Sidana, Surbhi

AbstractBackgroundLenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression‐free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high‐risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard‐risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib‐based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.MethodsIn total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel‐agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.ResultsThree hundred fifty‐seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib‐based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib‐based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high‐risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression‐free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).ConclusionsNo superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post‐transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

e20021 Background: CAR T cell therapies are FDA approved for patients with triple refractory multiple myeloma (MM) and >4 lines of therapy. The median survival of this is group is less than 12 months so salvage therapies need to be implemented quickly. Real-world access to CAR T remains challenging due to supply chain limitations impacting manufacturing. The goal of this study was to evaluate how centers are handling the challenges of CAR T slot allocation. Methods: MM CAR T physician leaders at each CAR T treatment center certified for idecabtagene vicleucel across the US were surveyed. Results: We received responses from 15/20 centers. Summary of CAR T volumes and outcomes of patient on waitlists are shown in the table. The median time on the waiting list was 6 months with only 25% of patients receiving CAR T eventually. For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced CART physicians to ensure consistency. Selection committee included: primary MD (n=9), CAR T MD (n=12), social workers (n=3), CAR T RN (n=10), APP (n=2), pharmacists (n=2) and ethicists (n=1). To ensure transparency, centers have clear selection criteria (n=10), priority score (n=8) and selection timeline (n=11) . To ensure accountability, centers document priority scores (n=5) and have pre-specified criteria (n=9) for selection. Centers also reported using ethical principles for selection: a) equal treatment: time spent on waiting list (n=8); b) priority to the worst-off: limited therapeutic options (n=10), MM burden (n=7), ineligible for trials (n=2); c) maximize benefit: most likely to complete apheresis (n=8) or infusion (n=8) or achieve response (n=6) and d) social value: younger pts (n=2). Maximizing benefit was considered the most important criterion by 7 centers. Conclusions: More stringent GMP manufacturing requirements with FDA approved CAR T and real-world practice with broader patient demographics can present challenges to implementation of CAR T in standard of practice. Our study is the first attempt to evaluate and highlight existing issues with MM CAR T access and the variability and challenges in patient selection. Learning from other models of resource allocation (ex: UNOS) and sharing experience across centers can help providers optimize slot allocation to improve accrual. Increasing supplies of key reagents and novel manufacturing methods(eg: non-viral vectors and allogeneic CAR) could help overcome these limitations. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Abstract Background Allogeneic (off the shelf) chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy addresses the logistical challenges, availability (including insufficient T-cell yields from low baseline absolute lymphocyte count), and variable product quality of autologous CAR T therapy. ALLO-715 is a genetically modified anti-BCMA AlloCAR T™ cell which uses Cellectis TALEN ® technology to disrupt the T-cell receptor alpha constant gene (TRAC) and the CD52 gene to reduce the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and permit the use of ALLO-647, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody (mAb), for selective and transitory host lymphodepletion (LD). Methods UNIVERSAL is an open-label, Phase 1 trial (NCT04093596) in adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma who have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulator, and anti-CD38 mAb. Patients (pts) must be refractory to their last treatment line. Pts receive LD followed by ALLO-715 at 1 of 4 dose levels (DLs) in a 3+3 dose escalation design: 40, 160, 320, and 480 x 10 6 CAR+ T cells. Several LD regimens are being evaluated: FCA39; FCA60; FCA90; and CA39; with fludarabine [F] 90 mg/m 2, cyclophosphamide [C] 900 mg/m 2, and ALLO-647 [A] 39, 60, or 90 mg divided over 3 days. Results As of June 21, 2021 data-cut, 47 subjects were enrolled; 42 were treated with ALLO-715; 5 progressed prior to treatment. Median time from enrollment to LD was 5 days and no treated pts required bridging therapy. Pts were heavily pretreated with a range of 3-11 prior lines of therapy; 42.9% were penta refractory. There were 19% ISS Stage III at screening, 34% had high risk cytogenetics, and 19% had extramedullary disease. The most common Grade (Gr) 3+ adverse events (AEs) included anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 52.4%, all Gr 1/2 except 1 pt with Gr 3. CRS was treated with tocilizumab (21.3%) and corticosteroids (12.8%). One pt (with Gr 2 CRS) experienced Gr 1 neurotoxicity that resolved. Gr 3+ infections occurred in 12.8% of pts, including 2 previously reported Gr 5 events (fungal pneumonia and adenovirus hepatitis). Early results from this trial have been presented previously (ASH 2020) and therefore the efficacy analysis on pts (n=26) treated at DL3 and DL4 with FCA LD, which are considered a more relevant cell dose and LD, is presented here (Table). In pts who received DL3 or DL4 (320 or 480 x 10 6 CAR T cells) (n=26), the ORR was 61.5% (95% CI: 40.6, 79.8); very good partial response or better (VGPR+) rate was 38.5% (95% CI: 20.2, 59.4). Median time to 1 st response was 16 days. The median follow-up for the DL3/DL4 pts was 7.4 months (95% CI: 3.6, 9.9) with a median duration of response of 8.3 months (95% CI: 1.5, not reached). Of the 10 pts with a best response of VGPR+, 8 were found to be negative by minimal residual disease (MRD) analysis. Conclusions UNIVERSAL demonstrates proof of concept for allogeneic CAR T therapy in multiple myeloma. ALLO-715 showed CAR T cell dose response relationship with higher doses (DL3/DL4) leading to clinically meaningful efficacy, including high VGPR+ rate of 38.5% and high MRD negativity without requiring leukapheresis or bridging therapy. ALLO-715 following LD with FCA has a tolerable safety profile. FCA induces a deep and durable window of lymphocyte depletion allowing CAR T cell expansion and persistence. A study using the next generation anti-BCMA CAR (ALLO-605) which supplies cytokine signaling to the CAR bearing cells is ongoing (IGNITE). The current UNIVERSAL trial continues to enroll, including a cohort with consolidation, and updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mailankody: Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Plexus Communications: Honoraria; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Physician Education Resource: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb/Juno: Research Funding; Jansen Oncology: Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Evicore: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding. Liedtke: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sidana: BMS: Consultancy; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Oluwole: Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Nath: Actinium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anwer: Janssen pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; BMS / Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raje: Caribou: Other; Janssen: Other; bluebird bio: Other; Amgen: Other; Celgene: Other; BMS: Other. Siegel: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celularity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen Inc.: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karski: Allogene Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Crispr Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Nektar Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lovelace: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Lourbakos: Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Hari: Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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

