Citations

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.

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.

Introduction: Although not formally approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax (ven) has shown promising activity in patients (pts) with MM whose disease harbors t(11;14). The randomized BELLINI trial (VenVd vs Vd in unselected MM pts, Kumar Lancet Oncol 2020) demonstrated improved PFS, especially in the 35 patients with t(11;14) [HR 0.11], although worse OS in the intention to treat population due to increased treatment related mortality. The subsequent CANOVA trial (Vendex vs Pomdex in MM pts with t(11;14), Mateos IMS 2023) failed to show a PFS benefit (median PFS 9.9 mo vs 5.8 mo, p=0.237), leaving an uncertain future for ven in myeloma, despite the biological rationale and clinical activity. We therefore analyzed real world physician practice patterns using off-label ven for MM in the US. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from the US nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified longitudinal database. The Flatiron Health database contains structured and unstructured data curated via technology-enabled abstraction from approx. 280 cancer clinics and 800 unique sites of care. We included all patients in the Flatiron Health database with multiple myeloma (ICD-9 203.0x or ICD-10 C90.0x, confirmed with clinical review) who had received ven as part of any line of MM treatment. This included patients who commenced ven between 2016-2024. The primary endpoint was time to next treatment or death (TTNT) from ven initiation, with overall survival (OS) from ven initiation as the key secondary endpoint, both of which were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model, using R v 4.3.0. Results: We included 208 patients who received ven for MM. They had a median of three prior lines of therapy (range 0-12), a median age of 67 years (Range 34-85 yrs), and 59% were male. Race/ethnicity breakdown was: Non-Hispanic White: 136 pts (72.7%), Black 36 (19.3%), Hispanic 10 (5.3%), Asian 5 (2.7%), other/unknown 21 (10.1%). Most had commercial insurance (188 pts, 91.3%) and 108 pts (52%) were cared for in academic settings while 100 (48%) were in community settings. ECOG performance status was 0 in 50 pts (24%), 1 in 80 pts (38.5%), ≥2 in 31 pts (14.9%) and unknown in 47 (22.6%). ISS Stage was I in 42 pts (20.2%), II in 43 pts (20.7%), III in 52 pts (25.0%) and unknown in 71 (34.1%). 148 pts had t(11;14) (71.2%), while 25 pts did not (12%) and 35 pts had unknown t(11;14) status (16.8%). Most pts received ven as part of a triplet combination (106 pts, 51%), followed by doublets (39, 18.8%; 21 ven+dex and 18 ven+non-dex doublet), quads (38, 18.3%), as a single agent (17, 8.2%) or in other combinations such as with multi-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy or in addition to quadruplet therapy (8, 3.9%). Most common first ven-containing regimens used were VenDd (34 pts), VenKd (31), VenVd (25), Vendex (21), VenDVd (13), VenDKd (7). Ven was used as part of ≥2 different regimens in 20 patients, in 10 of whom those regimens were non-consecutive. Median TTNT was 10.2 months (mo) in all comers, 12 mo in pts with t(11;14), 3.4 mo in pts without t(11;14) and 7.6 mo in pts with unknown t(11;14) status. Median OS was 27.6 mo in all comers, 30.5 mo in pts with t(11;14), 8.1 mo in pts without t(11;14) and 27.9 mo in pts with unknown t(11;14) status. Pts with t(11;14) receiving ven had a significantly longer TTNT than those without t(11;14) [median 12 mo vs 3.4 mo, HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.42-0.84, p=0.003]. and a significantly longer OS [median 30.5 mo vs 8.1 mo, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 - 0.89, p=0.012]. Discussion: We evaluated US ven prescribing patterns in 208 pts with MM in the largest real world study of ven in MM to date. While it was mostly used in pts with t(11;14) (71%), there was occasional use in pts without t(11;14), and it was used in a wide variety of combination regimens. Ven achieved meaningful TTNT in some patients and both TTNT and OS were greater in pts with t(11;14) than those without. This suggest that despite mixed data from clinical trials, clinicians are using ven for MM patients in practice and further data is required to optimize its use and understand its best combination treatment partners in MM.

Introduction: Telomere biology disorders (TBD) are multisystemic accelerated aging syndromes due to abnormal telomere length (TL) shortening and increased cancer risk. Pediatric-onset TBD is characterized by severely shortened TL and specific associations with germline pathogenic variants mainly in DKC1, TINF2, PARN genes and characteristic clinical features [bone marrow failure (BMF), abnormal nail/skin/oral mucosa]. Adult-onset TBD is genetically distinct (predominantly, TERT, TERC, and RTEL1 mutations) with varied organ involvement [interstitial lung disease (ILD), BMF, cirrhosis, or bone disease] and heterogenous outcomes. In our previous study of predominantly adult patients with short telomeres, multiple organ involvement (Mangaonkar A et al. Blood Cancer J 2021) predicted poor overall survival (OS). We sought to validate these findings in a larger, well annotated adult cohort of TBD patients. Methods: Patients with suspected TBD underwent comprehensive clinical and molecular evaluation through our TBD-dedicated clinic after regulatory approval. TL was assessed through clinical flow cytometry fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FlowFISH).Clinical and laboratory features, including pulmonary imaging, lung volumes/function testing, hepatic imaging (MR elastography/fibroscan) and bone density assessments were retrospectively abstracted. Germline and somatic genetic testing was performed on peripheral blood through targeted panels for known TBD and myeloid genes respectively. Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify significant variables that also retained independent prognostic impact. Results: Overall, 122 patients met criteria for TBD as defined by lymphocyte TL (LTL) <=10th percentile and/or a presence of a germline-TBD variant; 34 patients LTL <1st percentile, 84 1st and the 10th percentile (27 with TBD-germline variants) and 4 with only TBD-germline variants. Median age at diagnosis was 56 (18-77) years, with 72 (59%) males. Clinical features included presence of ILD (n=81, 66%), BMF (n=39, 32%), cirrhosis/hepatic fibrosis (n=19, 38%), bone disease osteopenia/osteoporosis/fractures, n=53, 70%), MDS/AML (n=11, 9%), non-hematological cancer (n=38, 31%), and head and neck cancer (n=2). Germline pathogenic variants were detected in 22 (18%), most frequently in TERT (n=10), RTEL1 (n=7) and TERC (n=2), while variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were seen in 35 (29%) patients, especially in TERT (n=20), TERC/RTEL1(n=6), NAF1 (n=4). Somatic variants in hematopoietic cells were detected in 37 (30%) patients with frequent alterations seen in DNA damage response and repair (PPM1D/TP53, n=11), and splicing component (U2AF1/SF3B1/ZRSR2, n=9) genes. At last follow-up [median of 3 (0-18) years], there were 26 (21%) deaths (most commonly, progressive ILD-18, cancer of lung/breast/pancreas-3, transplant-related complications-2). After censoring patients at the time of any transplantation (lung transplant-26, liver transplant-5, bone marrow transplant-8), the Kaplan-Meier estimate of median OS was not reached. Univariate survival analysis found adverse OS predicted by older age at diagnosis (P=0.006), presence of ILD (P=0.0002), hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (P=0.02), and somatic DNA repair variants (P=0.03). Multivariate model analysis found that only presence of ILD retained independent prognostic impact (HR=2, P=0.02). Among radiographic ILD subtypes, UIP was the most common (51%), followed by NSIP (10%), and others (6%), with median FEV1 of 2L (range: 0.5-4.6), FVC 2.4L (0.7-6.2), and TLC 4L (1.9-7.4). TBD-ILD patients were older (P<0.0001) with a male preponderance (P=0.03), 52 (64%) with multi-organ involvement, and had a less severe hematological phenotype [lower incidence of BMF (P<0.0001) and fetal hemoglobin elevation (P=0.01)], more frequent bone disease (P=0.0009), relatively longer telomeres in lymphocytes (P=0.04), and no particular association with any germline or somatic genetic alterations. Conclusions: Presence of ILD is an independent and significant predictor of adverse survival in adult TBD. Within adult TBD, patients with ILD represent a unique clinical subtype without any obvious genetic or pathologic correlates. Focusing on definitive therapeutic measures in this subgroup of adult TBD has the best chance to alter natural history and improve outcomes.

Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for both 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 (ELN) blast phase registry reported outcomes of 240 CML-BP pts. They also reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we are undertaking this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to study 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 separately 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 2024 were included. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause. Survival probabilities were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Of the 72 pts with CML-BP included in this analysis, 29 (40.3%) were female and 43 (59.7%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 36 (50%) had CML-CP (chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase), 11 (15.3%) pts were diagnosed with CML-AP (accelerated phase CML) and 25 (34.7%) pts with de-novo CML-BP. For the 47 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 26 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 54 years (range 21-86 years). EM disease was present in 17 (23.6%) pts (7 myeloid sarcoma, 5 central nervous system and 5 skin) with 3 pts presenting with EM disease only. Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 41 (56.9%), lymphoid in 29 (40.3%) and mixed in 2 (2.8%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 59 (81.9%), p190 in 5 (6.9%) and p230 in 1 (1.4%) pt. Four pts had prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) for CML-CP. Of the pts who had an ABL kinase domain mutation tested, 42.9% (18/42) pts were found to have an ABL kinase domain mutation. The most common TKD mutation was T315I (n=6). Next generation sequencing was performed in 32 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=10), RUNX1 (n=4), BCOR (n=2), BCORL1 (n=2), DNMT3A (n=2) and 1 each in CSF3R, KMT2A, EZH2, NF1 and TP53. Of the 72 pts, 68 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. While only 9 (13.2%) pts were treated with TKI alone (4 dasatinib, 2 imatinib, 2 ponatinib and 1 asciminib), 54 (79.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy with TKI (24 dasatinib, 13 ponatinib, 9 imatinib, 6 nilotinib, 1 bosutinib and 1 asciminib), and 5 (7.4%) pts were treated with chemotherapy alone. The response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 72.1% (n=49). Best response was return to CML-CP in 17 pts, CHR with PCyR in 1 pt, CCyR in 11 pts, MMR in 5 pts, MR4 in 4 pts, MR4.5 in 5 pts and MR5 in 6 pts. Rate of response with third and second generation TKI was significantly better than first generation TKI (80% and 77.1% vs 36.3%; p=0.02287). 30 (44.1%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 49 pts that responded, 16 (32.6%) relapsed. The median time to relapse was 5 months (range 1-46 months). At a median follow up of 57 months, the median OS for all pts was 18 months. There was no difference in OS based on blast phenotype (14 months for myeloid, 21 for lymphoid and 7.5 for mixed; p=0.1185), initial diagnosis (38 months CP-CML, 13 for CML-AP and 16 for de-novo BP pts; p=0.6380), or TKI (13 months for first generation, 20 for second and not reached for third generation TKI; p=0.1729). The OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemotherapy was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (28 vs 13 or 4.5 months; p=0.0003). Of the 32 pts that responded, OS for pts that underwent alloSCT was significantly longer compared to pts that did not (not reached vs 14 months; p= 0.0022). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have a dismal prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemotherapy. In our analysis, treatment with second or third generation TKI led to better responses. In addition, treatment with chemotherapy in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS. Updated results from further multi-institution analysis will be presented at the meeting.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

