Citations

Background: Cytopenias are a common complication of and prolonged (beyond month 3 post CAR-T infusion), severe (grade 3 or higher) cytopenias can be difficult to manage. Stem cell boosts have been reported to restore hematopoiesis; however, stem cells would need to be available prior to CAR-T therapy for potential use post CAR-T. Most lymphoma patients and limited number of myeloma patients may have pre-collected stem cells in storage. Identifying patients at high risk for prolonged and severe cytopenia post CAR-T at the time of CAR-T evaluation (baseline), before leukapheresis, can help identify the patients for coordination of stem cell collection during CAR-T manufacturing and increase the likelihood that the collected stem cells would be used. In this study, we aim to identify clinical variables at the time of CAR-T evaluation, prior to leukapheresis, that are associated with severe cytopenias at month 3 post CAR-T infusion and identify patients who could be considered for pre-emptive stem cell collection prior to CAR-T therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who received CAR-T products at Mayo Clinic from 01/2016 to 06/2022. Patients with progressive disease in the first year post CAR-T were excluded from the analysis. Baseline (at CAR-T evaluation, prior to leukapheresis) variables were compared between those with and without severe cytopenia at month 3 post CAR-T. Severe cytopenias were defined as hemoglobin (Hg) < 8 g/dL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 x 10 9/L, and/or platelet count (PLT) < 50 x 10 9/L. Statistically significant variables (p<0.05) by analysis were examined for statistical significance in multivariate analysis (MVA). Results: Among the 166 patients who received CAR-T (88 NHL, 78 MM) during the study period, 31 (18.67%) had a severe cytopenia at month . Twenty baseline variables were examined; HGB, PLT, ANC, and c-reactive protein (CRP) We devised a cytopenia risk score using 1 point each for Hg<10 or PLT<100k at baseline, with a range of 0 to 2. Demographics and clinical outcome by cytopenia risk score is shown in Table 1B. A higher percentage of patients with a score of 1 or 2 had a severe cytopenia at month 3 (Figure 1). In particular, there was a . In addition Conclusion: Baseline cytopenias before leukapheresis may identify patients with increased risk for severe cytopenias at month 3 post CAR-T. These patients can have continued slow hematopoietic recovery in the first year. Stem cell collection, if feasible, could be considered before CAR-T to alleviate post-CAR-T severe prolonged cytopenias.

Introduction Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is a hematologic cancer associated with no current widely-accepted cure, cycles of relapse and remission, treatment resistance, and high morbidity and mortality, which necessitate new treatments and therapeutic targets. 1-3 Innovative therapies that target BCMA, CD38, GPRC5D, FcRH5, and others in the RRMM development pipeline are recently approved or under investigation, but real-world evidence on clinician perceptions of emerging trends and unmet needs remains limited. A Delphi panel was conducted with US clinicians to evaluate the level of unmet need and treatment decisions among patients with RRMM who are triple-class-exposed (TCE). Methods This double-blinded study consisted of two phases: a web survey (phase 1) and a Delphi panel (phase 2). A targeted literature review was conducted first to understand unmet needs and treatment decisions associated with management of RRMM in the US and inform the development of primary research materials. The web survey was completed by 21 US clinicians. Survey findings were then used to inform the phase 2 Delphi panel, a systematic, validated approach to gain consensus. This consisted of two iterative rounds of a question answered by nine experts selected from participants in the web survey. Consensus on a question was defined as at least 70% agreement. The double-blinded panel was conducted via the Microsoft Teams platform, and poll questions were administered through Vevox. Responses were blinded to preserve respondents' anonymity and participants were also blinded to the study sponsor. Results Overall, consensus was reached that despite recent improvement in treatment landscape, there is still a high level of unmet need for patients with RRMM who are TCE (89% of participants). More specifically, consensus was reached (89%) that the top three areas of unmet need were treatment resistance, guidance on treatment sequencing, and novel mechanisms of action (MoAs) and targets (Figure 1). Unmet need is also particularly pronounced for certain patient subgroups, with 89% and 78% of participants agreeing that patients who are functionally high-risk and penta-refractory, respectively, experience the greatest unmet need. When asked about which novel therapies would be most promising for addressing the unmet needs, participants agreed that the top 4 therapeutic targets are GPCR5D (95%), BCMA (81%), FcRH5 (81%), and BCL-2 (81%). Various factors impact treatment choice and sequencing, with most participants (78%) agreeing that treatment history is the most influential factor impacting sequencing. The panel also agreed that prior toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs, 89%) and convenience of dosing frequency (78%), respectively, most impact dosing decisions. All agreed there is a need for resources to manage some AEs, particularly newer AEs (like skin and nail effects) of emerging treatments. Of the AEs identified in the survey as top drivers of treatment choice, participants reached consensus on two: neurotoxicity (e.g., ICANS) (89%) and infection (100%). Conclusions In this Delphi study, consensus was reached that a high level of unmet need remains for patients with RRMM, who are TCE with unmet need varying dependent on patient subgroup and treatment history. There was consensus that additional treatment choices with novel targets/MoAs are needed. Participants agreed that AEs, toxicity, infection, and treatment history impact treatment choice and sequencing, and considerations and challenges vary by subgroup. Overall, findings from this study support that there is a need for additional treatment options with novel MoAs/therapeutic targets that address priority unmet needs for patients with RRMM, who are TCE. References 1. Gonsalves W et al. The next generation of novel therapies for the management of relapsed multiple myeloma. Future Oncol (London, England). 2017;13(1):63-75. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0200 2. Braunstein M et al. A new decade: novel immunotherapies on the horizon for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Hematol. 2022;14(4):377-389. doi:10.1080/17474086.2021.1909469 3. Bruno AS et al. Recent real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in US patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Hematol. 2020;13(9):1017-1025. doi:10.1080/17474086.2020.1800451

Introduction: Improvements in outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) depend on the use of regimens approved based on results from large phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy. However, many real-world (RW) patients would not have met the stringent RCTs inclusion criteria. Therefore, the effectiveness of these drugs in the RW setting is unknown. Understanding this efficacy-effectiveness gap is important to contextualize the expected outcomes in the current RW setting. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective population-based study to compare the efficacy versus effectiveness of registration RCTs with RW patients using standard of care (SoC) MM regimens for the primary outcomes of 1) progression free survival [PFS]; 2) overall survival [OS] and 3) serious adverse events (AEs). Methods: RW data was obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, an administrative database capturing all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated between Jan 2007 to Dec 2020 with SoC regimens were included. Only regimens with corresponding registrational phase III RCTs which led to the public reimbursement in Ontario were included (lenalidomide/dex [Rd] and bortezomib/Rd [VRd] for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients, and relapsed MM (RRMM) regimens included carfilzomib/Rd [KRd], carfilzomib/dex [Kd], daratumumab/Rd [DRd], daratumumab/bortezomib/dex [DVd], pomalidomide/dex [Pd]). In the RW cohort, PFS was defined as the time from initiation of index regimen to death, initiation of subsequent MM treatment, or last follow-up, and patients remaining on the index regimen as last follow up were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves from pivotal phase 3 RCTs were manually digitized to provide individual patient-level estimates of PFS and OS. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the gap of PFS and OS outcomes of RW versus RCT patients, and effect estimates were summarized using hazard ratios (HR). The frequency of serious AE data was abstracted from published RCTs. Given that serious AEs in RCTs would have resulted in hospitalization, hospital admission during treatment with the index regimen was used as a surrogate for serious AEs in the RW cohort. Differences in RW and RCT safety outcomes were reported descriptively. Results & Discussion: A total of 3951 RW MM patients, treated with 7 standard of care MM regimens, were included. Baseline characteristics of patients in the RW and RCT cohorts are shown in table 1. Overall, patients in the RW cohort were older than in the RCTs. For relapsed regimens, there was a longer time between MM diagnosis and start of the regimen in the real-world versus RCT. With regards to the efficacy-effectiveness gap, MM patients treated in routine practise in the RW had a worse PFS despite overestimated of RW PFS compared to highly selected RCT patients for 6 of the 7 MM regimens evaluated, with a pooled HR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.34-1.54) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1A). Similarly, RW patients had a worse OS compared to RCT patients treated with 6 of the 7 regimens, with a pooled HR of 1.75 (95% ci 1.63-1.88) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1B). RRMM patients in the RW had higher rates of prior lenalidomide exposure compared to RCT patients. The only regimen which showed a trend towards performing better in the RW as compared to RCTs was Pd. The reason for this is likely multifactorial but perhaps patients included in the MM-003 RCT may have had more refractory MM (given the higher prior immunomodulatory drug exposure and longer time from diagnosis to treatment among Pd RCT patient) compared to RW patients in this study. With regards to safety, the percentage of patients with inpatient hospitalization during treatment in the real-world cohort and reported serious AEs in RCT were comparable (VRD 57% vs not reported [NR]; Rd 64% vs NR; Kd 57% vs 59%; KRd 53% vs 60%; DVd 36% vs NR; DRd 46% vs 49%; Pd 59% vs 61%). Conclusion: This is one the largest population-level studies highlighting the significant efficacy-effectiveness gap between registrational RCTs and RW usage of these regimens, with RW patients experiencing 44% worse PFS and 75% worse OS compared to RCT patients. Our data emphasize the importance of ongoing evaluation of RW data to contextualize effectiveness and toxicity of selected regimens in the clinic, and better inform both clinicians and patients for shared treatment decision making.

Introduction: Despite the development of advanced treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease. Most MM patients relapse and require further treatments. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeted immunotherapy is a novel MM therapy class that is now available to heavily pre-treated relapse/refractory MM (R/R MM) patients, who were triple class exposed (TCE) to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. As BCMA therapies continue to be further utilized and become an integral part of MM treatment, the proportion of TCE patients who are also BCMA exposed (TCE+BCMA exposed) is expected to grow. However, the clinical outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed RRMM patients have not been previously assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT, describing their characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. Subgroups of penta-drug exposed (at least two PIs, at least two IMiDs, and at least one anti-CD38) patients, as well as White and African American patients were also evaluated as penta-drug exposure status and race were known to impact clinical outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with MM who were TCE+BCMA exposed and started a subsequent LOT starting from July 03, 2019 (when additional new treatment options became available) were selected from the Komodo Healthcare Map (a US claims dataset) and were followed until the earliest of death, last claim, or end of study period (December 31, 2022). Index date was defined as the start date of the subsequent LOT following TCE and BCMA exposure. Descriptive statistics were provided for patient characteristics and treatment patterns. Clinical outcomes including time to treatment discontinuation or death (TTD) and time to next treatment or death (TTNT) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 344 TCE+BCMA exposed patients, who received the next LOT were included in the study, including 152 (44.2%) patients who were penta-drug exposed before index, 57 (16.6%) African American, and 185 (53.8%) White patients. Key baseline demographic characteristics and treatment history for the overall group and the three subgroups are listed in Table 1. The mean (SD) and median number of prior LOTs for the overall group before index date were 5.7 (1.7) and 6.0, respectively. The most prevalent prior treatments before the index date for the overall group were daratumumab (99.1%), belantamab mafadotin (91.9%), pomalidomide (84.3%), carfilzomib (83.1 %), bortezomib (76.2%) and lenalidomide (72.1%). Excluding corticosteroids, the most frequently used index treatments (i.e., treatment used post TCE+BCMA exposure) were carfilzomib- (21.9%), bortezomib- (20.8%), pomalidomide- (18.3%), and belantamab mafadotin- (18.3%) based regimens. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTD was 3.7 (3.3, 4.4) months, and the median (95% CI) TTNT was 6.4 (5.5, 7.6) months. TTD and TTNT estimates for the three subgroups are listed in Table 2. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes for TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT. The findings showed that this group of heavily pretreated MM patients were often retreated with the same therapies or therapies in the same classes, as they have limited effective treatment options. TCE+BCMA exposed patients exhibited poor clinical outcomes, as demonstrated by the rapid treatment discontinuation and moving on to the next treatment shortly after initial treatment. Many patients were already penta-drug exposed, and they appear to have worse clinical outcomes than the overall patient group. A shorter TTD was observed, and a trend for shorter TTNT was observed among African American patients than White patients. The findings highlight the continued need for effective treatments for heavily treated MM patients and particularly those with poor outcomes.

CONCLUSION The most widely used multiple myeloma (MM) staging system, the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS), is based on lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), albumin, high-risk genetic markers by FISH, and beta-2 microglobulin (B2M). However, it does not account for additional risk impacted by multiple genetic abnormalities, or the risk imparted by presence of gain of chromosome 1q, and most patients are staged as R-ISS Stage 2. Two new staging systems, the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), and the Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) have been recently proposed. A comparison of the performance of these two systems has not previously been done. We aimed to externally demonstrate the application of these staging systems and compare their performances in a large, contemporary cohort of patients in the United States. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database, comprising de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction and originating from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). The study included newly diagnosed MM patients initiating treatment between January 1, 2016 and October 1, 2022. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to evaluate real-world overall survival (rwOS) and patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation (index date) until the first of death, end of the study period or last recorded activity. The log-rank test to compare survival curves across derived stages. Multivariable analysis was conducted using stratified Cox models to account for non-proportional hazards by age with covariate adjustment for race/ethnicity, sex, practice type (academic or community) and diagnosis year (2016-2019 vs 2020-2022). Discrimination and calibration were evaluated in crude models using Harrell's c-index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. There were 497 patients with MM included. Patient characteristics are listed in Panel A. The distribution of patients across R-ISS stages were as follows, 24%, 63% and 13% for Stage 1, 2 and 3 respectively. rwOS differed across R-ISS stage (log-rank p = 0.0006) and the median OS (OS) was not reached (NR), 63, and 37 months for R-ISS stage 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 34%, 35% and 31% for MASS 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding survival curves were significantly different (p < 0.0001), with associated mOS of 77, 61 and 45 months for MASS stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. R2-ISS includes four risk categories (stages I-IV) and in our cohort, 20% (n = 100) were stage I (low), 126 (25%) were stage II (low-intermediate), 229 (46%) were stage III (intermediate), and 42 (9%) were stage IV (high). Survival across stages were significantly different (p<0.0001), though the survival curves for low and low-intermediate, and intermediate-high and high, were clustered, suggesting comparable outcomes in stages I-II and stages III-IV. mOS for R2-ISS stages I, II, III, and IV was NR, 69, 50 and 51 months respectively (Panel B). In fully adjusted analyses, as compared to MASS I, the hazards of death were 2.0 (95% CI 1.3-3.2) for MASS II and 2.7 (1.7-4.2) for MASS III. The hazards of death were similar for R2-ISS low and low-int (HR for low-int vs low: 1.2 [0.7, 2.3]). As compared to R2-ISS low, the hazards of death were similarly higher for int-high and high (HRs: 2.4 [1.4, 4.1] and 2.6 [1.3, 5.2], respectively). Discrimination and calibration were similar across all staging systems (c = 0.6, and Hosmer-Lemeshow p>0.05 for all three staging systems). Application of contemporary MM staging systems in a large cohort of US patients shows that they are prognostic for OS in MM. MASS demonstrated a greater separation for OS across stages, whereas R2-ISS intermediate-high and high were largely overlapping. Although our results demonstrate similar accuracy and reliability of MASS and R2-ISS, the discrimination of patients across different stages seen with the newer staging systems, as opposed to R-ISS, calls for greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice.

Abstract Objectives Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for plasma cell neoplasms (PCNs) requires plasma cell (PC) identification or purification strategies to optimize results. We compared the efficacy of cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH (cIg-FISH) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting FISH (FACS-FISH) in a clinical laboratory setting. Methods The FISH analysis results of 14,855 samples from individuals with a suspected PCN subjected to cytogenetic evaluation between 2019 and 2022 with cIg-FISH (n = 6917) or FACS-FISH (n = 7938) testing were analyzed. Results Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH increased the detection rate of abnormalities in comparison with cIg-FISH, with abnormal results documented in 54% vs 50% of cases, respectively (P < .001). It improved the detection of IGH::CCND1 (P < .001), IGH::MAF (P < .001), IGH::MAFB (P < .001), other IGH rearrangements (P < .001), and gains/amplifications of 1q (P < .001), whereas the detection rates of IGH::FGFR3 fusions (P = .3), loss of 17p (P = .3), and other abnormalities, including hyperdiploidy (P = .5), were similar. Insufficient PC yield for FISH analysis was decreased between cIg-FISH and FACS-FISH (22% and 3% respectively, P < .001). Flow cytometry allowed establishment of ploidy status in 91% of cases. In addition, FACS-FISH decreased analysis times, workload efforts, and operating costs. Conclusions Fluorescence-activated cell sorting–FISH is an efficient PC purification strategy that affords significant improvement in diagnostic yield and decreases workflow requirements in comparison with cIg-FISH.

