Citations

Background: Flow cytometry (FC) is widely utilized for the identification of minimal residual disease (MRD) in B acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BALL), providing an essential laboratory indicator for prognostic assessment and therapeutic management. Unfortunately, the high level of expertise required, long manual analysis time, and complexity of FC data files limit the offering of this testing to selected reference laboratories. Methods: We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) pipeline to automatically enhance unaltered FC files, minimizing the expertise and manual analysis time needed to detect BALL-MRD on a single-tube 10-color panel (CD10, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD24, CD34, CD38, CD45, CD58, CD66c). Raw FC files corresponding to peripheral blood or bone marrow specimens from 171 BALL MRD positive cases (MRD < 5%, median = 0.11%, 107 patients), and 89 MRD-negative cases (63 patients) were processed through our CCADDAS (Clustering and Classification of All events, Dimensionality reduction, Downsampling and Aberrancy Scaling) pipeline on a cloud environment (Google Vertex AI). Automated processing steps included elimination of acquisition errors (FlowCut), state-of-the-art clustering (PARC), dimensionality reduction (UMAP), cluster-based anomaly detection compared to negative controls (24 bone marrow aspirates and 7 peripheral bloods), and cluster-informed downsampling with preservation of low-event subsets. In addition, a deep neural network (DNN) trained on expert-defined subpopulations from negative controls was included for automatic gating of normal subsets (Tensorflow v2). AI-enhanced data files were analyzed using a general purpose flow cytometry analysis software (Kaluza v 3.5, Beckman Coulter), and %MRD estimates compared to reported results based on expert analysis of original FC files. Results: Cluster-informed downsampling reduced the number of cells per case to be manually analyzed from 1.2 million to 155,884 cells on average (87% cellularity reduction); resulting in a smaller FC data file (from 64.5 MB to 13.7 MB; 79% data reduction). Importantly, low-level MRD events were adequately preserved after downsampling (median 100% retention for both MRD<0.01% and MRD 0.01-1%). True number of events were accurately estimated on gated subsets using an “upsampling factor” parameter [observed # events x mean (upsampling factor)]. Gating of normal subsets was completely automated using a DNN classifier parameter. Identification of MRD was aided by an AI-generated “aberrancy scale” parameter that discriminated BALL (median: 991) from both benign mononuclear cells (median: 486, p < 0.0001) and background B-lymphoid cells (median: 379, p < 0.0001), with a performance (AUC: 0.98 and 0.94 for mononuclear and B-lymphoid cells, respectively) superior to CD20 (0.54 and 0.69), CD38 (0.60 and 0.81), CD45 (0.75 and 0.74), CD58 (0.52 and 0.89), CD66c (0.56 and 0.72) and all other antigens studied. The use of AI-enhanced files reduced manual analysis time from 14.16 minutes (SD = 3.7) to 1.05 minutes (SD = 0.6) per case, on average (p < 0.0001) (93% reduction). BALL MRD was detected in all positive cases above clinically relevant threshold (≥0.01%, as recommended by NCCN guidelines), and in 28 of 32 (88%) cases below this threshold, with excellent quantitative correlation with conventional analysis on original FC files (linear regression slope = 1.18, intercept = 0.04%, R squared = 0.92, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: We introduce a largely unsupervised AI pipeline that transforms raw BALL-MRD FC data into a markedly smaller, AI-annotated and software-agnostic FC file, including comparison to normal controls. This CCADDAS pipeline simplifies and accelerates detection of BALL-MRD in clinical diagnostics, reducing number of cells analyzed by 87% and manual analysis time by 93%, without impacting test performance. Moreover, CCADDAS can be utilized for any labroatory-developed BALL-MRD assay, and its small-sized export is compatible with any clinical FC software, computing platform and analysis strategy. Adoption of CCADDAS is likely to facilitate the implementation of BALL-MRD FC analysis by more clinical laboratories.

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 (>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.

Introduction: Richter transformation is the development of an aggressive lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, in patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Transformation into Hodgkin lymphoma (HT) is a rare event and outcomes in pts with this complication in the current CLL/SLL therapeutic era of small molecule inhibitors (SMI; e.g., Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors [BTKi] and BCL2 inhibitors [BCL2i]) are unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of pts from 12 academic centers. Pts with HT who had not previously received chemotherapy for CLL/SLL-directed treatment (tx) were included. Pt, disease, and tx characteristics were collected. HT was categorized into 3 groups: “Concurrent HT,” defined as HT and CLL/SLL diagnosed simultaneously (within 3 months); “HT without prior CLL/SLL tx,” defined as HT and CLL/SLL diagnosed >3 months apart with the CLL/SLL never treated; and “HT with prior non-chemotherapy tx for CLL/SLL” defined as having received non-chemotherapy CLL/SLL-directed tx prior to the diagnosis (dx) of HT. Overall survival (OS) was measured from HT dx and estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression model was used to identify prognostic factors associated with OS. Results: Within a total cohort of 402 pts with Richter transformation (all histologies) without prior chemotherapy, 41 pts with HT (10%) were identified: 12 with concurrent HT, 10 with HT without prior CLL/SLL tx, and 19 with HT with prior non-chemotherapy tx for CLL/SLL. The median age at CLL/SLL dx was 62 years (range 31-96 years) and 73% were male. At CLL/SLL dx, 67% (14/21 evaluated) had unmutated IGHV, and 24% (8/34 evaluated) had TP53 disruption (del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation). The median age at HT dx was 65 years (range 31-96 years) among all pts. At HT dx, there was no significant difference in highest SUV on PET (median 12.3, range 3-31.1), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (median 242 U/L, range 112-859 U/L), or lymph node longest diameter (median 4.6 cm, range 1.6-25 cm) among the 3 subgroups. The median time from CLL/SLL dx to HT dx was 5.4 years (range 0.3-16.5 years) in pts with HT without prior CLL/SLL tx and 4.2 years (range 0.5-17.3 years) in pts with HT with prior non-chemotherapy tx for CLL/SLL. The median number of prior non-chemotherapy CLL/SLL-directed tx was 1 (range 1-6) and included BTKi only (n=17) and BTKi and BCL2i sequentially (n=2); no patient had received only prior BCL2i. Among the 19 pts with HT with prior non-chemotherapy tx for CLL/SLL, 18 pts were on active tx at time of dx (17 BTKi, 1 BCL2i). Initial HT management included: doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD; n=16), brentuximab vedotin (BV)-AVD (n=10), radiation only (n=2), other systemic tx (n=11), and supportive cares / hospice (n=2). All but 1 of the 11 other systemic tx were various HL tx regimens. Across all pts with available data (n=32), the overall response rate to 1st line HT tx was 78% (69% complete response rate); 13% had progressive disease and 9% (n=3; all with concurrent HT) died within 6 months without formal response assessment. A total of 11 pts received at least 1 additional line of therapy for HT, which included BV (n=4), an immune checkpoint inhibitor (n=1), or both (n=6) at any point beyond 1st line HT tx. Median follow-up from HT dx was 32.8 months (range 2.4-253.8 months). The 36-month OS for the entire cohort was 75% (95% CI: 55-87%). The 36-month OS estimates by subgroups were: 62% (95% CI: 26-84%) in pts with concurrent HT, 100% in pts with HT without prior CLL/SLL tx (no events by 36 months), and 67% (95% CI: 33-87%) in pts with HT with prior non-chemotherapy tx for CLL/SLL. Exploratory univariable analysis identified TP53 disruption at CLL dx (HR 12.36; 95% CI: 2.55-59.84) and lymph node longest diameter (HR 1.32 per 1 cm increase; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55) and LDH 2-fold increase (HR 3.97; 95% CI 1.24-12.68) at HT dx as prognostic for worse OS. HT subgroup was not prognostic. Conclusions: This is the largest report of outcomes in pts with CLL/SLL who develop HT following SMI tx without any prior chemotherapy, representing a contemporary cohort. Prior CLL/SLL tx status was not associated with OS; however, cautious interpretation is required given the sample size. Our findings support the use of appropriate HL-directed treatment in the setting of HT; however, OS estimates remain worse than would be expected in an older adult de novo HL cohort (Cheng Blood Adv 2022).