Introduction TP53 alterations (TP53+) are seen in <5% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) but are more common in accelerated/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP) [Luque Paz D, et al 2020]. While pts with low-burden TP53+ (Variant allele frequency (VAF) <5%) may remain stable for years [Kubesova et al, 2018]; biallelic loss of TP53 is thought to confer higher risk for progression [Li et al, 2022] and worse overall survival (OS) than non-TP53+ pts [Rolles et al, 2023]. However, TP53 abnormalities have not been incorporated into currently utilized molecular based prediction models (MIPSS or MIPSS70) or compared with currently validated high molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (mut). We report the outcomes of the largest cohort of TP53+ MPN pts to date in comparison with HMR mut, and identify a VAF cut-off associated with highest risk of progression to MPN-AP/BP. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 2583 MPN pts from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) with at least one next generation sequencing (NGS) performed. Deidentified data from an additional cohort of 8 TP53+ MPN pts was received from University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center (UMiami). Patient characteristics such as MPN subtype, gender, age at MPN diagnosis, driver mutation, thrombosis history were recorded. We also recorded date of transformation to MPN-AP/BP, dates of NGS testing, mutational and cytogenetic data, and survival status. We defined multi-hit TP53 as presence of =/>2 TP53mut, VAF > 50% or TP53 mutation + 17p deletion. Additional cohorts of pts with HMR mut (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, U2AF1, SRSF2 as per MIPSS70v.2) from MSH and non-TP53+ pts from the MPN-Research Consortium Tissue Bank were used as comparator arms. Patient characteristics were compared between TP53 single-hit and multi-hit using Chi-Sq test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare leukemic transformation and OS, respectively, between groups. Successive VAF levels with minimum groups of 25% of the total cohort were used to identify an optimal VAF cut-off. Results Of the 2583 MPN pts from MSH and MSK, 66 pts (2.6%) were found to have a TP53 mutation. Including 8 additional pts from UMiami, we analyzed a total of 74 TP53+ MPN pts; 40 single-hit and 34 multi-hit. Median age at MPN diagnosis was 61 years with a male predominance (60%). Distribution of driver mut was similar in single-hit vs multi-hit cohort with JAK2V617F being the most common (58%), whereas 11% of pts had triple negative disease . Thrombotic history was available for 45 TP53+ pts, with a high frequency of venous/arterial thrombosis (21/45 or 46.7%) in the TP53+ group as compared to 18.5% in the non-TP53+ MPN cohort (p= 0.0001). A significantly higher number of multi-hit TP53+ pts had a concurrent complex karyotype (79% vs 24% in single-hit; p<.001). MPN diagnosis at the time of detection of TP53+ was ET/PV (25.7%), MF (44.6%), MDS/MPN overlap syndrome (6.8%), MPN-U (2.7%) and MPN-AP/BP (20.3%), respectively. One or more genetic samples with TP53+ was available prior to transformation to MPN-AP/BP in 77% of pts (21/34 multi-hit; 36/40 single-hit) while a TP53+ was detected at the time of MPN-AP/BP diagnosis in the rest. Multi-hit TP53+ was associated with a significantly higher incidence of transformation to MPN-AP/BP as compared to single-hit; [65% vs 17.5%; HR=4.08 (1.71-9.71), p=0.0015]. Compared with HMR mut, multi-hit (HR=2.41; p=0.004) but not single-hit (HR=0.53; p=.277) TP53+ MPN pts were found to have a significantly increased risk of MPN-AP/BP transformation. One-year OS from the time of mutation detection was significantly inferior for both multi-hit (53.3%) and single-hit (75%) TP53+ pts as compared to HMR mut (98.8%, p=<.001). Cut-point analysis identified VAF >36% to be associated with the highest risk of transformation (HR=3.08) with lowest p-value (0.002). Conclusions Multi-hit TP53 alterations are associated with a significantly increased risk of leukemic evolution as compared to previously validated HMR mut, whereas both multi and single-hit TP53 mut are associated with worse OS highlighting the importance of TP53 in MPN disease progression.

