Velde, Helgi van de

Background: SAR442257 (SAR'257) is a trispecific antibody that targets CD38, CD3 and CD28. Simultaneous CD3 and CD28 binding triggers T cell co-signaling, and additional CD38 recognition directs the T cells to CD38+ cancer cells such as multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This is a first-in-human phase 1 study investigating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of SAR'257 in patients (pts) with refractory and relapsed (rr) MM and rrNHL. Methods: This is a multicenter, international, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT04401020) of SAR'257 in pts with rrMM refractory to standard-of-care (SOC) options, including anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and in pts rrNHL without any SOC options. SAR'257 was administered intravenously with lead-in doses (Day 1−5) in the first week, followed by twice weekly (BIW) or once weekly (QW) dosing; 11 target dose levels (TDLs) in pts with rrMM (9 TDLs: 0.06-11 µg/kg BIW; 2 TDLs: 18-27 µg/kg QW), and 2 TDLs in pts with rrNHL (2 µg/kg BIW and 4 µg/kg QW). Results: As of February 19, 2024, 47 pts (rrMM, n=40; rrNHL, n=7) received SAR'257. The median ages (years) were 64 (rrMM; range: 40−84) and 70 (rrNHL; range: 18−75). The median number of prior lines was 5 (range: 3−12) for rrMM and 5 (range: 2−7) for rrNHL cohort. In rrMM cohort, all (100%) pts had prior exposure to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MAb) and were refractory to anti-CD38 and in rrNHL cohort all were anti-CD38 naïve. The median time from last anti-CD38 dose was 2.7 (range: 1−65) months for rrMM cohort. Safety analysis revealed that 68% (n=32) pts had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 26 pts in rrMM and 6 pts in rrNHL); 21.3% pts (n=10) Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs (7 in rrMM and 3 in rrNHL). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common TEAE, occurring in 52.5% of rrMM pts across all TDLs (n=21; G≥3 in 1 pt from 11 µg/kg BIW TDL) and in 57.1% of rrNHL pts (n=4; no G≥3) at the two TDLs tested. Repetitive CRS episodes (>1 episode) were more frequent at higher TDLs. Infusion-related reactions (IRRs; any G) were observed in 22.5% pts with rrMM (n=9; no G≥3) and in 28.5% pts with rrNHL (n=2; G≥3 in 1 pt). Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection/reactivation was reported in 17.5% (n=7; G≥3 in 4 pts) and 28.6% (n=2; no G≥3) pts with rrMM and rrNHL respectively. Further, 15% (n=6, G≥3 in 2 pts) from rrMM and 14.3% (n=1; G2 CMV reactivation) pts from rrNHL cohort reported cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation. One case of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was reported (G4) in the rrNHL cohort. Four dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the rrMM cohort [1 at 4 µg/kg BIW (G3 hepatotoxicity); 1 at 11 µg/kg BIW (G5 CRS−EBV reactivation; and 2 at 27 µg/kg QW (G3 CMV infection reactivation and G3 febrile neutropenia in same pt)]. Three DLTs were observed in the rrNHL cohort (2 at 2 µg/kg BIW [G4 neutropenia and G4 thrombocytopenia; same pt] and 1 at 4 µg/kg QW [ICANS G4]). For pts with rrMM, the maximum plasma concentration of SAR'257 reached within or above the theoretical efficacious range (0.1−1nM; extrapolated from ex vivo models), starting at 8 µg/kg BIW and 18 µg/kg QW in the first treatment cycle. As of July 08, 2024, the overall response rate (ORR), defined as partial response (PR) or better, was 5% (n=2) in the rrMM cohort: 1 pt exhibited stringent complete response (duration of response [DOR]=8.1 months, on-going) and 1 showed a complete response (CR) at 27 µg/kg QW TDL. In rrNHL cohort, the ORR was 14.3%, 1 pt achieved PR (DOR=7.1 months) at 2 µg/kg BIW TDL. The disease control rate (stable disease or better for >8 weeks) was 60% (n=24) and 28.6% (n=2) in the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts respectively. For both cohorts exploratory biomarker analysis revealed that: (1) SAR'257 treatment activated peripheral blood T cells and reduced regulatory T cell numbers and CD4/CD8 ratio; (2) CD38 expression on plasma cells positively corelated with time since the last anti-CD38 MAb dose; (3) Among the pts experiencing CRS, the peak values of cytokines (Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and C-reactive protein) were significantly higher during the first cycle in comparison to subsequent cycles. Conclusion: This Phase 1 study of SAR'257 showed an anti-tumor response in a small number of pts from the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts. Due to safety concerns, in particular high rates of EBV and CMV reactivation and recurrent episodes of CRS in the higher dose levels, the study was terminated during dose escalation.

AbstractObjectivesCluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) is a key target on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This multi‐centre, Phase 1, single‐agent study (NCT04000282) investigated SAR442085, a novel fragment crystallisable (Fc)‐modified anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), with enhanced affinity towards Fc‐gamma receptor on effector cells in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM.MethodsThis study comprised two parts: Part‐A (dose‐escalation involving anti‐CD38 mAb pre‐treated and naïve patients) and Part‐B (dose expansion). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).ResultsThirty‐seven heavily pre‐treated patients were treated in Part A. Part‐B (dose‐expansion) was not studied. Seven dose‐limiting toxicities were reported at DL3, DL5, DL6, and DL7. RP2D was determined to be 5–7·5 mg/kg. Most common treatment‐emergent adverse events were infusion‐related reactions in 70·3% (26/37) patients. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was reported in 48·6% (18/37). Overall response rate was 70% in anti‐CD38 mAb naïve and 4% in anti‐CD38 pre‐treated patients, with a median progression‐free survival of 7·62 (95%CI: 2·858; not calculable) months and 2·79 (95%CI: 1·150; 4·172) months and, respectively.ConclusionsThe efficacy of SAR442085 was promising in anti‐CD38 mAb naïve patients but did not extend to the larger cohort of anti‐CD38 mAb pre‐treated patients. This observation, along with transient high‐grade thrombocytopenia, could potentially limit its clinical use.

AbstractBackgroundCD38 has been established as an important therapeutic target for multiple myeloma (MM), for which two CD38 antibodies are currently approved—daratumumab and isatuximab. CD38 is an ectoenzyme that degrades NAD and its precursors and is involved in the production of adenosine and other metabolites.AimAmong the various mechanisms by which CD38 antibodies can induce MM cell death is immunomodulation, including multiple pathways for CD38‐mediated T‐cell activation. Patients who respond to anti‐CD38 targeting treatment experience more marked changes in T‐cell expansion, activity, and clonality than nonresponders.ImplicationsResistance mechanisms that undermine the immunomodulatory effects of CD38‐targeting therapies can be tumor intrinsic, such as the downregulation of CD38 surface expression and expression of complement inhibitor proteins, and immune microenvironment‐related, such as changes to the natural killer (NK) cell numbers and function in the bone marrow niche. There are numerous strategies to overcome this resistance, which include identifying and targeting other therapeutic targets involved in, for example, adenosine production, the activation of NK cells or monocytes through immunomodulatory drugs and their combination with elotuzumab, or with bispecific T‐cell engagers.

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence for the clinical benefit of long-term, continuous therapy for NDMM pts. Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) form a backbone of therapy in MM; however, long-term therapy with some PIs may be limited due to toxicity and the need for regular parenteral administration, increasing the treatment burden. Ixazomib, the first oral PI, has been studied in NDMM pts in 4 phase 1/2 studies in which approximately 1 year of induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd) was followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance. Here we report an integrated analysis of pts from these studies who did not undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and received ixazomib maintenance therapy. Methods Pts from 4 studies were included: 1) weekly IRd, 12x28-d cycles IRd (weekly ixazomib 1.68-3.95 mg/m² in phase 1, recommended phase 2 dose [RP2D] 4.0 mg; C16005, NCT01217957; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 2) twice-weekly IRd, 16x21-d cycles IRd (twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D 3.0 mg; C16008, NCT01383928; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 3) IMP, 9x42-d or 13x28-d cycles IMP (weekly/twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-5.5/3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D of weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16006, NCT01335685; ASCT-ineligible pts); 4) ICd, 13x28-d cycles ICd (weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16020, NCT02046070; ASCT-ineligible pts). In all 4 studies, pts completing induction without progressive disease (PD) and, in the IRd studies, not withdrawn for ASCT, could receive single-agent ixazomib maintenance at the last tolerated dose during induction until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Results 121 pts received ixazomib maintenance (25, 18, 35, and 43 in weekly IRd, twice-weekly IRd, IMP, and ICd studies, respectively). Median age was 72 yrs (range 34-90 yrs; 83% aged ≥65 yrs), 62% had IgG myeloma, 47/34/19% had ISS disease stage I/II/III, 40/49% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1. Combined median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33.8 months from time of study entry and 21.4 months from start of maintenance (Figure). Median PFS from the start of maintenance seemed to be longer for the two IRd studies than for IMP, while median PFS for ICd had not yet been reached. 