Arnulf, Bertrand

8032 Background: Patients (pts) with TCE RRMM have few treatment (Tx) options and poor HRQoL. Ide-cel, the first in class CAR T cell Tx for pts with TCE RRMM, improved PFS versus standard (std) regimens in the KarMMa-3 trial. We report the PRO results comparing the Tx arms. PROs provide further understanding of Tx benefit of ide-cel from the pts’ perspective. Methods: KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128) is an open-label phase 3 RCT comparing the efficacy and safety of ide-cel with std regimens in pts with TCE RRMM, who had received 2–4 prior regimens. In addition to clinical endpoints, we evaluated the impact of ide-cel compared with std regimens on the changes in HRQoL, measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20, and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. PROs were collected at baseline (screening), day of infusion and monthly from 2–24 months (mo) and thereafter every 3 mo. This interim analysis reports PROs through 20 mo. Comparisons were performed on least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline over time between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Results: In total, 386 pts were randomized (ide-cel, 254; std regimens, 132). PRO compliance was high over time ( > 80%). At baseline, PROs were similar between arms. LSM changes from baseline to 20 mo showed significant differences ( P < 0.05), with effect sizes of 0.3–0.7, in favor of ide-cel for most domains, including global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain (EORTC QLQ-C30); side effects of Tx (EORTC QLQ-MY20); and the EQ-5D-5L VAS. The difference in overall LSM change reached or exceeded the pre-specified between-groups minimal importance difference (MID) for improvement in most domains in favor of ide-cel (Table). Conclusions: Ide-cel showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL, including key MM symptoms and functioning, for pts with TCE RRMM compared with std regimens. The PRO data for ide-cel expands upon the clinical outcomes observed in the KarMMa-3 trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03651128 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study. PATIENTS AND METHODS PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs. RESULTS A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score. CONCLUSION D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.

Key Points Rd continuous significantly extended OS compared with MPT and resulted in comparable OS to that with Rd18 in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients achieving complete or very good partial response with Rd benefited greatly from continuous vs fixed treatment in terms of PFS.