Citations

Abstract Background: MyeloMATCH is an NCI-sponsored initiative for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) employing a Master Screening and Reassessment Protocol (MSRP) to assign patients (pts) to a pt and disease biology-specific clinical trial. Several trials evaluating initial therapies are currently open, while subsequent trials dedicated to eradicating measurable residual disease during consolidation and including stem cell transplant are being developed. A pt enrolled at diagnosis may be followed longitudinally and be eligible for trials in sequential tiers throughout the treatment course. We report key data concerning the first cohort of pts enrolled on the MSRP. Methods: After pts with suspected AML or MDS consent for the MSRP, blood and marrow are sent to the myeloMATCH Molecular Diagnostics Network (MDNet) of central CLIA labs operating under a single Investigational Device Exemption to rapidly define molecular, cytogenetic, and immunophenotypic characteristics. These data are catalogued by a bioinformatics team (MATCHBox) and reviewed daily to assign participants to an available trial based on pt and disease features. A Tier Advancement Pathway (TAP) allows standard of care therapy with potential for assignment to subsequent myeloMATCH trials. Since activation in May 2024, 550 patients age≥18 were enrolled on the MSRP from 76 institutions: 48 Academic, 14 NCORP, 11 community, 3 VA. There are currently 4 open randomized AML trials (≥age 60 or unfit with mutant FLT3, ≥age 60 IDH2 mutant AML, fit age<60 ELN 2017 intermediate-risk AML, fit age<60 ELN 2017 adverse risk) and 1 MDS trial(IDH2 mutant). Patients not eligible for an open protocol were assigned to TAP. Results: Of the 550 pts consented, 491 completed screening assays; 49 had no or incomplete samples; 10 withdrew before completed analysis. Median cytogenetic turnaround time (TAT) was 69 hours (91% within 72 hours), and median Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) TAT from receipt was 49 hours (95% within 72 hours). Seventy-six pts (of 491 with assay data) were not assigned due to non-AML or non-MDS diagnoses, the most common being: B-ALL [n=11], MPN [9], benign marrow [9], APML [7], and MPAL [6]. The AML/MDS verified cohort was 415 pts, 366 (89.2%) patients with AML (45% age <60) and 49 (11.8%) with MDS. The median age at screening was 63 years (range:18-95) and 186 (45%) were female. Eighty-two percent identified as White, 7.5% Black, 3% Asian, 7% unknown, and 9% as Hispanic. The most frequent mutations in the AML pts were NPM1 (24.0%), DNMT3A (22.7%), TET2 (19.9%), NRAS (18.0%), FLT3 (18.0% ITD, TKD 7.1%), TP53 (14.5%), and CEBPA (8.7%); IDH1/2 mutation rates were 8.2% and 13.7%, respectively. Co-mutations include FLT3/NPM1 (9.8%), NPM1/IDH2 (4.4%), IDH1/2 and any RAS (3.8%). Karyotypes were normal in 40.4%, complex 20.8%, inv(16) 6.0%, MLL/KMT2A 4.6% and t(8;21) 1.9%. 29% had favorable risk disease, 29% intermediate, and 42% adverse (ELN 2017). In MDS, mutations included: TP53 (36.7%), RUNX1 (20.4%) ASXL1 (20.4%), TET2 (18.4%), spliceosome mutations (SRSF2, SF3B1, U2AF1 and ZRSR2, 28.6%) andIDH1/2 in 4.1% and 6.1%, respectively. Karyotypes were normal in 24.5%; complex in 40.8%. By IPSS-R, 2.4% were low, 73.8% intermediate, 2.4% high, and 21.4% very high risk. 82/415 (20%) pts were assigned to initial therapy protocol, with an increase in assignment rate to 44% in the most recent two months. 71/415 pts (16%) were enrolled in one of the MyeloMATCH studies. Three-hundred forty-four pts (80%) were assigned and enrolled to TAP (296 AML, 48 MDS) for potential assignment to subsequent tier trials. In the TAP AML pts, 99 (33%) have completed initial treatment, including intensive chemotherapy (IC) in 62% of pts and hypomethylating agents/venetoclax (HMA/VEN) in 38%. In pts <60 years of age, 87% received IC v. 13% with HMA/VEN, in >60 34% IC v. 66% HMA/VEN and in age 60-75 42% IC v. 58% HMA/Ven. Conclusion: MyeloMATCH has screened over 500 pts from academic and community sites in the US and Canada in 14 months, meeting the TAT goal of sample acquisition to results of <72 hours. Assignment to treatment protocols has substantially increased recently. As additional trials open (12 in development) we expect the percentage of pts enrolled on MSRP who go on to therapeutic trials will markedly increase, thereby allowing a personalized medicine approach for a broad group of US and Canadian adult pts with AML and MDS.

