Mollee, Peter

PURPOSE In immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, amyloid fibrils cause organ dysfunction. Anselamimab, a monoclonal antibody, selectively binds to amyloid fibrils, accelerating their clearance. METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo 2004 stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomly assigned to receive anselamimab or placebo with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab). The primary end point was a hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVHs), analyzed using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win ratio estimation. RESULTS Among 406 randomly assigned patients, the primary end point win ratio for anselamimab versus placebo was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.83, 1.50; P = .332) and the hazard ratio (HR) for ACM was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57, 1.13; P = .290). CVH rates in the anselamimab and placebo groups were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.83) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55, 1.43), respectively ( P = .145). Among patients with kappa isotype (n = 72), the win ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 0.98, 4.31; P = .100) and anselamimab reduced ACM by 62% versus placebo (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.86; nominal P = .012), and CVH by 71% (IRR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87; nominal P = .028) with improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Score. There was no clinical benefit observed in the lambda population. Anselamimab was generally well-tolerated; safety data were comparable between treatment arms overall. CONCLUSION Treatment with anselamimab, an antifibril antibody used alongside antiplasma cell dyscrasia therapy, while not meeting the primary end point in the overall population, significantly improved ACM and CVH in patients with kappa AL, potentially offering a new therapeutic option for this isotype.

Abstract The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeting bispecific T-cell engager pavurutamab (AMG 701) directs the cytotoxic T-cell response toward multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This phase 1/1b, open-label, dose-exploration and dose-expansion study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pavurutamab monotherapy in patients with triple-class relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Pavurutamab (5-18 000 μg) was administered IV weekly with step-up dosing in week 1. Overall, 172 patients received at least 1 dose of pavurutamab; 73 received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; 18 000 μg), with 2 different step-up dosing regimens in phase 1b. Twelve patients had dose-limiting toxicities, which included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and increased transaminases; none of which occurred at the RP2D. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events included CRS (74.4%), anemia (61.0%), neutropenia (47.1%), and hypophosphatemia (45.3%). Grade ≥3 infections were noted in 60 patients (34.9%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 46.5% among all patients and 65.8% (very good partial response [VGPR] or better, 60.3%) among 73 patients treated at the RP2D. At median follow-up of 17.2 months, median duration of response (DOR) was 36.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3 to not estimable). Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 5.5 months (95% CI, 2.8-10.1) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 5.0 to not estimable) with the RP2D. Pavurutamab exposure generally increased in a dose-proportional manner, with high soluble BCMA levels correlating with lower exposure level. The acceptable safety profile, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of pavurutamab supports anti-BCMA T-cell engager therapy in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03287908.

Abstract Background B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting immunotherapies represent a promising class of treatment for the management of immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, a disease that is related to clonal plasma cells. Etentamig is a 2nd generation, off-the-shelf, fully human BMCA X CD3 bispecific antibody with bivalent BCMA domain and low CD3 affinity that targets both BCMA-expressing plasma cells and CD3-expressing T cells. Etentamig monotherapy is being studied in multiple myeloma (MM) in an ongoing phase 3 study (NCT06158841). Here, we report the first safety and efficacy results from M24-209, an open-label phase 1/2 study evaluating etentamig monotherapy in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (RR) AL amyloidosis from dose level 1 (DL1). Methods The phase 1 dose escalation (ESC) portion of the study (NCT06158854) with etentamig enrolled pts with RR AL amyloidosis with ≥1 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a proteasome inhibitor and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with no prior BCMA exposure. Eligible pts were required to have a difference in involved and uninvolved serum free light chain (dFLC) of ≥50 mg/L, and pts with Mayo Clinic 2004 cardiac risk stage IIIb with NT-proBNP ≥8500 pg/ml were excluded. Three dose groups were explored in dose ESC (etentamig dose levels [DL] 1, 2, and 3). In all cohorts, pts will receive up to 24 cycles of treatment and will be followed until disease progression. In dose ESC, the primary objectives are to determine safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, and recommended phase 2 dose. The secondary objectives include evaluation of efficacy as measured by hematologic response and organ response. Responses are investigator assessed per consensus guidelines (Comenzo, et al. Leukemia. 2012. 26[11]:2317-25; Palladini G, et al. Amyloid. 2021 [Epub];28[1]:1-2). Results As of 17 July 2025, all DLs in dose ESC have been fully enrolled, and 12 pts have been treated with etentamig at DL1. Due to short follow-up, this initial report only includes data from DL1, with further follow-up data from ESC to be included at the time of presentation. Median duration of follow up in DL1 was 9.4 months (8.3–13.8) with 83% of pts continuing treatment. Median age for pts was 72 years (range, 56–85 years). Median number of prior LOT was 2 (range, 1–6), and median time from initial diagnosis was 3.6 years. Thirty-three percent have received a prior stem cell transplant and 50% previously received the regimen of daratumumab with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in combination. Median dFLC at study baseline was 110. 5 mg/L (range, 56.6–617.5). At baseline, 83% of pts had cardiac involvement, 25% had renal involvement, and 8% had hepatic involvement. Eighty-three percent of pts had lambda AL amyloidosis. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 100% (42% Grade ≥3) of pts at DL1. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 2 pts (17%, all Grade 1), with no instances of any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). CRS occurring after the first dose had median time to onset of 6.8 hours (range, 6.7–6.9). Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 1 pt (8%, all Grade 3). Grade ≥3 neutropenia also occurred in 1 pt (8%, all Grade 3), and no Grade ≥3 events of thrombocytopenia or anemia occurred. No Grade 5 events have occurred. Within the dose ESC DL1 cohort, the overall hematologic response rate was 100%, with all pts achieving ≥VGPR and 83% of pts achieving complete response (CR). The median time to CR was 0.9 months (0.3–9.3). The median duration of response has not yet been reached and 100% of pts remain in their best overall response by investigator assessment. To date, no pts have experienced hematologic progression on study. Cardiac response was observed in 30% of evaluable pts. Renal response was seen in 67% of evaluable pts. Conclusions In the DL1 cohort, etentamig showed a manageable safety profile in AL amyloidosis with low incidence and severity of CRS, no ICANS, and limited Grade ≥3 cytopenia events. Deep and rapid hematologic responses were observed with 100% ≥VGPR rate and 83% hematologic CR rate. Additional dose-level data will be presented at the time of the meeting. All pts remain in ongoing follow-up and evaluation, and the study will begin the dose expansion (EXP) portion after dose selection.

ABSTRACTObjectivesThis final post hoc analysis evaluated patient‐reported outcomes from the Phase 3 MAIA study of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D‐Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) after median 64.5‐month follow‐up in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), including patient subgroups.MethodsKey scales from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (global health status [GHS], physical functioning, pain, and fatigue) were assessed. Scores were evaluated every 3 months for 1 year, then every 6 months until disease progression.ResultsThe intent‐to‐treat population (n = 737) included 46.3% frail, 35.4% 70 to < 75 years old, and 43.6% ≥ 75 years old. D‐Rd‐treated patients showed improvements from baseline that were sustained over 5 years in the intent‐to‐treat population and across subgroups by age, frailty, and bone lesions. Greater proportions of patients treated with D‐Rd versus Rd achieved minimally important changes for improvement at cycle 36 (year ~3) in GHS (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.16–2.91]), physical functioning (1.93 [1.18–3.14]), pain (1.41 [0.90–2.22]), and fatigue (2.00 [1.24–3.23]). Greater proportions of patients with bone lesions improved with D‐Rd versus Rd on GHS and physical functioning.ConclusionsIn transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, D‐Rd improved health‐related quality of life over a 5‐year period versus Rd. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02252172

Aim: The definition of high-risk (HR) in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is ever evolving with the discovery of new genomic abnormalities and increasing therapeutic options. There are various stratification models incorporating laboratory and genetic features with different definitions of high-risk and varied emphasis on individual risk factors. Recognized high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) include t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) with recent inclusion of del(1p) and gain/amplification (amp) of 1q (+1q) . In addition to del(17p), the presence of biallelic del(1p) and ≥2 HRCAs (“double-” or “triple-hit”) appear to confer poorer outcomes. A new definition proposed by the International Myeloma society (IMS) defines HR as the presence of del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; an IgH translocation - t(4;14), t(4;16) or t(14;20) along with +1q and/or del(1p); monoallelic del(1p32) along with +1q; bi-allelic del(1p32); or β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 with normal creatinine (&lt;1.2mg/dL). Herein, we report real-world outcomes on these HRCAs and the new IMS consensus definition of HR MM. Method: We retrospectively reviewed newly diagnosed MM patients from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry across 4 Australian states. Patients with FISH and/or SNP microarray testing for IgH translocations, 1q21 (CKS1B), del(1p32) (CDKN2C) and del(17p) (TP53) were identified. Positive threshold was 30%. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to compare progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups and first performed univariate analysis (UA) for each HRCA. We next analyzed patients with gain1q vs amp1q and monoallelic vs biallelic del(1p). In the final analysis, two risk groups were formed: cases meeting the new IMS-defined HR criteria were considered IMS-HR and the rest were considered standard risk (IMS-SR). Indeterminate cases with missing variables that could influence risk classification were excluded. Results: Of 839 newly diagnosed patients (pts) included, 31% had ISS (International staging system) stage 3 disease. High-risk IgH translocations t(4;14) and t(14;16) were present in 8% and 4%. Secondary HRCAs del(17p), del(1p), gain1q and amp1q were present in 9%, 14%, 30% and 11% respectively. In this cohort, 41% received ASCT. Of the transplant eligible pts, 41% received triplet therapy (PI, IMiD and corticosteroid) and 57% received PI-based induction. Of the transplant ineligible pts, 31% received triplet therapy, 47% PI-based and 19% IMiD-based therapy. Frontline Anti-CD38 antibody use was &lt;1%. Median follow up was 35 months[m] (IQR 18-60). On UA, the risk of progression and/or death was increased with ISS III vs I, amp1q, del(17p), t(14;16), del(1p) and gain1q in descending order by hazard ratio. The risk remained significant in ISS III, del(17p), amp1q and gain1q after multi-variate analysis (MVA). The risk of death was increased with ISS III vs I, del(17p), amp1q, del(1p) and t(14;16), ISS II vs I in descending order by hazard ratio. After MVA, the risk remained significant for ISS stage III, del(17p), amp1q and t(14;16). Of the 117 pts with del(1p32), 108 had monoallelic and 9 had biallelic loss. Pts with biallelic del(1p32) had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 23.2m, p&lt;0.001) and OS (median 24.8m vs NR, p&lt;0.001) compared to those with monoallelic del(1p32). In pts with 1q+, pts with amp1q had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 27.5m, p&lt;0.001) and OS (median 37.0m vs NR, p&lt;0.001) vs pts with gain1q. Based on the new definition of HR myeloma - 385 pts met the criteria for IMS-HR and 216 for IMS-SR. There were 238 indeterminate cases due to missing data. The IMS-HR group had an inferior PFS (median 20.2 vs 39.7m, p&lt;0.001) and OS (median 44.2m vs NR, p&lt;0.001) when compared to IMS-SR. Noting that the IMS-HR group had a higher median age, poorer performance status and lower rates of ASCT use, adjusted analysis for these variables still showed an inferior PFS (aHR 1.68; 95% CI 1.30-2.16, p&lt;0.001) and OS [aHR 1.72; 95% CI 1.21-2.44, p=0.002). Conclusion: ISS III, del(17p), amp1q are the strongest predictor of OS and PFS. Differentiating between monoallelic vs biallelic del(132p) and gain vs amp1q21 has important prognostic value. The IMS- HR definition which takes into account del(1p), “double-” and “triple-hit” disease predicts for a group of patients with a PFS of ~20 months and inferior OS, and provides a standardized approach to risk stratification in MM.

