Iida, Shinsuke

PURPOSE Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency. METHODS The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744 ) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α = .05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10 –5 ), and safety. RESULTS Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P = .24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. CONCLUSION The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.

Abstract Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are an effective treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) is a B-cell maturation antigen-targeted CAR T-cell therapy approved for patients with RRMM with ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Developing a better understanding of the relationship between patient age and CAR T-cell therapy outcomes may help guide treatment and clinical practice. This analysis of data from the KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) describes efficacy and safety outcomes in older and younger patients who received either ide-cel or standard therapy regimens. Methods: KarMMa-3 is an open-label, phase 3 trial that includes adults with RRMM who have received 2-4 prior treatment regimens with disease refractory to the last therapy. Enrolled patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either a one-time infusion of ide-cel or 1 of 5 standard regimens. This subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ide-cel compared with standard regimens in KarMMa-3 patients by age group (≥70 vs &lt;70 yrs). Outcome measures assessed include overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and incidence of selected adverse events. Results: A total of 386 patients were evaluated; 19.3% (49/254) of those receiving ide-cel and 20.5% (27/132) of those receiving standard regimens were aged ≥70 yrs. Compared with older patients, younger patients receiving ide-cel exhibited more high-risk baseline characteristics, including high-risk cytogenic abnormalities (44.4% vs 32.7%) and triple-class refractory disease (66.8% vs 55.1%). The median time to progression during the most recent prior anti-myeloma treatment was longer for patients aged ≥70 yrs who received ide-cel vs standard regimens (8.6 mo vs 6.7 mo) but was similar for patients aged &lt;70 yrs (6.5 mo vs 6.9 mo). ORR for patients aged &lt;70 yrs was 68.8% (95% CI: 62.4, 75.1) with ide-cel and 41.0% (95% CI: 31.5, 50.4) with standard regimens (P&lt;0.0001). Patients aged ≥70 yrs treated with ide-cel achieved an ORR of 81.6% (95% CI: 70.8, 92.5) vs 48.1% (95% CI: 29.3, 67.0) with standard regimens (P&lt;0.01). Median PFS for patients aged &lt;70 yrs was longer with ide-cel treatment vs standard regimens (12.5 mo [95% CI: 11.2, 15.4] vs 4.2 mo [95% CI: 3.5, 5.7]; P&lt;0.0001). Similar trends were seen in patients aged ≥70 yrs, where median PFS was 18.9 mo (95% CI: 12.1, 24.5) with ide-cel treatment and 5.7 mo (95% CI: 2.2, 12.2) with standard regimens (P&lt;0.01). Median OS was not reached in older patients in either treatment arm; in younger patients, median OS was 39.5 mo (95% CI: 27.8, NR) with ide-cel and 27.9 mo (95% CI: 20.6, NR) with standard regimens. Incidence of adverse events reported with ide-cel treatment was generally similar between age groups for cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and infections. Analyses of patient-reported QoL data and other relevant safety endpointsare ongoing and will be included in the presentation. Conclusions: In the KarMMa-3 trial, patients aged ≥70 years derived substantial benefit from ide-cel treatment, demonstrated by longer PFS and a notable ORR compared with standard regimens. While efficacy and safety outcomes of ide-cel treatment in older patients were consistent with younger patients, it is important to note that patients in the trial aged ≥70 yrs were more likely to have favorable baseline characteristics and less aggressive and heavily pretreated disease. This may reflect a selection bias towards enrolling older patients considered to be easier to treat. In contrast, real-world data from late-line settings suggest that older patients are undergoing treatment based on less restrictive selection criteria—eg, including those with higher-risk baseline features—reflecting a more representative and broader population. These observations reinforce the potential for durable benefit with a single ide-cel infusion in a real-world context without additional adverse safety signals, supporting its use across age groups.