4-yr OS from time of study entry/3-yr OS from the start of maintenance was 82%. Overall response rate was 93% after induction and 94% after maintenance. Best response rate of CR+VGPR after induction was 57% (22% CR), which increased to 63% (35% CR/sCR) after maintenance; 24 pts (20%) improved their response during maintenance (4 pts with CR improved to sCR; 14 VGPR to CR/sCR; 5 partial response [PR] to VGPR/CR; 1 stable disease to PR). Combined mean dose intensity during maintenance was 89.1%. At time of analysis, median duration of maintenance therapy was 2.2 yrs for weekly IRd, 1.0 yr for twice-weekly IRd, and 0.9 yr for IMP and ICd; maximum duration was 4.8, 3.8, 3.9, and 1.6 yrs respectively. 78% of pts had discontinued maintenance, primarily due to PD (55%), and only 7% due to adverse events (AEs). 15% of pts had ixazomib dose reductions during maintenance. Grade ≥3 AEs (48% vs 74%), drug-related grade ≥3 AEs (24% vs 62%), serious AEs (SAEs; 21% vs 43%), and drug-related SAEs (5% vs 19%) were less common during maintenance than during induction. Common grade ≥3 AEs are shown in the Table. Other AEs of clinical interest were also generally similar or less common during maintenance than during induction, including cardiac arrhythmias (13% vs 21%), pneumonia (12% vs 17%), acute renal failure (7% vs 8%), hypotension (4% vs 7%), myocardial infarction (0 vs <1%), and heart failure (2% vs 2%). Only 6 pts (5%) reported a new primary malignancy. There was only 1 on-study death during maintenance, which was not considered related to ixazomib; due to pulmonary edema in an 81-yr old pt with a history of cardiovascular co-morbidities. Conclusions In this integrated analysis, single-agent ixazomib maintenance therapy following an ixazomib-based induction regimen was associated with deepening of responses and good long-term outcomes in NDMM pts not undergoing ASCT. Single-agent ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration, with limited new-onset grade ≥3 AEs. These outcomes appear similar to other studies involving maintenance approaches in NDMM and support the ongoing phase 3 investigation of ixazomib maintenance therapy. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding. Laubach: Novartis, Takeda, Celgene, Onyx: Research Funding; Novartis, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy. Hofmeister: Thrassos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. San Miguel: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: 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; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; 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; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Onyx, AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Merck, Oncopeptides, Roche, Skyline Diagnostics: Research Funding; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Oncopeptides, Skyline Diagnostics, Takeda: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria. Lu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Teng: Array Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead Science: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Liu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Byrne: Oncopeptides AB: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Berg: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. van de Velde: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides AB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractObjectivesIn the TOURMALINE‐MM1 phase 3 trial in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) showed different magnitudes of progression‐free survival (PFS) benefit vs placebo‐Rd according to number and type of prior therapies, with greater benefit seen in patients with >1 prior line of therapy or 1 prior line of therapy without stem cell transplantation (SCT).MethodsRNA sequencing data were used to investigate the basis of these differences.ResultsThe PFS benefit of IRd vs placebo‐Rd was greater in patients with tumors expressing high c‐MYC levels (median not reached vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.66; P < .001) compared with in those expressing low c‐MYC levels (median 20.6 vs 16.6 months; HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42, 1.2). Expression of c‐MYC in tumors varied based on the number and type of prior therapy received, with the lowest levels observed in tumors of patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy including SCT. These tumors also had higher expression levels of CD19 and CD81.ConclusionsPFS analyses suggest that lenalidomide and ixazomib target tumors with different levels of c‐MYC, CD19, and CD81 expression, thus providing a potential rationale for the differential benefits observed in the TOURMALINE‐MM1 study. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as: NCT01564537

Abstract Background Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is approved by the US FDA, in combination with Rd, for the treatment of MM patients (pts) who have received at least 1 prior therapy. Approval was based on the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study (NCT01564537) in 722 pts with RRMM (Moreau et al, N Engl J Med 2016), in which IRd showed superior PFS versus placebo-Rd (HR 0.74) at the final prespecified analysis, with limited additional toxicity. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed a consistent PFS benefit with IRd, but with a differential treatment effect according to prior therapy exposure. An exploratory study objective was to evaluate potential relationships between treatment outcomes and tumor gene expression patterns. c-MYC is a proto-oncogene that encodes a transcription factor regulating cell proliferation, growth, protein translation, metabolism, and apoptosis, and increased c-MYC expression is involved in MM pathogenesis/progression. We analyzed the impact of c-MYC expression on PFS in RRMM pts treated with IRd or placebo-Rd. Methods Pts with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive oral ixazomib or placebo, plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3), proteasome inhibitor exposure, and ISS disease stage. The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review committee assessment. Data reported here are from the final prespecified statistical analysis of PFS (median follow-up ~15 months). Bone marrow aspirate samples were collected at screening for tumor gene expression analysis. Whole transcriptome sequencing (RNAseq) of bone marrow-sorted CD138+ cells was performed using the Illumina Truseq protocol on the Illumina HiSeq platform; this generated a median of 50 million paired-end reads (100 bp length) per sample. c-MYC expression was evaluated by treatment arm and according to number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3). PFS was analyzed in subgroups dichotomized according to median c-MYC expression (c-MYC-high/c-MYC-low). Results RNAseq data were available for 59% (427/722) of enrolled pts; 213 (50%) had high and 219 (50%) had low c-MYC expression (dichotomized according to the median). Impact of c-MYC expression (high vs low) on PFS, irrespective of treatment arm, was not significant (p=0.98). However, a significant treatment effect of IRd vs placebo-Rd was only seen in pts with high c-MYC expression (interaction p=0.024); in these pts (IRd: n=109; placebo-Rd: n=104) a significant PFS benefit was seen with IRd (HR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p=0.00011). Impact of c-MYC expression was then analyzed by number of prior therapies. In the overall TOURMALINE-MM1 population, per stratification, 212/213 pts in the IRd/placebo-Rd arms had 1 prior therapy, and 148/149 had 2-3 prior therapies. After median follow-up of ~15 months, median PFS in pts with 1 prior therapy was 20.6 vs 16.6 months with IRd vs placebo-Rd (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.65-1.20), and in pts with 2-3 prior therapies was not reached vs 12.9 months (HR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.40-0.84, p=0.0033). The level of c-MYC expression was shown to be significantly higher in pts with 2-3 prior therapies vs 1 prior therapy, with median expression of 6.94 (SD=1.71, n=177) vs 6.52 (SD=1.74, n=250) (log2 scale), t-test p-value 0.0153. In pts with 1 prior therapy, no differences in PFS were observed between pts with low c-MYC expression (HR 1; 95% CI: 0.59-1.8, p=0.934), while a prolonged PFS benefit was observed in pts with high c-MYC expression (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.88, p=0.0146) (Figure, A and B). In pts with 2-3 prior therapies, both the c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts showed improved PFS with IRd vs placebo-Rd; the difference in PFS was statistically significant only in c-MYC-high pts (HR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18-0.72, p=0.00269) (Figure, C and D). Conclusions In TOURMALINE-MM1, c-MYC expression was higher in MM tumor samples from pts with 2-3 vs 1 prior therapies. The IRd regimen was active in c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts, but its impact on PFS vs placebo-Rd was greater in c-MYC-high pts, thus providing a potential explanation for the enhanced PFS benefit with IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with 2-3 prior therapies. The PFS benefit with IRd in c-MYC-low pts with 2-3 prior lines suggests that, in advanced MM, further genomic alterations may also be contributing to ixazomib sensitivity. Disclosures Di Bacco: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Avet-Loiseau:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ganly:Medipics: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Langer:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kumar:Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Li:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Badola:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Shen:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Zhang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Wang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Esseltine:Takeda: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Johnson and Johnson: Equity Ownership. Luptakova:Takeda Oncology: Employment. van de Velde:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation.MethodsData were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once‐ or twice‐weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan‐prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide‐dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single‐agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsA total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice‐weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice‐weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug‐related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance.ConclusionsIxazomib maintenance following ixazomib‐based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long‐term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

Key Points IRd was associated with a consistent PFS benefit vs placebo-Rd in RRMM patients with high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics. The addition of ixazomib to Rd overcomes the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetics in patients with RRMM.