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.

Abstract Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for AML and ALL, the outcomes of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP) remain poor. Consensus guidelines on treatment of CML-BP are scarce. A recent study from the European leukemia network blast phase registry on 240 pts reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we undertook this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of pts with CML-BP in the US. Methods: This is a multi-institution, retrospective study. IRB approval was obtained at each institution and data sharing agreements were executed. All pts diagnosed with CML-BP based on modified MD Anderson Criteria (≥30% blasts in the blood or bone marrow or extramedullary (EM) disease) from 2010 to 2025 were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis of CML BP to death from any cause. Event free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of best response to event (death or relapse). Results: Of the 283 pts with CML-BP, 96 (33.9%) were female and 187 (66.1%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 183 (64.6%) had CML-CP, 21 (7.4%) pts had CML-AP and 79 (27.9%) pts had de-novo CML-BP. For the 204 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 22.5 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 50 years (range 16-86 years). EM disease was present in 78 (27.6%) pts (38 myeloid sarcoma, 30 central nervous system and 10 skin). Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 168 (59.4%), lymphoid in 103 (36.4%) and mixed in 9 (3.2%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 229 (80.9%), p190 in 8 (2.8%) and p230 in 2 (0.7%) pts. ABL kinase domain mutation was seen in 42.1% (80/190) pts, with T315I being the most common (n=32), followed by E255K (n=16). Next generation sequencing was performed in 117 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=27), RUNX1 (n=14), BCOR (n=4), DNMT3A (n=4) and BCORL1 (n=3). Of the 283 pts, 269 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. 63 (23.4%) pts were treated with TKI monotherapy, 184 (68.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy (chemo) and TKI and 22 (8.2%) pts were treated with chemo alone. Response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 75.3% (n=213). Best response was return to CML-CP in 49 pts, CHR with PCyR in 18 pts, CCyR in 31 pts, MMR in 31 pts, MR4 in 18 pts, MR4.5 in 19 pts and MR5 in 47 pts. Rate of response with 2G and ponatinib was significantly better than imatinib (85.3% and 77.3% vs 63.6%; p=0.04). 149 (55.4%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 213 pts that responded, 59 (27.7%) relapsed. At a median follow-up of 47 months, the median OS for all pts was 19.7 months (95% CI: 16.3-40.2 months), with 5-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI: 32-45%). Pts with myeloid phenotype had a significantly lower OS compared to lymphoid and mixed phenotype (Median OS 14.9 vs 45.9 and 31.1 months respectively; p=0.02). OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemo was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (52.9 vs 16.1 or 7.5 months; p<0.0001). Dasatinib (n=99; 34.9%) and ponatinib (n=97; 34.3%) were the most used TKIs followed by imatinib (n=23; 8.1%), nilotinib (n=21; 7.4%), bosutinib (n=8; 2.8%) and asciminib (n=3; 1.1%). Pts treated with ponatinib had a numerically longer OS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib, however this was not statistically significant (40.1 vs 30.6 and 20.3 months; p=0.52). EFS for pts treated with ponatinib was significantly longer compared to 2G-TKI or imatinib (25.9 vs 17.6 and 15.9 months; p=0.03). In a landmark analysis, pts that underwent alloSCT within 6 months of diagnosis had a significantly longer OS compared to those who did not (69.3 vs 16.0 months; p=0.006). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have poor prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemo. In our analysis, treatment with 2G-TKI or ponatinib led to better responses. CML-BP with myeloid phenotype had worse OS. Treatment with ponatinib was associated with a numerically longer OS and significantly longer EFS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib. In addition, treatment with chemo in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS.

