DRd vs Rd; **CEPHEUS: DVRd vs VRd.

Abstract Both the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE studies demonstrated significant survival benefit with the addition of daratumumab to standard-of-care Rd (Revlimid [lenalidomide] and dexamethasone; D-Rd) or to VMP (Velcade [bortezomib], melphalan, and prednisone; D-VMP), respectively, vs Rd or VMP alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM are highly susceptible to infection; therefore, gaining a greater understanding of infection incidence may help to mitigate future risk. We conducted a pooled analysis of infection incidence, timing, and management strategies from MAIA and ALCYONE. The median (range) age of the pooled population was 72 (40-93) years. Incidence was higher with D-Rd/D-VMP vs Rd/VMP for grade 3/4 (36.9% vs 22.4%) and grade 5 (3.0% vs 1.5%) infections; however, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were generally comparable between groups. Any-grade infections led to the discontinuation of study treatment in ∼2% of patients across treatment groups. Of the timing intervals explored, the highest incidence of grade 3/4 infection occurred within the first 6-month interval of study treatment initiation in both groups. Median time to the first onset of grade 3/4 infections (per Kaplan-Meier estimates) was 83.3 months and not estimable in the D-Rd/D-VMP and Rd/VMP groups, respectively. Although the rates of D-Rd/D-VMP treatment discontinuation due to infection remained low in MAIA and ALCYONE, clinicians should remain vigilant about infections throughout treatment and follow local guidelines and International Myeloma Working Group recommendations to minimize the risk of infection. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02252172 (MAIA) and NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

ABSTRACTObjectivesThis final post hoc analysis evaluated patient‐reported outcomes from the Phase 3 MAIA study of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D‐Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) after median 64.5‐month follow‐up in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), including patient subgroups.MethodsKey scales from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (global health status [GHS], physical functioning, pain, and fatigue) were assessed. Scores were evaluated every 3 months for 1 year, then every 6 months until disease progression.ResultsThe intent‐to‐treat population (n = 737) included 46.3% frail, 35.4% 70 to < 75 years old, and 43.6% ≥ 75 years old. D‐Rd‐treated patients showed improvements from baseline that were sustained over 5 years in the intent‐to‐treat population and across subgroups by age, frailty, and bone lesions. Greater proportions of patients treated with D‐Rd versus Rd achieved minimally important changes for improvement at cycle 36 (year ~3) in GHS (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.16–2.91]), physical functioning (1.93 [1.18–3.14]), pain (1.41 [0.90–2.22]), and fatigue (2.00 [1.24–3.23]). Greater proportions of patients with bone lesions improved with D‐Rd versus Rd on GHS and physical functioning.ConclusionsIn transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, D‐Rd improved health‐related quality of life over a 5‐year period versus Rd. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02252172

8044 Background: In the phase 3 MAIA study, adding DARA to Rd improved progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall survival, duration of response, and PROs in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. We report a MAIA subgroup analysis of time to response, duration of response, and PROs. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM received 28-day cycles of Rd (R 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Secondary endpoints included time to response and duration of response. PROs were measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, with treatment effects assessed via mixed-effects model with repeated measures. Results: In total, 368 pts were assigned to the D-Rd group and 369 pts to the Rd group; 162 (44%) D-Rd pts and 142 (38%) Rd pts had renal impairment (defined as baseline CrCl ≤60 mL/min). At a 56.2-mo median follow-up, median times to very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) were shorter with D-Rd vs Rd in the overall study population and in the subgroups of pts with and without renal impairment (Table). Among pts who achieved ≥CR or partial response or better (≥PR), higher proportions of D-Rd vs Rd pts had not experienced disease progression at 48 mo (Table). Among pts with renal impairment, greater improvements from baseline in pt-reported pain, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting symptom scores were observed with D-Rd vs Rd across most timepoints; a notably greater meaningful reduction in pain symptom score was seen with D-Rd vs Rd as early as Cycle 6 Day 1 (least squares mean change from baseline, −14.9 vs −7.0; P=0.0241). Analyses for additional pt subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: In transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM, D-Rd showed more rapid deep responses as well as more durable responses vs Rd, regardless of renal function. Improvements in pt-reported symptoms were generally greater with D-Rd vs Rd in pts with renal impairment. Our results support the use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]