Abstract Background B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting immunotherapies represent a promising class of treatment for the management of immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, a disease that is related to clonal plasma cells. Etentamig is a 2nd generation, off-the-shelf, fully human BMCA X CD3 bispecific antibody with bivalent BCMA domain and low CD3 affinity that targets both BCMA-expressing plasma cells and CD3-expressing T cells. Etentamig monotherapy is being studied in multiple myeloma (MM) in an ongoing phase 3 study (NCT06158841). Here, we report the first safety and efficacy results from M24-209, an open-label phase 1/2 study evaluating etentamig monotherapy in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (RR) AL amyloidosis from dose level 1 (DL1). Methods The phase 1 dose escalation (ESC) portion of the study (NCT06158854) with etentamig enrolled pts with RR AL amyloidosis with ≥1 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a proteasome inhibitor and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with no prior BCMA exposure. Eligible pts were required to have a difference in involved and uninvolved serum free light chain (dFLC) of ≥50 mg/L, and pts with Mayo Clinic 2004 cardiac risk stage IIIb with NT-proBNP ≥8500 pg/ml were excluded. Three dose groups were explored in dose ESC (etentamig dose levels [DL] 1, 2, and 3). In all cohorts, pts will receive up to 24 cycles of treatment and will be followed until disease progression. In dose ESC, the primary objectives are to determine safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, and recommended phase 2 dose. The secondary objectives include evaluation of efficacy as measured by hematologic response and organ response. Responses are investigator assessed per consensus guidelines (Comenzo, et al. Leukemia. 2012. 26[11]:2317-25; Palladini G, et al. Amyloid. 2021 [Epub];28[1]:1-2). Results As of 17 July 2025, all DLs in dose ESC have been fully enrolled, and 12 pts have been treated with etentamig at DL1. Due to short follow-up, this initial report only includes data from DL1, with further follow-up data from ESC to be included at the time of presentation. Median duration of follow up in DL1 was 9.4 months (8.3–13.8) with 83% of pts continuing treatment. Median age for pts was 72 years (range, 56–85 years). Median number of prior LOT was 2 (range, 1–6), and median time from initial diagnosis was 3.6 years. Thirty-three percent have received a prior stem cell transplant and 50% previously received the regimen of daratumumab with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in combination. Median dFLC at study baseline was 110. 5 mg/L (range, 56.6–617.5). At baseline, 83% of pts had cardiac involvement, 25% had renal involvement, and 8% had hepatic involvement. Eighty-three percent of pts had lambda AL amyloidosis. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 100% (42% Grade ≥3) of pts at DL1. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 2 pts (17%, all Grade 1), with no instances of any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). CRS occurring after the first dose had median time to onset of 6.8 hours (range, 6.7–6.9). Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 1 pt (8%, all Grade 3). Grade ≥3 neutropenia also occurred in 1 pt (8%, all Grade 3), and no Grade ≥3 events of thrombocytopenia or anemia occurred. No Grade 5 events have occurred. Within the dose ESC DL1 cohort, the overall hematologic response rate was 100%, with all pts achieving ≥VGPR and 83% of pts achieving complete response (CR). The median time to CR was 0.9 months (0.3–9.3). The median duration of response has not yet been reached and 100% of pts remain in their best overall response by investigator assessment. To date, no pts have experienced hematologic progression on study. Cardiac response was observed in 30% of evaluable pts. Renal response was seen in 67% of evaluable pts. Conclusions In the DL1 cohort, etentamig showed a manageable safety profile in AL amyloidosis with low incidence and severity of CRS, no ICANS, and limited Grade ≥3 cytopenia events. Deep and rapid hematologic responses were observed with 100% ≥VGPR rate and 83% hematologic CR rate. Additional dose-level data will be presented at the time of the meeting. All pts remain in ongoing follow-up and evaluation, and the study will begin the dose expansion (EXP) portion after dose selection.

PURPOSE This analysis aimed to contextualize the symptoms of peripheral neuropathy (PN) experienced by patients with triple-class refractory (TCR) multiple myeloma (MM) treated with elranatamab in the MagnetisMM-3 clinical trial with those experienced by patients with TCR MM receiving a new line of physician's choice of therapy in the real-world MagnetisMM-14 study. METHODS MagnetisMM-3 included 123 patients and MagnetisMM-14 included 35 who had TCR MM and were enrolled under the same eligibility criteria. Patient-reported symptoms of PN were collected monthly using the Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy-20 item (CIPN20) questionnaire and compared for clinically meaningful differences across sensory, motor, and autonomic domains. Higher scores indicated worse patient-reported PN symptoms. RESULTS Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for patients in MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 were generally similar. Patients in MagnetisMM-3 had a median of five ( v four in MagnetisMM-14) prior lines of therapy. In MagnetisMM-14, common index therapies included elotuzumab + pomalidomide (23%), carfilzomib + pomalidomide (19%), or carfilzomib + cyclophosphamide (19%), all with corticosteroids. Mean scores for sensory (15.8 v 14.8) and motor (14.4 v 12.2) domains of the CIPN20 were similar between MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 at baseline. Mean scores for the autonomic domain were 14.0 versus 21.3 at baseline, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences for any domain were found between month 6 scores or changes in scores from baseline to month 6 between MagnetisMM-3 and MagnetisMM-14 populations. CONCLUSION These findings suggest that elranatamab treatment was not associated with a worsening of patient-reported PN symptoms across the sensory, motor, and autonomic domains of the CIPN20. Moreover, PN symptoms reported with elranatamab treatment were similar to those reported with other common therapies used in real-world clinical practice for the management of MM. MagnetisMM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04649359 .