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

Abstract Patients with immunoglobulin M (IgM) light chain (AL) amyloidosis have a distinct clinical presentation compared with those with non-IgM amyloidosis. We hypothesized that differential immunoglobulin light-chain variable region (IGVL) gene usage may explain the differences in organ involvement, because IGVL usage correlates with organ tropism. IGVL usage was evaluated by mass spectrometry of amyloid deposits (IgM, n = 45; non-IgM, n = 391) and differed across the 2 groups. In the λ family, LV2-08 (13% vs 2%; P &lt; .001) and LV2-14 (36% vs 10%; P &lt; .001) usage was more common in IgM vs non-IgM amyloidosis, whereas LV1-44 (0% vs 10%; P = .02) and LV6-57 (2% vs 18%; P = .004) usage was less common. In the κ family, there was a trend toward higher KV4-01 (11% vs 4%; P = .06) usage in IgM amyloidosis. IGVL usage correlated with disease characteristics/organ tropism. LV2-14 (more common in IgM amyloidosis) has historically been associated with peripheral nerve involvement and lower light chain burden, which were more frequent in IgM amyloidosis. LV1-44 (less common in IgM), associated with cardiac involvement, was less frequent in IgM patients. LV6-57 (less common in IgM) is associated with t(11;14), which was less frequent in IgM patients. In conclusion, IGVL gene usage differs in patients with IgM vs non-IgM amyloidosis and may explain the distinct clinical presentation.