Mikala, Gábor

7516 Background: With the growing use of anti-CD38 therapies in early multiple myeloma (MM) management, there is a need for data in patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 therapy to guide decision making. In the Phase 3 IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166), patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) received the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneously (SC) delivered via an innovative on-body injector (OBI) or intravenously (IV), with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). In this post hoc analysis, we examined outcomes in IRAKLIA patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Methods: RRMM patients ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized to receive Isa SC (n=263) or IV (n=268) weekly in Cycle 1, then every 2 weeks, with Pd. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure <9 months (mos) before randomization or intolerance to anti-CD38 were excluded. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to achieve minimal response on treatment or had progression within 60 days after last dose. Patients receiving Isa SC or IV were pooled. Results: Overall, 67 patients (12.6%) had prior anti-CD38 exposure with a median washout period of 20.2 mos, of which 26 (38.8%) were anti-CD38 refractory. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent between patients with or without prior anti-CD38 exposure; the median follow-up for the overall population was 12 mos. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 52.2%, 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 40.6%, and median PFS of 8.5 mos. In patients without prior exposure, an ORR of 73.5%, 12-mo PFS of 68.8%, and non-estimable (NE) median PFS were reported. Anti-CD38 non-refractory vs refractory patients had an ORR of 48.8% vs 57.7%, 12-mo PFS of 38.9% vs 42.2%, and median PFS of 9.0 vs 7.5 mos. Patients with a longer washout period (>median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 63.6%, 12-mo PFS of 61.8% and NE median PFS, whereas patients whose prior anti-CD38 therapy ended more recently (≤median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 41.2%, 12-mo PFS of 19.2%, and median PFS of 6.7 mos. The safety profile of Isa + Pd was similar in patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Conclusions: Isa + Pd demonstrated clinical benefit across anti-CD38–naïve, anti-CD38–exposed, and anti-CD38–refractory patients. A washout period >median of 20.2 mos resulted in outcomes comparable to those in anti-CD38–naïve patients, and outcomes were consistent between anti-CD38–exposed and anti-CD38–refractory patients after a >9-mo washout period. Efficacy of Isa + Pd in patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure from the IRAKLIA trial presents an opportunity to address an unmet need in a difficult-to-treat patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 .

Abstract Introduction : Current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), is observation until progression to active MM. Increasing evidence suggests that patients (pts) with SMM at high risk for progression to active MM may benefit from early treatment (tx). In AQUILA, a phase 3 study in pts with high-risk SMM (NCT03301220), daratumumab (Dara) monotherapy significantly reduced risk of progression to active MM or death with a trend of extending overall survival (OS) vs active monitoring (ActMon), with no new safety concerns. Given the evolution in SMM risk stratification, a post hoc analysis was performed to assess outcomes using the IMWG 2020 and IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk models to assess which AQUILA pts benefited most from Dara monotherapy. Safety and efficacy analysis by age and stem cell collection outcomes were also assessed. Methods: Eligible pts with a confirmed diagnosis (≤5 y) of high-risk SMM per IMWG 2014 criteria, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (IgA SMM, serum protein ≥30 g/dL, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain [I/U FLC] ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC &gt;50% to &lt;60%) at study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous Dara or ActMon for 39 cycles, 36 months, or until confirmed disease progression (PD), whichever came first. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee, defined as progression to active MM (based on IMWG SLiM-CRAB diagnostic criteria) or death. Secondary endpoints included time to first-line (1L) MM tx and OS. For this post hoc analysis, we assessed outcomes by age, IMWG 2020 high-risk SMM criteria (BMPC &gt;20%, monoclonal spike &gt;2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio &gt;20; ≥2 factors=high risk; also known as the Mayo 2018 or the 20-2-20 criteria), and the IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic criteria (IMWG 2020 criteria + presence of ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q and/or del13q]; ≥3 factors=high risk). Results : Dara tx showed a PFS benefit across all IMWG 2020 risk subgroups (low: hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; intermediate: HR, 0.70), with the largest benefit in the high-risk subgroup, where the PD/death rate in the ActMon arm was ~1.6-fold that in the Dara arm (62.8% vs 37.5%; HR, 0.36). This benefit of Dara vs ActMon was preserved over time, with 5-year PFS rates of 78.2% vs 71.6%, 56.2% vs 42.9%, and 60.4% vs 23.6% in IMWG 2020 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. There was a positive trend favoring Dara for time to 1L MM treatment across all IMWG 2020 risk groups (low-risk HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.80; intermediate-risk HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.92; high-risk HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25–0.62). IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk classification results will be available at the time of presentation. When comparing the younger (&lt;65y HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79) vs the older (≥65y, HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.77) pt population, a PFS benefit was observed regardless of age. Similarity was also observed in TEAE incidence rate when looking into &lt;65, 65 to &lt;75, and ≥75 y subgroups (82.7%, 81.1%, and 87.5% with ActMon; 96.2%, 98.5%, and 95.2% with Dara); however, serious TEAEs were more frequently observed in older ActMon pts (12.2%, 18.9%, and 50.0% with ActMon; 24.8%, 35.8%, and 28.6% with Dara). Across all pts treated/monitored in AQUILA, 23 (11.9%) and 41 (20.9%) pts in the Dara and ActMon arms, respectively, received autologous stem cell transplant as part of their first tx after progressing to active MM, with very limited plerixafor use (Dara, 3 [1.6%] vs ActMon, 9 [4.6%]). Median (range) CD34+ cell yield was 5.0 (2–20)×106 cells/kg body weight among 22 pts in the Dara arm and 5.1 (2–21)×106 cells/kg body weight among 39 pts in the ActMon arm. Conclusions : In this analysis, pts with high-risk SMM from the phase 3 AQUILA study treated with Dara monotherapy experienced long-term PFS benefit across IMWG 2020 subgroups, with the most pronounced benefit in the high-risk subgroup. No notable differences in PFS or safety were observed across age subgroups. Early Dara tx for high-risk SMM did not have a detrimental impact on stem cell yield. Although mature OS analyses are forthcoming, overall, these results further support early intervention with Dara monotherapy vs ActMon among pts with high-risk SMM, regardless of risk stratification criteria used.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, and/or clonal BMPCs &gt;50% to &lt;60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P &lt;0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P &lt;0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P &lt;0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve survival compared to conventional chemotherapy alone. However, the ability to perform ASCT relies, in part, on collecting a sufficient number (#) of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), typically from peripheral blood. The ideal HSC mobilization regimen would enable collection of optimal #s of HSCs (5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) within the minimum # of apheresis sessions possible. Yet, despite currently available G-CSF (G) based mobilization regimens and multiple apheresis days, many remain unable to collect optimal #s of HSCs. Motixafortide (M) is a novel CXCR4 inhibitor, with high affinity (IC 50 0.54-4.5 nM) and long receptor occupancy (&gt;48 hours). Methods: In this prospective, phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either M+G or placebo (P)+G for HSC mobilization prior to ASCT for MM. All patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and 6-8, if needed). Patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) or P on day 4 (and 6, if needed). Apheresis began day 5, with the primary (PEP) and secondary (SEP) endpoints of collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 apheresis days or 1 day, respectively. Apheresis continued on days 6-8 if needed. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by central laboratory. Patients that did not collect ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg by day 8 proceeded to rescue mobilization. The # of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice (minimum ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). Analyses of the PEP/SEPs were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Demographics between the 2 treatment arms were similar. Mobilization with M+G resulted in 92.5% of patients collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 2 apheresis days vs 26.2% with P+G (Odds Ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% CI 14.12-201.33, p&lt;0.0001). Furthermore, 88.8% of patients with M+G collected ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 1 apheresis day vs 9.5% with P+G (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, p&lt;0.0001); and 96.3% with M+G collected ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 1 apheresis day vs 64.3% with P+G (OR 18.9, 95% CI 4.47-80.04, p&lt;0.0001). The PEP and SEPs were confirmed as statistically significant by central laboratory (all respective p-values &lt;0.0001). The median # of HSCs mobilized in 1 apheresis day with M+G was 10.80x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg vs 2.14x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G. The # of cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days in both arms (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). Median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range: 17-19) with M+G and 17 days (range: 17-18) with P+G (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57). Graft durability at day 100 post-ASCT was 92.2% in the M+G arm and 91.9% in the P+G arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.2-4.5, p=0.96). Overall, adverse events were reported in 98.8% (Grade 3/4: 68.8%) of patients with M+G vs 95.2% (Grade 3/4: 42.9%) with P+G, with cytopenias in the post-ASCT period prior to engraftment accounting for the majority of Grade 3/4 AEs in both arms, as expected. The most common AEs related to M included: local injection site reactions (any grade: 70.0%, Grade 3/4: 11.3%); and systemic reactions such as pruritis (33.8%), flushing (32.5%) and urticaria (12.5%). Additionally, mobilization with M+G resulted in a 10.5x increase in mean absolute # of CD34+CD45RA-CD123loCD38-CD90+CD49f+ primitive HSCs collected vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001). Multicolor FACS and scRNA sequencing of CD34+ HSCs from both arms will be reported in a separate ASH abstract. Conclusions: A single injection of M on top of G significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg for ASCT (92.5%) vs G (26.2%) in up to 2 apheresis days (p&lt;0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in just 1 apheresis (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1A). Despite the higher # of cells mobilized by M+G, the # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice with comparable engraftment kinetics and graft durability between the 2 arms. Finally, M+G mobilized 10.5x more immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of durable multilineage hematopoietic engraftment vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1B). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bioline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Illés: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stiff: Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sborov: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Gliko-Kabir: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Goldstein: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Kadosh: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment.

Abstract Background: CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) dose during hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains one of the most reliable clinical parameters to predict quality of engraftment. A minimum HSPC dose of 2-2.5x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg is considered necessary for reliable engraftment, while optimal doses of 5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg are associated with faster engraftment, as well as fewer transfusions, infections, and antibiotic days. CXCR4 inhibition significantly improves the number (#) of CD34+ HSPCs mobilized for HCT, when added to G-CSF (G). Motixafortide (M), a novel CXCR4 antagonist, is a potent mobilizer of HSPCs recently evaluated in the phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter GENESIS Trial as a mobilizing agent prior to autologous HCT (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and days 6-8, if needed). On day 4 (and day 6, if needed), patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg) or placebo (P). Apheresis began day 5, with up to 4 days of apheresis if needed. The primary and secondary endpoints were collection of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of apheresis or 1 day, respectively. The # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice, but a minimum of ³2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was required. A post-hoc analysis was performed pooling data from both arms to evaluate time to platelet engraftment (TPE) (≥20x10 9/L without transfusions x7 days) and neutrophil engraftment (TNE) (ANC ≥0.5x10 9/L x3 days) based on total # of CD34+ cells/kg and # of specific CD34+ HSPC subsets infused. CD34+ HSPC immunophenotyping was performed via multicolor fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). TPE/TNE was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 114 MM patients underwent apheresis, ASCT and were evaluable (M+G N=77; P+G N=37). M+G mobilization yielded a median of 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg collected in 1 apheresis vs 2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G (p&lt;0.0001). M+G also resulted in mobilization of higher #s of relevant CD34+ HSPC subsets vs P+G, including 5.6 fold more HSCs (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90+CD49f+) (p&lt;0.0001), 3.5 fold more multipotent progenitors (MPPs) and common myeloid progenitors (CMPs) (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90-CD49f+) (p=0.0004) and 5.6 fold more granulocyte and macrophage progenitors (GMPs) (CD45RA+CD123loCD38+/-CD10-) (&lt;0.0001). The median # of infused HSPCs in both arms was &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (Table 1), with similar TPE of 17-18 days (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57) and TNE of 12 days (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). However, pooled analysis of all patients (N=114) revealed infusion of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was associated with faster median TPE of 16 days vs 18 days with &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.96, p=0.03) (Figure 1A). Further analysis demonstrated an inverse correlation between increasing CD34+ cells/kg infused and TPE (Pearson r=-0.2789, p=0.0027). In addition, pooled analysis of 36 patients (M+G N=24; P+G N=12) using extended multicolor FACS revealed infusion of higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of combined CD34+ HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets was associated with faster TPE of 12 days vs 19 days with lower #s of these subsets (p=0.003) (Figure 2A). Furthermore, higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of GMPs was individually associated with faster TPE of 13 days vs 19 days with lower GMP cell doses (p=0.0116) (Figure 2C). TNE was not impacted by increasing doses of total CD34+ HSPCs or any specific CD34+ HSPC subset (all p&gt;0.05) (Figures 1B, 2B and 2D). Conclusions: M+G mobilization enabled significantly more CD34+ cells to be collected in 1 apheresis (median 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) vs P+G (2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg), as well as 3.5-5.6 fold higher #s of HSCs, MPPs, CMPs and GMPs (all p-values &lt;0.0004). This high # of CD34+ cells/kg mobilized with M+G enables the potential infusion of ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg and cryopreservation of cells for later use. A dose response was observed with significant correlation between faster TPE and infusion of higher #s of total CD34+ HSPC doses (³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) and combined HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets. Additionally, infusion of higher #s of CD34+ GMP subsets was independently associated with faster TPE, suggesting these more committed progenitors may play a critical role in early engraftment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Retting: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Abbvie, Bioline, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Juno, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda: Research Funding. Illes: Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche: Consultancy. Stiff: CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Sborov: SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Janssen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Hardy: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Shemesh-Darvish: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment; Enlivex: Consultancy. Kadosh: StatExcellence: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; BioLineRx: Honoraria.

