Nagaraj, Madhu

Abstract Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a powerful prognostic tool in multiple myeloma, but predictors of achieving MRD negativity after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are not well defined. We studied 814 patients who achieved at least a very good partial response after ASCT between January 2016 and January 2023 and underwent MRD assessment by next-generation flow cytometry. Overall, 387 (48%) achieved MRD negativity after ASCT. The presence of t(11;14) (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–3.2; P< .01) and pretransplant response less than complete remission (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7; P< .01) independently predicted MRD positivity. Patients who were MRD positive had inferior progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.53-2.58; P< .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.28; P = .009). Despite lower MRD-negative rate, 5-year PFS was similar among t(11;14) MRD positive (58%) and patients who were MRD negative (63%; P = .12). In patients who were MRD negative, the 5-year PFS was 73% in those without ≥2 HRCA compared with 55% in those with ≥2 HRCA (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–3.3; P = .01). In the MRD-positive cohort, 5-year PFS was 53% in patients without ≥2 HRCA vs 17% in those with ≥2 HRCA (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6-3.6; P< .01). In addition, higher residual clonal plasma cell burden within MRD-positive disease was associated with inferior PFS (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-6.9; P = .002). This study highlights that the presence of t(11;14) independently predicts MRD positivity after ASCT, although it does not significantly affect prognosis in this subgroup.

e19503 Background: The anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin is approved in the USA and EU for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Understanding treatment options and patient outcomes following ADC failure is clinically important. This study describes post-ADC treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in real-world patients with RRMM. Methods: Adult patients with MM who received an ADC and initiated ≥1 subsequent line of therapy (LOT) were included. The index date was the start of the first post-ADC LOT. Data were obtained from chart reviews at International Myeloma Foundation International Myeloma Working Group (IMF IMWG) academic sites, and US electronic health records from largely community sites (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Patient characteristics and index regimens were summarized descriptively. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Results: The IMF IMWG cohort (n=40) had a mean age of 70.8 years, median of 7 prior LOTs and 82.5% were triple-class refractory (TCR). Overall, 85% received ADC monotherapy (70% belantamab mafodotin) and 15% combination therapy. Pre-ADC and not considering corticosteroids, patients were commonly exposed to lenalidomide (R; 100%), bortezomib (V; 92.5%), daratumumab (D) and pomalidomide (P; 90% each). Over a median follow-up of 26 months after index date, 29 unique index post-ADC regimens were reported, frequently selinexor (27.5%) and bispecific antibodies (15%). CAR T-cell therapy was administered to 5%, with 60% re-treated with a pre-ADC drug class (PI/IMiD/anti-CD38) after ADC. Median (95% CI) TTNT and OS were 10.8 (7.0–20.6) and 19.0 (13.4–25.1) months, respectively. The COTA-GRN cohort (n=39) had a mean age of 67.5 years, median of 8 prior LOTs, and 51.3% were TCR. Overall, 56% received ADC monotherapy (belantamab mafodotin) and 44% combination therapy. Pre-ADC and not considering corticosteroids, patients were commonly exposed to D and R (97.4% each), and carfilzomib, V and P (94.9% each). Over a median follow-up of 9.2 months, 32 unique index post-ADC regimens were reported, frequently selinexor (23.1%) and venetoclax (17.9%) based; 0% received CAR Ts and 54% were re-treated with a pre-ADC drug class (PI/IMiD/anti-CD38) after ADC. Median (95% CI) TTNT and OS were 4.9 (2.8–non-estimable [NE]) and 12.0 (4.9–NE) months, respectively. Conclusions: Findings highlight that most patients with heavily pretreated BCMA-ADC exposed MM were re-treated with similar classes. Academic centers used novel therapies (ie, CAR T, bispecific antibodies) more often and their patients had longer survival than those treated at community sites. However, clinical outcomes remained sub-optimal, emphasizing the unmet need for effective, accessible post-ADC treatments.

PURPOSE This analysis aimed to contextualize the symptoms of peripheral neuropathy (PN) experienced by patients with triple-class refractory (TCR) multiple myeloma (MM) treated with elranatamab in the MagnetisMM-3 clinical trial with those experienced by patients with TCR MM receiving a new line of physician's choice of therapy in the real-world MagnetisMM-14 study. METHODS MagnetisMM-3 included 123 patients and MagnetisMM-14 included 35 who had TCR MM and were enrolled under the same eligibility criteria. Patient-reported symptoms of PN were collected monthly using the Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy-20 item (CIPN20) questionnaire and compared for clinically meaningful differences across sensory, motor, and autonomic domains. Higher scores indicated worse patient-reported PN symptoms. RESULTS Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for patients in MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 were generally similar. Patients in MagnetisMM-3 had a median of five ( v four in MagnetisMM-14) prior lines of therapy. In MagnetisMM-14, common index therapies included elotuzumab + pomalidomide (23%), carfilzomib + pomalidomide (19%), or carfilzomib + cyclophosphamide (19%), all with corticosteroids. Mean scores for sensory (15.8 v 14.8) and motor (14.4 v 12.2) domains of the CIPN20 were similar between MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 at baseline. Mean scores for the autonomic domain were 14.0 versus 21.3 at baseline, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences for any domain were found between month 6 scores or changes in scores from baseline to month 6 between MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 populations. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that elranatamab treatment was not associated with a worsening of patient-reported PN symptoms across the sensory, motor, and autonomic domains of the CIPN20. Moreover, PN symptoms reported with elranatamab treatment were similar to those reported with other common therapies used in real-world clinical practice for the management of MM. MagnetisMM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04649359 .

Background: Venetoclax (Ven), a BCL2 inhibitor, has shown promising responses in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with t(11;14) and/or BCL2 expression. However, consistent benefit in clinical trials remain elusive. This report evaluates the efficacy and safety of Ven combination therapies, including in the non-t(11;14) subgroup, and examines the impact of secondary cytogenetic abnormalities (SGA) on outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included multiple myeloma (MM) patients without concurrent AL amyloidosis treated with Ven-based combinations at Mayo Clinic sites from January 2015 to December 2023. FISH data was collected at diagnosis and before venetoclax initiation to assess SGAs. Refractoriness was defined by progression on or within 60 days of stopping treatment. Patients refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor (PI), immunomodulatory drug (ImiD), and anti-CD38 antibody were considered triple-class refractory (TCR). Ven combinations were grouped as: Daratumumab/CD38 antibody (Dara)-Ven based if received Dara ± other drugs, PI-Ven-based without Dara, Ven-dexamethasone (Ven-d), and other combinations (Ven-Misc). BCL2 expression in patients without t(11;14) was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from treatment initiation to disease progression or last follow-up. Results: We included 232 patients in this study. The median age at diagnosis of MM was 62 years (range 32-87), and the median age at initiation was 68 years (range 35-89). The median time from diagnosis of MM to initiation of Ven was 55 months (95% CI 28, 89 months), and the median follow-up from initiation of Ven-based treatment was 17.2 months (95% CI: 14, 22). Patients had received a median of 3 lines (IQR 4-6); 65% (n=152) of patients were TCR, 71% (n=163) had received autologous stem cell transplant and 7% (n=16) patients had received prior immune effector therapy prior to initiation of Ven-based therapy. The majority (83%, n=190) of the patients harbored a t(11;14); in the patients without t(11;14), a BCL2 expression by IHC was tested in 18 patients and positive in 17 patients. The most common Ven-based combinations included: Dara-Ven-d (19%, n=44), PI-Ven-d (30.2%, n=70), Ven-d (48.3%, n=112), Ven-misc (2.6%, n=6). The overall response rate for the