BACKGROUND ELRA is a humanized, BCMA/CD3 bispecific antibody. In the phase 2 registrational MagnetisMM-3 (MM-3) trial, SC ELRA given as 2 step-up priming doses (12 mg on day 1 and 32 mg on day 4 of cycle 1) followed by 76 mg QW in patients (pts) with RRMM naive to BCMA-directed therapy resulted in an ORR of 61.0%. With a median follow-up of 28.4 mos, the median DOR, PFS, and OS were not reached (NR; 2-year rate, 66.9%), 17.2, and 24.6 mos, respectively. Overall, 56.3% of pts had CRS (grade 2, 14.3%; no grade ≥3). Most events occurred after doses 1 (44.5%), 2 (20.2%), and 3 (5.9%); 0.8% (1 pt) had CRS with doses ≥4. Recurrent CRS occurred in 15.1% of pts. The phase 1/2 MagnetisMM-9 (MM-9; NCT05014412) study is examining an alternative priming regimen and longer dosing intervals of ELRA. Here, we present updated MM-9 results. METHODS In MM-9, pts with RRMM and disease refractory to ≥1 IMiD drug, ≥1 PI, and ≥1 anti-CD38 antibody were given SC ELRA as step-up priming doses of 4 and 20 mg on Day 1 and Day 4 of Cycle 1, respectively. After the priming doses, ELRA 76 mg was given QW for the next 6 cycles (Part 1) or for 1 cycle followed by 116 (dose level 1 [DL1]) or 152 (dose level 2 [DL2]) mg Q2W for the next 5 cycles (Part 2A). After 6 cycles, the dosing frequency was decreased from QW to Q2W (Part 1) or from Q2W to Q4W (Part 2) in pts who achieved ≥PR lasting ≥2 months. The recommended phase 2 dose from Part 2A (152 mg, DL2) was evaluated in Part 2B (dose expansion). The primary endpoint for both parts is grade ≥2 CRS rate per ASTCT criteria during Cycle 1. Secondary endpoints include evaluation of efficacy and adverse events. Data cutoff: February 13, 2024. RESULTS Overall, 85 pts (median age, 64.0 y) were treated with ELRA. The majority (72.9%) of pts had R-ISS stage I/II disease (23.5% with R-ISS stage III); 31.8% had high-risk cytogenetics. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 5.0 (range, 1-12). The median treatment duration was 8.6, 2.9, 1.4, and 3.3 mos, in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, respectively. Median follow-up for pts overall (n=85), in Part 1 (n=33), Part 2A DL1 (n=12), Part 2A DL2 (n=11), and Part 2B (n=29) was 10.4, 23.3, 16.5, 15.2, and 9.3 mos, respectively. Overall, the ORR was 58.8%. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, or Part 2B, ORR was 66.7%, 58.3%, 36.4%, and 58.6%, respectively; median DOR was NR (9-mo rate: 86.4%), 10.8 mos (9-mo rate: 80.0%), NR (9-mo rate: 100.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 84.8%); median PFS was 17.1 (9-mo rate: 62.8%), 11.6 (9-mo rate: 50.9%), 1.6 mos (9-mo rate: 40.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 57.1%); median OS was NR (9-mo rate: 75.8%), 17.4 mos (9-mo rate: 66.7%), NR (9-mo rate: 60.0%), and NR (9-mo rate: 72.4%), respectively. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, grade ≥2 CRS rates during Cycle 1 were 15.2%, 16.7%, 27.3%, and 6.9%, respectively. For pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B, CRS rates were 30.3%, 33.3%, 36.4%, and 24.1% after dose 1, 27.3%, 25.0%, 36.4%, and 24.1% after dose 2, 15.2%, 33.3%, 27.3%, and 20.7% after dose 3, 6.1%, 8.3%, 0%, and 3.4% after dose 4, and 6.1%, 16.7%, 9.1%, and 0% after doses ≥5. Recurrent CRS occurred in 18.2%, 33.3%, 18.2%, and 17.2% of pts in Part 1, Part 2A DL1, Part 2A DL2, and Part 2B. The most common (&gt;60%) TEAEs (any grade/grade ≥3) were hematologic TEAEs (Part 1, 75.8%/75.8%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/83.3%; Part 2A DL2, 81.8%/81.8%; Part 2B, 79.3%/69.0%), infections (Part 1, 78.8%/48.5%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/66.7%; Part 2A DL2, 72.7%/63.6%; Part 2B, 62.1%/37.9%), and CRS (Part 1, 60.6%/0%; Part 2A DL1, 83.3%/0%; Part 2A DL2, 90.9%/9.1%; Part 2B, 48.3%/0%). Grade 5 TEAEs not including PD were infection (n=4), fall (n=1), subdural hematoma (n=1), and food poisoning (n=1). CONCLUSIONS The 4/20 mg step-up priming regimen and alternative dosing schedules in MM-9 resulted in similar efficacy vs the step-up regimen used in the registrational MM-3 study (12/32 mg). Responses were durable with encouraging PFS and OS with the alternative step up and longer dosing schedule. While the overall safety signals with the alternative step up regimen are similar to those seen with MM-3, the CRS profile differed with more CRS events after each subsequent dose and a higher prevalence of recurrent CRS. Thus, the optimal ELRA step-up regimen remains 12/32 mg from the original regimen in the MM-3 study. In addition, these early results suggest that reducing the dose frequency of ELRA may not compromise efficacy.