8509 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor. In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to bortezomib (B) + dexamethasone (d) significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pbo) and showed significant efficacy in patients (pts) with either t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data from the prespecified second interim overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study (NCT02755597), pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo in combination with B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included overall response and overall survival (OS). Results: 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. Pt characteristics were well balanced among arms. In the Ven arm, median age was 66, 17% had high-risk cytogenetics, 11% had t(11;14), and 34% had BCL2high gene expression. As of 13 Sept 2019, 59 pts were still on study, 45 (23%) Ven vs 14 (14%) Pbo. At a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there were 64 (33%) deaths in the Ven arm vs 24 (25%) in Pbo. At the initial data cutoff (26 Nov 2018), PFS HR was 0.63 (0.44,0.90) and OS HR was 2.03 (1.04,3.95). Table shows updated PFS and OS. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with Ven were diarrhea (59%), nausea (37%), and constipation (35%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (Ven/Pbo) were neutropenia (21%/8%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), anemia (16%/15%), diarrhea (15%/12%), and pneumonia (18%/13%). Serious AEs occurred in 54% Ven and 52% Pbo pts. 24% discontinued Ven due to AEs vs 12% Pbo. There were 14 treatment-emergent deaths in the Ven arm and 1 in Pbo. Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd significantly improves PFS but resulted in increased mortality vs Pbo in the total population. Greatest PFS improvement with Ven was observed in pts with t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression, where Ven shows a favorable benefit-risk profile. The study continues for final OS analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]

Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma (MM) cells and has shown synergistic activity with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Ven ± d had encouraging clinical efficacy in both t(11;14) MM and in pts irrespective of genetic background when administered with B, with a tolerable safety profile in Phase 1 studies. Here, we provide updated efficacy and safety of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM, including subgroup analyses, in the BELLINI study. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1 - 3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. Cycles 1-8 were 21-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4, 8, 11 + d 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12. Cycles 9+ were 35-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 + d 20 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (IRC). Results: A total of 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Median age was 66 (range, 36 - 87); 53% had ISS II/III disease; 54% received 2 or 3 prior lines of therapy; 59% had prior stem cell transplant; 70% had prior PI, 68% had prior immunomodulatory drug, 41% had both. Among pts with evaluable results, 18% had high-risk cytogenetics, 13% had MM positive for t(11;14), and 79% had high levels of BCL-2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). In the primary endpoint analysis per IRC, the median PFS was 22.4 months (m) in Ven vs 11.5 m in Pbo (HR=0.630, p=0.01), with a median follow-up of 18.7 m (as of 26 Nov 2018). As of updated analysis based on a data cut-off of 18 March 2019, the median PFS (per investigator [INV]) was 22.9 m in Ven vs 11.4 m in Pbo (HR=0.587, p=0.001; Table 1), with a median follow-up of 22.7 m. Per INV, higher overall response (ORR, 84% vs 70%, p=0.009) and very good partial or better response (≥VGPR, 61% vs 40%, p<0.001; Table 2) rates were observed in Ven vs Pbo. Minimal residual disease negativity rate (by next-generation sequencing) was also higher in the Ven arm vs Pbo (MRD- [10-5], 13% vs 1%). Median duration of response was 23.4 m for Ven and 12.8 m for Pbo. In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but continued to favor Pbo (HR 1.474, 95% CI=0.870-2.498). A total of 70 deaths have been reported, 51 (26%) in the Ven arm and 19 (20%) in the Pbo arm. In the safety population (N=289), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; Ven/Pbo) were diarrhea (59%/48%), nausea (37%/22%), constipation (35%/31%), and fatigue (31%/32%). The most common Grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (18%/8%), pneumonia (17%/12%), anemia (16%/15%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), and diarrhea (15%/12%); 23%/12% discontinued Ven due to a TEAE. The rates of serious AEs (51%/51%) and serious infections (30%/28%) were comparable between arms. There were 69 deaths in the safety population: in the Ven arm, 14 were treatment-emergent (TE; treatment start to 30 days after discontinuation) and 36 were non-TE (>30 days after treatment discontinuation); in the Pbo arm, 1 was TE and 18 were non-TE. In the t(11;14) subgroup, median PFS has not been reached for pts receiving Ven, but