Mammadzadeh, Aytaj

PURPOSE Initial reports indicate that access to contemporary therapies currently used in North America for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) varies internationally. No studies have quantitatively reported the extent of disparities in the access to MM therapies worldwide, with a goal to investigate access to MM therapies and barriers globally. METHODS From June 18 to July 15, 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to 176 oncologists treating MM outside the United States. MM drugs were categorized by accessibility, with the cutoff for adequate access set at 60% of respondents affirming easy/moderate access. RESULTS Ninety-five (54%) respondents from 33 countries completed the survey. Fifty-one percent of the respondents were from university-based academic programs, and 17% of the responders treated only plasma cell disorders. Most respondents had adequate access to noncellular MM therapies, except for isatuximab, ixazomib, selinexor, and elotuzumab. Among the cellular therapies, 17% had access to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy, whereas 23% had access to approved T-cell engagers (TCEs). Financial stress on patients and health care systems has emerged as a primary barrier to global inaccessibility of treatment drugs. CONCLUSION Global access to novel MM therapies remains challenging, and we have identified barriers and suggested strategies to bridge this gap.

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare and understudied plasma cell disorder. It is caused by abnormal misfolding of monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains, leading to extracellular deposition of amyloid, ultimately resulting in organ dysfunction and death. Since AL amyloidosis is uncommon, therapies are adapted from the more common plasma cell disorders like multiple myeloma. Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, was first tested in several prospective and retrospective studies in AL patients with relapsed refractory disease. The ANDROMEDA study (Kastritis E et al, NEJM 2021) established daratumumab in combination with CyBorD (Cyclophosphamide-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone) followed by daratumumab maintenance as the new standard of care compared to CyBorD alone for newly diagnosed patients. Consequently, daratumumab maintenance has become universally offered to all newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients. Notably, there was no second randomization before the initiation of maintenance therapy in ANDROMEDA. Hence, a critical question that remains is whether the superior efficacy observed in the investigational arm of the ANDROMEDA trial is solely a result of the addition of daratumumab during the induction phase or if the maintenance phase contributed to the favorable outcomes in the investigational arm. We hypothesize that a shorter duration of maintenance would prove non-inferior to the standard duration of daratumumab maintenance in patients with AL amyloidosis that have responded to Daratumumab-CyBorD induction. To answer this question we are conducting a pragmatic phase 2 randomized trial assessing the optimal duration of daratumumab maintenance in patients with AL amyloidosis who have responded to Daratumumab-CyBorD induction. Study Design, Patients and Methods: We use broadened eligibility criteria consistent with pragmatic trial design. The estimated total enrollment is up to 96 patients. The main eligibility criteria are patients with biopsy-proven AL Amyloidosis who have completed 6 cycles of Dara-CyBorD-based induction treatment and achieved an adequate response to induction (defined as hematological complete response (CR), hematological very good partial response (VGPR), or hematological partial response (PR) with at least one organ response). Patients in whom bortezomib and/or cyclophosphamide were omitted from induction due to toxicity concerns or adverse effects are allowed. The major exclusion criteria are patients who were concomitantly diagnosed with multiple myeloma based on International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. This phase II, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT05898646) randomizes patients who have attained an adequate response to 6 cycles of Dara-CyBorD-based induction in a 1:1 ratio, using a dynamic allocation procedure that balances the marginal distributions of the stratification factors (age, cardiac stage, and t(11;14) status). Randomization is to either single-agent daratumumab maintenance of 6 cycles duration (experimental arm) or 18 cycles of daratumumab maintenance (control arm) (cycle = 28 days). Treatment is allowed to be given at a local facility After completing maintenance treatment, patients will follow up every 3 months for up to 36 months from registration. The primary endpoint of the trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of a shorter (6 cycles) daratumumab maintenance measured by event-free survival (EFS) compared to the standard maintenance of 18 cycles in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis who receive 6 cycles of daratumumab-CyBorD based induction. EFS in this study is defined as time from registration to any of the following events: hematological progression, organ progression, subsequent anti-plasma cell therapy in the absence of hematological progression but with persistent organ dysfunction or death, whichever occurs first. Secondary endpoints are depth of hematological and organ response, bone marrow measurable residual disease negativity rate, duration of response, quality of life, and survival. By investigating whether a shorter duration of maintenance is non-inferior to the standard duration, we aim to inform clinical practice and potentially reduce the toxicities associated with prolonged maintenance therapy, including hypogammaglobulinemia, recurrent infections, the need for intravenous gammaglobulin replacement, and financial toxicity.