Introduction: Treatments for R/R MCL have evolved with NTs, including BTK inhibitors (BTKis). Little is known about RW treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of pts with R/R MCL for chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) vs NTs among pts of different race/ethnicity. Data on RW testing and clinical outcomes of pts with R/R MCL harboring a TP53 mutation are limited. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult pts with R/R MCL who initiated second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) treatment on 1/1/2018 or later and were followed up until loss to follow-up, death, or data cut-off using US Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified databases. Median RW time to next treatment (mrwTTNT) and median RW overall survival (mrwOS) were estimated based on Kaplan-Meier analyses and adjusted for age and sex. CIT included any MCL treatment with chemotherapy + anti-CD20 antibody. NTs included BTKis, BCL2 inhibitors, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and CAR-T, or combinations. Results:This study included 1,377 pts with R/R MCL who received 2L+ therapy. Of these, 1,028 (75%) were non-Latinx (NL)-White, 53 (4%) were NL-Black, 86 (6%) were Latinx, 108 (8%) were NL-Asian or other race, and 102 (7%) were of unknown/undocumented race. The overall 2L+ population had a median age of 71 y (range 63-78), were mostly male (74%), had a diagnosis of MCL not otherwise specified (NOS; 85%), and had stage IV disease (62%). Sixty-three percent had disease progression within 24 mo from first-line (1L) treatment (POD24) before starting 2L therapy. Relative to all pts, NL-Black and NL-Asian/other race pts had more variants of MCL (blastic, leukemic, pleomorphic) and higher Ki67% and lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels at 2L/3L index date. In contrast, Latinx pts had more MCL NOS (92%) and lower Ki67% and LDH levels at 2L index date. More NL-Black and unknown race pts had POD24 than did other races (70% and 76%, respectively). Overall, the most common NTs used were BTKis. 1L treatments were bendamustine-rituximab (BR; 54%), R-CHOP (18%), and cytarabine-containing CIT (9.7%). The most common 2L treatments were BR (32%), acalabrutinib (31%), ibrutinib (21%), zanubrutinib (11%), and RCHOP (11%). The most common 3L therapies were BR (34%), acalabrutinib (21%), zanubrutinib (12%), ibrutinib (10%), R-CHOP (9.2%), and brexucabtagene autoleucel (7.4%). Transplantation rates before 2L and CAR-T use in 3L was highest among White pts. When assessing mrwTTNT and mrwOS by therapy in 2L, 766 pts (70%) received NTs and 333 (30%) received CIT. Among all pts, mrwTTNT (mo [95% CI]) was longer with 2L NT (11.9 [10.6, 14.5]) vs CIT (9.9 [8.1, 12.9]). NL-White, NL-Black, and NL-Asian/other race pts had longer mrwTTNT with NT (11.9 [10.5, 14.6], 12.9 [7.6, NR], and 14.6 [8.5, 21.4], respectively) vs CIT (9.9 [7.6, 12.9], 9.7 [3.0, NR], and 6.0 [3.2, 21.2]). Latinx pts had longer mrwTTNT with CIT (14.9 [11.8, NR]) vs NT (9.0 [3.8, 24.2]). Among all pts, mrwOS (mo [95% CI]) was longer with 2L CIT (43.0 [34.1, 56.5]) vs NT (35.6 [29.9, 41.2]). White and Latinx pts had longer mrwOS with CIT (47.3 [33.9, NR] and NR [33.3, NR], respectively) vs NT (35.0 [28.8, 48.4] and 42.3 [31.0, NR]). Black and Asian/other race pts had longer mrwOS with NT (41.2 [32.8, NR] and 38.8 [23.5, NR], respectively) vs CIT (34.8 [9.7, NR] and 13.5 [8.3, NR]). Among all 3L pts (n=364 on NTs, n=119 on CIT), mrwTTNT (mo [95% CI]) improved when using NTs (7.9 [6.8, 10.3]) vs CIT (4.4 [3.5, 6.9]). NTs demonstrated better mrwTTNT vs CIT in all race/ethnic groups except Latinx pts. For all race/ethnic groups, mrwOS was improved with NTs (32.5 [24.7, 42.6]) vs CIT (19.5 [13.7, 47.3]). Overall RW testing for TP53 aberrations was limited, with 72 pts (5%) found to be positive for a TP53 mutation. For pts with TP53 mutations, mrwTTNT and mrwOS were longer for 2L NTs (3.3 [2.2, 6.4] and 18.3 [9.0, NR], respectively; n=42) vs CIT (3.0 [1.9, 7.6] and 15.0 [7.2, NR]; n=16). Conclusions: High-risk features, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes for NTs vs CIT in R/R MCL differed by race/ethnicity. Use of 2L+ NTs was associated with a trend towards improved mrwTTNT and mrwOS among NL-Black and NL-Asian/other race pts. NT use in 3L numerically improved mrwTTNT and mrwOS for most pts vs CIT. RW pts with TP53 mutations had a poor prognosis and numerically improved outcomes with the use of 2L NT, although testing remains limited. Future research evaluating reasons for these differences and increased RW TP53 testing is warranted.

Background Hispanic patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. To better understand the factors that impact clinical trial participation, we surveyed patients with NHL receiving care at an academic institution on their perspectives on clinical trials, barriers to care, and helpful aids to encourage clinical trial participation. Here we report the findings of the Hispanic patients and non-Hispanic white patients; accrual is ongoing for other cohorts of patients. Methods Consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically confirmed NHL who received care at MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas were invited to participate regardless of treatment status. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess patient sociodemographic factors, perceptions and willingness to participate in different clinical trial scenarios as well as participant perceived barriers to care and facilitators of trial participation. The questionnaire included a total of 53 items with an additional 13 demographic items. The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Results Of the 1204 patients invited, 316 consented to participate and 285 ultimately completed the survey (participation rate 23.7%). Among the total participants, this cohort included 100 self-identified Hispanic (H) participants and 103 non-Hispanic white (NHW) participants diagnosed with NHL who completed the survey and were included here. The histology of our cohort included Follicular Lymphoma (FL) [35.6%]; Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [18.2%], Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [18.7%], T-cell Lymphoma (TCL) [9.4%] Marginal Zone Lymphoma [7.8%]. Compared with NHW participants, Hispanic patients were younger (Median age of 60 vs 66 years), less likely to be male (H 54% vs NHW 66%), less likely to commute more than an hour away from the doctor's office (54% vs 71.8%), had lower household income (income > $100,000 was 32% vs 41.7%) and less likely to have a bachelors' degree or higher (38% vs 50.5%). There were similar prevalence histologies such as DLBCL (H 20% vs NHW 16.5%) and FL (H 36% vs NHW 35%) compared to rarer histologies such as MCL (H 11.1% vs NHW 26.2%) and MZL (H 12% vs NHW 3.9% ) which had disproportional prevalences. Hispanic patients were less likely to have previously participated in a clinical trial (28% vs 51.5%) and less likely to have discussed clinical trials as an option (49% vs 70.9%). A majority of Hispanic (81.0%) and NHW (92.3%) respondents stated that they understood what was meant by a “clinical research study” or “clinical trial” somewhat well or very well. Less than half of Hispanic participants (38.0%) and NHW participants (48.5%) reported being very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial as their initial course of treatment. The most prevalent concern of both Hispanic and NHW participants respectively was the cost of a clinical trial (34.0%, 22.3%). Other top concerns included distance to the treatment center (32.0%, 13.6%) and frequency of contact with the care team (26.0%, 14.6%). Participants identified access to written materials (69.0%, 60.2%), insurance aid (65.0%, 68.0%), and access to videos (64.0%, 51.5%) as extremely helpful resources that could reduce the burden of participating in a clinical trial. Participants identified that it was most important that a treatment may improve their quality of life by decreasing pain level, increasing activity level, or other symptoms (76.0%, 91.3%). Conclusions Although most Hispanic and NHW participants reported a very good understanding of clinical trials and similar facilitators/barriers for trial participation, Hispanic patients were less likely to have discussed trials as an option with their care teams and less likely to have previously participated in a trial. Evidence-based interventions to address various barriers to clinical trials exist but data on their effectiveness and application is limited. Implementing strategically designed evidence-based interventions to address identified barriers and facilitators will be necessary to improve participation in lymphoma clinical trials.

Introduction: Treatment for R/R MCL has evolved with the use of cBTKi monotherapy. Previously, we reported differences in RW time to next treatment (rwTTNT) and overall survival (rwOS) among patients (pts) treated with ibrutinib (ibr), acalabrutinib (acala), and zanubrutinib (zanu), but reasons for the differences were unknown (Phillips et al. EHA 2024). Our objectives were to re-evaluate trends in rwTTNT and rwOS; assess treatment patterns of cBTKis, including switching; describe reasons for cBTKi discontinuation; and compare RW effectiveness of ibr, acala, and zanu monotherapy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult pts diagnosed with R/R MCL who initiated second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) first cBTKi treatment 01/2018-11/2023 and were followed until loss to follow-up or death using the US nationwide Flatiron Health EHR deidentified database. Patient characteristics and survival estimates based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were summarized. Adjusted analysis using a multivariate Cox model was applied to assess rwTTNT and rwOS. Key model variables were age, sex, POD24 (2L start ≤24 mo from first-line start), and number of prior lines of therapy. Reasons for discontinuation were abstracted from documentation in notes and included non-mutually exclusive categories. Results: This study included 698 pts who received cBTKi monotherapy in 2L or 3L for MCL. The median age at cBTKi start was 73 (range, 34-85 yrs); the majority of pts were male (74%) and White (White 78%, Black 3.2%, Asian 1.3%, Other Race 7.6%, Unknown 10%) and non-Hispanic/Latino (non-Hispanic/Latino 74%, Hispanic/Latino 6.0%, Unknown 20%). Patients varied by socioeconomic status (Yost index 1 [12%], 2 [16%], 3 [19%], 4 [24%], 5 [19%], Unknown [10%]). Patients also varied by baseline ECOG performance status, Ki67, comorbidities, and LDH. Most pts had stage III/IV at diagnosis (75%). Among pts who received a cBTKi at 2L or 3L index therapy, 135 received zanu (2L [79%], 3L [21%]), 342 received acala (2L [76%], 3L [24%]), and 221 received ibr (2L [75%], 3L [25%]). Follow-up time (median [IQR]) from start of 2L/3L for each cBTKi were zanu 15 mo (10, 25), acala 36 mo (20, 52), and ibr 57 mo (35, 67). Among the overall 2L/3L cBTKi monotherapy cohort, median rwTTNT was 11.5 mo (95% CI 10.0, 13.5) and median rwOS was 30.4 mo (24.7, 36.1). For each cBTKi therapy in unadjusted KM analyses, median rwTTNT for zanu was 16.8 mo (95% CI 11.1, 23.2), acala 11.9 mo (9.2, 14.6), and ibr 9.8 mo (7.6, 13.1); median rwOS was 28.8 for zanu (95% CI 23.7, not reached), acala 29.2 mo (22.9, 36.5), and ibr 29.3 mo (21.2, 39.1). Adjusted multivariate model showed a trend of longer rwTTNT with zanu compared to ibr (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.57, 1.01]; P=.06) and acala (0.88 [0.67, 1.16]; P=.40), and significantly longer rwOS for zanu compared to ibr (0.67 [0.46, 0.98]; P=.04) but a nonsignificant trend in rwOS favoring zanu compared to acala (0.73 [0.51, 1.05]; P=.09). Forty-seven pts (6.7%) who received cBTKi monotherapy in 2L or 3L switched to another cBTKi; 31 (4.4%) switched from ibr to acala or zanu, 12 (1.7%) from acala to zanu, and <5 (0.1%) from zanu to acala. Reasons for discontinuation (~60% documented in cohort) varied by cBTKi monotherapy use. The most common documented reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (30% overall; zanu [24%], acala [35%], ibr [26%]) and toxicity (11% overall; zanu [7%], acala [10%], ibr [17%]). Among pts who switched from one cBTKi to another, the most documented reason for discontinuation was toxicity for ibr to acala or zanu (61%) and for acala to zanu (58%). Other reasons included financial (1%), non-cancer-related medical issue (4%), cancer-related symptoms not due to therapy (2%), and pt request (1%). Conclusions: Among RW pts with R/R MCL who received cBTKi monotherapy, zanu had a longer rwOS compared to ibr, and a trend of longer rwTTNT and rwOS compared to acala. Reasons for discontinuation were most commonly disease progression and toxicity. Among pts who switched cBTKis, the most common reason for switching was toxicity, which provides a broader scope of reasons for differences in rwTTNT that are not exclusive to disease progression.

Introduction: Given the major treatment advancements in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), understanding patient and healthcare provider (HCP) decision-making perspectives is crucial. This study investigated barriers to adopting resource-intensive novel therapies, unmet needs in access to care, and treatment decision priorities in one of the largest surveys of RRMM patients and HCPs. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from March to June 2024 using 30-minute web-based quantitative surveys fielded in 2269 participants (1301 RRMM patients and 968 HCPs) across 7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan). The survey collected data on pre-defined patient subgroups (line of treatment, ages <45, 46-65, 65+]) and in HCP subgroups (care settings: academic, community [non-Center of Excellence [COE]). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results: Two themes that emerged from the findings were: 1) discrepancies in treatment considerations between patients and HCPs, and 2) Familiarity with and considerations around BsAbs among patients Discrepancies in HCP and Patient considerations HCPs and patients prioritized different considerations during treatment decision-making, particularly related to the importance of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs). 3L+ patients equally prioritized disease control and minimizing TRAEs (49% and 49%); HCPs prioritized disease control more often than minimizing TRAEs (59% and 40% for 3L+ patients). Patients considered many TRAEs extremely challenging to manage, whereas HCPs were less likely to do so (patients vs HCPs: bone-related AEs: 64% vs 39%, p<0.001; hypertension: 54% vs 28%, p<0.001; cholesterol: 53% vs 21%, p<0.001; skin-related AEs: 49% vs 30%, p<0.001). Limiting TRAEs was a concern particularly among patients over 65 (52%, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (52%, p<0.001). Limiting costs and financial challenges (3L+ patients: 33% vs HCPs: 13%, p<0.001) and avoiding compromising the potential to receive treatment options in later lines (3L+ patients: 25% vs HCPs:14%, p<0.001) were other considerations patients prioritized more than HCPs. HCPs prioritized limiting side effects 9% more in 3L settings compared to 2L. Discrepancies in decision-making in 2L setting included a desire to limit treatment-related logistical burden (patients: 35% vs HCP: 17%, p<0.001), limit challenges for care partners (25% vs 13%, p<0.001), and ensure treatment without referral (24% vs 16%, p=0.001). Compared to their older counterparts, younger patients (<45 y v ≥45y) prioritized convenient treatment administration (39% vs 29%, p=0.024) and avoiding referrals to other institutions (32% vs 22%, p<0.001). Perspectives on treatment considerations specific to BsAbs Among 3L+ patients, most have not heard of BsAbs, or have heard but were unfamiliar with the option. A small proportion of 3L+ patients recalled their HCPs suggesting BsAbs as a treatment option (14%) although most patients decided to receive BsAbs treatment when it was offered (71%). Among patients on BsAb treatment, patients most often cited clinical reasons for going on BsAbs (i.e., remission, symptom relief, and likelihood of greater longevity). Among non-clinical reasons, lower time commitment and lower likelihood of negative financial impact compared with other treatments were also common. Notably, 36% of HCPs reported low confidence in identifying RRMM patients eligible for BsAbs. Compared with academic HCPs (32%), more community/non-COE HCPs (42% p=0.018) reported low confidence. Conclusions: HCPs and patients have different priorities during treatment decision-making, particularly regarding the importance of minimizing TRAE and in prioritizing efficacy and managing logistical burdens in later treatment lines. Among novel treatments, BsAbs are not frequently recalled by patients as a treatment option provided by HCPs. HCPs, especially in community settings, are often uncertain about identifying eligible patients for BsAbs, indicating a need for greater educational resources for HCPs. Increasing patient awareness of available treatments, HCP understanding of novel treatments, and fostering dialogue on patient priorities can increase the likelihood of informed, personalized shared decision-making, and optimize evidence-based patient outcomes.

Background: The FDA package inserts for all approved chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies state that patients should universally refrain from driving for 8 weeks following infusion. However, there are no clear data to support this recommendation, particularly in multiple myeloma (MM) which all CAR-T therapies use 4-1BB as opposed to CD28 costimulatory domains. Specifically, no seizures were reported in the KarMMa, KarMMa-3, CARTITUDE-1, or CARTITUDE-4 trials. Because patients typically return to their referring oncologists after Day (D) +28 following CAR-T infusion, an additional month of driving restrictions can create confusion for referring oncologists, impose significant burdens for patients and caregivers, and potentially even affect the choice of MM therapy for patients living in remote areas. Methods: We conducted a two-part study within the US MM Immunotherapy Consortium. Firstly, we analyzed data from commercial idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) recipients (leukapheresis cutoff December 31, 2023) to identify the prevalence of CRS, ICANS, or death between Weeks 5-8 (D+29 to D+56) following CAR-T (Day 0). Patients with index hospital stays lasting over 4 weeks and patients with <8 weeks of post-CAR-T follow-up were excluded. Secondly, we surveyed Consortium members about the prevalence of impaired driving risk (defined as “anything that could impair a patient's ability to drive safely, e.g. seizures, altered mental status, blindness, etc.”) and used 1-5 Likert scales to gauge the perceived importance of driving restrictions (assuming no FDA guidance existed) during Weeks 0-4 vs 5-8. This anonymous IRB-exempted survey was distributed via email to 63 CAR-T-prescribing physicians within the Consortium. Results: Of 553 analyzed patients, 41% (n=224) had received cilta-cel and 59% (n=329) ide-cel. The median age was 64 (IQR 58-70), 42% (n=231) were female, 78% White (n=434), 13% (n=72) Black, and 9% (n=51) Hispanic. ECOG PS at infusion was ≥2 in 11% (n=63) of patients, and 5% (n=28) had had previous CNS co-morbidities such as prior strokes. One patient (0.2%) developed Grade 2 CRS during Weeks 5-8 (onset D+47, resolution one day later); no patients had de novo ICANS after D+28. There were 16 cases of non-ICANS neurotoxicity (including 2 cases of Parkinsonism) diagnosed a median of 24 days after CAR-T (range: 17-147 days), of which 3 cases (all non-Parkinsonian) were first diagnosed during Weeks 5-8. There were 10 deaths (2%) during Weeks 5-8, one due to infection and the remainder from progressive MM. The survey was completed by 45 oncologists (71% response rate), 41 of whom had managed both >5 ide-cel and >5 cilta-cel recipients. Regarding impaired driving during Weeks 0-4, 20% of physicians felt this was never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 29% a risk for 3-10% of patients, and 16% a risk for >10% of patients. The distribution was significantly different (p < 0.01) for Weeks 5-8: 49% never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 16% a risk for 3-10% of patients, while no respondents felt this remained a risk for >10% of patients. For Weeks 0-4, 73% agreed that patients should be advised not to drive while 9% disagreed. In contrast, for Weeks 5-8, 14% of physicians agreed with driving restrictions while 78% disagreed (p < 0.01 compared to Weeks 0-4). Discussion: Our two-part study demonstrates that driving restrictions following Week 4 after CAR-T therapy in MM may not be required. The incidence of de novo CRS or any-type neurotoxicity being diagnosed during Weeks 5-8 was <1%, and - if such toxicities developed - patients and physicians could be expected to set appropriate restrictions at that juncture. While 73% of CAR-T-prescribing oncologists agreed that patients should refrain from driving during Weeks 0-4, 78% disagreed with this recommendation during Weeks 5-8. These findings complement other real-world studies (Wesson, Dima, et al, TCT 2024; Ahmed et al, Blood Advances 2024) reporting the rarity of CRS and ICANS after the first month in both MM and lymphoma. Our study is limited by a lack of patient-reported data, which was done intentionally to avoid asking patients about activities undertaken against medical advice. Nevertheless, we believe that narrowing universal driving restrictions to Weeks 0-4 following CAR-T therapy would constitute an evidence-based modification to the package inserts for ide-cel and cilta-cel.

BACKGROUND Several studies have highlighted the poor clinical outcomes observed among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), particularly those with triple-class refractory (TCR; refractory to at least one protease inhibitor [PI], one immunomodulatory drug [IMiD], and one anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) disease. The aim of this study was to describe the longitudinal changes in quality of life (QOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among TCR MM patients who initiated a new line of therapy in real-world clinical practice. METHODS A prospective, multi-site observational study was conducted through the Mayo Clinic system. Patients with TCR MM initiating a new line of therapy (defined as the index date) were followed for a 12-month observation period. For patients initiating a CAR-T therapy, PRO survey assessments were conducted at apheresis, lymphodepletion chemotherapy, and every month after T-cell infusion until Month 6. All other patients received a survey assessment before index and every month thereafter until Month 6. PRO measures included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; including the Global Health Score [GHS]), the EORTC Multiple Myeloma Questionnaire (QLQ-MY20; including the Disease Symptoms [DS] domain score), the EORTC QLQ for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN20), the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS), and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). PRO surveys were supplemented with retrospective chart reviews conducted at 3 months and 12 months following the index date to obtain clinical information. Descriptive data were reported at each timepoint separately for patients who received CAR-T and non-CAR-T index therapies. The study is ongoing and this abstract reflects all patient data collected as of May 2024. RESULTS This interim analysis included 77 patients (58% male, 95% White, mean age 66 years). The median time interval between becoming TCR and the index date was 5.6 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.8, 18.2). Most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1 (48% and 45%, respectively) and were Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) I or II (27% and 36%, respectively); 42% of patients had high-risk cytogenetics and 14% had extramedullary disease. The median (IQR) number of prior treatment lines was 4 (4, 5). Forty-two patients initiated a CAR-T therapy as their index therapy (12 and 30 treated with ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively); the remaining 35 patients predominantly initiated a treatment regimen containing an IMiD (51%), a PI (54%), an anti-CD38 antibody (40%), or an alkylating agent (37%). Among these non-CAR-T patients, common regimens used were pomalidomide + elotuzumab + corticosteroids (26%), carfilzomib + cyclophosphamide + corticosteroids (20%), and pomalidomide + carfilzomib + corticosteroids (17%). Among CAR-T patients, QOL generally remained stable from apheresis (mean GHS and EQ-5D VAS were 62.3 and 66.4, respectively) to lymphodepletion (61.2 and 65.9) to Month 6 (64.2 and 68.9). Disease symptoms improved (mean DS domain scores at apheresis, lymphodepletion, and Month 6 were 25.7, 24.1, and 20.1, respectively) though pain, specifically, plateaued/worsened (mean pain domain scores were 24.5, 32.1, and 32.6). Based on the PGIC, 76% of patients reported being “a little better” or “much better” as early as Month 1, which stabilized over time (75% at Month 6). Among non-CAR-T patients, QOL largely remained stable (GHS and EQ-5D VAS was 62.9 and 68.4, respectively, at baseline and 64.9 and 67.7 at Month 6), though disease symptoms, including pain, improved over time (DS was 28.0 at baseline and 22.8 at Month 6; pain was 40.8 at baseline and 28.1 at Month 6). Based on the PGIC, 30.7% of patients reported being “a little better” or “much better” at Month 1, which improved to 52.7% by Month 6. CONCLUSIONS In this interim analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study, baseline values suggest a significant QOL burden among TCR patients. QOL generally remained stable for both CAR-T and non-CAR-T patients over the first several months post-therapy with some select improvements in disease symptoms. However, the patients (particularly CAR-T patients) directly reported some holistic improvement based on the PGIC as early as Month 1.

Introduction: Therapeutic advancements for MM have led to improved patient survival, but notable differences in management exist. Novel treatment options are resource-intensive and require adequate patient awareness as well as consideration of patient preferences such that informed decision making is practiced. Despite this, detailed understanding of factors that impact patient decisions regarding healthcare choices, and potentially contribute to variability in healthcare utilization, are under-studied. Additionally, with improved survivorship, the medical, psychosocial, and financial burden of MM management needs to be better understood. Methods: An anonymous, online, 45-question English survey exploring demographics, social determinants of health, selected clinical characteristics, treatment preferences, and survivorship burden was distributed to MM patients within Mayo Clinic and to all International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) support groups. Descriptive statistics were utilized to document participant socio-demographic characteristics, selected treatment history, factors affecting their preferences, and MM survivorship burden. Results: A total of 2239 participants responded to the survey with 54% males, median age 68 years (range 21-95) and median age at MM diagnosis of 67 years. Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) were the largest (89%) racial-ethnic group. Most participants (71%) had a college degree and 67% had Medicare or Medicaid as primary insurance. MM was diagnosed within 5 years in 58% and 73% were currently on MM treatment at the time of responding to the survey. Majority (76%) had never been on a clinical trial, 59% had received stem cell transplant, 8% had undergone CAR-T therapy and 8% had received Bispecific antibodies as part of their MM management. Majority (64%) preferred oral drugs while 19% preferred injections and 14% infusion therapy.17% had ≥4 healthcare visits per month for MM treatment, 91% used their personal vehicle as the mode of transport for these appointments and the median time to travel to the treatment facility was 30-minutes.Survey participants reported that >10 days of work were missed per year due to MM management among 15% of the patients and 9% of the caregivers, while 15% reported suffering job loss related to MM management. Top factors for treatment decisions were physician recommendations (92%), effectiveness of treatment option (88%), understanding of the treatment(74%), side effects (57%), and family/caregiver input (38%). Psychological challenges and financial strain were reported by 38% and 18% of the respondents, respectively. Increase in healthcare needs since MM diagnosis were reported by 48% and majority reported ongoing symptom burden including fatigue (78%), pain (53%) and neuropathy (60%). Furthermore, of the participants with these symptoms, 67% reported that their fatigue was not relieved by rest, 73% reported their pain to be moderate to severe, and 29% reported their neuropathy to be moderate to severe. Only 42% reported being fully active with the rest reporting varying degrees of functional inabilities. Nearly half (47%) of the participants reported lack of interest or enjoyment in activities they used to like prior to MM diagnosis, however majority (74%) still reported “good” or “excellent” quality of life. A small number of participants reported lack of support from family and friends (4%), lack of support from their healthcare team (3%), difficulty accessing healthcare due to financial hardship (7%) or difficulty accessing healthcare due to job commitments (3%). Conclusions: Decision-making for MM treatment is complex and there are several factors that affect patients behavior. Improved survival in MM is associated with significant survivorship and caregiver burden which can also affect the patient's treatment choices for subsequent therapy. These factors must be addressed systematically to achieve equitable healthcare utilization, shared decision making, and optimal clinical, psychosocial and financial wellbeing of patients with MM.