Abstract Background: Despite recent therapeutic advances in AS cHL, PET-adaptive chemotherapy-based regimens remain a first-line treatment option, especially for patients (pts) without access to novel agents. Most PET-adaptive regiments start with either 2 cycles of escBEACOPP (escBEACOPP2) or ABVD (ABVD2) prior to interim PET assessment (iPET), followed by treatment de-escalation or intensification by iPET result. There have been no direct comparisons of escBEACOPP2 vs ABVD2 PET-adaptive regimens. Additionally, the AS-Hodgkin Lymphoma International Prognostication Index (A-HIPI) score (Rodday JCO 2023) has not been fully explored in escBEACOPP2 regimens. Therefore, we utilized multiple analytic approaches to compare outcomes of PET-adaptive escBEACOPP2 and ABVD2 regimens, while adjusting for and assessing the effect of the baseline A-HIPI score. Methods: Through the global HoLISTIC Consortium (www.hodgkinconsortium.com), we obtained individual patient data from 4 AS clinical trials of newly diagnosed cHL pts treated with PET-adaptive escBEACOPP2 (AHL2011) or ABVD2 (SWOG0816, RATHL, HD0607) regimens. Pts were restricted to age 18 to 65 years (y), stage IIB-IV, and PET-adapted treatment arms. Positive iPET was based on Deauville score >3. Treatment effects of escBEACOPP2 vs ABVD2 (reference) on 5y progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were first evaluated using Cox models. Importantly, baseline disease risk was adjusted for using the 5y PFS or OS A-HIPI score (including stage, sex, age, bulk, lymphocyte count, albumin, white blood cell count), where higher scores indicate higher predicted risk (scale 1-100). The A-HIPI was modeled per 1 standard deviation (SD) increase. Our multistate model (MSM) comprised 4 health states: diagnosis, sustained remission at 1yr, treatment failure, and death from any cause. Pts all started in the diagnosis state and transitioned to other states without return to prior states. We assessed the impact of treatment on transitions (except binary sustained remission at 1y) that involved ≥5 pts per treatment group, adjusting for A-HIPI for all transitions. All effects are reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: 2,381 AS cHL pts were included (n=372 for escBEACOPP2, n=2009 for ABVD2). For escBEACOPP2 and ABVD2 groups (median follow-up 60 and 56 months), respectively, the mean baseline A-HIPI scores (i.e., predicted 5y PFS event rate) were 25.1 (SD=6.3) and 22.9 (SD=6.5), the rates of positive iPET were 11.3% and 17.0%, 5y PFS was 87.0% and 79.5%, and 5y OS was 96.3% and 94.6%. In Cox models, escBEACOPP2 was associated with significantly improved PFS compared to ABVD2 (aHR=0.54, 95% CI=0.39-0.73); the aHR for OS was 0.67 (95% CI=0.37-1.19). Notably, higher risk A-HIPI score was associated with significantly worse PFS (aHR=1.42, 95% CI=1.31-1.54) and OS (aHR=1.60, 95% CI=1.47-1.76), independent of treatment. In the MSM, the effect of escBEACOPP2 compared to ABVD2 regimens was modeled in 3 transitions with adjustment for A-HIPI score: those treated with escBEACOPP2 had lower likelihood of treatment failure with (aHR=0.38, 95% CI=0.22-0.66) or without (aHR=0.61, 95% CI=0.40-0.92) sustained remission at 1y; the aHR for treatment failure to death was 0.55 (95% CI=0.25-1.22). Higher risk baseline A-HIPI score was associated with higher likelihood of treatment failure and death without sustained remission at 1y (aHR=1.43, 95% CI=1.28-1.61 and aHR=2.50, 95% CI=1.80-3.49, respectively). Furthermore, higher risk baseline A-HIPI score was associated with higher likelihood of treatment failure after achieving sustained remission at 1y (aHR=1.29, 95% CI=1.12-1.48) as well as death after treatment failure (aHR=1.54, 95% CI=1.27-1.86). Conclusions: Comparing newly diagnosed adult AS cHL PET-adaptive regimens with adjustment for baseline A-HIPI score, we found pts treated with escBEACOPP2 on AHL2011 had improved PFS versus pooled pt data from 3 ABVD2 trials. Using MSM, we further demonstrated that escBEACOPP2 was associated with a lower likelihood of treatment failure with or without achieving sustained remission at 1yr. In addition, baseline A-HIPI score was associated with PFS and OS, which was independent of treatment. Finally, higher baseline A-HIPI scores maintained prognostic impact throughout the disease course, including increased risk of treatment failure for pts in remission at 1yr and death after treatment failure.

Abstract Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a highly effective BCMA-redirected CAR T-cell therapy for RRMM. While the pivotal CARTITUDE-1 trial established a target dose of 0.75 x 10^6 CAR+ viable T-cells/kg, the approved cell dose is 0.5-1.0 x 10^6 and the optimal dosing strategy to balance efficacy and toxicity remains unclear. This question is of interest given that a dose-response association has been demonstrated for idecabtagene vicleucel (a related BCMA-directed CAR T product). It has also been hypothesized that lower doses of cilta-cel may be associated with reduced toxicity. This study aims to evaluate the association between cilta-cel dose and key efficacy and toxicity outcomes using a large, real-world dataset from the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 751 RRMM patients treated with commercial cilta-cel across 15 US academic centers. The administered cilta-cel dose (million cells/kg) was categorized into four groups: low (<0.5), standard-low (0.5 to <0.6), standard (0.6 to <0.8), and standard-high (0.8 to 1.0). We compared incidence rates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), delayed neurotoxicity (DNT), and immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS) across these dose categories using logistic regression. Best response rates and progression-free survival (PFS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, were also compared, with differences assessed using the log-rank test for the latter. Results presented are derived from multivariable models adjusting for extramedullary disease, ECOG status, penta-refractory disease and receipt of bridging therapy. Results: Among 751 infused patients, the dose distribution was: <0.5 (n=33), 0.5 to <0.6 (n=131), 0.6 to <0.8 (n=550), and 0.8 to 1.0 (n=37). The four dose groups were well-balanced in terms of baseline patient and disease characteristics, including age, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease, with the exception of t(14;16), which was more common in the standard-low and standard dose groups (p=0.006). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of any grade CRS (p=0.11), any grade ICANS (p=0.84), grade ≥3 ICANS (p=0.36), duration of CRS (p=0.18) or ICANS (p=0.64), or IEC-HS (p=0.16) across the four dose categories. Time to onset of CRS was shorter for the standard-high dose compared to the low dose (6 days vs. 8 days; p=0.08). Importantly, there was no significant difference in the rate of DNT (3.0%, 9.2%, 8.8%, 5.4%; p=0.24). Similarly, there was no significant difference in overall response rates (97%, 96%, 96%, 88%; p=0.50) or complete response rates (75%, 65%, 75%, 66%; p=0.10) by dose. The median follow-up was 12.3 months (IQR: 6.9, 20.5). For patients who received a standard-low dose (0.5, 0.6), the median PFS was 17.5 (IQR: 13.5, NR) months. For the standard dose range of (0.6, 0.8), the median PFS was 28.7 (95% CI: 19.8, NR) months, while the median PFS for the standard-high dose (0.8, 1.0) was not reached. For the low dose range of <0.5, the median follow up was only 8.7 months, which did not allow reliable estimation of the median PFS. While the overall difference in PFS among the groups did not reach statistical significance by the log rank test, there was a clear trend toward improved PFS with higher cell doses in the multivariable model, with outcomes clearly ordered in the same direction as the cell dose categories. A similar trend was also evident in the rates of 12-month PFS which showed an improvement with increasing dose (62% ,67%, 73%, 80%). Conclusions: In this large, real-world cohort of RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, a lower cell dose was not associated with reduced incidence or severity of CRS, ICANS, DNT, or IEC-HS. Conversely, a dose-response correlation with PFS was observed, with higher doses trending toward longer median and 12-month PFS. It remains unknown if a lower cell dose in the commercial setting reflects poor T cell quality, yet these findings suggest that dose reduction of cilta-cel may not be an effective strategy to mitigate toxicities and might be associated with a trend toward lower efficacy. Therefore, the standard target dose should be utilized to maximize patient outcomes and further prospective dose exploration is warranted.

Abstract Introduction: The GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) Talquetamab (Talq) has shown promising results for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the MonumenTAL-1 clinical trial (Chari et al. NEJM 2022). However, there are limited data on the use of Talq in the real-world setting. Methods: All pts with RRMM who started Talq between 8/2023-3/2025 across 15 US academic centers were included. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain/amplification 1q21. Time-to-event analyses were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicities including CRS and ICANS were graded using CTCAE v5.0 or ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 484 pts were included, with a median age of 65 years (range 35-89), and 83 pts (17%) were aged ≥75 years. 20% of pts were black. 21% had baseline CrCl<40, 65% had HRCA and 29% had >1 HRCA (i.e Ultra high-risk MM). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (IQR 4, 8). 50% were penta-refractory, 69% received at least one prior BCMA-directed therapy (46% CART; 32% BsAb). Prior to initiation of Talq, 11 pts (2%) had CNS MM, 29 (6%) had PCL and 126 (26%) had true extramedullary disease (EMD). 70% would have been ineligible for the MonumenTAL-1 trial. For most pts (n=405; 84%) the dosing strategy from Cycle 2 was 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. and the 0.4 mg/Kg weekly dosing was used in 28 patients (6%). In 6% of pts, an additional drug was added to Talq, mostly pomalidomide (n=20) or daratumumab (n=10). 101 pts (21%) received Talq as bridging for CART. Median duration of Talq treatment was 102 days. 62% developed CRS (Grade ≥3, 2%; including one Grade 5 event). 15% developed ICANS (Grades 3-4, 4%). Steroids were used in 213 patients (44%), tocilizumab in 145 (30%) and anakinra in 9 (2%). 22 patients (5%) required ICU stay during the first cycle, for a median of 6 days (range 1-31). A total of 200 pts (41%) had infections (median 1 infection each, range 1-6), including 99 (20%) with bacterial infections, 113 (23%) viral infections and 21 (4%) fungal infections. IVIG was used in 261 pts (54%). 79% of patients (n=384) developed Talq-related oral toxicity, 55% (n=269) skin toxicity and 199 (41%) nail toxicity. 157 patients died after a median follow up of 11.5 months (mos), and the leading causes of death were MM progression (n=120) and infection (n=10). 8 pts (1.7%) developed invasive second primary malignancies. The ORR was 73%, including 46% ≥VGPR. The median PFS (mPFS) for the entire cohort was 7.8 mos (95% CI 6.9-9.4) and the 12 months PFS rate was 39%. The median OS had not been reached and the 12 months OS rate was 63%. For pts who would have been eligible for MonumenTAL-1, the mPFS was 12.2 mos (95% CI 9.7 – not reached (NR); for trial-ineligible pts, the mPFS was 6.9 mos (5.8 – 8.0; p=0.003). For BCMA-naive pts, the mPFS was 15.7 mos (11.8-NR); for BCMA-exposed pts, the mPFS was 6.8 mos (6.0-7.8; p=0.0002). For patients who received Talq as bridging prior to CART, the median PFS was NR (14.1 – NR); for those who did not receive Talq as bridging the mPFS was 6.5 mos (5.3-7.6; p<0.0001). In multivariable analyses, worse OS and PFS were associated with trial ineligibility [(HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03-1.86; p=0.03) and (2.33, 1.31-4.14; p=0.004)], BMI<30 [(1.42,1.06-1.89; p=0.02) and (1.50, 1.01-2.22; p=0.045)] and true EMD at baseline [(1.95, 1.49-2.56; p<0.001) and (1.65, 1.16-2.36; p=0.005). On the other hand, use of Talq as bridging to CART was associated with better PFS (0.27, 0.17-0.43; p<0.001) and OS (0.13, 0.05-2.56; p<0.001). Ultra high-risk MM (1.40, 1.06-1.84; p=0.02) and baseline albumin <3 (1.68, 1.18-2.37; p=0.004) were associated with worse PFS; ECOG ≥2 (1.68, 1.18-2.40; p=0.004), and baseline Plt<50K (2.14, 1.48-3.10; p<0.0001) was associated with worse OS. Conclusions: In this large real-world analysis of 484 Talq recipients, the ORR was comparable to MonumenTAL-1 but the median PFS was shorter. This likely reflects differences in patient selection, with 70% of patients in our cohort being trial-ineligible. Patients who received Talq as pre-CAR-T bridging had superior survival outcomes. Rates of toxicities were similar to MonumenTAL-1, including >70% of patients developing dysgeusia.

Abstract Introduction: Elranatamab, a BCMA-CD3 bispecific antibody, has shown efficacy in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), but real-world data on its safety and effectiveness are limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multi-center study of patients (pts) treated with commercial elranatamab from 8/2023–3/2025 at 9 U.S. academic centers. Logistic and Cox regression were used for binary and time-to-event outcomes, respectively. Multivariable analysis (MVA) adjusted for prior lines of therapy (LOTs), baseline Hgb (per g/dL), and LDH (per 100 U/L) as continuous variables; and for BCMA exposure, extramedullary disease (EMD; extraosseous soft tissue lesions), and ECOG ≥2 as binary variables. Results: Of 130 pts, median age was 71 yrs (range 39–95); 57% were female, 82% white, 13% black, and 35% had ECOG ≥2 (11% ≥3). Median LOTs was 6; 91% were triple-class refractory, 49% penta-refractory, 49% BCMA-exposed (median 15.5 mo [IQR 11.8–20.5] since last exposure), and 49% had prior anti-BCMA CAR-T. Most recent BCMA exposures included: CAR-T (84%), TCE (9.4%), and ADC (6.3%). Only 22% met MagnetisMM-3 cohort A eligibility (which excluded BCMA-exposed pts). High-risk cytogenetics (del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), or amp(1q)) were present in 44% (25%, 13%, 6.3%, and 7.9%, respectively). EMD was seen in 22%. Median treatment duration was 4.0 mo (95% CI 2.93–6.3) overall and 7.9 mo (95% CI 5.83–NA) with ≥VGPR. Discontinuation due to toxicity or non-relapse mortality occurred in 12% but was significantly lower among those receiving IVIg (5% vs. 17%, p=0.031); IVIg was given in 47%. The overall response rate (ORR) was 65%, including ≥VGPR in 46% and ≥CR in 36%, consistent with MagnetisMM-3 (ORR 61%, ≥CR 35%; Lesokhin et al. Nat Med. 2023). After median follow-up of 7.5 mo, median PFS was 4.3 mo (95% CI 3.4–11.3), OS was 14.6 mo (95% CI 8.6–NA), and DOR was 12.2 mo (95% CI 6.1–NA). In contrast, MagnetisMM-3 (Prince et al., ASH 2024) reported median PFS and OS of 17.2 and 24.6 mo, respectively, with DOR not reached despite 28.4 mo of follow-up. In univariate analysis, ECOG ≥2 was associated with lower ORR (45% vs. 71%; OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16–0.73, p=0.006), shorter OS (4.3 mo vs. NA; HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.33–4.35, p=0.004), and shorter PFS (1.7 vs. 6.5 mo; HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09–2.87, p=0.020). Prior BCMA-directed therapy was linked to reduced odds of ≥VGPR (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19–0.77, p=0.008) and ≥CR (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20–0.89, p=0.025). Higher baseline LDH was linked to shorter OS (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.23–1.53, p<0.001) and PFS (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.18–1.44, p<0.001). Higher baseline Hgb was associated