Abstract Most patients with solitary bone plasmacytomas (SBP) progress to multiple myeloma (MM) after definitive radiation therapy as their primary treatment. Whether the presence of high-risk (HR) cytogenetic abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the clonal plasma cells, obtained either directly from the diagnostic SBP tissue or the corresponding bone marrow examination at the time of diagnosis, is associated with a shorter time to progression (TTP) to MM is unknown. This study evaluated all patients diagnosed with SBP at the Mayo Clinic from January 2012 to July 2022. The presence of del(17p), t(14;16), t(4;14), or +1q (gain or amplification) by FISH in clonal plasma cells was defined as HR. A total of 114 patients were included in this cohort, and baseline FISH was available for 55 patients (48%), of which 22 were classified as HR (40%). The median TTP to MM for patients with SBP and HR FISH was 8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-26) compared with 42 months (95% CI, 25-not reached [NR]) in patients with SBP without HR FISH (P < .001). In a multivariate analysis, only HR FISH was a significant predictor for shorter TTP to MM, independent of minimal marrow involvement and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis. Deletion (17p) and gain 1q abnormalities were the most common FISH abnormalities responsible for the short TTP to MM. Thus, assessing for HR FISH abnormalities in clonal plasma cells derived from either the diagnostic SBP tissue or the staging bone marrow examination of patients with newly diagnosed SBP is feasible and prognostic for a shorter TTP to MM.

8024 Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma (MM). MRD is usually assessed in the bone marrow (BM) by flow cytometry or NGS. MRD by FDG PET/CT provides a global representation of the tumor burden, including response assessment of extramedullary disease. We examined MRD status in MM pts using both BM and PET/CT at Mayo Clinic. Methods: Medical records were reviewed retrospectively for MM pts who received CAR-T between 4/2018 and 12/2022. All PET/CT scans were assessed by radiologists. BM MRD was assessed by flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 10-5. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among the 157 CAR-T pts, including 89 pts who received FDA-approved CAR-T, median age was 63 years, 59% (92/157) were males, 42% (66/157) had high risk cytogenetics with median of 5 prior lines of therapy, 36% (57/157) had plasmacytoma. Incidence of CRS was 83%, 5% grade ≥ 3 CRS. Incidence of ICANS was 19%, 4% grade ≥ 3 ICANS. CR/sCR rate was 37%. One hundred and thirty-seven pts (87%) had evaluable BM at month (mo) 1, 85% (117/137) were BM MRDneg at mo 1. Baseline demographics were comparable between the two groups except age, % BM plasma cells and use of bridging therapy. Among the MRDneg pts, CR/sCR rate was 44% (51/117) and 95% (111/117) had sFLC below normal. At median follow-up of 13.8 months, median PFS among pts with BM MRDneg at 1 mo was 12 mo (95% CI: 11, 30) vs 3 mo (95%CI: 2, 7) for BM MRDpos (p<0.001). Median OS among pts with BM MRDneg at 1 mo was 34 mo (95% CI: 24, NR) vs 22 mo (95%CI: 7, NA) for BM MRDpos (p<0.01). At month 1, 112 pts had both BM and PET/CT assessments available, 64/112(57%) were both BM MRDneg/PET MRDneg, 38/112 (34%) were MRDneg for either BM or PET and 10/112 (9%) were positive for both BM and PET (MRDpos/PET MRDpos). Baseline demographics except age were comparable between the 2 groups (Table). Rate of conversion from MRDpos to MRDneg was low. Rate of sustained BM and PET MRDneg at mo 12 was 44% (8/18). The median PFS and OS for BM MRDneg/PET MRDneg was significantly longer as compared to others (Table). Conclusions: Achieving FLC below normal, BM MRDneg and PET MRDneg at 1 month, regardless of IMWG response at that time, is prognostic for both PFS and OS in MM pts receiving CAR-T. Failure to achieve any of these confers poor prognosis. [Table: see text]

Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 mAb, used frequently in combination with lenalidomide and pomalidomide. No studies compared daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) to daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) in lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma. We identified 504 consecutive multiple myeloma patients who received daratumumab at Mayo Clinic between January 2015 and April 2019. We excluded patients who received daratumumab in the first line, received more than four lines of therapy prior to daratumumab use, did not receive lenalidomide prior to daratumumab, or had an unknown status of lenalidomide exposure, and patients who received daratumumab combinations other than DRd or DPd. We examined the impact of using DRd compared to DPd on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Out of 504 patients, 162 received DRd or DPd and were included; 67 were lenalidomide-exposed and 95 were lenalidomide-refractory. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) patients. In lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 34.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.8–44.6] for DRd compared to 25.2 months (95% CI, 4.9–35.3) for DPd, P = 0.2. In lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 18.6 months (95% CI, 13–32) for DRd compared to 9 months (95% CI, 5.2–14.6) for DPd, P = 0.09. No difference in median OS was observed in DRd compared to DPd. Our study shows combining daratumumab with lenalidomide in patients with prior lenalidomide use is a viable and effective treatment option.