Patel, Krina K.

8032 Background: Patients (pts) with TCE RRMM have few treatment (Tx) options and poor HRQoL. Ide-cel, the first in class CAR T cell Tx for pts with TCE RRMM, improved PFS versus standard (std) regimens in the KarMMa-3 trial. We report the PRO results comparing the Tx arms. PROs provide further understanding of Tx benefit of ide-cel from the pts’ perspective. Methods: KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128) is an open-label phase 3 RCT comparing the efficacy and safety of ide-cel with std regimens in pts with TCE RRMM, who had received 2–4 prior regimens. In addition to clinical endpoints, we evaluated the impact of ide-cel compared with std regimens on the changes in HRQoL, measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MY20, and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. PROs were collected at baseline (screening), day of infusion and monthly from 2–24 months (mo) and thereafter every 3 mo. This interim analysis reports PROs through 20 mo. Comparisons were performed on least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline over time between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Results: In total, 386 pts were randomized (ide-cel, 254; std regimens, 132). PRO compliance was high over time ( > 80%). At baseline, PROs were similar between arms. LSM changes from baseline to 20 mo showed significant differences ( P < 0.05), with effect sizes of 0.3–0.7, in favor of ide-cel for most domains, including global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain (EORTC QLQ-C30); side effects of Tx (EORTC QLQ-MY20); and the EQ-5D-5L VAS. The difference in overall LSM change reached or exceeded the pre-specified between-groups minimal importance difference (MID) for improvement in most domains in favor of ide-cel (Table). Conclusions: Ide-cel showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL, including key MM symptoms and functioning, for pts with TCE RRMM compared with std regimens. The PRO data for ide-cel expands upon the clinical outcomes observed in the KarMMa-3 trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03651128 . [Table: see text]

8013 Background: Ide-cel is an FDA-approved treatment for RRMM patients (pts). However, there is limited data on how BT for disease control during its manufacturing process affects clinical outcomes. Methods: Eleven US academic centers contributed data to this analysis without involvement from the manufacturer. By 5/1/2022, 235 pts had undergone leukapheresis, with 214 infused with a median follow up of 9 months (mos). BT was given between leukapheresis and CAR-T infusion. Results: In this analysis, 79% of pts (n = 170) received BT, which included alkylator-based in 35.5%, steroid and/or IMiD/Ab combos (IMiD combos) in 14%, PI combinations (PI combos) in 12%, and selinexor in 10%. BT recipients had higher ECOG PS 2-4, R-ISS 2-3, ferritin, and CRP before lymphodepleting (LD) chemo, however, no difference among BT subgroups. No difference in prior lines of therapy or penta-refractory between BT and No BT (NBT) groups or BT subgroups. Median cycle of the BT was 1 (1-7), with overall response rate (ORR) of 12%, with no difference among BT subgroups. Incidence and severity of CRS and ICANs were comparable in BT and NBT. However, pts who received BT had a longer median hospital stay compared to NBT, particularly in the alkylator/selinexor subgroups. There were no significant difference in cytopenias at day 90 post CAR-T between the BT and NBT or BT subgroups. For the 73% (n = 157) evaluable for day 90 response, there was no difference in the complete or ORR between the BT and NBT groups (41% vs. 52%; p = .2 and 84% vs. 87.5%, p = .8, respectively). Median PFS was worse at 8.1 mos in BT vs 11.5 mos in NBT (p = .03). Among BT subgroups, PFS was the longest with IMiD combos with median PFS not reached (NR), comparable to NBT, and was significantly longer than all other BT subgroups (p = 0.01). The median OS was 13.8 mos with BT and NR in NBT (p = .002). In BT subgroup analysis, alkylators had a shorter OS, although, this was not significant (p = .06). There was no significant difference in PFS and OS in relationship to response to BT (p = .6 and p = .9, respectively). Conclusions: Pts without BT had longer PFS and OS post ide-cel, likely reflective of less aggressive disease. Those who received BT with steroid/IMiD and Ab combos had similar PFS as NBT. However, BT choice is complicated by disease severity and should be evaluated per patient circumstances. [Table: see text]

8012 Background: Cilta-cel was FDA approved in 2022 for the treatment of RRMM. We evaluated the outcomes of patients treated with intended SOC cilta-cel. Methods: 12 US academic medical centers contributed data to this retrospective study. As of 12/31/2022, 177 patients were leukapheresed and 139 received cilta-cel. Results: The table describes the study population compared to the CARTITUDE-1 trial. More patients in our study had extramedullary disease (EMD, 35%) and high-risk cytogenetics (41%). 55% of the patients would not have met eligibility criteria for CARTITUDE-1. Common reasons for ineligibility were cytopenias (19%), prior BCMA therapy (14%), organ dysfunction (12%), oligosecretory disease (13%), and plasma cell leukemia (8%). 83% of the patients received bridging chemotherapy (overall response rate, ORR: 28%). Lymphodepletion included fludarabine (Flu) + cyclophosphamide (Cy): 81%, bendamustine: 11%, Cy: 4%, and cladribine + Cy: 4%. Median CAR-T cells infused were 0.6 million/kg (range: 0.1-0.9), and 19% of patients were treated on an expanded access protocol (EAP). Median follow-up was 2.3 months (range: 0-8). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was seen in 81% (≥ grade 3: 7%) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) in 22% (≥ grade 3: 8%) of patients. Tocilizumab, steroids, and anakinra were used in 61%, 44%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Delayed neurotoxicity (NT) was seen in 9% (cranial nerve palsy: 8, Parkinsonism: 2, others: 3). Grade ≥ 3 cytopenias at day ≥ 30 were seen in 75% of patients. Infections were seen in 32% of patients. Day 30 (N=115) and best response rates (N=118) were: ≥ partial response (PR), 75/80%; ≥ very good PR, 44/62%; and ≥ complete response (CR), 26/40%, respectively. In the non-EAP FluCy population (N=88), best ORR/≥CR were 89/49%. 17 patients died by data cut-off, 4 due to disease progression and 13 (9%) due to non-relapse mortality (NRM) (grade 5 CRS: 3, infection: 6, CRS/infection: 1, grade 5 ICANS: 1, delayed NT: 2). Conclusions: Patients treated with intended SOC cilta-cel had a favorable ORR (80%) despite a larger proportion of patients having high-risk features relative to trial patients and limited follow-up. Response rates were higher in patients receiving conforming products with FluCy conditioning (89%). Delayed NT and NRM were seen in 9% of patients. Results will be updated with continued follow-up. D.K.H., K.K.P, M.J., Y.L. & S.S. contributed equally. [Table: see text]

AbstractPlasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare entity, commonly associated with immunosuppressed states such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or solid organ transplant. The clinical course is characterized by high relapse rates and a poor prognosis, leading some clinicians to recommend aggressive frontline therapy. However, a specific review of limited stage (LS) PBL patients is not available to evaluate outcomes and justify treatment recommendations. We performed a retrospective review of LS PBL cases to provide insight into this rare disease. Our cohort consisted of 80 stage I or II PBL patients from 13 US academic centers. With a median follow up of 34 months (1–196), the 3‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 72% (95% CI 62, 83) and 79% (95% CI 70, 89), respectively. The 3‐year PFS and OS of patients treated with frontline chemotherapy alone was 65% (95% CI 50, 84) and 71% (95% CI 56, 89), respectively, compared to 85% (95% CI 72, 100) and 96% (95% CI 89, 100), respectively, in patients treated with combined frontline chemotherapy with radiation consolidation. Our data demonstrate favorable outcomes in LS PBL with no improvements in outcome from aggressive frontline treatment including Hyper‐CVAD or auto‐SCT consolidation. Multivariate regression analysis (MRA) demonstrated improved PFS for patients receiving EPOCH based frontline therapy versus CHOP (HR: 0.23; p = 0.029). Frontline chemotherapy followed by radiation consolidation versus chemotherapy alone appeared to be associated with improved relapse and survival outcomes but did not show statistical significance in MRA.

e20021 Background: CAR T cell therapies are FDA approved for patients with triple refractory multiple myeloma (MM) and >4 lines of therapy. The median survival of this is group is less than 12 months so salvage therapies need to be implemented quickly. Real-world access to CAR T remains challenging due to supply chain limitations impacting manufacturing. The goal of this study was to evaluate how centers are handling the challenges of CAR T slot allocation. Methods: MM CAR T physician leaders at each CAR T treatment center certified for idecabtagene vicleucel across the US were surveyed. Results: We received responses from 15/20 centers. Summary of CAR T volumes and outcomes of patient on waitlists are shown in the table. The median time on the waiting list was 6 months with only 25% of patients receiving CAR T eventually. For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced CART physicians to ensure consistency. Selection committee included: primary MD (n=9), CAR T MD (n=12), social workers (n=3), CAR T RN (n=10), APP (n=2), pharmacists (n=2) and ethicists (n=1). To ensure transparency, centers have clear selection criteria (n=10), priority score (n=8) and selection timeline (n=11) . To ensure accountability, centers document priority scores (n=5) and have pre-specified criteria (n=9) for selection. Centers also reported using ethical principles for selection: a) equal treatment: time spent on waiting list (n=8); b) priority to the worst-off: limited therapeutic options (n=10), MM burden (n=7), ineligible for trials (n=2); c) maximize benefit: most likely to complete apheresis (n=8) or infusion (n=8) or achieve response (n=6) and d) social value: younger pts (n=2). Maximizing benefit was considered the most important criterion by 7 centers. Conclusions: More stringent GMP manufacturing requirements with FDA approved CAR T and real-world practice with broader patient demographics can present challenges to implementation of CAR T in standard of practice. Our study is the first attempt to evaluate and highlight existing issues with MM CAR T access and the variability and challenges in patient selection. Learning from other models of resource allocation (ex: UNOS) and sharing experience across centers can help providers optimize slot allocation to improve accrual. Increasing supplies of key reagents and novel manufacturing methods(eg: non-viral vectors and allogeneic CAR) could help overcome these limitations. [Table: see text]