Abstract Introduction: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils into organs leading to organ dysfunction and death. The analysis at 6 and 12 months of the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that the addition of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab to the standard of care combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Based on these findings daratumumab with VCd (D-VCd) was approved for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in January 2021 in the US and June 2021 in the EU. Here, we present data from the analysis at 18 months of the ANDROMEDA study. Methods: ANDROMEDA is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 study including patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 up to 500 mg per week), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg) were administered weekly. SC daratumumab (1800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered once weekly in cycles 1 and 2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6. Patients in the D-VCd arm received only SC daratumumab after cycle 6, every 4 weeks (up to a total of 24 cycles from first dose). The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of free light chain (FLC) levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if involved FLC was lower than the upper limit of normal. Secondary endpoints included major organ deterioration progression-free survival (PFS), organ response rate, time to hematologic response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive D-VCd (N=195) or VCd alone (N=193). At the May 2021 clinical cutoff, the median duration of treatment for D-VCd and VCd arms was 21.3 and 5.3 months, respectively. In the D-VCd arm, 149 patients (77.2%) received daratumumab monotherapy after completing 6 cycles of D-VCd; of those, 17 (11.4%) were still receiving treatment. The rates of deep hematological responses favored the D-VCd treatment arm (Table). At a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the rate of hematologic CR was significantly higher in the D-VCd arm vs the VCd arm (59.5% vs 19.2%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 6.03 [3.80-9.58]; P&lt;0.0001). Similarly, more patients achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) (D-VCd vs VCd, 79.0% vs 50.3%; odds ratio [95% CI], 3.74 [2.39-5.86]; P&lt;0.0001). Among patients who responded, the median time from randomization to ≥VGPR was shorter in the D-VCd arm (0.56 months) vs the VCd arm (0.82 months). Comparable to the cardiac response analysis at 6 months (D-VCd vs VCd, 42% vs 22%), greater cardiac response rates were achieved with D-VCd compared with VCd at 18 months (53% vs 24%). Similarly, renal response rates remained superior with D-VCd vs VCd alone at 18 months (58% vs 26% compared with 6 months [54% vs 27%]). A total of 79 deaths occurred (D-VCd, N=34; VCd, N=45). In the D-VCd arm, only 1 additional grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event occurred over 18 months vs 12 months (119 [61.7%] vs 118 [61.1%] patients) and no additional infusion-related reactions were reported. OS will be analyzed and major organ deterioration PFS will be updated after approximately 200 events have occurred. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the sustained clinical benefits of D-VCd vs VCd in terms of hematologic and organ responses with longer follow-up, although it should be noted that many patients in the D-VCd arm received daratumumab monotherapy following 6 cycles of D-VCd, while patients in the VCd group stopped study treatment. Nevertheless, the study continues to support the use of D-VCd over VCd alone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Following its recent approval, D-VCd represents a new SOC for patients with AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Comenzo: Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding. Palladini: Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Kastritis: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria. Minnema: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Alnylam: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Jaccard: Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gibbs: AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS and Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mollee: Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Caelum, EUSA, Pfizer, SkylineDx, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: No personal fees received. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Suzuki: Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Libby: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Valent: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hungria: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Takeda: Honoraria. Wong: Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GloxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Dren Biosciences: Consultancy; Caelum: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Akcea: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Onocopeptides: Speakers Bureau. Bumma: Amgen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi: Consultancy. Tran: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin: Janssen: Current Employment. Khaled: Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Honoraria; Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.