Citations

7508 Background: Data on response to BCMA-targeted therapies among BCMA-exposed pts with RRMM are limited. Outcomes after sequential/subsequent anti-BCMA bispecific T-cell engagers (Bs-TCE) are vital to evaluate. Etentamig is a next-generation differentiated BCMA x CD3 Bs-TCE composed of a bivalent BCMA-binding domain with a high-avidity, low-affinity CD3-binding domain potentially reducing cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and a silenced Fc tail for extended half-life and convenient monthly (Q4W) dosing. Phase 1 results of etentamig in RRMM showed robust efficacy and potential best-in-class safety. Methods: Arm B of the open-label, Phase 1b MOVISO study (NCT05650632) evaluated etentamig in pts with RRMM with ≥2 prior lines of therapy (PLT), including triple-class and prior BCMA exposure (antibody-drug conjugate [ADC] >30 days or CAR-T >6 months [mo] after last exposure). Primary safety endpoints were CRS and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS); efficacy endpoints included objective response rate (ORR; IMWG 2016), duration of response (DoR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Pts received etentamig (60 mg IV; no step-up dosing [SUD]) on Cycle 1 Day 1 and Q4W thereafter. Results: At cutoff (June 11, 2025), 41 prior BCMA-exposed pts (CAR-T, n=24; ADC, n=17) had been treated; 24 (57%) were male, 38 (93%) were White, median (mdn) (range) age was 68 (43–89) years, 37 (88%) had ECOG PS ≤1, and 34 (81%) were triple-class refractory. Mdn (range) PLT was 6 (3–15). For 21 (51%) pts, the last PLT was BCMA directed; 23 (56%) had previously responded to anti-BCMA therapy (17/24 [71%] for CAR-T and 6/17 [35%] for ADC). Mdn (range) time from last prior CAR-T or ADC to first dose of etentamig was 15 (1–30) and 4 (1–45) mo, respectively. Mdn (range) follow-up was 5.5 (0.2–17.1) mo. Despite no SUD, CRS and ICANS were reported in 24 (57%) and 3 (7%) pts, respectively; all G1/2 events, except 1 G3 ICANS. G3/4 neutropenia and infections were reported in 15 (36%) and 17 (41%) pts, respectively. Efficacy outcomes are detailed in the Table (NE, not estimable). For pts whose last PLT was BCMA directed, MRD negativity (clonoSEQ, 10 –5 ) was seen in 2/3 (67%) evaluable pts, along with robust peak activation and proliferation of CD8+ T cells. Conclusions: Pts treated with etentamig achieved durable responses; rates were higher in pts who received CAR-T as last line. No new safety signals were observed; only low-grade CRS was seen despite no SUD. Clinical trial information: NCT05650632 . All prior BCMA (N=41) Prior BCMA CAR-T (N=24) ORR, n/n (%) [95% CI] Overall 17/36 (47) [30–65] 11/22 (50) [28–72] BCMA-directed last PLT 11/19 (58) [34–80] 7/11 (64) [31–89] Mdn DoR, mo [95% CI], No. of pts Overall 13 [7–NE], N=17 13 [7–NE], N=11 BCMA-directed last PLT 13 [7–NE], N=11 13 [7–NE], N=7 Mdn PFS, mo [95% CI], No. of pts Overall 3.4 [3–11], N=41 8.3 [2–NE], N=24 BCMA-directed last PLT 9.4 [2–NE], N=21 9.4 [2–NE], N=12

ABSTRACT Oligo‐secretory and non‐secretory MM present a clinical challenge due to the difficulties in initial diagnosis, response to treatment assessment, and relapse detection. They are excluded from most clinical trials, which typically require measurable disease. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of 86 patients with secretory myeloma at diagnosis who developed an OSR, matched 1:1 to a cohort with secretory relapse (SR). With a median follow‐up of 9.3 years, 16.6% (48/289) of evaluable patients developed an OSR. Lower levels of light chains at presentation, and younger age are predictive of an OSR. The median OS since relapse of the OSR group was 4.01 (95% CI 1.625–6.395) versus 3.25 (95% CI 2.255–4.245) years in the SR control group ( p = 0.4). A third of our OSR cohort had a subsequent SR. We did not find any predictive factor for SR after OSR. The median OS of the subgroup of patients who developed a SR after OSR was 3.35 years (95% CI 1.541–5.159), versus 5.8 years (95% CI 2.072–9.528) in the group that remained oligo‐secretory ( p = 0.336). The median TTNT of the SR after OSR group was 1.68 years (95% CI 0.341–0.919) versus 4.58 (95% CI not reached‐not reached) in the group that remained oligo‐secretory ( p < 0.001).