Abstract Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) in the clinical trial setting. However, most PRO tools are time consuming, which hinders use in routine practice. Our institution incorporated a “Hematology Patient-Reported Symptom Screen” (HPRSS), a 3-item questionnaire for fatigue, pain, and quality of life (QOL). The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of these symptoms on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a real-world cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM. This retrospective study included patients with MM diagnosed between April 2011 and December 2017, seen at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), who completed the HPRSS. Patients rated their symptoms on a scale from 0 to 10. Clinically relevant symptoms were defined as scores ≥5 for pain and fatigue, and ≤5 for QOL. At diagnosis, 735 patients had scores for all domains. The median follow-up was 8.1 years. Age was associated with increased odds of fatigue and decreased QOL. Female sex and comorbidities were associated with fatigue and pain. Higher disease stage, anemia, lytic lesions, and increased plasma cell burden were associated with fatigue, pain, and decreased QOL. Clinically relevant fatigue, pain, and decreased QOL were associated with decreased PFS and OS. On multivariate analysis including age, International Staging System III, high-risk cytogenetics, and postinduction transplantation, fatigue and decreased QOL were independently associated with decreased OS. A composite HPRSS score stratified patients into 3 groups with distinct OS. Patient-reported symptoms are prognostic in patients with newly diagnosed MM. The prognostic values of fatigue and decreased QOL are independent of age, disease stage, and transplant status.

The use of 4-drug induction regimens for treatment naïve newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is associated with improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS). However, head-to-head trials of 4-drug combinations are lacking, and instead, these regimens are typically compared to 3-drug backbones; limiting the ability to discern whether any additional benefit (or toxicity) is simply additive or represents a synergy (or interaction). We conducted a meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that randomized treatment naïve NDMM patients to either a 4-drug or 3-drug induction regimen. We included 11 trials which represented 6509 unique patients. PFS for all trials in the meta-analysis was 54 months with a 4-drug induction and 8.9 months with a 3-drug induction (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.45; 0.54), but there was no benefit to using a 4-drug induction that did not include an anti-CD38 antibody (PFS 4-drug 8.1 months, PFS 3-drug 8.0 months; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86; 1.06). Adverse events were more frequent with the quadruplet regimens but were predominately mild. High-grade (≥3) adverse events (AEs) that were more common with 4-drug regimens were infections (RR: 1.34; 95% CI 1.17; 1.54) and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.39; 95% CI 1.12; 1.74). This study suggests that 4-drug induction regimens which include an anti-CD38 antibody improve efficacy although with additional toxicity in NDMM patients.

7515 Background: BCMA directed CAR T cells, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), and T cell engagers (TCEs) each have distinct strengths and weaknesses. While these agents have shown unprecedented response rates and survival outcomes, no head-head comparisons exist. We assessed the relative efficacy of different BCMA-therapies in relapsed myeloma, with a focus on high-risk subgroups. Methods: Retrospective study of MM patients treated at Mayo Clinic with commercial or investigational BCMA targeted therapies between April 2018-June 2023. Results: 385 patients (ADC=59, TCE=134, CAR T=192) with a median follow up of 20-months. The median time from diagnosis was 6.1 years. The table shows disease, and treatment characteristics. Amongst ADCs and TCEs recipients, the median treatment duration was 1.9 and 3.5 months respectively, disease progression (64% and 79%) and intolerance (22% and 10%) were the most common reasons for discontinuation. The overall response rates were 27, 50, and 86% for ADCs, TCEs and CAR T, respectively. Compared to ADCs, CAR T was associated with improved PFS (adjusted HRPFS=0.29, 95%CI=0.20-0.43) and OS (aHROS=0.28, 95%CI=0.18-0.44) when adjusting for age, R-ISS, double hit high risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs), extramedullary disease (EMD, excluding paraskeletal plasmacytomas), triple class refractoriness, and the number of lines of therapy (LOTs) received in the preceding 1 year. Likewise compared to ADCs, TCEs were associated with superior PFS (aHRPFS=0.59, 95%CI=0.40-0.86) and OS (aHROS=0.60, 95%CI=0.39-0.93). Amongst patients with plasma cell leukemia (PCL) or EMD at the time of BCMA therapy (n=123), median PFS was poor irrespective of the therapeutic class at 1.3, 1.7 and 6.1 months for ADCs, TCEs and CAR T, respectively. Equally, for patients previously treated with BCMA therapy (n=58), median PFS was poor regardless of class at 1.9, 2.4 and 3 months for ADCs, TCEs and CAR T, respectively. Of 229 relapses the mode of relapse was known in 192 cases (84%), with 101 (52%) having EMD at relapse. Conclusions: While contingent on myriad other factors, patients able to receive BCMA-directed CAR T therapy experience superior survival compared to ADC and TCEs. EMD, PCL and BCMA-exposed populations are recalcitrant to BCMA-directed immunotherapy, and EMD is a common means of relapse. [Table: see text]

e14535 Background: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is the most common complication of chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) for hematologic malignancies. We hypothesized that patients undergoing CAR-T therapy who are on metformin will experience a lower incidence or severity of CRS than patients not on this medication. Methods: We evaluated all patients treated with CAR-T at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 1/1/2018 and 1/31/2023, and abstracted relevant clinical and laboratory characteristics to determine the incidence and severity of CRS, PFS as well as OS in patients who were, or were not, on metformin before and during CAR-T therapy for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. We used the Chi-Square test, Mann-Whitney test and the Kaplan-Meier method to analyze data. Results: In the 5-year interval under consideration 237 patients received CAR-T, 168 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and 69 for multiple myeloma (MM). 23 patients (15 NHL and 8 MM) were on metformin at the time of CAR-T. 15 patient developed CRS while on metformin and 175 patients not on metformin (p=0.05). Grade 3 or 4 CRS incidence was 4% in both groups (p=0.41). Of the 153 patients with NHL not on metformin, 121 developed any grade of CRS, while 10 of 15 patients on metformin developed CRS (p=0.268). 4 NHL patients developed CRS Grade ≥3 or higher, while 0 of 15 on metformin developed Grade ≥3 CRS (p=0.237). For the MM patients, the incidence of CRS was 49 patients not on metformin and 5 patients on metformin (p<0.001). 3 MM patients developed CRS Grade ≥3 or higher, while 0 of 8 on metformin developed Grade ≥3 CRS (p=0.346). 12 of 15 patients on metformin with NHL achieved CR compared to 92 of 153 patients not on metformin (p=0.1305). 3 of 8 patients with MM on metformin compared to 24 of 61 patients with MM not on metformin achieved CR or better post CAR-T (p=0.92). Tocilizumab was used in 40% of patients on metformin but in 66% of patients not on metformin (p=0.0016). In NHL patients, PFS from CAR-T infusion was not reached (range: 6.3 to NR) for patients on metformin versus 9.9 months (range: 6.3–19.5) in patients not on metformin (p = 0.3332). In the MM patients, progression-free survival (PFS) from CAR-T infusion was 8.4 months (95% CI: 7.9–not reached [NR]) for patients on metformin and 22.6 months (13.7–NR) for those not on metformin (p = 0.07). Median OS for NHL patients on metformin was not reached (9.766–NR) versus 32.6 months (18.6–NR) for patients not on metformin (p = 0.7022). Median OS was 17 months (95% CI: 8.3 to NR) for patients with MM on metformin vs NR (95% CI: 9.4 to NR) for patients not on metformin (p = 0.2559). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, the co-administration of metformin during CAR-T cell therapy for NHL and MM appears to be associated with a numerically reduced incidence of CRS. The effect appears to be particularly marked in patients with multiple myeloma. Metformin therapy did not seem to affect the response to CAR-T therapy in either NHL or MM.

Abstract Three classes of BCMA-directed therapy (BDT) exist: antibody drug-conjugates (ADCs), CAR-T, and T-cell engagers (TCEs), each with distinct strengths and weaknesses. To aid clinicians in selecting between BDTs, we reviewed myeloma patients treated at Mayo Clinic with commercial or investigational BDT between 2018–2023. We identified 339 individuals (1-exposure = 297, 2-exposures = 38, 3-exposures = 4) who received 385 BDTs (ADC = 59, TCE = 134, CAR-T = 192), with median follow-up of 21-months. ADC recipients were older, with more lines of therapy (LOT), and penta-refractory disease. Compared to ADCs, CAR-T (aHR = 0.29, 95%CI = 0.20–0.43) and TCEs (aHR = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.43–0.91) had better progression-free survival (PFS) on analysis adjusted for age, the presence of extramedullary (EMD), penta-refractory disease, multi-hit high-risk cytogenetics, prior BDT, and the number of LOT in the preceding 1-year. Likewise, compared to ADCs, CAR-T (aHR = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.18–0.44) and TCEs (aHR = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.39–0.93) had superior overall survival. Prior BDT exposure negatively impacted all classes but was most striking in CAR-T, ORR 86% vs. 50% and median PFS 13-months vs. 3-months. Of relapses, 54% were extramedullary in nature, and a quarter of these cases had no history of EMD. CAR-T demonstrates superior efficacy and where feasible, should be the initial BDT. However, for patients with prior BDT or rapidly progressive disease, an alternative approach may be preferable.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignancy and is the second most common type of hematologic cancer worldwide. Treatment options for MM have evolved in the last two decades with the introduction of novel therapeutic agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PI), anti-CD-38 monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD38 MoAb), and recently BCMA-directed therapies (BDT). The variable access globally, especially for novel agents, has been a concern. We aim to study the global availability of 14 chemoimmunotherapy options in addition to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) which is approved in the US (excluding BDT due to limited availability), to identify regions with restricted access and analyze the main barriers to access. Methods A global cohort of oncologists outside the USA who treat MM participated in an online survey to evaluate the patterns of accessibility of MM therapies worldwide. The survey, conducted in collaboration with the US Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC), was sent electronically to 176 oncologists worldwide (outside the US) from June 18th, 2023, to July 17th, 2023. It included questions on demographics, access, and perceived barriers. The respondents chose a response for each therapy as being “easily accessible”, “moderately accessible,” “not readily accessible” or “no access”. Countries were then classified as having “adequate access” if 80-100% of respondents affirmed easy/moderately easy access, while &lt;30% were considered “limited access”, 60-79% were “high-intermediate access” and 30-59% were “low-intermediate access”. We classified countries into low- and high-income (LIC and HIC) based on the United Nations (UN) World Economic Classifications based on per capita gross national income (GNI). Means were calculated for regions of interest. An interim analysis is reported. Results Demographics: Ninety-Five (54%) oncologists from 33 countries completed the survey. Most were from Asia (56%). Others were Europe (19%), South America (12%), Africa (7%), Oceania (3%), and North America (Canada and Mexico, excluding the US) (3%). Only 17% specialized in plasma cell disorders; 50.5% were affiliated with university academic centers; 18% with private or community practices; 12% with community academic centers; and 17% were hybrid. Public-funded centers represented 61.1%, while 76% were transplant centers. Global Patterns: Most countries had adequate access to chemotherapies, IMiDs, PIs, Anti-CD38, MoAbs, and ASCT (Figure 1). Notably, ixazomib, isatuximab, and selinexor had low intermediate access, while elotuzumab had limited access. Access by Income: Most MM therapies were available in LIC and HIC. Of the therapies listed, 6 were adequately available in LIC and HIC: cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, bortezomib, and ASCT (Table 1). Elotuzumab and selinexor were limited in both LIC and HIC. Ixazomib and isatuximab were also limited in LIC but were low-intermediate in HIC. Access by Continent: Out of the 14 therapies, Europe had adequate or high-intermediate access to most modalities (12), followed by Oceania and Asia (10), and South America (9). North America and Africa had the lowest number of adequate or high intermediate access therapies (7) (Table 1). Barriers: The most common reason cited for limited access to MM therapies globally was the financial burden for the healthcare system, followed by limitations in local agency approval, inadequate chemotherapy suite resources, and inadequate staffing. Conclusion While most therapies were available, novel therapies such as isatuximab, ixazomib, selinexor, and elotuzumab were less readily accessible. Moreover, North America and Africa had the least access to therapies. This is likely because LIC and HIC have prioritized access to treatments with the best evidence of cost-effectiveness, while those with lower cost-effectiveness are generally limited. The financial burden on healthcare is a major limiting factor. USMIRC plans to investigate potential solutions and pursue global collaborative efforts to reduce disparities in therapies.

Background: Daratumumab-based combination with proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have revolutionized the treatment outcomes of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Several daratumumab-based triplet combinations have been approved for the management of RRMM, but outcomes of daratumumab-based triplets in patients with high-risk cytogenetics RRMM (HC-RRMM) are not well described in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of daratumumab-based regimens in patients with HC-RRMM who are daratumumab-naïve. Methods: A retrospective review of 110 patients with HC-RRMM who received daratumumab-containing regimens from 6/2016 through 2/2023 at the University of Kansas Medical Center, in collaboration with the U.S Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC) was conducted. Daratumumab was combined with bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd), carfilzomib/dexamethasone (DKd), and pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DPd) for treatment of RRMM. HC-RRMM was defined as patients with one or more cytogenetic abnormalities (on FISH panel) including -17/del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), or amplification of 1q. Responses to therapy including overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR), and very good partial response (VGPR) were evaluated using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient and disease characteristics, along with efficacy outcomes. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Of the 110 patients with HC-RRMM, the median age was 66 years (range 43-84), 83 (75%) were Caucasian, 60 (54%) had IgG isotype, 41 (37%) had revised international staging system (R-ISS) stage III disease, 35 (32%) had extramedullary disease (EMD), 57 (52%) patients had one high-risk cytogenetic (HC) abnormality, 49 (44%) had 2 HC abnormalities, while four (4%) had 3 HC abnormalities. The median number of previous lines of therapy was 2 (1-4). Eighty-eight patients (80%) were lenalidomide refractory, while 53 patients (48%) had double refractory disease to both a PI and IMiD treatment. A total of 19 (17%), 27 (25%), and 64 (58%) patients received DVd, DKd, and DPd, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) for the entire patient population was 73%, 45% had VGPR or better, and 35% achieved ≥CR. Median follow-up was 28 months (12.07-53.57), the median OS was 28 months (95% CI 23.2 - 43.9) and PFS was 8.03 months (95% CI 5.8 - 12.2) for all treatment groups. The median PFS for 1 HC vs ³ 2 HC was 14.8 vs 4.57 months (HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.17-2.72 p = 0.006), respectively. Similarly, median OS for 1 HC vs ³ 2 HC was 43.93 vs 22.47 months (HR 1.87, 95%CI 1.15-3.05, p = 0.011), respectively. (Figure 1). On multivariate analysis, R-ISS stage III, -17/del(17p), and the presence of more than one HC abnormality were associated with poor OS. The most common cause for treatment discontinuation was progressive disease, accounting for 73% of patients in the whole cohort. As for each daratumumab-based triplet, discontinuation due progression occurred in 78%, 48%, and 83% in DVd, DKd, and DPd, respectively. Other causes of discontinuation included &gt; grade 3 neuropathy, which occurred in 16% of patients receiving DVd, and cardiac events, which occurred in 11% of patients receiving DKd. Treatment-related mortality occurred in 2% of patients in the whole cohort. At the time of evaluation, 14 patients remain on treatment. Conclusion: Advanced stage R-ISS disease at diagnosis, presence of -17/del(17p), and 2 or more HC abnormalities were associated with poor prognosis reflected by worse PFS and OS in HC-RRMM treated with daratumumab-based therapies. A larger cohort or a prospective study in patients with HC-RRMM is needed to compare long-term outcomes between daratumumab-based therapies (DKd, DVd, and DPd).

Introduction: Novel B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) directed therapies including chimeric antigen receptor- T (CART) such as idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have been approved since 2021. More recently in 2022, the first BCMA-directed T-cell-engager (TCE), teclistamab (tec), was also approved for the treatment of relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Unfortunately, limited access to these therapies worldwide appears to be a major challenge. This study aims to gain insight into the variation in access to these therapies, and barriers to access. Methods: This study was an electronic survey of 176 hematologists/oncologists in centers across the globe outside the USA who treat MM and was conducted in collaboration with US Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC). The survey was distributed from June 18 th 2023, to July 15 th 2023. Sections included demographics of respondents, availability of drugs in the country, and barriers to access. The respondents categorized each medication as “easily accessible”, “moderately accessible,” “not readily accessible” or “no access”. To categorize a country/region as having “adequate access”, the cut-off was 60% of responders affirming easy/moderately easy access. We investigated whether higher healthcare spending in a country is associated with better drug accessibility. Health expenditure (HE) of a country's Gross domestic product (GDP) from the World Bank was utilized to categorize countries into two groups: “High healthcare investing nations” (HHIN), which included countries spending &gt;10% of their GDP on healthcare, while “Low healthcare investing nations” (LHIN) included countries spending &lt;10% on healthcare. An interim analysis is reported. Results: There were 95 (54%) completed responses from 33 countries. Most (51%) were university-based academic centers and only 17% were centers with a dedicated focus in plasma cell disorders. Only 17% reported adequate access to ide-cel and 16% to cilta-cel, while a limited, yet higher number of respondents had adequate access to tec (23%). Refer to Table 1 Access to CART (ide-cel and cilta-cel): Globally, only 3 of the 33 (9%) countries had access to ide-cel, cilta-cel or both (France, Morocco, Saudi-Arabia). All other countries had limited access. When grouped by continent, none of the continents had adequate access to CART. Both HHIN and LHIN countries had limited access to CART. Access to TCE (tec): Seven of the 33 (21%) countries had adequate access to tec (Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia). All other countries had limited access. When grouped by continent, although Europe had the most access, none of the continents had adequate access to TEC. Both HHIN and LHIN countries had limited access to TCE, although relatively, TEC was more accessible compared to CART. Figure 1 summarizes access to CART and TCE Barriers to access: Other than Europe, the most common barrier for ide-cel, cilta-cel and tec was cited as financial burden for patients. Financial burden for patients as a top barrier for each of the products by continent was as follows: Asia (83%), South America (64%), Africa (71%) Australia (100%), and North America (100%). In Europe, for CART, financial burden remained a top barrier (50%) along with local agency approval (50% for ide-cel, 44% for cilta-cel). In Europe, the most cited barrier for TCE was the financial burden for patients (44%), while (33%) of oncologists reported no barrier to TCE. Reimbursement for CART and TCE in Europe requires phase 3 randomized controlled trial data, which is just emerging since 2022 for CART and relatively increased access may be due to the presence of compassionate use programs. Conclusion : The survey is the first attempt to highlight the significantly limited global access to novel therapies (ide-cel, cilta-cel, and tec) for the treatment of RRMM. All continents including HHIN had limited access to CART and TCE. Noticeably, CART is less accessible than TCE, even though approved earlier. The main barrier to both CART and TCE is reported as financial burden for patients. USMIRC in collaboration with oncologists worldwide, global agencies, governments, regulatory agencies, policymakers and industry partners, is planning to further explore restrictions to access to CART and TCE and strategies to overcome these barriers.