entire cohort was 57% [64% for t(11;14) and 26% for non t(11;14), p<0.0001]. The median PFS for the entire cohort was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.5,13), and the duration of response was 18 months (95% CI 15.2-23.3). The median PFS was 11.8 months (95% CI 9.5-16.7) for patients harboring a t(11;14) compared to 2.9 months (95% CI 1.8, 8.4) for patients without a t(11;14), p<0.0001. Among the non-t(11;14) cohort with BCL2 expression, the median PFS was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.2-4.2). Among the 190 patients with t(11;14), 18% (34/190) harbored deletion 17p and 32% (60/193) harbored a 1q gain/amplification (referred hereforth as 1q21+) at initiation of Ven-based therapy. In the cohort of patients with t(11;14), the presence of either del17p or 1q21+ (n=85/190) was associated with a significantly inferior PFS [median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI: 5.5,13)] vs. 15.1 months (95% CI: 11.6, 22), p=0.03. At the last follow-up,42 patients had ongoing treatment with ven-based combination. Most common reasons for discontinuation were progression (77% N=140), adverse effect (12%, n=22), patient/provider preference(9%, n=17); 2% (n=4) patients died without progression (3 infection, 1 unclear). The most commonly utilized maximum dose of venetoclax was 400 mg (42%); 15% (n=35) of patients required a dose reduction, and 23% (n=54) received a ramp-up. Tumor lysis syndrome was not noted in any patient. Infectious complications were noted in 23% (n=52). The estimated median OS from initiation of ven-based Rx was 34 months (95%CI 25-47). The estimated median OS for patients without a t(11;14) was 6.2 months (95% CI: 3.3-11.3) compared to 46 months (31.4-54.1), p<0.0001. In the t(11;14) subgroup, the 18-month OS rate was 79% for patients without 1q21+/del17p vs. 50% for patients with a 1q21+/del17p (p=0.002). Conclusion: Venetoclax-based regimens represent an important treatment option for patients harboring a t(11;14). The PFS in patients with BCL2 expression without t(11;14) was poor suggesting lack of efficacy of venetoclax-based regimens for that subgroup. Presence of concurrent del17p and/or 1q21+ with t(11;14) portends an inferior PFS.

BACKGROUND Several studies have highlighted the poor clinical outcomes observed among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), particularly those with triple-class refractory (TCR; refractory to at least one protease inhibitor [PI], one immunomodulatory drug [IMiD], and one anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) disease. The aim of this study was to describe the longitudinal changes in quality of life (QOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among TCR MM patients who initiated a new line of therapy in real-world clinical practice. METHODS A prospective, multi-site observational study was conducted through the Mayo Clinic system. Patients with TCR MM initiating a new line of therapy (defined as the index date) were followed for a 12-month observation period. For patients initiating a CAR-T therapy, PRO survey assessments were conducted at apheresis, lymphodepletion chemotherapy, and every month after T-cell infusion until Month 6. All other patients received a survey assessment before index and every month thereafter until Month 6. PRO measures included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; including the Global Health Score [GHS]), the EORTC Multiple Myeloma Questionnaire (QLQ-MY20; including the Disease Symptoms [DS] domain score), the EORTC QLQ for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN20), the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS), and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). PRO surveys were supplemented with retrospective chart reviews conducted at 3 months and 12 months following the index date to obtain clinical information. Descriptive data were reported at each timepoint separately for patients who received CAR-T and non-CAR-T index therapies. The study is ongoing and this abstract reflects all patient data collected as of May 2024. RESULTS This interim analysis included 77 patients (58% male, 95% White, mean age 66 years). The median time interval between becoming TCR and the index date was 5.6 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.8, 18.2). Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1 (48% and 45%, respectively) and were Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) I or II (27% and 36%, respectively); 42% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics and 14% had extramedullary disease. The median (IQR) number of prior treatment lines was 4 (4, 5). Forty-two patients initiated a CAR-T therapy as their index therapy (12 and 30 treated with ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively); the remaining 35 patients predominantly initiated a treatment regimen containing an IMiD (51%), a PI (54%), an anti-CD38 antibody (40%), or an alkylating agent (37%). Among these non-CAR-T patients, common regimens used were pomalidomide + elotuzumab + corticosteroids (26%), carfilzomib + cyclophosphamide + corticosteroids (20%), and pomalidomide + carfilzomib + corticosteroids (17%). Among CAR-T patients, QOL generally remained stable from apheresis (mean GHS and EQ-5D VAS were 62.3 and 66.4, respectively) to lymphodepletion (61.2 and 65.9) to Month 6 (64.2 and 68.9). Disease symptoms improved (mean DS domain scores at apheresis, lymphodepletion, and Month 6 were 25.7, 24.1, and 20.1, respectively) though pain, specifically, plateaued/worsened (mean pain domain scores were 24.5, 32.1, and 32.6). Based on the PGIC, 76% of patients reported being “a little better” or “much better” as early as Month 1, which stabilized over time (75% at Month 6). Among non-CAR-T patients, QOL largely remained stable (GHS and EQ-5D VAS was 62.9 and 68.4, respectively, at baseline and 64.9 and 67.7 at Month 6), though disease symptoms, including pain, improved over time (DS was 28.0 at baseline and 22.8 at Month 6; pain was 40.8 at baseline and 28.1 at Month 6). Based on the PGIC, 30.7% of patients reported being “a little better” or “much better” at Month 1, which improved to 52.7% by Month 6. CONCLUSIONS In this interim analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study, baseline values suggest a significant QOL burden among TCR patients. QOL generally remained stable for both CAR-T and non-CAR-T patients over the first several months post-therapy with some select improvements in disease symptoms. However, the patients (particularly CAR-T patients) directly reported some holistic improvement based on the PGIC as early as Month 1.

Introduction: Ven is a BCL2 inhibitor that has shown clinical efficacy in RRMM patients (pts) particularly those that harbor t(11;14). Ven has been evaluated in clinical trials as a single agent, in combination with dexamethasone (dex), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MAb) yet its place in the therapeutic landscape remains in question. In this retrospective analysis, we aim to evaluate the real-world efficacy of Ven-based regimens in RRMM pts treated outside of a clinical trial across the 3-site MCCC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pts with RRMM treated with Ven-based regimens between January 2015 and October 2023 at the MCCC. Refractoriness was defined by progression on or within 60 days of stopping treatment. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square tests and continuous variables were compared with t-tests. Outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared between the groups using log-rank tests. Results: 83 pts were included in the analysis. The median age was 71 (39-93), 63% were male, 93% were white, 27% had ISS III, 18% had high risk cytogenetics (HRCyto), 76% had t(11;14), the median prior lines of therapy (LOT) was 4 (1-15), 68% received ≥ 4 prior LOT, 87% received prior autologous transplant, 58% were triple-class refractory (TCR), 64%/23% were penta-drug exposed/refractory (PDE/R), 8% received prior BCMA-directed therapies (BDT), 58% received Ven+dex, 25% received Ven+PI +/-dex, 6 % received Ven+anti-CD38 MAb+/-dex and 11% received Ven+other. The median follow-up time from start of a Ven-based regimen was 29 months (mo). The median Ven dose was 800mg (20-1600) with 25% of pts receiving Ven ramp-up dosing. The overall response rate (ORR) to a Ven-based regimen was 58% and was 64% for pts with t(11;14) and 40% for pts without t(11;14); p=0.06. Ven-treated pts with HRCyto had inferior PFS (3mo) and OS (8mo) compared to patients who did not have HRCyto who had a PFS of 9mo (p=0.020) and OS of 80mo (p<0.001). The ORR for TCR and PDR pts were 52% and 42%, respectively. No significant ORR differences were noted across the different Ven-based regimens (p=0.32). The median PFS for pts with t(11;14) was 10mo compared to 2mo for pts w/o t(11;14); p=<0.001. The median OS for pts with t(11;14) was 80mo compared to 10mo for pts without t(11;14); p=0.001. Ven-treated