Hosoya, Hitomi

*Authors contributed equally. Introduction. Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have been FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Prior work from our consortium identified racial and ethnic differences in safety and response to ide-cel among patients treated in the standard of care (SOC) setting; despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity. Here, we extend this work to investigate racial and ethnic differences in safety, efficacy, and outcomes in a larger cohort of patients treated with SOC ide-cel with longer follow-up and patients treated with SOC cilta-cel. Methods. Data for RRMM patients who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2022 and were treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel were pooled across 19 institutions in the U.S. Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We compared Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (any race) patients, excluding other racial and ethnic groups due to small sample sizes that precluded sub-group investigations. Separately for each CAR T-cell therapy, racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics, safety, and treatment responses were examined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to examine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by race and ethnicity. Results. Among 332 RRMM patients treated with ide-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 17% and 10% of the cohort, respectively. Hispanic patients were younger at infusion compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White patients (55.5 vs. 63 vs. 66 years, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher disease burden (≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cell percentage) compared to Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients (35% vs. 20% vs. 19%, p=0.05), while a higher proportion of Non-Hispanic White patients had high-risk cytogenetics compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (37% vs. 23% vs. 10%, p=0.003). Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to develop severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 30 (p<0.001) and day 90 (p=0.01) post-infusion, and these differences were particularly driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients at these time points. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to achieve a best response of partial response (PR) or better (82%) compared to Non-Hispanic Black (75%) and Hispanic patients (63%, p=0.02). No other racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics (including cytopenias), safety, PFS, and OS were observed (p>0.05). Among 222 RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 12% and 9% of the cohort, respectively. At baseline, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have anemia (p=0.01), and Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have thrombocytopenia (p=0.02) and neutropenia (p=0.06) compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. No other differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed by race and ethnicity. While not statistically significant, a higher rate of severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 90 post-infusion was observed among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (33% vs. 44% vs. 21%, p=0.07), similar to the ide-cel cohort. This finding was primarily driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients and higher rates of anemia among Hispanic patients. No other racial and ethnic differences in safety, responses to cilta-cel, PFS, or OS were not observed in the cilta-cel cohort (p>0.05). Conclusion. In a large cohort of RRMM patients treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel, we observed a higher rate of cytopenias post-infusion and inferior ide-cel responses among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity, suggesting that both available CAR T-cell therapies for RRMM patients can be utilized across all populations. Future studies that include larger patient cohorts of racially and ethnically diverse patients should be conducted to confirm these findings and additionally evaluate long-term outcomes.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Introduction: Anti-BCMA CAR-T therapies like idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have revolutionized RRMM treatment. However, the 6-8-week manufacturing period often leads to disease progression and/or death in up to 25% of patients (pts), necessitating effective bridging strategies. Talquetamab (talq), a bispecific antibody targeting GPRC5D, is approved for RRMM pts with four prior lines of therapy and offers rapid disease debulking without impacting BCMA. This study assesses the safety and efficacy of a short course of talq as a bridging therapy for pts receiving cilta-cel or ide-cel. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study involved 14 US academic medical centers within the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We included pts with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis and received talq bridging therapy with the intent to proceed to commercial cilta-cel or ide-cel. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of talq bridging therapy. Safety outcomes included cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), talq-related unique toxicities, and delayed neurotoxicity (NT). Efficacy outcomes included response rates to talq and CAR-T therapies. Results: Between June 2023 and May 2024, 77 pts received talq bridging therapy after apheresis with the intention to proceed to CAR-T. The median age was 66 years (range, 58-73); 14% were Black and 10% Hispanic. Poor prognostic features, including high-risk cytogenetics, were present in 45%, extramedullary disease (EMD) in 43%, and 72.7% were triple-class refractory. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 3-11) and 10 pts (13%) had prior BCMA targeted therapy. Out of 77 pts, 10 pts were pending CAR-T infusion at the time of last follow up; 6 pts could not receive CAR-T infusion due to manufacturing failures. Of the remaining 61 patients who underwent successful CAR-T manufacturing, 58 (95%) pts were successfully infused with CAR-T therapy following talq bridging. Three (5%) pts died due to disease progression prior to CAR-T infusion. Talq was given 0.8 mg/kg biweekly in 59 (76%) pts and the median time on talq was 22 days (IQR: 10-41 days). Following talq bridging, none of the pts had grade >=3 CRS and 2 (2.5%) had grade 3 ICANS. Skin toxicities occurred in 32 (41%), nail toxicities in 19 (25%), and oral toxicities in 43 (56%) pts mainly grade 1. Most oral, skin, and taste changes resolved at the last follow-up (60%). Response to talq was evaluable in 72 out of 77 patients. An overall response was noted in 45/72 (62%) pts including unconfirmed CR in 14, VGPR in 10 and PR in 21 pts. There was no association of AEs and response to talq with high-risk cytogenetics, EMD and high baseline ferritin levels. Out of the 58 patients who went on to receive CAR-T therapy following talq bridging (45 cilta-cel and 13 ide-cel), 38 (65%) experienced CRS, with grade 3 CRS noted in 2 (3%) pts. ICANS occurred in 5 (8.6%) pts, with 1 (1.7%) grade 3 ICANS. Only 1 pt had delayed NT (facial nerve palsy) at the last follow up. No treatment related deaths were observed. Of these 58 pts, response was evaluable in 40 pts and a response at day +30 was noted in 39/40 (97.5%) pts (14 in CR, 10 in VGPR, 15 in PR). The median follow-up from CAR-T was 61 days (28-113). For the 58 pts who received CAR-T, the median time from the last talq dose to CAR-T infusion was 25 days (IQR: 19-36), and to lymphodepletion was 24 days (IQR: 18-33). There was no difference in the CAR-T related AEs by the duration of Talq washout (>4 weeks vs. =< 4 weeks). Conclusions: Talquetamab is an excellent bridging option before BCMA-targeted CAR-T therapy, showing high response rates even with short-term use and enabling most pts to receive CAR-T. Most oral, skin, and taste changes resolved post CAR-T. These findings underscore the effectiveness of a short course of talq bridging to maintain disease control and improve outcomes post CAR-T. Updated data with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved in 2022 for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report outcomes with cilta-cel in the standard-of-care setting. Patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis for cilta-cel manufacturing between 1 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 at 16 US academic medical centers were included. Overall, 255 patients underwent leukapheresis and 236 (92.5%) received cilta-cel, of which 54% would not have met CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria. In treated patients (N = 236), cytokine release syndrome was seen in 75% (grade ≥3, 5%), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 14% (grade ≥3, 4%), and delayed neurotoxicity in 10%. Overall and complete response rates were as follows: all patients who received cilta-cel (N = 236), 89% and 70%; patients receiving conforming cilta-cel (n = 191), 94% and 74%; and conforming cilta-cel with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion (n = 152), 95% and 76%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 10%, most commonly from infection. After a median follow-up of 13 months from cilta-cel, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, with 12-month estimate being 68% (95% confidence interval, 62-74). High ferritin levels, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease were independently associated with inferior PFS, with a signal for prior B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy (P = .08). Second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers were seen in 5.5% and myeloid malignancies/acute leukemia in 1.7%. We observed a favorable efficacy profile of standard-of-care cilta-cel in RRMM, despite more than half the patients not meeting the CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria.

Abstract Background: MGTA-145, a CXCR2 agonist, has shown promising activity for hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization with plerixafor in pre-clinical models and healthy volunteers. It has the potential to become the first GCSF free regimen for HSC mobilization/apheresis in preparation for transplant, with fewer side effects, better patient experience and optimal resource utilization. Methods: We conducted a single center phase 2 trial of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), NCT04552743. Primary endpoint was collection of ≥2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of mobilization/apheresis. Secondary endpoints were collection of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg, safety and engraftment. Patients with MM, 18-70 years of age, within 1 year of starting treatment & CrCl > 30 ml/min were eligible. Patients received plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg (0.16 mg/kg if renal dysfunction) SQ, followed 2 hours later by MGTA-145 (0.03 mg/kg) IV over 3-10 minutes and apheresis within 30 minutes. Mobilization and collection were repeated for a second consecutive day if day 1 yield was < 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg. The study was open-label single arm trial of 15 patients. If 13 or more patients met primary endpoint, an expansion cohort of 10 patients was planned. The trial has 85% power at a 5% one-sided type I error rate. Our analysis is based on aggregated results from total cohort of 25 patients. Results: Median age was 62 years, 52% were female, 24% had ISS stage 3, 57% had high-risk FISH (primarily gain1q). Induction therapy was VRD in 68% (17), daratumumab VRD in 24% (6), CyBorD in 8% (2) patients. Median duration of induction was 4 months (3-6) and median lenalidomide exposure was 5 cycles (1-8), with > VGPR in 88% of patients. (Table 1) Plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg was given in 24 (96%) patients. Median pre-apheresis CD34 count was day 1, 24/uL (3-99) & day 2, 15/uL (5-46). Median total HSC cell yield (CD34+ cells/kg x 10 6) was 5.0 (1.1-16.2), day 1 yield was 3.4 (0.3-16.2) and day 2 yield was 1.9 (0.5-4.6) (Fig1). 88% (n=22) of patients met the primary endpoint of collecting sufficient HSCs in < 2 days of mobilization + apheresis to proceed to transplant, 68% (17) in 1 day (2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). 3 patients who did not meet primary endpoint successfully collected HSCs with standard GCSF + plerixafor dosing & 2-3 apheresis sessions. Secondary endpoints of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in < 2 days were met in 68% (17) and 40% (10) patients. MGTA-145+plerixafor was well tolerated. At least 1 treatment emergent AE (TEAE) with MGTA-145 was seen in 60% of patients (grade 1, n= 14, grade 2, n=1). Pain (all grade 1) was most common, seen in 44% (11), with 38% (9) patients experiencing acute onset transient bone pain with MGTA-145 (duration: 7 minutes, range: 3-28). Using the validated Brief Pain Inventory, 56% (14) patients self-reported pain with mobilization vs 40% (10) at baseline. 7/15 patients without baseline pain reported pain with mobilization. An increase for worst pain was seen on mobilization day 1, that returned to the baseline, but no difference for aggregate score of pain severity/interference (linear mixed effects model). At last follow-up, 18 patients have completed transplant with MGTA-145 mobilized graft, with melphalan 200 mg/m 2 in 15 (83%) patients. Median of 3.5 (2.2-8.1) x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg were infused. All patients have engrafted. Median time to neutrophil engraftment of 12 days (range: 11-15) & platelet engraftment (platelets > 20,000, no transfusion in 7 days) of 17.5 days (15-33) are comparable to historical data (DiPersio et al. 2009). RBC transfusion was needed in 3 (17%) patients. 14 patients have day 100 follow-up, all with durable engraftment. MGTA-145 + plerixafor mobilized grafts had a favorable graft composition. We observed high enrichment for CD90+CD45RA- among CD34+ cells, a CD34 subset of long term engrafting HSCs (median: 36% of CD34+ cells, range 10-66%, N=25). 74% (17 of 23) grafts were minimal residual disease negative with next generation flow cytometry. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the novel G-CSF-free regimen of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC cell mobilization & collection for hematologic malignancies. The study cohort was representative of transplant eligible patients with MM, with 88% patients meeting the primary endpoint. The regimen was well tolerated. Patients achieved timely & durable engraftment. Our data support further development of this regimen for rapid HSC mobilization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Muffly: Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, Medexus, Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas, Jasper, Adaptive, Baxalta: Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services: , Research Funding. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Meyer: Indee, Jura: Consultancy; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; GigaImmune: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Triursus Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Weng: Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Frank: Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Shiraz: Kite Pharma-Gilead: Research Funding. Girgenti: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment. Goncalves: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Schmelmer: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Davis: Magenta Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Shizuru: Jasper Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair of scientific advisory board; Forty seven Inc: Other: Inventor on a patent licenses by Forty Seven. Forty seven was acquired by Gilead in 2020. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

8023 Background: MGTA-145 (GroβT), a CXCR2 agonist, has shown promising activity for HSC mobilization with plerixafor in pre-clinical models and healthy volunteers. Methods: This phase 2 single center study evaluates HSC mobilization with MGTA-145 + plerixafor and same day apheresis in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients received plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg (0.16 mg/kg if renal dysfunction) SQ, followed 2 hours later by MGTA-145 (0.03 mg/kg) IV over 3-10 minutes and apheresis within 30 minutes. Mobilization was repeated for a second day if day 1 yield was < 6 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg. This interim analysis reports on mobilization in 10 patients (of 25 planned), including safety cohort of first 6 patients completing transplant. Primary endpoint is collection of 2 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Results: Median age was 63 years (range: 46-68), 50% were female, 22% had ISS stage 3 & 50% had high-risk FISH. Induction therapy was VRD in 7 and daratumumab + VRD in 3 patients; median induction duration: 4 months (3-6) & median lenalidomide exposure: 6 cycles (4-6), with > VGPR in 70%. Median total stem cell yield (CD34+ cells/kg x 106) was 7.1 (3-16.2), day 1 yield was 5.4 (1.1-16.2) & yield per apheresis session was 4 (1.1-16.2). 100% of patients met the primary endpoint of collecting sufficient HSCs in < 2 days of mobilization + apheresis to proceed to transplant (2 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg). Secondary endpoints of 4 and 6 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg in < 2 days were met in 90% & 80% patients. 30% patients underwent 1 apheresis, while 70% underwent 2 sessions. MGTA-145 was well tolerated. At least 1 adverse event (AE) was seen in 90% of patients, 20% had grade 2 AEs (anemia, hypokalemia) and 20% had grade 3 AEs (worsening of baseline grade 3 anemia; hypocalcemia); all resolved. Acute & transient bone pain was seen in 40% of patients (back-2, hip-1, sternum-1), all grade 1, all on day 1, & resolved without intervention after 6 minutes (3-10). All 6 patients in the safety cohort have completed transplant with melphalan 200 mg/m2. Median of 4.1 (3.4-5.6) x 106 CD34+ cells/kg were infused. All patients have engrafted timely (DiPersio Blood 2009); median time to neutrophil engraftment: 12 days (11-13) & platelet engraftment: 17 days (16-19). Apheresis graft analysis is available in these 6 patients. Grafts with MGTA-145+plerixafor showed high enrichment for CD90+CD45RA- among CD34+ cells, a CD34 subset of long term engrafting HSCs (median: 31% of CD34+ cells, 27-52), higher than seen with G-CSF (6%, Goncalves TCT 2021). 67% of grafts were minimal residual disease negative with next generation flow cytometry. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the novel regimen of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for same day stem cell mobilization & collection in myeloma/hematologic malignancies, with 100% efficacy in interim analysis and the first to demonstrate successful engraftment in patients with cells collected with this GCSF free regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT04552743.