Choeurng, Voleak

Background: Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed exclusively in the B-cell lineage, and at a higher level on multiple myeloma (MM) cells than on normal B cells. Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody that facilitates T cell-mediated killing of MM cells. In an ongoing Phase I dose-escalation and dose-expansion study (GO39775; NCT03275103), cevostamab monotherapy demonstrated target dose (TD)-dependent activity and manageable safety in patients (pts) with heavily pretreated RRMM (Trudel et al. ASH 2021). We report updated efficacy and safety data from pts who received cevostamab once every 3 weeks (Q3W) at the 160mg TD level. Methods: Eligible pts were those with RRMM for which no established therapy was available or appropriate. Cevostamab was initiated with Cycle (C) 1 single-step (SS) dosing, double-step (DS) dosing (Trudel et al. ASH 2021), or triple-step (TS) dosing (step doses on D1, D2 [or D3 or D4 depending on the emergence and resolution of cytokine release syndrome [CRS] with the previous administration], and D8, TD on D9 [or D10 or D11]). Cevostamab was then continued at the TD on D1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. Cevostamab was continued for 17 cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Results: As of February 23, 2024, 167 pts (median age: 66 years, range: 40-90; ECOG PS: 0, 35% or 1, 65%; median time from first MM therapy: 6.3 years, range: 0.3-21.8) had received cevostamab at the 160mg TD level (SS: n=10; DS: n=97; TS: n=60); 28% of pts had extramedullary disease and 38% of pts with a conclusive assay result (38/100) had high-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p)). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-18). Almost all pts (95.8%) were triple-class refractory and 73.7% were penta-drug refractory; 85.0% were refractory to their last prior therapy. A majority (57%) of pts had received ≥1 prior B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapy. Twenty four percent of pts had received ≥1 prior bispecific antibody. Median observation time was 11.3 months (range: 0.5-42.8). The overall response rate (ORR) in all pts who received cevostamab at the 160mg TD level was 43.1% (72/167 pts); 6.6% achieved a stringent complete response (CR), 6.6% a CR, 12.6% a very good partial response (VGPR), and 17.4% a partial response (PR). The VGPR or better rate was 25.7%. Median time to first response (PR or better) was 1.4 months (range: 0.6-4.6) and to best response was 2.4 months (range: 0.7-13.4). Median duration of response was 10.4 months (95% CI: 6.8, 10.5). ORR was 30.2% (29/96) in pts with ≥1 prior BCMA-targeted therapy and 60.6% (43/71) in those without. ORR was 30.0% (12/40) in pts with ≥1 prior bispecific antibody, 33.3% (20/60) with ≥1 prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell, and 41.2% (14/34) with ≥1 prior antibody-drug conjugate. Common (≥20%) adverse events (AEs) included CRS (74.3%; Grade [Gr] 1: 52.7%; Gr 2: 19.8%; Gr 3: 1.2%; Gr 4: 0.6%), neutropenia (31.1%; Gr 1-2: 3.0%; Gr 3: 12.0%; Gr 4: 16.2%), cough (30.5%; Gr 1-2: 29.9%; Gr 3: 0.6%), nausea (28.1%; Gr 1-2: 27.5%; Gr 3: 0.6%), diarrhea (24.0%; all Gr 1-2), anemia (23.4%; Gr 1-2: 5.4%; Gr 3: 17.4%; Gr 4: 0.6%), and fatigue (21.0%; Gr 1-2: 19.8%; Gr 3: 1.2%). Possible immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 13.2% of pts (Gr 1: 6.0%; Gr 2: 5.4%; Gr 3: 1.8%). Infections occurred in 53.9% of pts, with serious events and Gr ≥3 events in 22.2% and 19.2%, respectively. Treatment-related AEs leading to cevostamab discontinuation occurred in 11 pts (6.6%) and treatment-related Gr 5 (fatal) AEs in 3 pts (1.8%; hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, n=2; disseminated intravascular coagulation and pseudomonal sepsis, n=1). In the 0.3/1.2/3.6/160mg TS cohort, CRS occurred in 19/30 pts (63.3%) and was all Gr 1 (46.7%) or Gr 2 (16.7%). Pts with CRS were managed with tocilizumab (47.4%), steroids (21.1%), or both agents (10.5%). No pts discontinued cevostamab due to CRS and all events were resolved at cut-off. Conclusions: Cevostamab demonstrates clinically meaningful activity and manageable safety at the 160mg TD level in pts with heavily pretreated RRMM. C1 TS dosing provides effective CRS mitigation. Cevostamab combination studies may use the 0.3/1.2/3.6mg TS regimen and the Q3W 160mg TD (or similar TD exposure).

Abstract Background: Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed exclusively in the B-cell lineage, and at a higher level on myeloma cells than on normal B cells. Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody (BsAb) that facilitates T cell-directed killing of myeloma cells. Initial data from the dose-escalation phase of the ongoing Phase I study (NCT03275103) of cevostamab monotherapy in patients (pts) with heavily pre-treated RRMM demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety, along with near ubiquitous FcRH5 expression on myeloma cells (Cohen et al. ASH 2020; Sumiyoshi et al. EHA 2021). We present updated safety and efficacy data from a larger cohort of pts, including results comparing Cycle (C) 1 single step-up (SS) and double step-up (DS) dosing for the mitigation of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Methods: Participants have RRMM for which no established therapy is available or appropriate. Cevostamab (intravenous infusion) is administered in 21-day cycles. In the SS cohorts, the step dose (0.05-3.6mg) is given on C1 Day (D) 1 and the target dose (0.15-198mg) on C1D8. In the DS cohorts, the step doses are given on C1D1 (0.3-1.2mg) and C1D8 (3.6mg), and the target dose (60-160mg) on C1D15. In both regimens, the target dose is given on D1 of subsequent cycles. Cevostamab is continued for a total of 17 cycles, unless progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity occurs. CRS is reported using ASTCT criteria (Lee et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019). Results: At data cut-off (18 May 2021), 160 pts had been enrolled (median age: 64 years, range: 33-82 years; male: 58.1%); 21.3% of pts had extramedullary disease. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-18). Most pts (85.0%) were triple-class refractory (PI, IMiD, anti-CD38 antibody). 28 pts (17.5%) had received ≥1 prior CAR-T, 13 pts (8.1%) ≥1 prior BsAb, 27 pts (16.9%) ≥1 prior antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), and 54 pts (33.8%) ≥1 prior anti-BCMA targeting agent. Median follow-up in exposed pts was 6.1 months. Almost all had ≥1 adverse event (Table). The most common was CRS (128/160 pts [80.0%]; Grade [Gr] 1: 42.5%; Gr 2: 36.3%; Gr 3: 1.3%). Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) associated with CRS was observed in 21 pts (13.1%) and in 34/211 (16.1%) CRS events (Gr 1: 8.5%; Gr 2: 6.2%; Gr 3: 1.4%). Most CRS events occurred in C1 (87.2%), arose within 24 hours of cevostamab administration (70.5%), and resolved within 48 hours of onset (83.4%). In the pts with CRS, tocilizumab was used for CRS management in 43.8% and steroids in 25.8% (both agents: 18.0%). In SS dose-escalation (68 pts), 3.6mg was chosen as the most effective C1D1 SS dose for limiting CRS in C1, with no target dose-dependent increase in the rate or severity of CRS observed after the C1D8 administration. Likewise, in DS dose-escalation (30 pts), 0.3/3.6mg was identified as the preferred C1D1/C1D8 DS dose for limiting CRS in C1. Notably, the overall rate of CRS was lower in the pts who received the 0.3/3.6mg/target DS regimen than in those who received the 3.6mg/target SS regimen (77.3% [34/44] vs 88.2% [75/85], respectively). The rate of ICANS associated with CRS was also lower in the 0.3/3.6mg/target DS cohort than in the 3.6mg/target SS cohort (4.5% [2/44] vs 21.2% [18/85], respectively). At data cut-off, 158/160 pts were efficacy evaluable. In dose-escalation, responses were observed at the 20-198mg target dose levels, and data suggested a target dose-dependent increase in clinical efficacy. Median time to response was 29 days (range: 20-179 days). Two dose-expansion cohorts were opened: ORR was higher at the 160mg dose level (54.5%, 24/44 pts) than at the 90mg dose level (36.7%, 22/60). At target dose levels >90mg, ORRs in pts with prior exposure to CAR-Ts, BsAbs, ADCs, and anti-BCMA targeting agents were 44.4% (4/9 pts), 33.3% (3/9), 50.0% (7/14), and 36.4% (8/22) respectively. Median follow-up among all responders (n=61) was 8.1 months; estimated median duration of response was 15.6 months (95% CI: 6.4, 21.6). Conclusions: Cevostamab monotherapy continues to show clinically meaningful activity in a large cohort of pts with heavily pre-treated RRMM, with a target dose-dependent increase in ORR, but no increase in CRS rate. Responses appear durable, and are observed in pts with prior exposure to CAR-Ts, BsAbs, and ADCs. Compared with SS dosing, DS dosing at the 0.3/3.6mg level appears to be associated with a trend for an improved C1 safety profile. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Trudel: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Cohen: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Krishnan: MAGENTA: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; City of Hope Cancer Center: Current Employment; REGENERON: Consultancy; SANOFI: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca: Kite: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; AbbVie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Spencer: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berdeja: Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding; Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding. Lesokhin: Serametrix, Inc: Patents & Royalties; Behringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Iteos: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; bristol myers squibb: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy. Forsberg: University of Colorado: Current Employment; Karyopharm, Sanofi, Genentech: Research Funding. Costa: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez-Otero: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Regeneron: Honoraria; Clínica Universidad de Navarra: Current Employment. Kaedbey: Takeda, Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS, Janssen: Honoraria; Royal Victoria Hospital Lakeshore Hospital: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Jewish General Hospital - McGill University: Current Employment. Richter: Janssen, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive biotechnologies: Speakers Bureau; BMS, Karyopharm, Antengene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tisch Cancer Institute: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai: Current Employment. Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Thomas: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; X4 Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding. Wong: Genentech: Current Employment; CTMX, UBX, BMRN: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li: Genentech/Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Choeurng: Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vaze: Roche/Genentech: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Samineni: Genentech: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Sumiyoshi: Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Cooper: Genentech: Current Employment; Roche: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Harrison: Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/ Juno/ BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Eusa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Terumo BCT: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Cevostamab is a FcRH5xCD3 bispecific antibody that facilitates T cell-directed killing of myeloma cells. Cevostamab is an investigational agent.

Introduction: New targets and treatment modalities are needed for multiple myeloma (MM). Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) is a type I membrane protein that is expressed on B cells and plasma cells, and is found on myeloma cells with near 100% prevalence. BFCR4350A, a humanized immunoglobulin G-based T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody (bsAb), targets the most membrane-proximal domain of FcRH5 on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells. Dual binding facilitates efficient immunological synapse formation, resulting in T-cell activation and potent killing of myeloma cells (Li et al. Cancer Cell 2017). GO39775 (NCT03275103) is an ongoing, multicenter Phase I trial evaluating the safety, activity, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of BFCR4350A monotherapy in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. We present dose-escalation data from the single step-up dosing cohort (Arm A). Methods: All pts have R/R MM for which no established therapy is available, appropriate, or tolerated. Prior exposure to CAR-T cells, T-cell engaging bsAbs, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), including those targeting BCMA, is allowed. In dose-escalation, pts receive BFCR4350A by IV infusion in 21-day cycles (Q3W). In Arm A, a single step-up dose is used in Cycle (C) 1 to mitigate the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), with the step dose (0.05-3.6mg) given on C1 Day (D) 1 and the target dose (0.15-132mg) given on C1D8, and on D1 of each subsequent cycle. Results: At cut-off (April 13, 2020), 51 pts (median age: 62.0 years [range: 33-80]; high-risk [HR] cytogenetics [1q21, t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p)]: 28 pts) had been enrolled into Arm A. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (range: 2-15). Prior treatments included: proteasome inhibitors (PIs), 100% (94.1% refractory); immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), 100% (98.0% refractory); anti-CD38 mAbs, 78.4% (92.5% refractory); autologous stem cell transplant, 86.3%. Overall, 66.7% of pts were triple-class refractory (≥1 PI, ≥1 IMiD, and ≥1 anti-CD38 mAb), and 94.1% of pts were refractory to their last therapy. At cut-off, 46/51 pts were evaluable for efficacy. Responses were observed at the 3.6/20mg dose level and above, in 15/29 pts (51.7%) (Table). Responses included 3 stringent CRs, 3 CRs, 4 VGPRs, and 5 PRs (Table). At the 3.6/20mg dose level and above, responses were observed in pts with HR cytogenetics (9/17), triple-class refractory disease (10/20), and prior exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs (11/22), CAR-Ts (2/3), or ADCs (2/2). Duration of response data are evolving, with 6/15 pts in response for >6 months at cut-off. Median follow-up for safety was 6.2 months (range: 0.2-26.3 months). Almost all pts (49/51) had ≥1 treatment-related AE. The most common treatment-related AE was CRS (Lee et al. 2014 criteria; 38/51 pts, 74.5%). CRS was Grade (Gr) 1 in 20 pts (39.2%), Gr 2 in 17 pts (33.3%), and Gr 3 in 1 pt (2%) (due to Gr 4 transaminase elevation). CRS was most common in C1 (38 pts) and was uncommon or absent in subsequent cycles (4 pts). Most CRS events (49/58, 84.5%) resolved within 2 days. 18/38 (47.3%) pts with CRS received tocilizumab and/or steroids. Other treatment-related AEs in ≥5 pts were neutropenia and lymphocyte count decreased (6 pts each, 11.8%), aspartate aminotransferase increased and platelet count decreased (5 pts each, 9.8%). Treatment-related Gr 3-4 AEs (20 pts, 39.2%) in ≥3 pts were lymphocyte count decreased (6 pts, 11.8%), neutropenia (5 pts, 9.8%), anemia and platelet count decreased (3 pts each, 5.9%). No treatment-related Gr 5 (fatal) AEs were observed. Treatment-related AEs leading to withdrawal of treatment were uncommon (1 pt, 2.0%). One DLT (Gr 3 pneumonia) was observed in the 3.6/90mg cohort, but the MTD was not reached. BFCR4350A PK was linear across the active dose levels tested and the estimated half-life was supportive of the Q3W dosing regimen. Conclusions: BFCR4350A monotherapy demonstrates promising activity in heavily pre-treated R/R MM, with deep and durable responses observed in pts with HR cytogenetics, triple-class refractory disease, and/or prior exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs, CAR-Ts, or ADCs. Toxicity was manageable, with C1 single step-up dosing effectively mitigating the risk for severe CRS and allowing escalation to clinically active doses. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Cohen: Novartis: Other: Patents/Intellectual property licensed, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: 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; Haemalogix: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Krishnan:Sutro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Z Predicta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Stock BMS, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Forsberg:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, Inc., Sanofi, Karyopharm, Abbvie: Research Funding. Spencer:AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Lilly: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding. Li:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. Choeurng:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vaze:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Samineni:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sumiyoshi:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Cooper:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fine:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Trudel:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: BFCR4350A is a humanized IgG-based T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody that targets the most membrane-proximal domain of FcRH5 on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells. Dual binding facilitates efficient immunological synapse formation, resulting in T-cell activation and killing of myeloma cells. BFCR4350A is an investigational agent.

5000 Background: It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic classifier results that report a continuous numerical risk of recurrence into treatment decisions for prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized PCa. Methods: Four multi-center cohorts (n = 6928 men; 5937 prospective samples and 991 retrospective samples with long-term follow-up) were utilized to identify and validate our clinical-genomic risk system in radical prostatectomy (RP) samples and subsequently in pre-treatment biopsy samples. All patients’ FFPE tissue underwent microarray analysis, and the expression values for 22 prespecified biomarkers that constitute Decipher were extracted. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed to estimate metastasis risk. C-indices were calculated to compare NCCN and CAPRA score to our clinical-genomic system. Results: With a median follow-up of 8 years for men in our RP cohort, the 10-year distant metastasis rates for NCCN low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.8%, 9.4%, 40.1%, and 41.4%, respectively. Our 3-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.7%, 30.7%, and 57.7%, for low, intermediate, and high-risk, which were validated in our pre-treatment biopsy cohort with 10-year rate of distant metastasis of 0%, 30.3%, and 63.2%, respectively. C-indices for the clinical-genomic system (0.84, 95%CI 0.62-0.92) were significantly improved over NCCN (0.71, 95%CI 0.59-0.84) and CAPRA (0.71, 95%CI 0.60-0.81) score. A total of 33.4% of men would be reclassified by the clinical-genomic system, and specifically 17.1%, 41.3%, and 19.4% of men in NCCN low, intermediate and high risk groups would be reclassified by our new system. Conclusions: The use of a readily available genomic classifier in combination with clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple to use 3-tier clinical-genomic risk system that is highly prognostic for distant metastasis, is more accurate than clinical risk, and can be easily incorporated into NCCN guidelines to inform treatment decisions.

Abstract Purpose: Currently, no genomic signature exists to distinguish men most likely to progress on adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Here we develop and validate a gene expression signature to predict response to postoperative ADT. Experimental Design: A training set consisting of 284 radical prostatectomy patients was established after 1:1 propensity score matching metastasis between adjuvant-ADT (a-ADT)-treated and no ADT–treated groups. An ADT Response Signature (ADT-RS) was identified from neuroendocrine and AR signaling–related genes. Two independent cohorts were used to form three separate data sets for validation (set I, n = 232; set II, n = 435; set III, n = 612). The primary endpoint of the analysis was postoperative metastasis. Results: Increases in ADT-RS score were associated with a reduction in risk of metastasis only in a-ADT patients. On multivariable analysis, ADT-RS by ADT treatment interaction term remained associated with metastasis in both validation sets (set I: HR = 0.18, Pinteraction = 0.009; set II: HR = 0.25, Pinteraction = 0.019). In a matched validation set III, patients with Low ADT-RS scores had similar 10-year metastasis rates in the a-ADT and no-ADT groups (30.1% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.989). Among High ADT-RS patients, 10-year metastasis rates were significantly lower for a-ADT versus no-ADT patients (9.4% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.021). The marginal ADT-RS by ADT interaction remained significant in the matched dataset (Pinteraction = 0.035). Conclusions: Patients with High ADT-RS benefited from a-ADT. In combination with prognostic risk factors, use of ADT-RS may thus allow for identification of ADT-responsive tumors that may benefit most from early androgen blockade after radical prostatectomy. We discovered a gene signature that when present in primary prostate tumors may be useful to predict patients who may respond to early ADT after surgery. Clin Cancer Res; 24(16); 3908–16. ©2018 AACR.

133 Background: The genomic classifier, Decipher, has been validated to predict risk of metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the cohort size and event rate in the previous studies did not allow for a thorough investigation into performance within individual clinicopathologic or treatment subgroups. In this study, we present the first meta-analysis of the performance of the 22-marker genomic classifier in men with prostate cancer (PCa) post-RP. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Decipher genomic resource information database were searched for published reports of men with PCa treated by RP between 2010 and 2016 where the benefit of the Decipher genomic classifier test was assessed. The primary end point was the ability of Decipher to independently improve prognostication of regional or distant metastasis over routine clinicopathologic factors. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modeling, and extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined with the I2 test. Results: Five studies (975 total patients, and 855 with individual patient genomic and clinicopathologic data) were eligible for analysis. The median follow-up was 8 years. All patients had clinical high-risk disease, yet 60.9%, 22.6%, and 16.5% of patients were classified as low, intermediate, and high-risk, respectively by Decipher and had 10-year cumulative incidence rates of metastases of 5.5%, 15.0% and 26.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Adjusting for standard clinicopathologic variables, on multivariable analysis Decipher remained a statistically significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30 per 0.1 unit, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.47, p < 0.001), and the summary HR for metastasis of Decipher across the 5 studies was 1.52 (95% CI 1.39-1.67) per 0.1 unit. Conclusions: The genomic classifier test, Decipher, has the ability to independently improve prognostication of men post-RP, as well as within nearly all clinicopathologic and treatment subgroups. Strong consideration should be given to incorporating the use of genomic testing in clinical decision making and clinical trials to better individualize treatment.