with higher ORR (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20–1.81, p<0.001) and ≥CR (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26–1.92, p<0.001). Among BCMA-exposed pts, recent exposure (<1 [n=15] vs. ≥1 yr [n=32]) was associated with shorter OS (4.1 mo vs. NA; HR 3.66, 95% CI 1.26–10.6, p=0.017). In MVA, higher baseline LDH remained independently associated with shorter OS (aHR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19–1.54, p<0.001) and PFS (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.13–1.43, p<0.001); higher Hgb with greater odds of ≥CR (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14–1.85, p=0.003) and longer PFS (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.99, p=0.034); and BCMA exposure with lower odds of ≥CR (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10–0.91, p=0.037). CRS occurred in 40% (grade ≥2 in 12.3%, grade 3 in 2.3%), and ICANS in 17% (grade ≥2 in 7.7%). These rates contrast with MagnetisMM-3 (no grade ≥3 CRS, 3.4% ICANS). ICANS risk was lower in BCMA-exposed pts (9.4% vs. 24%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11–0.85, p=0.029), and decreased with more LOTs (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.92, p=0.016) and higher Hgb (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52–0.94, p=0.023). Tocilizumab and steroids were used in 36% (treatment 28%, prophylaxis 9.2%) and 23%, respectively. Steroid use was less common in BCMA-exposed pts (11% vs. 34%; OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08–0.60, p=0.004) and declined with more LOTs (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.85, p=0.002). Infections occurred in 40% of the cohort, more common in pts with CrCl <40 mL/min (59% vs. 36%; HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.02–6.80, p=0.049). IVIg was linked to improved infection-free survival (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37–0.93, p=0.023). Conclusions: Elranatamab demonstrated meaningful activity in real-world relapsed MM, though PFS and OS were shorter than in MagnetisMM-3, likely reflecting an older, frailer population with higher disease burden. ICANS was more frequent than in MagnetisMM-3. Baseline anemia and elevated LDH, markers of poor marrow reserve and higher disease burden, were strongly linked to worse outcomes.

Abstract Introduction: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was approved in the United States for the treatment of CLL in 3/2024 for patients who have received two prior lines of therapy including a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Data regarding outcomes of liso-cel is limited to reports from the registrational TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial which had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. This work investigates the real-world efficacy and safety of liso-cel for patients with CLL and its efficacy in specific sub-populations. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective study (Collaborative Assessment of Real-World Evidence of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory CLL/SLL [CARE CAR-T CLL]) of patients with CLL who received commercial liso-cel in the United States. Patients with Richter transformation were excluded. Response was defined by iwCLL criteria. Patients who did not undergo a marrow biopsy but met other criteria for a complete response (CR) were categorized as unconfirmed CR (CRu). CRS and ICANS were graded per ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients were identified with a median age of 67 years (range 44 – 80). Twenty of thirty patients (67%) had either del17p and/or mutated TP53, and 8/30 (27%) had complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities) at time of liso-cel infusion. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 1 - 12), and 24 (80%) were previously treated with chemotherapy. All patients had previous exposure to a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Twenty-seven (90%) of patients had prior exposure to pirtobrutinib. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) received bridging treatment that was stopped after leukapheresis with 1 patient in CR and 25 patients in PR at time of liso-cel. Eighteen patients (60%) were treated with pirtobrutinib as the last line of treatment prior to liso-cel. Median length of time on pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel infusion was 4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2 – 8 months). Twelve (66.7%) patients stopped pirtobrutinib between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion, and 6 continued after liso-cel. Best CR/CRu rate was 60.0% (CR, n = 17/30; CRu, n = 1/30), and best overall response rate (ORR) was 83.3% (25/30) with median time to best response of 30 days (IQR, 28 – 30 days). Of the 18 patients who received pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, 13 (72%) achieved a CR/CRu. Meanwhile, of the 12 patients who did not receive pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, only 5 (28%) achieved a CR. Measurable residual disease testing (MRD) by flow cytometry was done in 14/30 patients, and 9 patients (64%) had achieved undetectable MRD (uMRD). MRD by next generation sequencing (NGS) was done in 17 patients, and 7 (41%) patients had uMRD. Twenty-seven of 30 patients (90%) were alive at time of data collection. Median follow-up was 3.3 months (IQR, 1.2 – 8.9 months). Twenty-six patients (87%) experienced any grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 3 patients experienced grade 3 CRS (10%). Twelve patients (40%) experienced any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and 4 patients (13%) experienced grade 3 ICANS. There were no grade 4 or 5 CRS or ICANS. One patient experienced grade 3 immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS). At day 30, patients had a median absolute neutrophil count of 1.7K/μL (IQR, 0.8 – 3.6K/μL), hemoglobin of 11.7 g/dL (IQR, 8.6 – 13.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 72K/μL (IQR, 29 – 119K/μL). Conclusion: Real-world analysis of liso-cel for patients with relapsed/refractory CLL showed CR and ORR of 60.0% and 83.3%, respectively. Despite having a heavily pre-treated and chemotherapy-exposed population and with over half the patients having high-risk features, these response rates are higher than what was described in the TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial. These results are limited by the short follow-up period and the variability in response assessment typical of a retrospective study. As we increase our sample size, we will also be interested if the use of the non-covalent BTK inhibitor pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel is associated with a higher CR rate, mimicking the findings of the sub-cohort analysis of TRANSCEND-CLL 004 where the concurrent use of ibrutinib led to higher CR rates. Further updates and patients from additional collaborators will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Background: A randomized multicenter trial (BMT CTN 1703) demonstrated that after reduced intensity conditioning HCT, PT-Cy-based GVHD prophylaxis led to significant reductions in acute and chronic GVHD, but was associated with significantly more Grade 2 (moderate) infections and similar overall survival vs Tac/MTX. A linked mechanistic study (BMT CTN 1801) found that PT-Cy led to pan-T cell depletion and reduced T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire diversity vs Tac/MTX. To discover the molecular mechanisms driving the association of PT-Cy with increased infections, we examined pathogen-specific T cell reconstitution in BMT CTN 1801 patients (n=165 PT-Cy, n=159 Tac/MTX). Methods: We performed deep TCR sequencing on 2,369 blood samples collected pre-HCT (recipient baseline) and on Days +7, 14, 28, 63, 100, 180, 270, 365, 730, and from the graft infusion product. We then applied a novel set of TCR classifiers (Adaptive Biotechnologies) capable of identifying pathogen-specific clones associated with CMV, EBV, SARS-CoV-2, HSV-1, HSV-2, parvovirus, RSV, influenza A, rhinovirus, adenovirus, HHV-6B, norovirus and Toxoplasma. Single-cell (sc) TCR/RNA-sequencing on a sample subset (n=26) was performed to determine the phenotype of pathogen-specific T cells. Results. By linking scRNA-seq with pathogen-specific TCR barcoding, we identified CD4 and CD8 memory T cells as their predominant T cell reservoir. We found that the total number of pathogen-specific singleton TCRs was significantly lower with PT-Cy, starting early post-HCT and persisting through 2 years. For example, at Day +14, PT-Cy patients had 7.8-fold fewer pathogen-specific singleton TCRs vs Tac/MTX (mean of 6.9 vs 54.1, p<0.001). Consistent differences between PT-Cy and Tac/MTX were observed for TCRs specific for each pathogen individually. Patients who developed Grade 3 (severe) viral infections had significantly fewer pathogen-specific singleton TCRs at Day +14 compared to those who had no viral infections (mean of 4.0 vs 32.5, p=0.03). Leveraging intrinsic TCR barcoding of the HCT infusion (“graft”) and of the patient's baseline samples (“recipient”), we could assign the graft/recipient origin of the pathogen-specific cells with high fidelity. This analysis revealed pronounced differences in the origin of pathogen-specific T cells with PT-Cy vs Tac/MTX, especially prior to Day +100. The absolute number of pathogen-specific TCRs originating from the graft was significantly higher with Tac/MTX vs PT-Cy. This difference was observed from day +7 through 6 months post-HCT, with up to 7.1-fold more graft-derived pathogen-specific TCRs in Tac/MTX vs PT-Cy (p<0.001 at each timepoint before day +100). Within patients who received Tac/MTX, the balance of graft vs recipient pathogen-specific clones significantly favored graft clones (for example, a mean of 14.9 graft vs 8.6 recipient pathogen-specific TCRs at Day+14, p=0.02). By contrast, with PT-Cy, in addition to having substantially fewer pathogen-specific TCRs overall, the proportion of these TCRs was not significantly different between graft and recipient clones (mean of 2.1 graft vs 3.3 recipient pathogen-specific TCRs at Day+14, p=0.42). These data uncover that, in addition to the reduction in pathogen-specific T cells with PT-Cy, there was a relative skewing of the anti-microbial T cell reservoir towards recipient cells that persisted after conditioning. Conclusions: PT-Cy led to in vivo T cell depletion across all T cell subsets, which prominently included clones tracked from the allograft itself into the HCT recipient, with a relative sparing of recipient T cell clones that survived transplant conditioning. While the mechanism for relative sparing of recipient cells has not yet been determined, these conditioning-exposed cells may be less proliferative than newly infused graft T cells. The depletion of graft T cells included CD4 and CD8 memory cells specific for infections, which may have contributed to relative deficits in protective immunity against infection in patients receiving PT-Cy. Importantly, these data suggest that with PT-Cy, persisting recipient TCRs may play a key role in preserving anti-infectious immunity. Taken together, these results provide a mechanistic basis for key post-transplant clinical outcomes of the landmark BMT CTN 1703 study. They also underscore the importance of recipient immune status with PT-Cy, creating the opportunity for targeted infection risk assessment in these patients.

