Citations

8035 Background: D-Rd significantly reduced the risk of progression/death by 44% in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts vs Rd in the phase 3 MAIA study. To examine the impact of age on efficacy/safety of D-Rd vs Rd in this population, a subgroup analysis was conducted in pts <75 and ≥75 y of age. Methods: Transplant-ineligible NDMM pts were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA; stratification was based on age (<75 vs ≥75 y), ISS (I, II, III), and region (North America vs Other). Pts received 28-day cycles of either R 25 or 10 mg (based on renal function) PO QD on Days 1-21 and either d 40 or 20 mg (based on age or BMI) PO/IV weekly until progression. In the D-Rd arm, pts received daratumumab 16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter until progression. PFS is the primary endpoint. Results: Among 737 randomized pts (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369), 321 (44%) were ≥75 y of age. For D-Rd vs Rd, relative median dose intensity for R was 79% vs 93% for <75 y subgroup and 66% vs 89% for ≥75 y subgroup, respectively. After median follow-up of 28 mo, significant PFS benefit of D-Rd vs Rd was maintained in both <75 and ≥75 y subgroups (Table). Deeper responses and MRD-negative rate (10-5 threshold) remained higher with D-Rd vs Rd in both subgroups (Table). Most common (≥10%; D-Rd/Rd) grade 3/4 TEAEs in ≥75 y pts were neutropenia (60%/41%), lymphopenia (19%/12%), anemia (16%/22%), pneumonia (15%/10%), leukopenia (12%/6%), and thrombocytopenia (8%/11%). Fewer pts receiving D-Rd vs Rd discontinued treatment due to TEAEs (<75 y: 5% vs 12%; ≥75 y: 10% vs 21%). Conclusions: D-Rd pts received less R vs Rd group regardless of age. Efficacy of D-Rd in <75 and ≥75 y pts was consistent with the ITT population, and D-Rd demonstrated acceptable tolerability regardless of age. Together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study, these studies confirm clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard-of-care in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts ≥75 y of age. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody approved as monotherapy in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible NDMM and RRMM. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care regimens in phase 3 studies has consistently demonstrated a near doubling of complete response (CR) rates, tripling of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates, and reduction in the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44% in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM or RRMM. In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA study (median follow-up: 28.0 months), a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit (median not reached [NR] vs 31.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P<0.001) and a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold; 24.2% vs 7.3%; P<0.001) were observed for D-Rd vs Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM (Facon T, N Engl J Med 2019). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety findings from MAIA after 9 months of additional follow-up. Methods: Patients with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Rd ± DARA. Stratification factors included International Staging System stage (ISS [I vs II vs III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg orally once daily on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg orally on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22). In the D-Rd arm, DARA (16 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly for Cycles 1-2, bi-weekly for Cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in both treatment arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), MRD-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. PFS on the next line of therapy (PFS2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on the next line of therapy or death, was also measured. Results: A total of 737 patients were randomized (D-Rd, N = 368; Rd, N = 369). Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. Median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years, with 44% of patients ≥75 years of age. 27%, 43%, and 29% of all patients were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Among 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% had standard and 14% had high cytogenetic risk. After a median follow-up of 36.4 months, median PFS was NR with D-Rd vs 33.8 months with Rd (HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.71; P<0.0001; Figure). The estimated 36-month PFS rate was 68% with D-Rd vs 46% with Rd. The PFS benefit of D-Rd vs Rd was observed in all prespecified subgroups, except for patients with impaired hepatic function. Adding DARA to Rd continued to result in deeper responses with higher rates of ≥CR and ≥very good partial response (VGPR; Table). Median duration of response among responders was NR with D-Rd vs 40.7 months with Rd. Median PFS2 was NR vs 47.3 months with D-Rd vs Rd, respectively (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.91; P=0.0079); follow up is ongoing. 143 (39%) vs 233 (64%) patients with D-Rd vs Rd, respectively, have discontinued treatment. 85 (23%) patients with D-Rd vs 103 (28%) patients with Rd have discontinued the study due to death. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; D-Rd/Rd) occurring in ≥10% of patients were neutropenia (51%/35%), lymphopenia (15%/11%), pneumonia (15%/9%), anemia (14%/21%), leukopenia (11%/6%), and hypokalemia (10%/10%); grade 3/4 infection rates were 36%/27%. The most common serious TEAE was pneumonia (14%/9%). 9% of patients in the D-Rd arm and 18% of patients in the Rd arm discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. The complete updated data set will be presented at the meeting with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD-negativity rate. Conclusion: After longer follow up, the addition of DARA to Rd continues to demonstrate a significant PFS benefit and improved rates of deeper and more durable responses vs Rd alone in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM. The longer follow-up also demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS2 favoring D-Rd, and no new safety concerns were observed. These results continue to support the use of D-Rd in the first line of treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Plesner:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy. Orlowski:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hulin:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Quach:Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:ArtTempi: Honoraria; John Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. O'Dwyer:GlycoMimetics Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Onkimmune: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Weisel:GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Krevvata:Janssen: Employment. Pei:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Ukropec:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen: Employment. Perrot:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P&lt;0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P&lt;0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P&lt;0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image

4515 Background: The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved PFS with atezo + bev vs sun in patients (pts) whose tumors were PD-L1+ and corroborated the activity of atezo monotherapy in previously untreated mRCC. This study offers an opportunity to evaluate PROs with immunotherapy and VEGF-directed therapy alone and in combination. Methods: Pts randomized to atezo 1200 mg IV q3w alone or with bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w, or sun 50 mg po qd for 4 wk on/2 wk off completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) q3w of each 6-wk cycle until progression (RECIST 1.1). Time to deterioration (TTD; first ≥ 2-point score increase over baseline [BL]) and change from BL (effect size [ES] ≥ 0.2 suggests a clinically important difference vs sun) in MDASI symptom severity and interference and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores are reported for all-comers. Results: Completion rates were > 90% at BL and ≥ 80% at most visits across arms. BL PRO scores indicating mild symptoms and interference were similar across arms. Delayed TTD of symptom severity and interference with daily life was seen with atezo vs sun and atezo + bev vs sun and was longest with atezo alone (Table). Pts reported milder symptoms and less interference during the first 6 cycles with atezo vs sun: ES mean (range) was 0.36 (0.07-0.68) for core symptom severity and 0.36 (0.04-0.83) for symptom interference. The 5 worst pt-reported symptoms during tx (dry mouth, fatigue, rash, drowsiness, lack of appetite) were all in the sun arm; all 16 symptoms measured were milder with atezo vs sun. Conclusions: PROs suggest that atezo alone or with bev maintained daily function with minimal symptom interference vs sun. Clinical activity, safety and PRO data for atezo support its investigation in adjuvant tx of high-risk RCC pts (IMmotion010; NCT03024996). Clinical trial information: NCT01984242. [Table: see text]

AbstractObjectiveOnset of multiple sclerosis (MS) occurs in childhood for approximately 5% of cases (pediatricMS, or ped‐MS). Epigenetic influences are strongly implicated inMSpathogenesis in adults, including the contribution from microRNAs (miRNAs), small noncodingRNAs that affect gene expression by binding target genemRNAs. Few studies have specifically examined miRNAs in ped‐MS, but individuals developingMSat an early age may carry a relatively high burden of genetic risk factors, and miRNAdysregulation may therefore play a larger role in the development of ped‐MSthan in adult‐onsetMS. This study aimed to look for evidence of miRNAinvolvement in ped‐MSpathogenesis.MethodsGWASresults from 486 ped‐MScases and 1362 controls from the U.S. PediatricMSNetwork and Kaiser Permanente Northern California membership were investigated for miRNA‐specific signals. First, enrichment of miRNA‐target gene network signals was evaluated usingMIGWASsoftware. Second,SNPs in miRNAgenes and in target gene binding sites (miR−SNPs) were tested for association with ped‐MS, and pathway analysis was performed on associated target genes.ResultsMIGWASanalysis showed that miRNA‐target gene signals were enriched inGWAS(P = 0.038) and identified 39 candidate biomarker miRNA‐target gene pairs, including immune and neuronal signaling genes. The miR‐SNPanalysis implicated dysregulation of miRNAbinding to target genes in five pathways, mainly involved in immune signaling.InterpretationEvidence fromGWASsuggests that miRNAs play a role in ped‐MSpathogenesis by affecting immune signaling and other pathways. Candidate biomarker miRNA‐target gene pairs should be further studied for diagnostic, prognostic, and/or therapeutic utility.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether a vitamin D genetic risk score (vitDGRS) is associated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level and multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses in children. Methods: DNA samples were typed for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from four genes previously identified to be associated with 25(OH)D levels. SNPs with strong associations with 25(OH)D after multiple comparison correction were used to create a genetic risk score (vitDGRS). Cox regression models tested associations of vitDGRS with relapse hazard. Results: Two independent SNPs within or near GC and NADSYN1/DHCR7 genes were strongly associated with 25(OH)D levels in the discovery cohort ( n = 182) after Bonferroni correction. The vitDGRS of these SNPs explained 4.5% of the variance of 25(OH)D level after adjustment for genetic ancestry. Having the highest versus lowest vitDGRS was associated with 11 ng/mL lower 25(OH)D level (95% confidence interval (CI) = −17.5, −4.5, p = 0.001) in the discovery cohort. Adjusting for ancestry, sex, disease-modifying therapy (DMT), and HLA-DRB1*15 carrier status, the highest versus lowest vitDGRS was associated with 2.6-fold (95% CI = 1.37, 5.03, p = 0.004) and 2.0-fold (95% CI = 0.75, 5.20, p = 0.16) higher relapse hazard in the discovery and replication cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: The vitDGRS identifies children at greater risk of relapse. These findings support a causal role for vitamin D in MS course.

