Beksaç, Meral

PURPOSE Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency. METHODS The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744 ) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α = .05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10 –5 ), and safety. RESULTS Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P = .24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. CONCLUSION The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.

PURPOSE At the primary analysis of CASTOR (median follow-up, 7.4 months), daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the final analysis for overall survival (OS). METHODS CASTOR was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned to Vd (up to eight cycles) with or without daratumumab (until disease progression). After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Vd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression. RESULTS At a median (range) follow-up of 72.6 months (0.0-79.8), significant OS benefit was observed with D-Vd (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92; P = .0075). Median OS was 49.6 months with D-Vd versus 38.5 months with Vd. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated an OS advantage with D-Vd versus Vd for most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one or two prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and prior bortezomib treatment. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Vd versus Vd were thrombocytopenia (46.1% v 32.9%), anemia (16.0% v 16.0%), neutropenia (13.6% v 4.6%), lymphopenia (10.3% v 2.5%), and pneumonia (10.7% v 10.1%). CONCLUSION D-Vd significantly prolonged OS in patients with RRMM, with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients with one prior line of therapy. To our knowledge, our results, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the phase III POLLUX study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136134 [CASTOR]).

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.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs &gt;75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients &gt;75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: 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; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

e21006 Background: Induction with novel biological agents has significantly improved progression free survival (PFS) of MM pts. However, role and timing of ASCT is unclear and there remains a need for a practical means to predict post-ASCT outcome. Our goal was to determine the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT (PET) after induction therapy (IT) in comparison with other prognostic factors and International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria. Methods: Prospective, multicenter study of 113 newly diagnosed MM pts undergoing IT+ASCT. IT was not controlled and consisted of 2 or 3 novel agent combinations. The tested variables to predict PFS are shown in table. Two PET scoring systems were used: Score1, positive>marrow uptake; Score2, positive>liver uptake. ROC analysis determined the SUV cut-off. Results: With a median follow-up of 29.5 mo 56 (49.6%) pts relapsed (median PFS: 24.3 mo). Results are displayed in table. Post-IT, when a "+" PET (Score2) was associated with less than a VGPR response, relapses occurred in 83% of pts vs. in only 30% when PET was "-" and pts were in CR or VGPR. Multivariate analysis revealed only ISS to be an independent predictor of PFS (p=0.014). Conclusions: Post-IT a "-" PET associated with CR+VGPR suggests a durable response. Qualitative PET evaluation using a more liberal threshold (liver) to define positivity can be used to accurately assess response in MM. These data failed to prove the post-IT IMWG and PET response to be independent prognosticators while ISS was a superior predictor. This may be attributed to inadequate sample size, nonuniform pre- and post-ASCT treatments, varying follow-up times. Further analyses with stratifying various prognostic indicators and therapy schemes in a larger population are underway to determine a definitive role for PET as a predictor of post-ASCT outcome. [Table: see text]

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.