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Introduction CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies are an important option for the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Studies suggest that ~50% of pts receiving CAR T-cell therapies will relapse within 6 months, with an estimated overall survival (OS) of only 5 months. Additionally, 25-35% of pts do not receive subsequent treatment, indicating a high unmet need. CD19 loss is a potential mechanism of resistance to CAR T-cell therapies; thus, treatments that target alternate B-cell antigens are an attractive option. Here, we report for the first time the primary analysis of the ELM-1 expansion cohort investigating the efficacy and safety of odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy (NCT02290951). Methods Pts aged ≥18 with DLBCL and disease progression after CAR T-cell therapy received intravenous odronextamab weekly in 21-day (D) cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4, with steroid prophylaxis and step-up dosing in C1 (described previously), followed by 160 mg on D 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 320 mg Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with complete response (CR) for ≥9 months transitioned to Q4W dosing. All pts received infection prophylaxis. The primary analysis was conducted when all pts had completed ≥9 months of follow-up. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Exploratory endpoints included immune biomarker assessment. Results As of January 22, 2024, 60 pts were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety, with median follow-up of 16.2 months. Prior CAR T-cell therapies were axi-cel (50%), tisa-cel (12%), liso-cel (10%), and not specified (28%). Median time since prior CAR T-cell therapy was 6.5 months (range 1.2-46.2). Median age was 63 years (range 27-82; aged ≥75 years: 10%), and 65% were male. Pts had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapies (range 2-9); 77% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, 77% were double refractory, and 72% were refractory to prior CAR T-cell therapy. 48% of pts relapsed within 90 D of CAR T-cell therapy, and 67% relapsed within 180 D. Of the 20 pts with available tumor biopsies at baseline, 10 were CD19(-) and only 2 were CD20(-). 92% of pts completed C1 and 52% completed ≥4 C of treatment. The median duration of treatment was 12 weeks (range 0.7-154.1). The ORR and CR rate by ICR were 48% and 32%, respectively, and were consistent across pts with high-risk features and across prior CAR T products. ORR in pts relapsing in ≤90 D was 21% (6/29) and in pts relapsing in ≤180 D was 33% (13/40). ORR was observed even in pts with low CD20. Median DOR was 14.8 months (95% CI 2.8-not estimable [NE]) and median duration of CR was not reached (NR) (95% CI 3.3-NE); the probability of maintaining CR for 24 months was 68%. Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI 2.6-5.4) and median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI 4.6-15.8). Median PFS and OS in complete responders was NR. T-cell counts increased at Week 14 and demonstrated a functional phenotype (CD69 expression and TEMRA count), which was confirmed by ex vivo stimulation. T-cell expansion was observed regardless of CAR T product or time from CAR T administration. The most common TEAE was CRS (any grade [G]: 48%; G1: 25%; G2: 23%; G≥3: 0%). G≥3 TEAEs occurred in 77% of pts (most common: neutropenia 17%, anemia 13%, and neutrophil and white blood cell count decrease 10% each). Five pts (8%) permanently discontinued odronextamab due to AEs (COVID-19, pneumonia, encephalopathy, epilepsy, and gait disturbance [n=1 each]). There was one treatment-related death (COVID-19 pneumonia). No cases of ICANS were reported. G≥3 infections occurred in 12 pts (20%); 2 were due to COVID-19. No cases of tumor flare or TLS were reported. Conclusions ELM-1 is the only study to prospectively evaluate efficacy and safety of a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy. Odronextamab monotherapy was associated with encouraging efficacy and generally manageable safety in a setting with limited treatment options and historically dismal outcomes. Efficacy was observed even in pts relapsing in ≤90 D, supporting the potential of odronextamab as an accessible, off-the-shelf option in the post-CAR T setting.