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.

Background: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with a well-known association with HIV infection. The outcomes of PBL patients are typically described with high relapse rates and poor prognosis. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; Morscio J, Am J of Pathol. 2014; Castillo JJ, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011; Castillo JJ, Am J Hematol. 2008) There has been a paucity of data suggesting that limited stage disease (Ann Arbor stage I-II) may have a more favorable prognosis. However, due to the rarity of this disease there have been no large-scale reviews to confirm this. Thus, many patients with limited stage disease are subject to the aggressive therapy recommendations based on the poor outcomes of PBL patients as a whole. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; NCCN Guidelines, version 2.2020; Al-Malki MM, BBMT. 2014) We attempted to determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with limited stage PBL. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (13 US academic centers) retrospective study of patients with limited stage (Ann Arbor stage I-II) Plasmablastic lymphoma. Determination of limited stage and diagnosis of PBL was determined by the investigators at each individual center. Patients diagnosed between 1/1/1990 and 6/1/2018 were included. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology, and outcomes data were extracted by retrospective chart review. Kaplan Meier was utilized for time to event analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics are included in table 1. A total of 80 patients were identified with limited stage disease. With a median follow up of 34 months the 3-yr Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 71.9% and 78.7% respectively (Figure 1A and 1B). Patients that received frontline chemotherapy with (n=29) and without RT (n=36) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 84.6% and 96.2% as compared to 64.5% and 70.8%, respectively (Figure 2A and 2B; Figure 3A and 3B). The Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS for chemo (reference) vs chemo-RT was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.3; P=0.131) and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029) respectively. The HR for PFS and OS for CHOP (n=14, reference) vs EPOCH (n=33) based regimens was 0.37 (95% CI 0.11-1.2; p=0.106) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.079-1.6; p=0.182) respectively. Patients with stage I/IE disease (n=56) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 73.1% and 81.2% respectively. Patients with stage II/IIE disease (n=24) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 69.3% and 73.4% respectively. Patients that received aggressive treatment (n=17) with Hyper-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT as consolidation had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 63.6% and 72.7% respectively. Patients with concomitant HIV (n=16) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 80.8% and 77.4% respectively. Seven patients received RT alone and 6 patients had surgical resection alone as frontline therapy; 1 patient received no therapy; 1 patient received HAART therapy only and remains in CR without any other treatment for PBL 29 months after diagnosis. There were 8 deaths (10%) related to PBL, 3 deaths (4%) related to treatment of PBL (2 during frontline chemo and 1 upon relapse with salvage chemo), and 9 deaths (11%) related to other causes. The 3-yr lymphoma free survival (LFS) of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (without including treatment related mortality (TRM) as an event) was 89.1%, 85.2%, and 100% respectively. The 3-yr LFS survival of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (including TRM as an event) was 85.1%, 80.0%, and 96.2% respectively. Discussion: Here we report the largest review to our knowledge of limited stage PBL. Outcomes appear to be excellent with 3-yr PFS and OS of 71.9% and 78.7% respectively and a 3-yr LFS of 89.1% (85.1% when attributing TRM as an event). There was no obvious benefit to receiving aggressive therapy with H-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT. Although this is a small, uncontrolled sample size the HR for OS was improved in patients receiving frontline chemo-RT vs chemo alone 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029). However, this did not take into account TRM with or progression while receiving frontline chemotherapy. Patients who were HIV+ had similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to the entire cohort. This retrospective study clearly demonstrates the favorable outcomes in this patient population, especially in those able to receive definitive therapy for their disease. Disclosures Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hill:Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; OncLive: Honoraria. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Landsburg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Castillo:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding.