Gonsalves, Wilson I.

7514 Background: Iberdomide (Iber) is a CELMoD that binds with greater specificity & affinity to the cereblon protein of the E3 ligase complex than a traditional IMiD. Both transplant-eligible (TE) & ineligible (TIE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are currently treated with quadruplet induction, consisting of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, an IMiD & dexamethasone (dex). We conducted a clinical trial (NCT05392946, IDEAL) to examine the efficacy of a novel finite-duration approach, using Iber, daratumumab, bortezomib & dex (Iber-DVd) quadruplet induction followed by Iber monotherapy maintenance. Methods: Both TE and TIE pts with NDMM were enrolled in this Phase 1 (3+3 design)/Phase 2 (single stage) trial. The primary goal was to assess the ≥complete response (CR) rate — utilizing the more sensitive serum MASS-FIX assay in lieu of serum immunofixation — during induction. Treatment involved twelve 28-day cycles of induction with Iber, given PO at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), days 1-21, daratumumab 1800mg SQ, weekly for 2 cycles, every other week during Cycles 3-6, & every 4 weeks thereafter, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 SQ, weekly & dex 40 mg, weekly, followed by Iber monotherapy (24 cycles). Growth factor was not allowed during the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment period (Cycle 1). Results: Among 47 pts enrolled, 9 pts were in Phase 1 portion which assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), with Iber starting at 1 mg/day dose, days 1-21 [Dose Level (DL) 1]. DLT (all grade 4 neutropenia) was noted in 3 pts, 2 at DL 1 & 1 at DL -1. This analysis includes 44 pts who received Iber at the RP2D (0.75 mg/day, days 1-21), including 6 pts from the Dose Confirmation Cohort (Phase 1, DL -1), dosed at MTD, & 38 pts in the Dose Expansion Cohort. The median age at registration was 65 years (range 36-86 years), & 23 pts (52.3%) were deemed high-risk. At data cut-off, pts had received a median of 15 cycles (range 3-36) of therapy. Overall response rate was 100%; ≥CR rate, 36.4% (95% CI: 22.4, 52.2) during induction & 52.3% (95% CI: 36.7, 67.5), overall, including the maintenance phase. The marrow flow-based (10 -5 ) MRD negative rate was 29.5% during induction & 47.7% overall. At a median follow-up (FU) 18.3 mos, 2 pts have died (one during FU due to progressive disease & the other on-treatment due to COVID-19). 12- (& 18-) month progression-free survival & overall survival rates were 91% (88%) & 97% (94%), respectively. Most common toxicities at RP2D were lymphopenia, neutropenia (leading 27% of pts to require pegfilgrastim support), rash, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, & infections. Cases of high-grade fatigue were low (<5%). Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Iber-DVd is an active and safe regimen for both TE and TIE pts with NDMM, leading to high response rates which improved over time, with nearly one-half of the pts achieving MRD negative state. Clinical trial information: NCT05392946 .

7518 Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is common, yet only a minority progress to malignant plasma-cell disorders. Mayo risk stratification uses baseline factors and is commonly implemented/validated in a Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) framework, which may miss prognostic longitudinal patterns. Methods: We assembled 15,158 MGUS patients with longitudinal laboratory data and progression outcomes (smoldering multiple myeloma, multiple myeloma, AL amyloidosis, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). We compared a Mayo-factor Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) baseline versus STRaTS, a transformer-based survival model, to predict progression risk at 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons. STRaTS leveraged longitudinal trajectories of routine labs including hemoglobin, platelets, differential counts (neutrophils/lymphocytes/monocytes), immunoglobulins (IgG/IgA/IgM), free light chains (kappa/lambda), M-spike, and creatinine. To minimize bias, we used laboratory results collected from 1–3 years after diagnosis and started follow-up at year 3; patients progressing before year 3 or lacking follow-up beyond year 3 were excluded. A total of 7,305 patients met eligibility and were split into train/validation/test cohorts of 4,383/1,461/1,461. Discrimination was assessed by concordance index (C-index). Clinical operating performance was evaluated on a held-out test cohort by comparing sensitivity and specificity at the same proportion of patients selected for intensified surveillance (same workload). Results: Among MGUS patients with complete baseline Mayo factors(N=3,388), Kaplan–Meier–estimated 3-/5-/10-year cumulative progression risk was 0.1/0.4/3.4% (Low), 3.0/4.3/7.9% (Low-Intermediate), 4.4/6.4/14.1% (High-Intermediate), and 8.9/12.5/16.9% (High). On a held-out test cohort, STRaTS demonstrated superior discrimination versus the Mayo-factor CoxPH (C-index 0.75 vs 0.538; p<0.0001). Both models were trained and evaluated on identical train/test splits. At the same surveillance workload, STRaTS achieved higher sensitivity with comparable specificity; when 40.3% of patients were selected for closer surveillance, 3-year sensitivity was 81.0% for STRaTS versus 47.6% for CoxPH (Table). Conclusions: Among MGUS patients who remain progression-free at 3 years, transformer-based survival modeling of longitudinal laboratory trajectories provides more accurate individualized conditional progression risk estimates and improved workload-matched identification of progressors compared with the conventional Mayo/Cox approach. Sensitivity/specificity (%). Operating Point Flagged % STRaTS Sens / Spec (%) CoxPH Sens / Spec (%) Int+High, 3y 40.3 81.0 / 58.5 47.6 / 58.9 Int+High, 5y 40.3 81.2 / 60.4 46.9 / 58.8 Int+High, 10y 40.3 25.0 / 56.3 23.8 / 58.7 Two-Group High (≥2 factors), 5y 5.6 37.4 / 93.4 35.4 / 93.1