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are chronic leukemias with increased thrombotic risk. Venous thrombosis in MPN often occurs in atypical sites, such as splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), defined by thrombosis in the portal, hepatic, mesenteric, or splenic veins. Data to guide anticoagulation management of SVT in MPN patients is lacking. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes as well as the safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation strategies in MPN patients with SVT. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of MPN patients with SVT from 10 international centers was conducted. All centers performed systematic identification of adults with a World Health Organization 2016 diagnosis of an MPN (polycythemia vera [PV], essential thrombocythemia [ET], myelofibrosis [MF], prefibrotic MF, MPN-unclassifiable [MPN-U]) and confirmed SVT. Inclusion criteria were met if first SVT occurred after or within one year before MPN was diagnosed. The primary outcome was 1-year cumulative incidence of recurrent venous (VT) or arterial thrombosis (AT). Secondary outcomes included 1-year cumulative incidence of (1) major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, (2) SVT recanalization; and (3) 1-year overall survival. Death as a competing risk was used for cumulative incidence analyses of recurrence and bleeding. Results: 486 MPN patients (median age at first SVT 51 years; 62.3% female) were identified. MPN diagnosis preceded SVT in 35.2% of patients (median time 4.8 years) and occurred simultaneously or within 1 year of first SVT in 64.8% of patients. 43.8% of patients had PV, 23.7% ET, 14.2% MF, 3.1% prefibrotic MF and 13.2% MPN-U. The most common driver mutation was in JAK2 (90.7%) followed by CALR (4.4%) and MPL (1.6%). SVT localization was isolated to portal (25.7%), hepatic (15.4%), mesenteric (1.9%), and splenic veins (4.3%), and in 51.2% of cases SVT occurred in multiple vessels. Prior VT or AT occurred in 8.8% and 4.1% of subjects, respectively. Cytoreduction (most commonly hydroxyurea [36.9%], interferon [9.6%] or JAK inhibitor [6.8%]) was started after SVT in 58.7% of newly diagnosed MPN patients and 40.6% of those with known MPN. 57.6% of patients were anticoagulated, 3.5% of patients were treated with an antiplatelet agent, and 11.7% were treated with both. The most common initial anticoagulants were vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (29.2%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC; 20.4%), and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; 10.5%). DOACs were more commonly used in the USA and Asia than Europe (21.2%, 52%, and 13.5%; p<0.001). The median duration of anticoagulation was 23.9 months, with 62.8% still on anticoagulation after 3 years or at last follow-up. 1-year cumulative incidence of recurrent VT and AT was 14% (95% CI 11-18) (5.8% for recurrent SVT [95% CI 3.9-8.3]; 6.3% for other VT [95% CI 4.3-8.8]; 2.4% for AT [95% CI 1.3-4.2]), with an overall time to event 89 (IQR 34-193) days. Thrombosis incidence was similar in patients initially treated with VKA (13%), DOAC (15%) or LMWH (16%) (p=0.93); in comparison, individuals not treated with anticoagulation had 1-year thrombosis incidence of 13% (p=0.22). 1-year major and CRNMB cumulative incidence in all patients was 5.8% (95% CI 3.9-8.2) and 8.5% (95% CI 6.1-11), with median time to event 68 (IQR 13-150) days. Incidence of major bleeding was similar in VKA, DOAC, and LMWH-treated patients (5.9%, 6.6%, and 4.0%; p=0.89). 1-year cumulative incidence of SVT (partial) recanalization was 13% (95% CI 9.8-16) in all patients, with a median time to recanalization of 127 (IQR 40-323) days; recanalization rates were similar in anticoagulated and non-anticoagulated patients (p=0.76). There was a trend toward higher recanalization rates in patients treated with DOAC (26.9%) than with VKA (21.5%) or LMWH (13.6%; p=0.28). 1-year overall survival was 94.2% (95% CI 91.8-96.1) and similar between treatment groups (VKA 96.7%, DOAC 95.6%, LMWH 89.7%; p=0.11) and for no anticoagulation (82.3%; p=0.32). Conclusions: This is the largest contemporary cohort of MPN patients with SVT. MPN patients with SVT remain at risk for short-term thrombosis and bleeding complications regardless of treatment. We found no significant differences in outcomes between anticoagulation strategies, including in patients treated with DOACs compared to VKA or LMWH.