was 9.3 m for Pbo (HR=0.095; per INV). In the t(11;14)-negative (neg) subgroup, median PFS was 22.4 m and 10.7 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=0.627; per INV). Median OS has not been reached in either arm for the t(11;14) and t(11;14)-neg subgroups, although the HR favored Ven in t(11;14) pts, and Pbo in t(11;14)-neg pts. Analyses indicate that low BCL-2 expression by IHC and high-risk cytogenetics (defined as t(4;14, t(14;16), or del(17p)) were associated with decreased PFS and OS in the Ven arm (Table 1). In the high-risk cytogenetics pts, median PFS was 11.4 m in both arms (HR=0.99), and median OS has not been reached in either arm but favors Pbo (HR=10.6). In the subgroup with low BCL-2 expression by IHC, median PFS was 11.7 m and 17.0 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=1.42), and median OS was 21.3 m in the Ven arm and not reached in Pbo (HR=4.58). Conclusions: Updated analysis of BELLINI continue to reflect a favorable benefit-risk profile in t(11;14) pts, with meaningful clinical responses and improvement in PFS, as well as a positive trend in OS in this subgroup when treated with Ven + Bd. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala:Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Punnoose:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; Roche: Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Sood:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Background:Deepened response has been associated with prolonged progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival in multiple myeloma, including in the maintenance therapy setting. In the Myeloma XI trial, post‐ASCT maintenance with lenalidomide vs observation resulted in improved responses in 15.8% vs 11.0% of patients (pts) and a median PFS of 56.9 vs 30.1 months (Jackson et al, ASH 2017). In the phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled TOURMALINE‐MM3 study (NCT02181413), post‐ASCT maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib vs placebo resulted in a 39% improvement in PFS (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58–0.89; p = 0.002), with a favorable safety profile (Dimopoulos et al, Lancet 2019). We report improvements in depth of response and the impact on outcomes in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Aims:To evaluate the rates and timing of response improvement during ixazomib vs placebo maintenance and the impact on PFS in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:Pts who had achieved ≥partial response (PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug followed by single ASCT were randomized 3:2 to receive ixazomib (N = 395) or placebo (N = 261) on day 1, 8, and 15 of 28‐d cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen, pre‐induction ISS stage, and post‐ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good PR [VGPR] vs PR). Ixazomib dose was 3 mg in cycles 1–4 and 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated in cycles 1–4. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed at screening by flow cytometry (10–5 sensitivity). The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC). Other endpoints included rate of response improvement in pts enrolled in VGPR or PR.Results:At study entry, 60 (15%), 213 (54%), and 89 (23%) pts in the ixazomib arm and 54 (21%), 152 (58%), and 35 (13%) in the placebo arm had CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively, by IRC. Deepening responses were seen in 139/302 (46%) ixazomib vs 60/187 (32%) placebo pts with VGPR/PR at enrollment (relative risk [RR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.1–1.8, p = 0.004), including 92/213 (43%) vs 48/152 (32%) VGPR to CR (RR 1.37, p = 0.025) and 47/89 (53%) vs 12/35 (34%) PR to VGPR/CR (RR 1.54, p = 0.063). On Kaplan‐Meier analysis of time to best deepened response in VGPR/PR pts (Figure), 24‐month rates of deepening response were 54.2% vs 41.4%, and there was a 38.4% improvement in the chance of deepening response over time with ixazomib vs placebo (HR 1.384, p = 0.034). A pooled analysis across arms among pts enrolled in VGPR/PR showed that deepening response vs no improvement was associated with prolonged PFS (median not reached vs 15.9 months; HR 0.245, 95% CI 0.184–0.325, p < 0.0001). Analysis by treatment arm showed that, in VGPR/PR pts with deepening response, 24‐month PFS rates were 77.4% vs 68.3% with ixazomib vs placebo (medians not reached; HR 0.875; 12.5% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.52–1.47; p = 0.615); in VGPR/PR pts without deepening response 24‐month PFS rates were 33.4% vs 23.6% (median 17.9 vs 14.1 months; HR 0.780; 22% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.59–1.03; p = 0.080). Baseline MRD status was a strong predictor of deepening response; deepening responses were seen in 63% (78/124) vs 32% (94/293) of MRD‐ vs MRD+ pts enrolled in VGPR/PR.Summary/Conclusion:Post‐ASCT maintenance with ixazomib resulted in a significantly higher rate of deepening response vs placebo; deepening response was associated with prolonged PFS. Ixazomib resulted in non‐significant PFS benefit vs placebo in VGPR/PR pts with and without deepening response; prolonged follow‐up would be needed to confirm these results.image