Kansagra, Ankit

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) often receive immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; eg, lenalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (eg, bortezomib), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as part of their initial treatment. However, most pts relapse following initial treatment, with increasing attrition rates observed at each subsequent line of therapy (LOT), creating an unmet need for treatment options for pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who have prior exposure to these agents. Current regimens for pts who have prior exposure to lenalidomide and anti-CD38 mAbs include elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EPd; approved in Europe and the US) and pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd; approved in Europe and Australia), but disease control, as well as depth and durability of response, could be improved. Talquetamab (tal) and teclistamab (tec), targeting CD3 and either G protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D (GPRC5D, tal) or B-cell maturation antigen (tec), are the first T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved as monotherapies in Europe and the US for the treatment of pts with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM. Use of these novel immunotherapies in earlier LOTs, either with a dual-antigen targeting approach or by enhancing the activity of the BsAb with an IMiD (pomalidomide), may provide deeper, more durable responses and improve pt quality of life. Preliminary data using these combination treatments have shown promising results: in the phase 1b MonumenTAL-2 study (NCT05050097), tal+pomalidomide (tal-P) demonstrated overall response rates (ORRs) of >84% in pts with RRMM with ≥2 prior LOTs and in the phase 1b/2 RedirecTT-1 study (NCT04586426), tal+tec (tal-tec) showed ORRs of >77% in pts with TCE RRMM. MonumenTAL-6 (NCT06208150) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy of tal-P vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd and tal-tec vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd in pts with RRMM with 1-4 prior LOTs, including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb. Study Design and Methods: Eligibility includes pts aged ≥18 years with documented MM per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria, with measurable disease at screening, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who have received 1-4 prior LOTs (including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb in any prior LOT), and have progressive disease on or after their last therapy. Pts with prior exposure to pomalidomide, tec, or GPRC5D-directed therapies are excluded. Approximately 795 pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive tal-P, tal-tec, or investigator's choice of EPd or PVd. Tal is administered subcutaneously at 0.8 mg/kg every other week (Q2W), and tec is administered subcutaneously at 3.0 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) following step-up doses of each. Pts are permitted to switch from Q2W to Q4W tal dosing following a confirmed very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) at cycle 5. Pomalidomide, EPd, and PVd are administered per approved dosing schedules. Randomization is stratified by number of prior LOTs (1 vs ≥2), International Staging System stage at screening (I vs II/III), and investigator's choice of treatment (EPd vs PVd). Pts receive study treatment until disease progression, start of subsequent anti-MM treatment, death, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or end of study, whichever occurs first. A finite dosing approach is employed for tal and tec. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include ORR assessed per IMWG 2016 criteria, ≥VGPR rate, complete response (CR) or better rate, rate of minimal residual disease-negative CR, overall survival, PFS on next LOT, time-to-next treatment, and pt-reported outcomes. This study is actively recruiting, with more than 160 locations in 26 countries. Results will provide insights into the efficacy of the combination of BsAbs in therapeutic strategies that exploit their different mechanisms of action to overcome treatment resistance and improve outcomes of pts with TCE RRMM in earlier LOTs.

Abstract Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare hematological malignancy with a poor prognosis and considered incurable with conventional chemotherapy. Small observational studies reported allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) offers durable remissions in patients with BPDCN. We report an analysis of patients with BPDCN who received an allo-HCT, using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). We identified 164 patients with BPDCN from 78 centers who underwent allo-HCT between 2007 and 2018. The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) rates were 51.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.5-59.8), 44.4% (95% CI, 36.2-52.8), 32.2% (95% CI, 24.7-40.3), and 23.3% (95% CI, 16.9-30.4), respectively. Disease relapse was the most common cause of death. On multivariate analyses, age of ≥60 years was predictive for inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.35-3.46; P = .001), and higher NRM (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.13-4.22; P = .02). Remission status at time of allo-HCT (CR2/primary induction failure/relapse vs CR1) was predictive of inferior OS (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.06; P = .01) and DFS (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.76; P = .02). Use of myeloablative conditioning with total body irradiation (MAC-TBI) was predictive of improved DFS and reduced relapse risk. Allo-HCT is effective in providing durable remissions and long-term survival in BPDCN. Younger age and allo-HCT in CR1 predicted for improved survival, whereas MAC-TBI predicted for less relapse and improved DFS. Novel strategies incorporating allo-HCT are needed to further improve outcomes.

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score <90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: 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; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: MM that is refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (CD38MoAb) is labeled triple-class refractory (TCR) and recognized as a modern therapeutic challenge. In recent years, new agents have shown activity in this setting in single arm trials and many more are in development. The assessment of the impact of new agents in the TCR setting is impaired by limited information on the therapeutic outcomes of these patients when treated with non-investigational therapies. Methods: We utilized an independent RWD dataset of patients with MM refractory to CD38MoAb built from academic collaboration (MAMMOTH study) to identify patients with TCR MM who received subsequent therapy. Patients with MM that was CD38MoAb refractory but not TCR were followed longitudinally and only included if, after subsequent lines of therapy, MM became TCR. Patients were excluded if they had plasma cell leukemia, poor renal function (serum creatinine > 2 mg/dl) or if next therapy after TCR status included experimental agents. Refractoriness to a MM agent was defined as lack of objective response and/or progression while receiving therapy or within 60 days of last dose as per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Time zero for analysis was initiation of next therapy after MM became TCR. Response to therapy and progression were adjudicated utilizing IMWG criteria. MM that was TCR but also exposed to 2 PIs, 2 IMiDs and a CD38MoAb was considered penta-exposed, and when refractory to 2 PIs, 2 IMiDs and a CD38MoAb, it was considered penta-refractory. Results: Data collection occurred between 2016 and 2018 (prior to commercial availability of selinexor, belantamab mafodotin, melflufen or ide-cel). Of 275 patients in the MAMMOTH study, 177 were included. Median age was 65 years (range 27-90), 53% were male, 76% white, 28 % had International Staging System stage 3, and 29% high risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p)]. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 3-17), median time from diagnosis to TCR was 4.8 years (range 0.9-19.4), 73% had received prior autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, 84% were refractory to bortezomib or ixazomib, 58% were refractory to carfilzomib, 87% to lenalidomide and 74% to pomalidomide. Penta-exposed patients were 58% and penta-refractory 30%. The first regimen after MM became TCR included cytotoxic chemotherapy in 45%, CD38MoAb in 25%, SLAMF7 MoAb in 7%, carfilzomib in 24%, and pomalidomide in 34% of cases. Overall response rate (ORR) was 30% (20.9% PR, 7.3% VGPR and 1.7% CR). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 mo. (95% C.I. 2.3-3.2) and overall survival (OS) 8.6 mo. (95% C.I. 6.8-10.3),(Figure). For Patients with MM that was penta-exposed (N=102), ORR was 30%, median PFS was 2.7 mo (95% C.I 2.1-3.2), and median OS 7.7 mo (95% C.I. 6.0-9.4). For patients with penta-refractory MM (N=53), ORR was 32%, median PFS was 2.5 mo. (95% C.I. 1.7-3.3), and median OS 6.9 mo. (95% C.I. 4.9-8.9). PFS or OS was similar among patients who were TCR but not penta-exposed, TCR plus penta-exposed but not penta- refractory or TCR plus penta-refractory (Figure). Outcomes according to next regimen after MM became TCR are outlined in the Table. In multivariable analysis, no factor was predictor of PFS while refractoriness to carfilzomib (HR 2.2, 95% C.I. 1.5-3.3), presence of high-risk chromosome abnormalities (HR 1.5, 95% C.I. 1.0-2.2) and short interval from diagnosis to TCR (HR 0.92, 95% C.I. 0.85-0.99) were predictors of shorter OS. Conclusions: Patients with TCR MM have a uniformly low chance of response to subsequent conventional therapy with short PFS and OS even when not penta-exposed or penta-refractory. This dataset provides efficacy benchmark for new therapies being developed in this setting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Costa: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cornell: Abvvie: Current Employment. Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Liedtke: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: 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; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kansagra: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giri: PackHealth: Research Funding; CareVive: Honoraria, Research Funding. Malek: Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Advisory board ; Cumberland Inc.: Research Funding; Bluespark Inc.: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Board; Medpacto Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria. Usmani: Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; EdoPharma: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Hari: Sanofi: 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, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: 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; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.

Abstract Little is known about whether risk classification at diagnosis predicts post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated 8709 patients with AML from the CIBMTR database, and after selection and manual curation of the cytogenetics data, 3779 patients in first complete remission were included in the final analysis: 2384 with intermediate-risk, 969 with adverse-risk, and 426 with KMT2A-rearranged disease. An adjusted multivariable analysis detected an increased risk of relapse for patients with KMT2A-rearranged or adverse-risk AML as compared to those with intermediate-risk disease (hazards ratio [HR], 1.27; P = .01; HR, 1.71; P &lt; .001, respectively). Leukemia-free survival was similar for patients with KMT2A rearrangement or adverse risk (HR, 1.26; P = .002, and HR, 1.47; P &lt; .001), as was overall survival (HR, 1.32; P &lt; .001, and HR, 1.45; P &lt; .001). No differences in outcome were detected when patients were stratified by KMT2A fusion partner. This study is the largest conducted to date on post-HCT outcomes in AML, with manually curated cytogenetics used for risk stratification. Our work demonstrates that risk classification at diagnosis remains predictive of post-HCT outcomes in AML. It also highlights the critical need to develop novel treatment strategies for patients with KMT2A-rearranged and adverse-risk disease.

8030 Background: CARTITUDE-1 is a single arm study of Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; JNJ-68284528) anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy in US patients (pts) with relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) refractory to both IMiD and proteasome inhibitor (PI) or with at least 3 prior lines of therapy and previously exposed to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MoAb). While recently reported efficacy results of cilta-cel were encouraging, it is unknown how they compare with similar pts receiving conventional (non CAR-T) treatment. Methods: We utilized a contemporary US-based dataset of pts with MM refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb (MAMMOTH) to identify pts who would meet eligibility for CARTITUDE-1 and who received conventional therapy. We analyzed the intent-to-treat population (ITT) in CARTITUDE-1, defined as pts who underwent apheresis (N=113) and a modified ITT population (mITT) defined as subset of pts who received cilta-cel at the RP2D (N=97). From the MAMMOTH dataset, we identified a population corresponding to CARTITUDE-1 ITT (N=190) and a mITT population, pts without death or progression within 47 days (median time between apheresis and cilta-cel infusion) from onset of therapy (N=122). We calculated propensity scores (PS) with demographics, N of prior therapies, cytogenetics and refractoriness to MM agents as covariates. An analyst blinded to outcomes performed nearest neighbor 1:1 PS matching. We analyzed overall response rate (ORR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for ITT and mITT in CARTITUDE-1 vs matching MAMMOTH cohorts. Results: Ninety-five ITT (75 received bridging therapy, 82 received cilta-cel) and 69 mITT (54 received bridging) CARTITUDE-1 pts matched MAMMOTH pts (Table). Among the pts in the MAMMOTH ITT cohort 34% received pomalidomide, 24% anti-CD38 MoAb, 19% carfilzomib and 35% cytotoxic chemotherapy in next therapy. ORR in the ITT cohorts was higher in CARTITUDE-1 (84% vs. 28%). Compared to their MAMMOTH counterparts, pts in CARTITUDE-1 ITT cohort had improved PFS (12 mo. 73% vs. 12%) and OS (12 mo. 83% vs 39%). Between the mITT cohorts, CARTITUDE-1 pts had superior ORR (96% vs. 30%), PFS (12 mo 79% vs. 15%) and OS (12 mo. 88% vs. 41%). Conclusions: In pts with RRMM beyond therapy with IMID, PI, and anti-CD38 MoAb, treatment with cilta-cel is associated with higher response rate and superior PFS and OS when compared to conventional treatment.[Table: see text]