Introduction: Cilta-cel is approved in the US and EU for the treatment (tx) of patients (pts) with len-refractory MM after ≥1 line based on the randomized, phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827). At the first interim analysis (15.9-month [mo] median follow-up), cilta-cel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs SoC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26 [protocol-specified weighted analysis]; P&lt;0.0001). At the second interim analysis, overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with cilta-cel vs SoC (HR, 0.55; P=0.0009). MRD negativity is a prognostic marker of prolonged survival outcomes for pts with MM. We report MRD negativity, including overall and sustained MRD negativity, overall MRD-negative complete response or better (≥CR), and MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, from the prespecified second interim analysis of CARTITUDE-4. Methods: Eligibility criteria were previously described. Pts were assigned 1:1 to cilta-cel or SoC (pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone [PVd]/daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DPd]). Pts in the cilta-cel arm underwent apheresis, received bridging therapy (PVd/DPd), and then a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose, 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg) 5-7 days (d) after the start of lymphodepletion. PFS was the primary endpoint; ≥CR rate, overall response rate, overall MRD-negativity rate, and OS were key secondary endpoints. MRD was assessed centrally via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ v2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies). MRD was evaluated at d 56 post infusion in the cilta-cel arm; and in both arms at suspected ≥CR and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo post infusion (cilta-cel arm) or cycle 1 d 1 (SoC arm), as well as yearly until progression/start of subsequent therapy in pts in ≥CR. Sustained MRD negativity (10−5) was defined as confirmed MRD negativity ≥12 mo apart and without MRD positivity in between. Pts were evaluable for sustained MRD negativity if they achieved MRD negativity and had ≥1 evaluable MRD sample ≥12 mo after the first negative result or progressed/died/started subsequent tx &lt;12 mo after the first negative result. Results: 419 pts were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] set; cilta-cel, n=208; SoC, n=211); 176 pts in the cilta-cel arm received cilta-cel as study tx. As of May 1, 2024, median follow-up for the study was 33.6 mo. At the 10−5 threshold, 145 pts in the cilta-cel arm and 103 in the SoC arm were evaluable for MRD. MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set and the MRD-evaluable subset were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (ITT, 62% vs 18%; MRD evaluable, 89% vs 38%; both P&lt;0.0001). Across subgroups, cilta-cel vs SoC consistently increased overall MRD-negativity rates (10−5). In the ITT set, 48% of the cilta-cel arm achieved MRD negativity (10−5) by d 56, with the MRD-negative rate rising to 60% by 6 mo post cilta-cel infusion. Overall MRD-negativity rates at the 10−6 threshold in the ITT set were higher with cilta-cel vs SoC (57% vs 9%; P&lt;0.0001). In the cilta-cel arm, 119 (57%) pts vs 26 (12%) in the SoC arm achieved overall MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR (P&lt;0.0001). At the 12-mo MRD assessment, 92 (44%) pts in the cilta-cel arm vs 17 (8%) in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001) had MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR. In pts with MRD-negative (10−5) ≥CR at mo 12, median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not estimable [NE]-NE) with cilta-cel and 37.8 mo (95% CI, 25.0-NE) with SoC; median OS was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) and NR (95% CI, 37.8 mo-NE), respectively. Sustained MRD-negativity rates (10−5) in the ITT set were 40% in the cilta-cel arm vs 6% in the SoC arm (P&lt;0.0001); among 110 and 26 evaluable pts for sustained MRD, sustained MRD-negativity rates were 75% vs 50% (P=0.0159). Among the 176 pts who received cilta-cel as study tx, overall MRD negativity at 10−5 was achieved by 129 (73%) pts (89% of 145 evaluable pts). Conclusions: At 33.6-mo median follow-up in CARTITUDE-4, cilta-cel vs SoC significantly increased overall MRD-negativity rates &gt;3-fold in the ITT set, with pts achieving MRD negativity rapidly post cilta-cel. The prognostic value of MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12 was shown, as median PFS was &gt;3 years in pts with MRD-negative ≥CR at mo 12, regardless of tx. These data further underscore the benefit of cilta-cel, which led to significant &gt;3-fold increases vs SoC in rates of MRD-negative ≥CR at any time and at mo 12, and sustained MRD negativity. Our MRD data demonstrate higher rates of deep and sustained MRD negativity achieved with cilta-cel vs SoC in tx of len-refractory MM as early as first relapse.

Introduction Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) eventually become refractory to current treatments. There is an unmet need for new therapies with durable efficacy, favorable safety, and simplified dosing schedules. ABBV-383 is a unique BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody T-cell engager comprising bivalent high-avidity BCMA binding domains, a low-affinity CD3-binding domain designed to minimize cytokine release and the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and a silenced Fc tail for extended half-life enabling dosing convenience. In an ongoing first-in-human (FIH) study (NCT03933735) in heavily pretreated pts with relapsed or refractory (RR) MM, ABBV-383 monotherapy (60 mg Q4W) resulted in deep and durable responses. Introduction of a modified dexamethasone (Dex) premedication (premed) schedule in cycle (C) 1 lowered incidence and severity of CRS (43% overall; 5% grade ≥2) vs pts treated with low Dex (71% overall; 20% grade ≥2) (JCO 2024;42[suppl 16]:7531). We now report results of Arm A of the open-label, phase 1b study (NCT05650632) evaluating 1 step-up dose (SUD) of ABBV-383 as a strategy to mitigate the risk of severe CRS and further assess ABBV-383 activity in pts with RRMM. Methods This study is enrolling pts with RRMM, ECOG performance status ≤2, and documented evidence of progression during or after the last treatment. Pts must have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Arm A consists of a dose-optimization (DO) and a dose-expansion (DE) part. During DO, pts received a single SUD of intravenous ABBV-383 (2/4 mg) on C1 day (D) 1, followed by the target dose of 60 mg on D4. In the DE, based on DO findings, pts received the recommended ABBV-383 SUD on C1D1, followed by 60 mg on D4. The modified premed schedule that lowered incidence and severity of CRS in the FIH study was also introduced prior to target dose on C1D4. After C1, pts received 60 mg ABBV-383 Q4W on D1 of each cycle for DO and DE until disease progression, withdrawal, or discontinuation. Primary endpoint was grade ≥2 CRS events during C1. Other endpoints included any grade CRS events, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), immune pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. Results As of April 2024, 70 pts were enrolled in Arm A: 47 in DO (2 mg SUD, n=26; 4 mg SUD, n=21) and 23 in DE. Median age was 69 years (range: 40-84), 59% were male, and 76% were triple-class refractory. Median prior lines of therapy was 4 (range: 3-10). Median follow-up time (months [mo]) was 6.5, 7.5, and 2.8 for 2 mg DO, 4 mg DO, and DE, respectively. Any grade CRS was reported in 10 (39%) and 11 (52%) pts during DO at 2 and 4 mg SUD; CRS grade ≥2 occurred in 3 (12%) pts in the 2 mg SUD and in 6 (29%) pts in the 4 mg SUD, leading to selection of 2 mg SUD for DE. In the DE, 7 (30%) pts experienced CRS; 1 (4%) pt experienced grade 2 CRS, there were no grade ≥3 events, and only 2 (9%) pts received tocilizumab to treat CRS. Overall, median time to CRS onset and resolution was 14.7 and 9 hours, respectively; no pts had CRS after C1. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 7 (10%) pts (grade 1: 4%; grade 2: 6%; grade 3: 4%). Most common TEAEs were CRS (40%), neutropenia (37%), diarrhea (29%), anemia (24%), and fatigue (20%); most common grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (31%), anemia (19%), thrombocytopenia (13%), and leukopenia (11%). Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in 5 pts; 1 event was deemed possibly related to ABBV-383 (COVID-19 pneumonia). In the efficacy-evaluable population (n=68), the objective response rate was 62% (95% CI: 49.2, 73.3); 35 (52%) pts had a VGPR or better. Median time to response was 1.1 mo (range: 1-4) and median duration of follow-up was 5.8 mo (range: 1-12). Response rates are expected to improve with longer follow-up. Maximum reduction in peak levels of CRS-related cytokines, including IL-6, were observed in DE compared with DO and 60 mg Q4W without SUD (FIH study). Peak activation and proliferation of CD8 T cells was comparable with ABBV-383 in DO, DE, and 60 mg Q4W-treated pts. Conclusions Introduction of 1 SUD of 2 mg on D1 followed by full dose of 60 mg on D4 in C1 combined with modification to the Dex premed schedule reduced the incidence and severity of CRS in pts with RRMM, further optimizing the safety profile of ABBV-383. Preliminary efficacy data show early and high response rates, consistent with outcomes from other ABBV-383 studies.

Background Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have recently been established as an important option for the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. However, real-world studies suggest that approximately half of all patients (pts) receiving commercial CAR-T therapies will relapse within 6 months. These pts have a poor prognosis, with estimated overall survival (OS) of only 5 months, indicating a significant unmet need. Odronextamab is a novel, off-the-shelf, CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody that has demonstrated activity in both R/R follicular lymphoma and R/R DLBCL. We have previously reported encouraging results with odronextamab from the Phase 1 ELM-1 study (NCT02290951) in pts with R/R DLBCL post CAR-T therapy (Bannerji R, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2022). These results were consistent with the antitumor activity seen in pts with R/R DLBCL from the Phase 2 ELM-2 study (Kim WS, et al. ASH 2022). Here, we present an updated analysis of outcomes in a prespecified cohort of post CAR-T patients from ELM-1. Methods Intravenous odronextamab was administered weekly in 21-day cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4. Revisions to the step-up regimen were reported previously (Bannerji R, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2022). Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg during C1 to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), followed by 160 mg on Days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 320 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Those pts who achieved a complete response (CR) that was durable for ≥9 months transitioned to dosing with 320 mg every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Immune biomarker assessment was an exploratory endpoint. Results As of Dec 20, 2022, 46 pts were treated (safety-evaluable), with 44 pts evaluable for efficacy. For safety-evaluable pts, median age was 63 years (range 27-82), 67% male, 74% Ann Arbor stage III-IV, and 72% were refractory to CAR-T therapy administered in any prior line. 44 pts were evaluable for efficacy after 4.9 months median duration of follow-up. The ORR and CR rate by ICR were 48% (21/44) and 30% (13/44), respectively. Responses were durable, and both median DoR and median duration of CR were not reached. The probability of maintaining a response for 12 months was 62% and the probability of maintaining a CR for 9 months was 86%.A responder analysis of the subgroup of pts who achieved a CR will be presented. The CAR-T treated pts with DLBCL who were evaluable for biomarker analysis (n=10) had lower T-cell counts at baseline compared with CAR-T naive DLBCL pts (n=41 comparable pts who received odronextamab in ELM-2), yet the fold-change of T-cell expansion at C4D15 was greater in CAR-T treated pts versus CAR-T naive pts. T-cell dynamics, such as changes in activation, exhaustion, and memory subsets, will be presented. Safety was generally consistent with that previously reported. Six (13%) pts permanently discontinued odronextamab due to a treatment-emergent AE (device-related infection, pneumonia, dysphagia, gait disturbance, leukemia, and encephalopathy [n=1 each]). The most common treatment-emergent AE was CRS (any grade, 52%). The highest grade of CRS reported was Grade 2, and low-grade CRS events occurred in 46% of pts with the 0.7/4/20 mg step-up regimen. No cases of ICANS were reported in pts with the 0.7/4/20 mg regimen. Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 10 (22%) pts, with no Grade 5 events. No cases of tumor flare were reported. Conclusions Odronextamab monotherapy demonstrates encouraging antitumor activity in heavily pretreated pts who have progressed after CAR-T therapy, with a generally manageable safety profile. Durable CRs were achieved in this difficult-to-treat setting. These data support the potential role of odronextamab in the treatment paradigm for R/R DLBCL. Further studies to evaluate the optimal sequencing and combinations of odronextamab with CAR-T therapy are warranted.