8006 Background: In 2 randomized phase 3 trials of RRMM patients (pts), DRd (POLLUX) or DVd (CASTOR) significantly improved PFS and deepened responses compared with Rd or Vd alone, respectively. The novel mechanism of action of daratumumab (D) may improve the poor prognosis associated with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in RRMM. Therefore, we examined the efficacy of DRd and DVd among RRMM pts with standard (std) or high cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Bone marrow aspirates were collected at screening and assessed centrally via next generation sequencing (NGS). Pts with high-risk cytogenetics included those who had ≥1 of the following abnormalities: t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p; std-risk pts were defined as those confirmed negative for these abnormalities. Efficacy analyses included PFS and ORR. Results: Samples from 311/569 pts in POLLUX and 353/498 pts in CASTOR were assessed via NGS. In POLLUX, the median duration of follow-up was 17.3 months. Significantly longer median PFS and numerically higher ORR were observed with DRd vs Rd among high-risk patients, and significant improvements in these outcomes were observed in std-risk patients (Table). In CASTOR, the median duration of follow-up was 13.0 months. Significantly longer median PFS and higher ORR were observed with DVd vs Vd among both high- and std-risk pts (Table). Concordance rates for t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p were high (88%-98%) between NGS and FISH. Updated data, including subgroup analyses, will be presented. Conclusions: In RRMM pts, the addition of D to standard-of-care regimens improved outcomes regardless of cytogenetic risk status. Targeting CD38 by combining D with Rd or Vd appears to improve the poor outcomes associated with high-risk cytogenetic status. See table. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134 and NCT02076009. [Table: see text]

Background: Strong evidence supports the role of both genetic and environmental factors in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) etiology. Objective: We comprehensively investigated the association between established major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and non-MHC adult multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated variants and susceptibility to POMS. Methods: Cases with onset <18 years ( n = 569) and controls ( n = 16,251) were included from the United States and Sweden. Adjusted logistic regression and meta-analyses were performed for individual risk variants and a weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) for non-MHC variants. Results were compared to adult MS cases ( n = 7588). Results: HLA–DRB1*15:01 was strongly associated with POMS (odds ratio (OR) meta = 2.95, p < 2.0 × 10 −16 ). Furthermore, 28 of 104 non-MHC variants studied (23%) were associated ( p < 0.05); POMS cases carried, on average, a higher burden of these 28 variants compared to adults (OR avg = 1.24 vs 1.13, respectively), though the difference was not significant. The wGRS was strongly associated with POMS (OR meta = 2.77, 95% confidence interval: 2.33, 3.32, p < 2.0 × 10 −16 ) and higher, on average, when compared to adult cases. Additional class III risk variants in the MHC region associated with POMS were revealed after accounting for HLA–DRB1*15:01 and HLA–A*02. Conclusion: Pediatric and adult MS share many genetic variants suggesting similar biological processes are present. MHC variants beyond HLA–DRB1*15:01 and HLA–A*02 are also associated with POMS.