pts who received 1-3 prior LOT has superior ORR, median PFS, and median OS; 89%, 25mo, and 99mo, respectively, compared to pts who received ≥4 prior LOT who achieved an ORR of 43% (p<0.001), median PFS of 5mo (p<0.001) and median OS of 25mo (p<0.001). Ven-treated pts that were TCR had inferior PFS (5mo) and OS (26mo) compared to pts who were not TCR who achieved a PFS of 12mo (p<0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts that were PDR had inferior PFS (4mo) and OS (22mo) compared to pts who were not PDR who achieved a PFS of 9mo (p<0.001) and a median OS of 80mo (p=0.02).Ven-treated pts who received prior BDT (n=7) achieved an ORR of 29% and had a median PFS and OS of 2mo and 6mo, respectively on a Ven-based therapy. 59 pts received additional therapy in the post Ven-progression setting. The ORR to post-Ven progression therapies was 53% (n=31/59), the median PFS was 9mo and median OS was 35mo. The most common post-Ven progression regimens used were PI-based (n=16; ORR=56%), anti-CD38 MAb-based (n=14; ORR=50%), BDT (n=12; ORR=83%), selinexor-based (n=3; ORR=0%) with BDT resulting in highest ORR (p=0.048) and PFS (p=0.005). Conclusions: Ven-based regimens are effective in heavily pre-treated pts with RRMM however they are more effective when used within 1-3 prior LOT, in pts with t(11;14), and in pts without HRCyto, TCR or PDR MM. BDT appear to be the most efficacious therapies in the post-Ven progression setting.

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.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered incurable. Despite improved outcomes with novel agents, including BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and bispecific antibodies, patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) often have poor prognoses. LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a global, single-arm, Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with RRMM who were either triple-class exposed (TCE; previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody) during ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOTs), or triple-class refractory to these therapies. Here, we present comparisons of clinical outcomes from LINKER-MM1 with those of a current, international, real-world (RW) external control arm (ECA; NCT05673967). Methods The ECA was derived from 16 academic sites of the International Myeloma Foundation International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) (N=203; 309 eligible LOTs) and compared with linvoseltamab (N=105; Phase 2 200 mg cohort). Patients in the ECA initiated ≥1 anti-MM therapy after meeting key LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to select 1 LOT per patient and balance the ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; IMWG criteria) determined by an independent central review committee (ICRC) based on myeloma laboratories. An independent data review committee reviewed comparability of cohorts and endpoint assessments prior to conducting comparative analyses. Results Median follow-up was 14.3 months for the linvoseltamab cohort (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2024) and 13.4 months for the ECA. After weighting, 15 prognostic factors were balanced between cohorts. Patients in the ECA received 68 distinct regimens, most commonly CAR T-cell therapies (11.3%) and ADCs (10.3%). After balancing the cohorts, patients in the ECA evaluable for response had ICRC-assessed ORR of 46.3% (40.8% by treating physician assessment), among whom 24.0% had very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). When including patients who died without evaluable response, ECA ICRC-assessed ORR was 44.2%. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher ICRC-assessed ORR (69.5% vs 46.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-3.69]) and rate of ≥VGPR (62.9% vs 24.0%, OR 5.37 [95% CI 3.61-8.49]) compared with ECA regimens. Conclusion Despite current use of novel therapies, there is no well-established RW standard of care (SOC) for patients with TCE RRMM treated at IMWG sites. To our knowledge, this is the first RW ECA study in MM with a high percentage of anti-BCMA therapies and response ascertainment for all patients by ICRC. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher response rates, including rate of ≥VGPR, compared with current RW SOC therapies, highlighting its potential as a highly effective treatment in patients with TCE RRMM.

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.