Abstract Background The treatment (tx) landscape for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has evolved, with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-preferred novel therapies (NTs), such as acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, and venetoclax-based regimens, now preferred over ibrutinib and chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in front-line (1L) settings. We previously showed that patients (pts) from different racial/ethnic groups may not have equitable access to NTs. Here, we examined racial/ethnic inequities in 1L NT utilization among US pts with CLL and potential social determinants of health (SDOH) drivers of these inequities. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized the US-based, electronic health record-derived de-identified Flatiron Health Research Database, linked to neighborhood (US Census track or block group) data from American Community Survey and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality datasets. Eligible pts included adults with CLL who started 1L tx 01/01/2019-07/31/2024. The primary outcome was receipt of 1L therapy (CIT vs preferred NTs, ibrutinib vs preferred NTs), with NCCN guideline-preferred NTs (v2.2023-v3.2025) as a reference. Associations between race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic) and 1L tx types were assessed using logistic regressions, adjusting for age, sex, year of 1L start, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region status, and del17p/TP53 status. To better understand which SDOH factors contribute to racial and ethnic inequities in tx utilization, we performed mediation analysis using Multiple Mediation Analysis implemented through nonlinear multiple additive regression tree models. Individual-level (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, practice type, insurance) and 20 area-level SDOH factors measuring social deprivation (defined as limited access to economic, social, neighborhood, physical, or healthcare resources) were assessed as potential mediators. Results Of the 4452 pts included in the study, 3717 were White (83%), 371 were Black (8%), 209 were Hispanic (5%), and 155 were Other race (4%). Black and Hispanic pts were more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher social deprivation, such as residential segregation (predominant race/ethnicity in the area: White, Black, Hispanic, Diverse), with no internet access, no vehicle ownership, and no health insurance coverage. Overall, 37% of pts received a preferred NT, highest among White (38%) pts, followed by Black (35%) and Hispanic (26%) pts. Compared with White pts, Hispanic pts were more likely to receive CIT than preferred NTs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46-3.09); Black (aOR 1.44; 95% CI 1.05-1.97) and Hispanic pts (aOR 1.83; 95% CI 1.17-2.85) were more likely to receive ibrutinib than preferred NTs. Pts living in areas with the highest social deprivation were less likely than their counterparts in lowest social deprivation neighborhoods to receive preferred NTs. Specifically, residence in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods (26% or 27% vs 39% predominantly White), areas with lowest socioeconomic status (32% vs 40%), and neighborhoods with the lowest levels of internet access (32% vs 39%), vehicle ownership (32% vs 39%), and health insurance coverage (34% vs 41%) was associated with lowest receipt of preferred NTs. In the mediation analysis, individual- and area-level SDOH factors explained 94.4% (95% CI 2.9-185.9) of the observed Black-White inequity in receipt of ibrutinib versus preferred NTs; residential segregation appeared to be the most important mediator (59.7%; 95% CI −3.5 to 123.0). Similarly, the Hispanic-White inequity in receipt of preferred NTs was driven by the combined effect of area-level SDOH and individual-level variables (88.5%; 95% CI 45.6-131.3), with residential segregation as the main driver (48.3%; 95% CI 10.7-85.9), followed by practice setting (9.8%; 95% CI −3.5 to 23.1). In contrast, measured SDOH factors did not explain the inequity in receipt of CIT versus preferred NTs between Hispanic and White pts (21.5%; 95% CI −8.3 to 51.4), suggesting that other factors may contribute to the observed inequities. Conclusion Black and Hispanic pts with CLL were less likely than White pts to receive preferred NTs. A significant proportion of these disparities was explained by area-level SDOH, particularly residential segregation. These findings underscore the need to address structural barriers to ensure equitable access to emerging, guideline-recommended treatments.