Abstract Background: ZUMA-1 is the registrational Phase 1/2 study of axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in pts with refractory LBCL. In ZUMA-1 Cohorts 1+2 (C1+2; N=101), rates of Grade (Gr) ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) were 13% and 28%, respectively, at the 6-mo primary analysis; the objective response rate (ORR) was 82% (54% complete response [CR]; Neelapu et al. NEJM. 2017). ZUMA-1 safety management C6 assessed whether prophylactic and earlier corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab could reduce incidence and severity of CRS and NEs. With a median follow-up of 8.9 mo (N=40) for C6, there were no Gr ≥3 CRS, a low rate of Gr ≥3 NEs (13%), and high response rates (Oluwole et al. BJH. 2021). Here, we present a 1-yr updated analysis of C6 supported by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to compare outcomes for pts in C6 vs C1+2. Methods: Eligible pts could receive optional bridging therapy after leukapheresis. Pts received conditioning chemotherapy for 3 d prior to a single axi-cel infusion. Pts received once-daily oral dexamethasone 10 mg on Days 0 (before axi-cel), 1, and 2; corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab for adverse event (AE) management were given earlier vs C1+2. The primary endpoints were incidence and severity of CRS and NEs. Other endpoints included efficacy outcomes and biomarker analyses. To ensure comparability for pts in C6 and C1+2, an exploratory PSM analysis was performed after balancing for key baseline disease characteristics (tumor burden, IPI score, no. of prior lines of chemotherapy, disease stage, and LDH level). Results: As of December 16, 2020, the median follow-up time was 14.9 mo. Gr ≥3 AEs were reported in all 40 treated pts, and the most common were neutropenia (45%), neutrophil count decreased (33%), and white blood cell count decreased (23%). No Gr ≥3 CRS occurred. Gr ≥3 NEs were reported in 15% of pts. Median time to CRS and NE onset was 5 and 6 d, respectively, after axi-cel infusion. Infections of any grade occurred in 50% of pts (20% Gr ≥3). Since the 6-mo analysis, no new cases of CRS were observed. Four new axi-cel-related NEs occurred in 2 pts (pt 1: Gr 2 mental status changes and seizure-like phenomena both on Day 441; pt 2: Gr 1 dementia [occurred on Day 93 but was reported late] and Gr 5 toxic encephalopathy on Day 369 [resultant from a Gr 4 event that started on Day 351]). Two new infections of Gr 2 pneumonia and Gr 1 bronchitis were observed; the latter was axi-cel-related. One death due to progressive disease occurred. The investigator-assessed ORR was 95% (80% CR). Median DOR, PFS, and OS were not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 12-mo DOR, PFS, and OS rates were 60%, 63%, and 82%, respectively. At data cutoff, 53% of pts were in ongoing response. Median peak CAR T-cell levels were comparably high in pts with ongoing response and relapse (64 cells/µL [n=21] and 66 cells/µL [n=15], respectively) at 12 mo and considerably lower in nonresponders (18 cells/µL [n=2]). In all, 32 matched pts each in C6 and C1+2 were identified during PSM analysis; 8 pts from C6 were not included due to nonavailability of matched pts in C1+2. No Gr ≥3 CRS was observed in C6 vs 13% of pts in C1+2. Incidence of Gr ≥3 NEs was comparable in C6 and C1+2 (19% and 22%, respectively), with median time to onset of 12 d in C6 vs 7 d in C1+2. The ORR was 94% in both C6 and matched C1+2 (75% and 78% CR rates, respectively); 47% and 59% of pts were in ongoing response at 12 mo. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 12-mo PFS rate was 61% in both C6 and matched C1+2. Median peak CAR T-cell levels were 65 and 43 cells/µL, respectively, in C6 and C1+2. Serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers associated with CAR T-cell treatment-related AEs (IFN-γ, IL-2, GM-CSF, and ferritin) were lower in C6 vs C1+2. Median cumulative corticosteroid dose including prophylaxis was 1252 mg in C6 (n=32) and 7418 mg in C1+2 (n=6). Conclusion: With ≥1-y follow-up, prophylactic and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention continued to demonstrate a manageable safety profile, absence of new safety signals, and high, durable response rates, which was corroborated by PSM analysis. Although fewer pts in C1+2 received corticosteroids after matching, the median cumulative corticosteroid dose was 4-fold lower in C6 vs C1+2. These findings suggest that the C6 AE management strategy can improve long-term safety of axi-cel in R/R LBCL without compromising durability of responses. Disclosures Oluwole: Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Forcade: Jazz: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau. Muñoz: Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; OncView: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Debiopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Acrotech: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau. de Guibert: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Vose: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett: Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lin: Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deol: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. McSweeney: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Allovir: Research Funding. Goy: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xcenda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elsevier's Practice Update Oncology, Intellisphere, LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive Peer Exchange: Honoraria; Rosewell Park: Consultancy; Genomic Testing Cooperative: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; COTA (Cancer Outcome Tracking Analysis): Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Michael J Hennessey Associates INC: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medscape: Consultancy; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman la Roche: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Genentech/Hoffman la Roche: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Consultancy, Other: Meeting/travel support; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vincerx pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Elsevier PracticeUpdate: Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Hackensack Meridian Health, Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment. Kersten: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Jacobson: Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Axis: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Minnema: Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy. Thieblemont: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Timmerman: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Marker Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Corvus: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Research Funding. Stiff: Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectar: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding. Avivi: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau. Tzachanis: Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Partner: Consultancy. Kim: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zheng: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shen: Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Atara: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership role, Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: Leadership role, Patents & Royalties. Vardhanabhuti: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Meerten: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy.