Citations

Abstract Isatuximab is an immunoglobulin G1κ monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells. Anti-CD38 antibodies have shown efficacy as monotherapy and in combination in a variety of settings for patients with multiple myeloma and light chain (AL) amyloidosis. This multicenter, cooperative group phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate hematologic response, organ response, and safety of isatuximab monotherapy for the treatment of relapsed AL amyloidosis. Isatuximab at 20 mg/kg was administered IV weekly during the first 28-day cycle, and then every other week during cycles 2 to 24. Forty-three patients were registered, with 35 patients being evaluable for response. The overall hematologic response rate was 77.1%, with 57% of patients achieving a very good partial response (VGPR) or better. The median time to partial response (PR) or better was 1.1 months. Renal response occurred in 50% (7/14) of patients with renal involvement, and cardiac response occurred in 57% (8/14) of patients who were evaluable utilizing N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) with cardiac involvement. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events included lymphopenia (n = 3, 8.5%) and infection (n = 2, 6%). Isatuximab demonstrated substantial efficacy in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis, and was associated with a good safety profile. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03499808.

e19521 Background: Blindedindependent central review (BICR) committees are often established for oncology trials to assessbestoverall response (BOR), while real-world (RW) studies typically rely on physician-assessed responses. To emulate clinical trial rigor, a BICR committee was implemented in the R5458-ONC-21101 RW data-derived external control arm study (NCT05673967) to evaluate BOR using International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. A pre-specified concordance analysis compared BOR assessments between the BICR committee and treating site physicians. Methods: RW data were obtained from chart reviews at 15 participating International Myeloma Foundation IMWG sites. The BICR committee, comprised of three multiple myeloma experts, evaluated BOR through consensus voting. Per protocol, the committee reviewed case report forms consisting of data on serum and urine myeloma protein and free light chain levels; and, where available, bone marrow plasma cell percentage, presence of plasmacytomas, and bone lesion changes. Concordance between BICR- and physician-assessed BOR was evaluated for objective response rate defined as ≥partial response (PR), ≥very good partial response (VGPR), ≥complete response (CR), and stringent complete response (sCR), with non-evaluable responses excluded from the analysis. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was used to measure agreement, with values >0.6 indicating strong concordance. 1 Results: Of 279 evaluable lines of therapy from 203 patients (Table), the BOR of ≥PR was 45.2% by BICR assessment and 42.3% by treating physicians (κ=0.622). Concordance improved for BOR of ≥VGPR (22.2% by BICR vs 24.7% by treating physicians; κ=0.731) but was low for BOR of ≥CR (3.9% vs. 10.8%; κ=0.508) and sCR (1.1% vs. 4.7%; κ=0.364). Conclusions: BICR- and physician-assessed responses showed strong concordance for BOR of ≥PR and ≥VGPR. However, as expected, lower concordance for ≥CR and sCR was observed, as evaluation of CR per IMWG criteria requires a bone marrow biopsy, which is rarely performed in clinical practice. While the reliability of CR and sCR in RW data is less certain, these results suggest that BOR of ≥VGPR or ≥PR may be reliably ascertained in academic settings based on treating physician evaluations. 1. Landis JR, Koch GG. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–74. Clinical trial information: NCT05673967 . Agreement of BICR- and physician-assessed responses. BICR assessed Physician assessed Observed agreement, % Cohen’s kappa* Number of evaluable lines of therapy 279 279 - - ≥PR, n (%) 126 (45.2) 118 (42.3) 81.4 0.622 ≥VGPR, n (%) 62 (22.2) 69 (24.7) 90.3 0.731 ≥CR, n (%) 11 (3.9) 30 (10.8) 93.2 0.508 sCR, n (%) 3 (1.1) 13 (4.7) 96.4 0.364 *A kappa value >0.6 indicates strong concordance. 1

PURPOSE Newly approved drugs and combinations treating multiple myeloma (MM) have resulted in substantial improvements in patients' survival. To deliver rapid access to newer therapies, an earlier end point to expedite clinical trials is needed. Our objective was to evaluate the minimal residual disease–negative complete response (MRD-CR) as an intermediate end point for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed (ND) transplant-eligible (NDTE) patients, ND transplant-ineligible (NDTinE) patients, and patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 20 randomized multicenter trials were collected. Eleven studies (4,773 patients) with sufficient data were analyzed to evaluate whether 9- or 12-month MRD-CR classified at a 10 –5 threshold could be reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of new agents regarding PFS and OS. Global odds ratio (OR) was estimated using the bivariate Plackett Copula model. Supportive evaluation included correlations of the treatment effects on MRD-CR end points and PFS/OS, evaluated by both linear regression ( R 2 weighted least squared ) and Copula ( R 2 Copula ) models. RESULTS The analysis demonstrated that both 9- and 12-month MRD-CR strongly correlated with PFS at patient level in NDTE patients, NDTinE patients, and patients with RRMM. Global ORs ranged from 3.06 to 16.24, all with 95% CIs excluding 1.0. Encouraging trial-level correlations ( R 2 , 0.61-0.70) were observed by pooling three populations and were stronger ( R 2 , 0.67-0.78) in the ND population. Similar results were observed for OS. CONCLUSION Our findings provided the support for use of MRD-CR classified at a 10 –5 threshold at either 9 or 12 months after starting of the treatment, as an intermediate end point to support accelerated approvals, in future trials in NDTE patients, NDTinE patients, and patients with RRMM.

Background: Isatuximab is an IgG1κ monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Anti-CD38 antibodies have shown efficacy alone and in combination in a variety of settings for patients with multiple myeloma and light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Here we report the final analysis of a multi-center, cooperative group prospective phase II study of isatuximab in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis (NCT03499808). Methods: Eligibility included: age ≥18 years, relapsed or refractory systemic AL amyloidosis, ≥1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease, ≥1 organ involved, not refractory to daratumumab, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, creatinine clearance ≥25 mL/min, and NT-proBNP ≤8500 pg/mL. Patients received isatuximab intravenously 20 mg/kg weekly during the first 28-day cycle and every other week during cycles 2 through 24 for a maximum of 24 cycles. The primary objective was hematologic response with secondary objectives of organ response, safety, progression free survival, and overall survival. Results: Forty-three patients were registered, with 35 patients being eligible for response. The median age of the evaluable patients was 70 years (range, 40.1-79.5) with the majority (66%, n=23) having a lambda clonal plasma cell dyscrasia. The most common cytogenetic abnormality using fluorescence in situ hybridization was translocation t(11;14) observed in ten patients (29%). The most common prior treatment was a proteasome inhibitor (94%, n=33) while 46% (n=16) had undergone autologous stem cell transplant. Eighteen patients (51%) had single organ involvement while 17 (49%) had multiple organs involved. The distribution of organ involvement was typical for AL amyloidosis with cardiac involvement in 25 patients (71%) and renal involvement in 14 (40%). As of December 30, 2022, no new safety concerns were identified. The most common treatment related grade ≥3 adverse events included lymphopenia (n=3, 8.5%) and infection (n=2, 6%). The overall hematologic response rate was 77.1% with a rapid median time to partial response or better of 1.1 months. Two patients (6%) achieved a hematological complete response (CR), 18 (51%) had a very good partial response (VGPR), and 7 (20%) had a partial response (PR). At 24 months from hematologic response, the rate of patients still in response was estimated at 81% (95% confidence interval (CI): 67, 96). The 24-month estimated overall survival was 85% (95% CI: 73%, 97%). Renal response occurred in 50% (7/14) of patients with renal involvement with a median time to response of 18.5 months. Cardiac response occurred in 56% (14/25) of patients with cardiac involvement with a median time to response of 16.6 months. Conclusions: Isatuximab monotherapy resulted in high rates of hematologic response in relapsed AL amyloidosis which translated into organ responses. Treatment appears safe and was well tolerated. Support: NIH/NCI/NCTN grant awards U10CA180888, U10CA180819, CA180820, and CA180821; and in part by Sanofi-Aventis (Sanofi US)

Introduction: Teclistamab (Tec) is the first approved BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody for the treatment of triple-class-exposed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the pivotal MajesTEC-1 study. Tec was associated with high overall response rate (ORR) of 63% in heavily pretreated patients. After a longer follow-up of 30.4 months, CR rate was 46.1%, median duration of response (DOR) was 24 months (95% CI, 17.0 - not estimable), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.4 months (95% CI, 8.8 - 16.4). Herein, we present updated analysis of real-world outcomes and safety with tec in RRMM with extended follow-up of more than 12 months. Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with RRMM treated with tec on-label at 9 academic centers from 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Canada) through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Immunotherapy Committee. Patients with RRMM treated with commercial tec at the respective institutions between May 24, 2022 to January 4, 2024 were included. Median follow-up was 14 months with data collected until July 15, 2024. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) was defined as 1q+, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and/or del(17p). Response was assessed using the IMWG consensus criteria. Patient characteristics were summarized by frequency (percentage) or median (interquartile range [IQR] or range). PFS, overall survival (OS), DOR were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There were 223 patients included in this analysis with the following characteristics: median age of 67 (range 33-91) with 24% ≥75 years; 45% female; 74% White, 10% Black, 9% Asian, and 7% other/unknown; 86 of 176 (49%) with high risk cytogenetics, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and gain/amp 1q; 29.4% (37/126) with known extramedullary disease; 14% with creatinine clearance ≤30 ml/min. Patients received a median of 6 (IQR, 4-8) prior lines of therapy with 52% (107/206) being penta-drug refractory. Among 212 patients with available data, 161 (75.9%) patients would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. There were 94 (42%) patients who received prior BCMA-directed therapy (29.8% antibody-drug conjugate [ADC] alone; 45.7% CART alone; 6.3% bispecific antibody alone; 17.0% ADC and CART). Median time from diagnosis to tec initiation was 6.1 (range 0.6-29.2) years. For the 206 response-evaluable patients, ORR was 66%, including 25.2% ≥CR, 33.5% VGPR, and 7.3% PR. ORR for the 90 response-evaluable patients with prior BCMA-directed therapy was 54.5% (21.1% ≥CR, 26.7% VGPR, 6.7% PR). After a median follow-up of 14 (95%CI, 13-14) months, median PFS and OS were 8.8 (95% CI, 5.5-14) and 20 (95% CI, 18-not reached [NR]) months, respectively. 12-month PFS estimate was 46% (95% CI, 40%-54%), and 12-month OS rate was 65% (95% CI, 59%-72%). Median DOR was 17 (95% CI, 17-NR) months with 12-month estimate of 68% (95% CI, 60%-77%). Tec step-up dosing occurred in the outpatient setting for 57 (25.6%) patients. CRS occurred in 119 out of 222 (53.6%) patients with almost all being grade 1-2, except for 1 grade 4 event. ICANS occurred in 18 out of 216 (8.3%) patients (grade 1-2: 5.1%; grade 3-4: 2.8%). Any grade infection occurred in 130 (58.3%) patients; 25.1% of patients had grade ≥3 infection, including 10 patients with grade 5 infection. While receiving teclistamab, 79 (35.4%) patients had ≥2 infections. IVIG was given in 114 out of 164 (69.5%) patients. Conclusion: In this multicenter international real-world analysis of outcomes and safety associated with tec, ORR was high at 66% with 25.2% of patients achieving ≥CR. CR rates may be underestimated due to infrequent bone marrow confirmation in the real-world datasets. Encouragingly, ORR was 54.5% in BCMA exposed RRMM patients, including 21.1% with ≥CR. After a median follow-up of 14 months, heavily pretreated patients including patients with prior BCMA therapy had durable responses with median PFS of 8.8 months and median DOR of 17 months. There were no new safety signals noted in this real-world study. This is the largest real-world study to date of teclistamab with long-term follow-up of more than 12 months. Additional data including more patients, longer follow-up and results from difficult to treat subgroups will be presented at the meeting.

Introduction: Frailty is known to be an important risk factor for adverse outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) and is often under-represented in clinical trials. Frail patients are known to have increased toxicity, high rates of treatment discontinuation rates and decreased efficacy including worse overall survival in MM. Teclistamab (TEC) is a bispecific BCMA-CD3 directed T-cell antibody (BsAb) that was approved based upon the pivotal MajesTEC-1 study showing high overall response rates in patients with R/R MM. In MajesTEC-1, the median age was 63, and patients with ECOG ≥ 2 were excluded, suggesting that the vast majority of patients in the trial were fit. There is a paucity of data both in clinical trials as well as in the real-world regarding the outcomes of patients, particularly frail patients, with BsAb. This data is needed to both understand current outcomes of frail patients as well as devise strategies for future optimization with BsAb treatment. We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) immunotherapy database with the objective of understanding the outcomes of older adults (age ≥ 70) including frail patients treated in the real-world with teclistamab. Methods: Data was collected from 7 individual academic sites for patients aged ≥ 70 years treated with teclistamab in the real-world. Data collected include patient demographics, disease characteristics, as well as efficacy and toxicity associated with teclistamab. Frailty score was retrospectively calculated using the simplified/IFM frailty index which includes chronological age, ECOG PS and Charlson Comorbidity Index categorizing the patients into fit (score 0-1) or frail (≥ score 2). Fisher's exact tests were performed to evaluate differences in outcomes between fit and frail patients. Results: A total of 81 pts were included in our total cohort. The median age was 76 year (range 70-91). Among them, 44 (54%) were > age 75 and 23 (28%) > age 80. Twenty-eight (35%) patients had an ECOG performance status of ≥2. Using the simplified/IFM frailty index, 22 (27%) were classified as fit and 59 (73%) were frail. In the frail subgroup, a high proportion of patients (42%) would be classified as ultra frail (frailty score of ≥3). Selected baseline patient and disease characteristics are as follows: high risk cytogenetics including 1q gain/amp (fit 67% vs frail 43%), median prior lines (fit 7 vs frail 5), triple class refractory (fit 81% vs frail 88%), CrCl <30 (fit 5% vs frail 15%). For patients hospitalized for step-up dosing, median number of hospital days was 8 both in the fit and frail group. All grade CRS was noted in 12 (55%) fit and 28 (47%) frail patients. Among the fit patients, only 1 of the 12 patients (8%) had grade 2 CRS, whereas 8 of 28 (29%) frail patients had grade 2 (p-value=0.23). ICANS was reported in 2 (9%) fit patients and 8 (14%) frail patients (p=0.72). The majority of ICANS was grade 1 in both groups, but among the frail group, there was one grade 3 and two grade 4 ICANS cases reported. Infections were reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 35 (59%) frail patients (p=0.32), with 2 (9%) and 14 (23%) being grade≥3 (p-value=0.21). IVIG was administered in most patients (fit 50% vs frail 58%, p=0.62). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 10 (45%) fit patients and 19 (32%) frail patients (p=0.30). The overall dosing interval was changed in 32% of fit patient and 34% of frail patients (p=1.00). The overall response rate was 50% for fit patients versus 66% for frail patient (p=0.61). The type of responses noted in the fit patient were as follows: sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 27%, PR/MR 5%, SD 18%, PD/NE 32% and for frail patients : sCR/CR 18%, VGPR 43%, PR/MR 9%, SD 5%, PD/NE 25%. The median follow-up time was 13.1 months. 12-month PFS for fit pts was 47.6% (95% CI 25.7% - 66.7%) and for frail pts 42.4% (29.0% - 55.3%). 12-months OS for fit pts was 64.9% (95% CI 39.9% - 81.6%) and for frail 61.5% (47.0% -73.1%). Conclusions: This is the first real-world study to evaluate the outcomes of teclistamab in frail older adults. With regards to toxicity, frail older adults showed a trend towards higher rates of ≥ grade 2 CRS, ≥ grade 2 ICANS as well as ≥3 grade infections. Efficacy was maintained in both fit and frail older adults similar to the MajesTEC-1 study. Our study highlights that BCMA BsAb can be safely utilized in older adults including frail older adults; however, additional proactive supportive care may be required to further optimize outcomes.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered incurable. Despite improved outcomes with novel agents, including BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and bispecific antibodies, patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) often have poor prognoses. LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a global, single-arm, Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with RRMM who were either triple-class exposed (TCE; previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody) during ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOTs), or triple-class refractory to these therapies. Here, we present comparisons of clinical outcomes from LINKER-MM1 with those of a current, international, real-world (RW) external control arm (ECA; NCT05673967). Methods The ECA was derived from 16 academic sites of the International Myeloma Foundation International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) (N=203; 309 eligible LOTs) and compared with linvoseltamab (N=105; Phase 2 200 mg cohort). Patients in the ECA initiated ≥1 anti-MM therapy after meeting key LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to select 1 LOT per patient and balance the ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; IMWG criteria) determined by an independent central review committee (ICRC) based on myeloma laboratories. An independent data review committee reviewed comparability of cohorts and endpoint assessments prior to conducting comparative analyses. Results Median follow-up was 14.3 months for the linvoseltamab cohort (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2024) and 13.4 months for the ECA. After weighting, 15 prognostic factors were balanced between cohorts. Patients in the ECA received 68 distinct regimens, most commonly CAR T-cell therapies (11.3%) and ADCs (10.3%). After balancing the cohorts, patients in the ECA evaluable for response had ICRC-assessed ORR of 46.3% (40.8% by treating physician assessment), among whom 24.0% had very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). When including patients who died without evaluable response, ECA ICRC-assessed ORR was 44.2%. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher ICRC-assessed ORR (69.5% vs 46.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-3.69]) and rate of ≥VGPR (62.9% vs 24.0%, OR 5.37 [95% CI 3.61-8.49]) compared with ECA regimens. Conclusion Despite current use of novel therapies, there is no well-established RW standard of care (SOC) for patients with TCE RRMM treated at IMWG sites. To our knowledge, this is the first RW ECA study in MM with a high percentage of anti-BCMA therapies and response ascertainment for all patients by ICRC. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher response rates, including rate of ≥VGPR, compared with current RW SOC therapies, highlighting its potential as a highly effective treatment in patients with TCE RRMM.

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.

Abstract Dexamethasone is a key component of induction for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), despite common toxicities, including hyperglycemia and insomnia. In the randomized ECOG E4A03 trial, dexamethasone 40 mg once weekly was associated with lower mortality than higher doses. However, the performance of dexamethasone dose reductions below this threshold with regard to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in NDMM has not been fully characterized. We conducted a secondary pooled analysis of the SWOG 0777 and SWOG 1211 studies of NDMM, which used lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone, with or without bortezomib, and with or without elotuzumab. The planned dexamethasone intensity was 40 to 60 mg weekly in all arms. Patients were categorized into FD-DEX (full-dose dexamethasone maintained throughout induction) or LD-DEX (lowered-dose dexamethasone or discontinuation; only permitted for grade 3+ toxicities per both study protocols). Of the 541 evaluated patients, the LD-DEX group comprised 373 patients (69%). There were no differences in PFS or OS between the FD-DEX and LD-DEX groups, which were balanced in terms of age, stage, and performance status. Predictors of PFS and OS in the multivariate models were treatment arm, age ≥70 years, and thrombocytopenia. FD-DEX did not significantly improve either outcome. Our study suggests that dexamethasone dose reductions are common in multiple myeloma, even within clinical trials. Given the many toxicities and unclear benefits of dexamethasone in the era of modern treatment regimens, dexamethasone dose reduction during NDMM induction warrants further prospective studies. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00644228 and NCT01668719.

Background: Dex is a key component of induction regimens for NDMM despite common toxicities including insomnia and anxiety. The E4A03 randomized trial (Rajkumar, Lancet Oncol 2010) demonstrated that dex dosed at 40 mg weekly outperformed higher-intensity dex and established this regimen as the standard of care for NDMM. In standard practice as well as clinical trials, however, dex doses are often reduced to 20 mg weekly or lower (if not stopped entirely) among older patients or among patients experiencing toxicities. As a first step toward establishing the equipoise of planned dex dose reductions in NDMM, we investigated outcomes with patients from two previous SWOG trials to understand the impact of dex dose reductions on post-induction outcomes. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from two completed NDMM studies, S0777 (comparing VRd vs Rd) and S1211 (comparing Elo-VRd vs VRd). For this secondary analysis, we analyzed the subset of patients who completed all eight 3-week cycles of induction (or six 4-week cycles in the S0777 Rd arm). As shown in Figure 1A, we defined DEX fullDose as patients for whom the starting dex dose (either 40 mg once per week or 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of 21-day cycles) did not change during induction. In contrast, DEX lowered was defined as patients for whom the end-of-induction dex dose and/or frequency were lower than their starting values. As an exploratory analysis, we also compared PFS and OS between the DEX fullDose (no changes to dex strength during induction) and DEX veryLow (dex dosing reduced ≥50% during induction) subgroups. All analyses were landmarked from the end of induction, defined as 24 weeks from registration, to account for the time-dependent nature of dex treatment received. Survival curves were based on the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were made using the log-rank test. Results: Of 541 evaluable patients ( n = 441 from S0777, n = 100 from S1211), dex was reduced during induction in 76% ( n = 410). Compared to DEX fullDose patients, DEX lowered patients were more likely to be anemic (37% vs 26%, p = 0.02) but had similar distributions of age ≥70 (24% of DEX lowered vs 26% of DEX fullDose), Performance Status > 1 (15% vs 12%), ISS stage 3 disease (33% vs 27%), ≥ 60% bone marrow plasma cell burden (37% vs 31%), M-spike > 3 g/dL (48% vs 48%) platelets < 150,000 cells/mm 3 (18% vs 14%), baseline LDH ≥ 190 U/L (36% vs 41%), and baseline CRP ≥ 8 mg/L (27% vs 30%). PFS (Figure 1B) was comparable between DEX lowered (median 36 months, 95% CI 29 to 39 months) and DEX fullDose (median 33 months, 95% CI 24 to 48 months) with p = 0.90. Similarly, OS (Figure 1C) was comparable between DEX lowered [median 77 months, 95% CI 68 months to not reached (NR)] and DEX fullDose (median 92 months, 95% CI 65 months to NR) with p = 0.93. In the DEX veryLow subgroup with ≥50% reduction in dex dosing during induction, median PFS was 39 months (95% CI 34 to 50 months) and median OS was NR (95% CI NR to NR). As shown in Figure 1D and Figure 1E, PFS and OS were comparable between these patients and DEX fullDose patients. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of dex dosing strength in NDMM since E4A03. In two separate randomized trials, over half of patients required dex reductions below a starting dose of ~40 mg weekly. Dex dose reductions during induction had no impact on post-induction PFS and OS, even in the subset of patients who required significant dose reductions. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include heterogeneity between dex dosing schedules and lack of cytogenetic data for all patients. We could not discern specifically why dex was lowered, and it is possible that dex might have been lowered disproportionately commonly in patients who had achieved early responses and thus independently did better. Regardless, these results strongly suggest that maintaining dex 40 mg weekly for the entirety of NDMM induction may be unnecessary in the modern era. Cooperative efforts to study a planned dex de-escalation protocol (i.e., once no longer needed for symptom management or as a pre-medication) alongside patient-reported outcome assessments of symptom burden are being planned. Funding: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, U10CA180820; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now part of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and by Celgene.