Lee, Cindy

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

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 &gt;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 &gt;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.

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.

8020 Background: MM patients (pts) often receive several lines of therapy with multiple drug combinations and, as lenalidomide (R)-containing regimens are commonly used as first-line therapy, R-free options for subsequent lines are necessary. Additionally, as pts age and become less tolerant to treatment, more convenient regimens, such as all-oral options, with less toxicity are needed. Dexamethasone (dex)-based doublets are effective and tolerable in this setting. Methods: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-exposed and/or intolerant and R-refractory pts who had ≥2 prior therapies (N = 122) were randomized 3:2 to receive: ixazomib (ixa) 4 mg (5.5 mg from cycle 2 if tolerated) on day (d) 1, 8, 15, and dex 20 mg (≥75 years [yrs], 10 mg) on d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23; or pomalidomide (pom) 4 mg on d 1–21, and dex 40 mg (≥75 yrs, 20 mg) on d 1, 8, 15, 22, in 28-d cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by age ( < 65 vs ≥65 yrs), International Staging System (ISS) disease stage at study entry (I/II vs III), and prior lines of therapy (2 vs ≥3). The study was powered to test the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the ixa-dex (n = 73) vs pom-dex (n = 49) arms, median age was 72 vs 68 yrs (36% vs 18% ≥75 yrs), 25% vs 22% of pts had ISS stage III MM, and 52% vs 53% had received ≥3 prior therapies (per stratification). At data cutoff (5/31/2020), 19% vs 20% of pts were ongoing on treatment with ixa-dex vs pom-dex; primary reasons for discontinuation were PD (47% vs 57%) and adverse events (AEs; 23% vs 12%). With median follow-up of 15.3 vs 17.3 months (mos), median PFS (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 mos with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.847; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.535–1.341; p = 0.477); the Table shows mPFS by prior lines, and secondary endpoints. Pts received a median of 6 cycles with both ixa-dex (range 1–25) and pom-dex (range 1–27); 64% of ixa-dex pts were able to escalate to a 5.5 mg dose of ixa. 69% vs 81% of ixa-dex vs pom-dex pts had grade (G) ≥3 AEs, 51% vs 53% had serious AEs, 39% vs 36% had an AE leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had an AE leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EORTC QLQ-C30/MY20, and EQ-5D-5L) was maintained, and similar between arms. Conclusions: Ixa-dex prolonged PFS vs pom-dex in these heavily pretreated, PI-exposed and/or intolerant, R-refractory pts, but the difference was not statistically significant. Ixa-dex was well tolerated, with lower G≥3 AE rates vs pom-dex, and comparable HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03170882.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) with the translocation t(11;14) may have inferior outcomes in comparison with other standard‐risk MM, and it has been suggested to portend a worse prognosis in African Americans in comparison with Whites. This study used the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to examine the impact of t(11;14) on the clinical outcomes of patients with MM of African American and White descent.MethodsThis study evaluated 3538 patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) for MM from 2008 to 2016 and were reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups: African Americans with t(11;14) (n = 117), African Americans without t(11;14) (n = 968), Whites with t(11;14) (n = 266), and Whites without t(11;14) (n = 2187).ResultsAfrican Americans with t(11;14) were younger, had lower Karnofsky scores, and had more advanced stage MM with a higher Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation–Comorbidity Index (HCT‐CI). Fewer African Americans with t(11;14) (21%) had a coexistent high‐risk marker in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (27%). In a multivariate analysis, race and t(11;14) had no association with progression‐free survival. However, overall survival was superior among African Americans with t(11;14) in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30‐0.93; P = .03). Survival was also associated with female sex, stage, time from diagnosis to transplant, a low HCT‐CI, and receipt of maintenance.ConclusionsRace may have a differential impact on the survival of patients with t(11;14) MM who undergo autoHCT and needs to be further studied.