Luo, Xizhi

7532 Background: ABBV-383 is a BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody with 2 high-affinity BCMA-binding domains and a low-affinity CD3 engaging arm that has been shown to decrease the negative impact of soluble BCMA (sBCMA) and drive sustained T-cell activation with reduced cytokine release in preclinical models of MM. Here, we describe correlative biomarker results of baseline and longitudinal sBCMA levels and immune profiles in the ongoing first-in-human trial that supports 60 mg Q4W as the optimal therapeutic dose of ABBV-383 monotherapy. Methods: Peripheral blood and serum samples from patients with RRMM enrolled in the phase 1 open-label, dose-expansion study (NCT03933735) who received ABBV-383 at 20, 40, or 60 mg Q3W or 60 mg Q4W were collected at baseline (post-dexamethasone, pre–ABBV-383), on treatment, and at disease progression. Samples were analyzed by flow cytometry for immune cell populations, Luminex for cytokines, and electrochemiluminescence ligand binding for sBCMA. Results: Median sBCMA levels at baseline were highly variable among patients, but did not associate with clinical response (≥ partial response [PR]) to ABBV-383 at the selected optimal dose level of 60 mg Q4W (<PR: 244.7 ng/mL; ≥PR: 52.2 ng/mL; P=0.13). Reduction in sBCMA levels over time associated with clinical response (Cmin at cycle 5: <PR, 244.7 ng/mL; ≥PR, 4.7 ng/mL; P=0.04). ABBV-383 treatment led to a rapid and transient increase of proinflammatory cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α (Cmax within cycle 1: 29, 349.5, 1375, 456.5 pg/mL, respectively), and promoted T-cell redistribution (89% reduction of CD8+ T cells from periphery), activation (1.9-fold increase in CD69+CD8+ T cells), and proliferation (2-fold increase in Ki67+CD8+ T cells) within cycle 1 in 60-mg Q4W-treated patients. The frequency of baseline CD8+ T-cell exhaustion (PD-1/TIM3) did not impact clinical response at the optimal dose level of 60 mg Q4W ABBV-383 (<PR: 3.5%; ≥PR: 3.9%; P=0.9). Peak induction levels of proinflammatory cytokines during cycle 1 correlated with occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (≥G1) as well as clinical response across dose levels. Conclusions: High-avidity BCMA binding coupled to low-affinity T-cell engagement distinguishes the resulting mechanism of action for ABBV-383. Responses to 60 mg Q4W ABBV-383 were independent of baseline sBCMA levels and resulted in rapid and transient proinflammatory cytokine production that promoted robust T-cell redistribution, activation, and proliferation, indicating that the optimal dose of ABBV-383 maximizes its clinical potential as a convenient, safe, and effective therapy for MM. Clinical trial information: NCT03933735 .

7510 Background: The randomized Phase 3 CANOVA study’s (NCT03539744) primary analysis showed multiple numerically improved efficacy endpoints with VenDex v PomDex, but the primary endpoint of mPFS by IRC was not statistically significant. Here, we report correlative biomarker analyses from CANOVA. Methods: CANOVA is a randomized, global, open-label Phase 3 study of VenDex v PomDex in pts with t(11;14)+ RRMM and ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOTs). The primary endpoint was mPFS by IRC. Key secondary endpoints included ORR, ≥VGPR, mOS, and MRD negativity (<10-5). In post hoc mPFS sensitivity analysis, disease progression, death, and start of next LOT were defined as events. BCL2 gene expression by RNAseq (3.7 log2 FPKM prespecified median cutoff for BCL2high v BCL2low) and chr1q abnormalities by whole-exome sequencing (normal, gain, or amp) were assessed centrally from pretreatment, CD138-enriched BM aspirates. Results: mPFS, post hoc mPFS, and mOS in the VenDex arm were similar by BCL2 status, with numerically higher ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity rates in the BCL2highsubgroup. In contrast, mPFS and mOS within the PomDex arm were numerically longer in the BCL2lowsubgroup, despite equal ORR in both subgroups (Table). Presence of 1q abnormalities was evenly distributed across BCL2high v BCL2low subgroups in the VenDex arm (51% v 45%) but not in the PomDex arm (59% v 31%). Normal 1q and gain(1q) subgroups had numerically improved mPFS, mOS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity with VenDex; pts with amp(1q) had poor outcomes regardless of treatment, albeit the sample size was small. Conclusions: Pts with BCL2high or gain(1q) had numerically improved clinical efficacy with VenDex v PomDex. Clinical benefit was consistent across BCL2 subgroups ( BCL2high or BCL2low) with VenDex but not PomDex. Pts with amp(1q) fared poorly irrespective of treatment arm. Clinical trial information: NCT03539744 . [Table: see text]