Abstract Outcomes are poor in triple-class–exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P &lt; .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

7522 Background: Elranatamab (ELRA) is a humanized BCMA-CD3 bispecific antibody. In the phase 2 registrational MagnetisMM-3 (MM-3) trial, SC ELRA was given as 2 step-up priming doses (12 mg on C1D1 and 32 mg on C1D4) followed by 76 mg QW in patients (pts) with RRMM. Overall, 56.3% of pts had CRS (grade 2, 14.3%; no grade ≥3). Most events occurred after doses 1 (44.5%), 2 (20.2%), and 3 (5.9%); 0.8% (1 pt) had CRS with doses 4+. Recurrent CRS (>1 event) occurred in 15.1% of pts (Lesokhin Nat Med 2023). Methods: MagnetisMM-9 (MM-9; NCT05014412) is a phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized study of ELRA examining an alternative 2-dose step-up priming regimen (4 and 20 mg on C1D1 and C1D4, respectively). Eligible pts had RRMM and were refractory to ≥1 IMiD, ≥1 PI, and ≥1 anti-CD38 antibody. After the priming doses, ELRA 76 mg was given QW for 6 cycles (Part 1) or for 1 cycle followed by 116 or 152 mg Q2W for 5 cycles (Part 2A). The RP2D from Part 2A (152 mg) was evaluated in Part 2B (dose expansion). The rate of grade ≥2 CRS per ASTCT criteria during C1 is the primary endpoint for both parts. Secondary endpoints include evaluation of AEs and PK. Here, we report the overall safety and CRS profile associated with the 4/20 mg priming regimen. Results: For 85 treated pts, median age was 64.0 y; 49.4% were male; 23.5% had EMD; 31.8% had high-risk cytogenetics. Pts had a median of 5.0 (range, 1-12) prior LOTs; 85.9% had triple-class refractory disease. After a median follow-up of 7.4 mo, the most common (>50%) AEs were CRS (63.5%; grade ≥2, 15.3%) and neutropenia (54.1%; all grade ≥2). ICANS occurred in 4.7% of pts (all grade ≤2). The grade ≥2 CRS rate in C1 was 14.1% (90% CI, 8.4-21.9). CRS rates after the first 3 doses are in the the table. For doses 4+, any grade (grade ≥2) CRS was observed in 10.6% (3.5%) of pts overall, 12.1% (3.0%) of pts continuing to receive 76 mg (n=33), 25.0% (0%) of pts receiving 116 mg (n=12), and 5.0% (5.0%) of pts receiving 152 mg (RP2D; n=40). Overall, recurrent CRS was observed in 20.0% of pts. The geometric means (CV%) of free ELRA concentrations 24 h (Cmax-24h) after step-up doses 1 and 2 were 85.64 (48%) and 242.8 (55%). Conclusions: The 4/20 mg step-up priming regimen and alternative dosing schedules resulted in similar safety and incidence of overall and grade ≥2 CRS events vs the regimen used in MM-3 (12/32 mg), with no new safety signals identified. However, the CRS profile in this study differed, with more CRS after doses 2, 3, and 4+ and a higher prevalence of recurrent CRS. The Cmax-24h of free ELRA (CV%) after the priming doses were lower than those in MM-3 (107.4 [47%] and 405.1 [72%], respectively). Thus, the priming regimen used in MM-3 remains the optimal regimen for mitigating CRS. Future analyses of ongoing studies will be used to confirm these results. Clinical trial information: NCT05014412 . [Table: see text]

Introduction A single ide-cel infusion showed significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) vs std regimens (13.3 vs 4.4 months [mo], HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, P &lt; 0.001) with deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated TCE RRMM at an interim analysis (IA) of KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128); safety data were consistent with prior studies (Rodríguez-Otero et al. NEJM 2023). Ide-cel benefits were consistent across pts in high-risk subgroups and across 2-4 prior lines of therapy (Tx). Results of the preplanned final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3 with 12.3 mo additional follow-up are reported. Methods In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, pts with RRMM who received 2-4 prior regimens, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab, and were refractory to last regimen were randomized 2:1 to ide-cel or a std regimen (DPd, DVd, IRd, Kd, or EPd). In the ide-cel arm, pts could receive ≤ 1 cycle of optional bridging Tx for disease control. Pts in the std regimens arm could receive ide-cel after confirmed disease progression (PD). The primary endpoint was IRC-assessed PFS in the ITT population; final PFS was planned to be analyzed with ~289 events. Key secondary endpoints were IRC-assessed overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); other secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) status, time to next anti-myeloma Tx (TTNT; time from randomization to next anti-myeloma Tx [MTx]), event-free survival (EFS; time from randomization to first PD, next MTx or any-cause death, whichever is first), PFS2 (time from randomization to second objective PD or any-cause death, whichever is first), safety, and health-related quality of life (QOL). Results Of 386 randomized pts (ide-cel, n = 254; std regimens, n = 132), 225 received ide-cel and 126 received a std regimen. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. Median follow-up from randomization to data cutoff (April 28, 2023) was 30.9 mo (range 12.7-47.8). Ide-cel significantly improved median PFS (95% CI) vs std regimens (13.8 [11.8-16.1] vs 4.4 [3.4-5.8] mo), representing a 51% reduced risk of PD or death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.63; Figure); 18 mo PFS rates were 41% vs 19%, respectively. Ide-cel significantly improved ORR vs std regimens (71% vs 42%) with deeper (CRR 44% vs 5%; ≥CR and MRD negative status [sensitivity level 10 -5], 22% vs 1%), more durable responses (median DOR 16.6 vs 9.7 mo; Table). PFS and ORR benefits of ide-cel vs std regimens were consistent with the IA. Interim OS will be included in the presentation. In pts who received ide-cel (n = 225) or a std regimen (n = 126), median PFS (95% CI) was 15.7 (12.5-18.9) vs 4.4 (3.4-5.8) mo, respectively. In the ITT population, median TTNT, EFS, and PFS2 were numerically longer with ide-cel vs std regimens. Median (range) TTNT was 20.9 (16.6-24.2) vs 7.0 (5.3-8.5) mo. Median (95% CI) EFS was 13.3 (11.3-15.7) vs 3.9 (3.0-5.3) mo. Median PFS2 (95% CI) was 23.5 (18.4-27.9) vs 16.7 (12.2-20.3) mo; ide-cel was next MTx in 70 (53%) pts in the std regimens arm. In the treated population, grade (gr) 3/4 infections occurred in 66/249 (27%) pts in the ide-cel arm vs 25/126 (20%) in the std regimens arm. In the ide-cel safety population, any gr cytokine release syndrome occurred in 197/225 (88%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 11 (5%); median time to first onset was 1 d (1-14), median duration was 4 d (1-51). Any gr investigator-identified neurotoxicity occurred in 34/225 (15%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 7 (3%); median time to onset was 3 d (range 1-317); median duration was 2.5 d (range 1-252). Ide-cel continued to demonstrate durable, clinically meaningful improvements in pt-reported outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, and QOL vs std regimens. Conclusions In this final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3, significantly longer PFS was maintained with ide-cel; PD or death risk reduced by 51%; responses were deeper and more durable vs std regimens. CRR with ide-cel increased since the IA, indicating a deepening response, but were unchanged with std regimens. A single ide-cel infusion vs continuous treatment with std regimens resulted in longer median TTNT and PFS2, indicating improved long-term disease control. The ide-cel safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no parkinsonism or Guillain-Barré syndrome reported. These data continue to support use of ide-cel in pts with TCE RRMM. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Abstract Introduction: A number of cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in MM, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and amp1q21. There is a general consensus that treatment with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) benefits pts carrying these CAs (Sonneveld Blood 2016). This meta-analysis of four phase 3 studies assesses PFS benefit in pts receiving the oral PI ixa vs pbo regarding the specific adverse CAs. Methods: Pts in TOURMALINE-MM1 (N=722; relapsed/refractory MM; Moreau N Engl J Med 2016) and MM2 (N=705; newly diagnosed MM; Facon Blood 2021) received ixa plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs pbo-Rd (1:1). Pts in TOURMALINE-MM3 (N=656; Dimopoulos Lancet 2019) and TOURMALINE-MM4 (N=706; Dimopoulos J Clin Oncol 2020) received ixa vs pbo (3:2) as maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant or as post-induction maintenance in transplant-ineligible pts, respectively. In TOURMALINE-MM1/MM2, CAs were centrally assessed on CD138 positive sorted cells from bone marrow samples collected at study entry using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Cutoff values for defining the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were 5%, 3%, and 3% positive cells, respectively, based on the false-positive rates (technical cutoffs) of the FISH probes used, and cutoff values of 3% (MM1) and 20% (MM2) were used for amp1q21. In TOURMALINE-MM3/MM4, cytogenetic assessment was performed locally using FISH or conventional karyotyping with locally defined thresholds for positivity. Results: 270/1227 (22%) vs 227/1019 (22%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)]: 75 vs 62 in MM1, 60 vs 63 in MM2, 61 vs 54 in MM3, and 74 vs 48 in MM4. 957/1227 (78%) vs 792/1019 (78%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 200 vs 216 in MM1, 231 vs 234 in MM2, 252 vs 152 in MM3, and 275 vs 190 in MM4. 555/1142 (49%) vs 479/955 (50%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had expanded high-risk CAs (high-risk CAs ± amp1q21): 155 vs 154 in MM1, 134 vs 146 in MM2, 116 vs 88 in MM3, and 150 vs 91 in MM4. 587/1142 (51%) vs 476/955 (50%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 122 vs 126 in MM1, 164 vs 153 in MM2, 154 vs 89 in MM3, and 148 vs 108 in MM4. After a median follow-up in the pooled analysis of 25.6 months (mos; 12.7, 54.6, 29.7, and 21.3 mos in MM1, MM2, MM3, and MM4, respectively), the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts with high-risk CAs was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.93; median 17.8 vs 13.2 mos) and 0.70, (95% CI 0.62-0.80; median 26.3 vs 17.6 mos) in pts with standard-risk CAs. In the subgroup analyses of expanded high-risk CAs, the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts in the expanded high-risk group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.87; median 18.1 vs 14.1 mos; Figure 1) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.85; median 36.1 vs 21.4 mos) in the complementary standard-risk group. Analyses of PFS according to the presence of individual CAs (Figure 2) indicated differing magnitudes of PFS benefit. Notably, in pts with t(4;14) (n=124 vs n=102), the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy was 0.68 (95% CI 0.48-0.96; median 22.4 vs 13.2 mos), while for pts with amp1q21 (n=380 vs n=312), the HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.93; median 18.8 vs 14.5 mos) and for pts with del(17p) (n=141 vs n=107) the HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59-1.09; median 15.7 vs 13.2 mos). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrated a PFS benefit with ixa-based therapy vs pbo-based therapy regardless of the presence of specific adverse CAs, with a similar magnitude of benefit in pts with (expanded) high-risk CAs and the respective complementary standard-risk groups. However, due to the differences in study eligibility criteria and pt populations, ixa combined with Rd or as single-agent maintenance therapy may not abrogate the negative impact of high-risk CAs. Analyses of PFS in subgroups with specific CAs indicated that the greatest magnitudes of benefit (lowest HRs) with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy were in pts with t(4;14) (HR 0.68) and pts with amp1q21 (HR 0.77), suggesting that the improved outcome with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in the expanded high-risk subgroup was primarily driven by PFS differences in pts with these more common CAs. Further study is needed, and additional sensitivity analyses will be presented in subsequent publications. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chng: BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria. Morgan: Takeda: Honoraria. Iida: Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Moreau: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Dash: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib for the initial treatment of multiple myeloma and as maintenance treatment following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients