Kumar, Shaji

The 2023 Precision Oncology Summit was organized by Binaytara foundation in San Francisco on October 7 th and 8 th . The conference’s theme was the advances in precision oncology and future directions to move away from a one-size-fits-all model to improve outcomes. This manuscript outlines the proceedings of the hematology-focused session during the conference.

Summary: While the current approach to precursor hematologic conditions is to “watch and wait,” this may change with the development of therapies that are safe and extend survival or delay the onset of symptomatic disease. The goal of future therapies in precursor hematologic conditions is to improve survival and prevent or delay the development of symptomatic disease while maximizing safety. Clinical trial considerations in this field include identifying an appropriate at-risk population, safety assessments, dose selection, primary and secondary trial endpoints including surrogate endpoints, control arms, and quality-of-life metrics, all of which may enable more precise benefit–risk assessment.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is the most common blood cancer in African American (AA) individuals. AAs have an increased risk of developing Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) and MM compared to non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals. While several studies have shown a pivotal role for the immune tumor microenvironment (iTME) in MM pathogenesis, the composition of the iTME in AAs with MM is under investigated. Viably frozen whole bone marrow (BM) aspirates from 128 individuals (53 AA and 75 NHW) with either MM (n=65), MGUS (n=28), smoldering MM (SMM, n=13), or healthy controls (n=22) were evaluated by single cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) or mass cytometry (CyTOF). We characterized 34 (14 AA and 20 NHW) by scRNA-seq and 94 (39 AA and 55 NHW) by CyTOF. CyTOF samples were stained with Maxpar Direct Immune Profiling Assay Kit (Fluidigm), acquired on a Helios mass cytometer and analyzed in Cytobank. Data were analyzed by logistic equivalent regression model with p<0.05 for significance. ScRNA-seq samples were processed as in Yao, 2022. Data were normalized using scvi-tools and clustered by Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP). Differentially expressed markers between clusters were identified using Model-based Analysis of Single-cell Transcriptomics (MAST) in Seurat R package at FDR < 0.05 and log2 fold change > 0.55. ScRNA-seq of the CD45+ non-tumor lymphocytes revealed 17 immune populations (HSC, erythroblast, MDSC, GMP, CD1c+ DC, CD4+ and CD8+ T cell, CD14+ M1 macrophage, CD16+monocyte, monocyte, pDC, naïve B, pre-B, pro-B, memory B, NK/MAIT). CD3E/D+cells were clustered into naïve/central memory (CCR7+, LEF1+, SELL+), memory (GZMK+), effector (GZMB+, GZMH+, FGFBP2+), g/d (TRDC+), MAIT (SLC4A10+, KLRB1+) and IFN CD8+ T cells (IFIT1+, IFIT2+,IFIT3+). Disease progression was associated with increases in median CD4+ and CD8+ GZMK+ T cells, memory B cells and a reduction in all monocyte clusters. Within the diseased cohort in comparison to NHW patients, AA patients had increased CD3+ T cells (CD4 and CD8+) (AA 57.5% vs. NHW 44.3%) and a reduction in overall monocytes (AA 10.5% vs. 26.5%). These results were validated by CyTOF, which confirmed an increase in CD3+ T cells (AA 53.7% vs. NHW 35.7%, p<0.001) including increases in CD8+ (AA 7.0% vs. NHW 3.2%, p<0.05) and CD4+ terminal effector T cells (AA 5.7% vs. NHW 2.7%, p<0.05) and a reduction in monocytes (AA 18.3% vs. NHW 26.6%) among AAs. After adjusting for age and sex, AAs retained an increase in T cells (OR 1.59 (95%CI 1.2-2.01, p=0.00023)) and a reduction in monocytes (OR 0.88 (95%CI 0.78-1, p=0.045)). Despite the increase in CD8+ T cells in AA patients, we identified reduced GZMK+ T cells and reductions in exhaustion markers (TIGIT, LAG3, TOX) in CD8+ T cells in comparison to NHWs. Nevertheless, the distribution of the immune populations was similar between healthy AA and NHW individuals. Our multiomics approach to characterize the iTME identified significant differences among AA compared to NHW patients with MM. Citation Format: Suganti Shivaram, Hongwei Tang, Huihuang Yan, Shulan Tian, Guyu Qin, Emilie Anderson, Neeraj Sharma, Abiola Bolarinwa, Cinthya Zepeda-Mendoza, Stacey Lehman, Felicia Gomez, Amit Mitra, Surendra Dasari, Taxiarchis Kourelis, Shaji Kumar, Linda Baughn. Characterization of the Immune Tumor Microenvironment in a Diverse Cohort of Patients with Multiple Myeloma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Blood Cancer Discovery Symposium; 2024 Mar 4-6; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Blood Cancer Discov 2024;5(2_Suppl):Abstract nr P06.

The treatment of Waldenström macroglobulinemia/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (WM/LPL) has evolved to include several new options. The NCCN Guidelines for WM/LPL provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding diagnosis, treatment, assessment of response to treatment, and follow-up of both newly diagnosed and previously treated WM/LPL.

Background:Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare, indolent B‐cell lymphoplasmacytic malignancy. Patient outcomes are highly heterogeneous, with a proportion of patients surviving less than 5 years (short survivors) and another proportion that survive longer than 10 years. The laboratory parameters in the currently used International Prognostic Scoring System for WM (IPSSWM) include hemoglobin, serum IgM, platelet count, and serum β2‐microglobulin.Aims:We aim to identify unique patient characteristics and prognostic features associated with short survival in WM.Methods:The medical records of patients with active WM that were diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida between January 1st, 1996 and December 31st, 2013 were reviewed. The patients with smoldering WM were excluded. Cohorts of patients who either survived ≤ 5 years (Short Survival Group) or those with an overall survival (OS) ≥ 10 years (Long Survival Group) from the diagnosis of active disease were compared. Survivors with a follow‐up of ≤ 5 years were not included in the analyses. Two‐sided Wilcoxon rank sum test and Chi square/Fisher's exact test were used to compare the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The variables that were statistically significant on univariate analysis (P < 0.05) were included in a multivariate logisitic regression analysis.Results:Of 893 consecutively seen WM patients (median follow‐up of 9 years [95% CI 8.4–9.7]), we identified 387 patients who could be categorized into either the Short Survival Group (n = 171 patients, 44%) or the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%). The Short Survival Group had a median OS of 2.4 years (2.1–2.8) and median age at diagnosis of 73 years (42–93), while the Long Survival Group (n = 216, 56%) had a median OS of 18.9 years (16‐NR) and median age at diagnosis of 62 years (31–85). The baseline characteristics and significant findings between the two groups are listed in the Table. Parameters significant on univariate analysis included age >65 years, albumin < 3.5 g/dL, β2‐microglobulin >3 μg/ml, and LDH > upper limit of normal (ULN). On multivariate analysis, albumin <3.5 g/dL and LDH > ULN were independently associated with short survival. Among the Long Survivors, 60 (28%) patients survived 15 years or more.Summary/Conclusion:Lactate dehydrogenase above the ULN and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL are independent biomarkers of short survival in WM. The MYD88 L265P status and the size of serum IgM are not prognostic in WM. Our data suggest the need for simplification of the current staging system with the use of widely available markers: serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase.image

The treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved to include several new options. These include new combinations with second generation proteasome inhibitors (PI); second generation immunomodulators, monoclonal antibodies, CAR T cells, bispecific antibodies, selinexor, venetoclax, and many others. Most patients with MM undergo several cycles of remissions and relapse, and therefore need multiple lines of combination therapies. Selecting treatment options for relapsed/refractory MM requires consideration of resistance status to specific classes, and patient-specific factors such as age and other comorbidities should be considered. The NCCN Guidelines for MM provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding workup, treatment, and follow-up of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM. This manuscript outlines the recommendations from NCCN Guidelines for MM specific to relapsed/refractory disease.

Background: GLUT4 inhibition via the use of a protease inhibitor, such as nelfinavir (NEL), is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM), given the dependence of MM cells on glucose. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor, such as metformin (MET), may counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition in MM cells, showing synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al., Clin Can Res 2015). In addition to GLUT4 inhibition, NEL also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (BOR) (Driessen et al., Blood 2018). Thus, this study evaluated the safety and tolerability of repurposing MET and NEL, in combination with BOR for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) that had progressed on all standard of care (SOC) therapies. Methods: This trial utilized a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned for up to a maximum of six (21-day) cycles. MET was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 500 mg BID with plans to be investigated at a maximum dose of 1000 mg BID. NEL was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 1250 mg BID with plans to be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg BID. SubQ BOR was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose of 1.3 mg/m 2 to a portion of patients. Patients with RRMM were required to have had 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators (IMiDs), and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. The primary objective was to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of this combination. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety as well as the overall response rate (ORR) of this combination. This trial was funded by the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Results: From 4/2019 until 9/2022, nine patients were accrued with a median age of 65 (range: 42-81) that received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy (Range: 6-13). All but one patient had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Only one patient was not triple-class refractory, and 2/3 rd (n = 6) also had prior anti-BCMA therapy. The first three patients received only MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level for up to one cycle before experiencing progressive disease and coming off the study. Given the limited activity of MET and NEL in the initial treatment of these three patients, two subsequent amendments to the protocol allowed for the upfront addition of BOR 1.3 mg/m2 to the original combination, as well as shortened the DLT evaluation period from two cycles to just one. Thus, the following six patients received MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level in addition to weekly BOR at 1.3 mg/m2. Four (44%) patients experienced grade 3+ hematological AEs and six (67%) experienced grade 3+ non-hematological AEs. The most common hematologic grade 3+ AE observed was anemia (44%). The nonhematologic grade 3+ AEs observed were dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting (11% each). None of the AEs were possibly related to treatment, suggesting good overall safety of the combination. While eight of nine patients have since died of progressive disease, no deaths were attributable to the treatment. All six patients who received BOR upfront with MET and NEL were previously refractory to BOR in prior lines of therapy; however, none had received BOR as their last line of therapy prior to accrual to this study. Four of these six patients had progressive disease after one cycle of therapy and went off study. However, the remaining two were able to receive 2 or more cycles of therapy, with one experiencing an unconfirmed minor response (MR) in the first cycle and the other experiencing stable disease (SD) for all six cycles. The patient who experienced SD was safely able to transition to a subsequent clinical trial utilizing an anti-BCMA bispecific antibody therapy and remains alive at the time of this analysis. The study was closed before accrual to the next dose level was started. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this repurposed drug combination in this very difficult-to-treat population of RRMM. While no ORR was observed, identification of biomarkers used for selection of patients with no other SOC options who could experience at least SD responses may be beneficial in allowing this combination to slow or stabilize the disease progression until other novel therapies or clinical trials are available.

Introduction ABBV-383 is a fully human, silenced Fc region IgG4 monoclonal, BCMA × CD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody with 2 BCMA-binding domains and a low-affinity CD3-binding domain. ABBV-383 has shown promising activity following intravenous (IV) infusion every three weeks (Q3W) as monotherapy in patients (pts) with RRMM in an ongoing phase 1 study (D'Souza A, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Nov 1;40(31):3576-3586; Voorhees et al. Blood 2022;140[suppl 1]:4401). Herein, preliminary pharmacokinetic (PK) and immunogenicity results from Q3W regimens of this study and impact of soluble BCMA (sBCMA) on ABBV-383 PK are reported. Methods In the phase 1 study (NCT03933735), adult pts with RRMM, who were previously exposed to ≥3 prior multiple myeloma agents including ≥1 proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, received Q3W IV infusion at doses 0.025 - 120 mg in escalation (ESC) phase, and at 20 mg, 40 mg, and 60 mg in expansion (EXP) phase. Serial blood samples for PK characterization were collected in cycles 1, 3, and 6 along with sparse/periodic samples throughout the study. Blood samples were also collected throughout the study to detect anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) for immunogenicity characterization and to determine sBCMA concentrations. Appropriate validated assays were used to determine ‘total’ (unbound and bound to sBCMA) and ‘free’ (unbound and partially bound to sBCMA) ABBV-383 serum concentrations, to detect/determine ADAs/titers, and to determine total sBCMA concentrations. ‘Total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 serum concentrations from cycles 1, 3, and 6 were used to calculate individual PK parameters (peak concentration [C max], trough concentration [C trough], area under the concentration-time curve [AUC], terminal phase elimination half-life [t 1/2], clearance [CL], and steady state volume of distribution [V ss]) using non-compartmental analysis in Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.2. Immunogenicity was summarized using ADA/titer data. Impact of baseline/pre-dose sBCMA concentrations on ‘total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 PK parameters from cycles 1, 3, and 6 was explored. Results ‘Total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 intensive PK data (cycles 1, 3, and 6) were available from 169 and 157 pts, respectively, representing Q3W regimens in ESC and EXP cohorts and ADA data were available from 186 evaluable subjects. Preliminary PK results suggest that ‘total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 exhibited approximately dose-proportional PK between 5.4-120 mg Q3W. Estimated t 1/2 for ‘total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 ranged between 11-12 days and 8-11 days, respectively, with steady state achieved by cycle 4 in Q3W EXP cohorts. Estimated CL and V ss were consistent with those of a typical IgG4 antibody in humans. Across EXP Q3W regimens, accumulation (cycle 3 vs. cycle 1) was 30%-60% in C max and 60%-177% in C trough for ‘free’ and ‘total’ ABBV-383. ABBV-383 exposures (AUC tau and C trough) of ‘total’ ABBV-383 were 28-74% higher than those representing ‘free’ ABBV-383 among the EXP Q3W regimens with no/minimal observed differences in C max (≤21%). Higher sBCMA levels prior to treatment appeared to reduce ‘free’ ABBV-383 PK exposures with pronounced reduction at lower doses (e.g., 20 mg) and in cycle 1, however the effect diminished in later cycles (cycles 3 and 5). Preliminary assessment of immunogenicity indicated an ADA incidence of 3.8% (7/186) with low titers ranging between 11.7 and 187 titer units and no impact on PK. Conclusions ABBV-383 exhibited a PK profile with relatively long half-life and low incidence of immunogenicity. Overall, sBCMA impacted (reduced) the ‘free’ ABBV-383 (pharmacologically active component) PK exposures only, with pronounced effect at lower doses and the effect is consistent with understanding of treatment dependent sBCMA dynamics over time. Determination of both ‘total’ and ‘free’ ABBV-383 serum concentrations allowed to demonstrate such underlying impact of sBCMA on PK.

Background: Skeletal related events (SREs) including pathologic fractures, surgery or radiation to bone, and spinal cord compression contribute to diminished quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone modifying agents (BMA) such as denosumab or the bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate, are used to inhibit osteoclast activity to prevent SREs. The Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group suggests monthly administration of zoledronic acid for 12 months in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. This is followed by an option to discontinue or decrease administration frequency to every 3, 6, or 12 months if a very good partial response or better is achieved. The ideal start time of BMA from diagnosis and the duration of administration has not been adequately established to optimize reduction of SREs. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center study that included newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated at the Mayo Clinic between 9/1/2018 and 9/1/2020 who had received at least one dose of a BMA. The primary objective was to evaluate the impact of BMA dosing frequency and duration on SREs. Secondary objectives included time to BMA initiation, time to relapse or progressions following BMA start, and safety. Data was summarized using frequencies and percentages for categorical data, and medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous data. A spline plot and cut-point analysis were used to assess the association of time from multiple myeloma diagnosis to BMA initiation with skeletal related outcomes. Rates of SREs were estimated using the Aalen-Johansen method, where death was treated as a competing risk. Associations of factors with SREs were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regressions, and these associations were summarized using hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Variables that could change throughout follow-up including BMA frequency, cumulative BMA dose, and duration of BMA were treated as time-dependent covariates in the Cox proportional hazards models, where the information for these variables was updated each time an additional dose of BMA was given. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC) and R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results: Sixty-seven patients were included with a median age of 65 years old. The most frequently used BMA was zoledronic acid (88.1%), followed by pamidronate (7.5%), and denosumab (4.5%). Fifty-five patients (82.1%) had bone disease at baseline. Within 2 years of starting BMA, SREs occurred in 42.2% of patients with baseline bone disease and 8.3% of patients without (p=0.054). Median time to BMA initiation after diagnosis was 45 days (IQR 14-105) in patients with baseline bone disease and 87 (IQR 32-496) in patients without. Among the 26 patients with a SRE, median time from start of BMA to SRE was 170 days (IQR 32-496). No significant association was found between time to initiation and development of a SRE (Figure 1). BMA dosing frequencies of every 3 months and 6 months had a HR for SREs of 1.67 and 0.47, respectively compared to every 1 month, (P-values &gt;0.25). After excluding patients without baseline bone disease, compared to every 1 month dosing, dosing every 3 months and every 6 months increased the risk of SRE, although the differences were not statistically significant (3 months: HR=1.92, 95% CI 0.76-4.88, p=0.17; and 6 months: HR=1.26, 95% CI 0.14-10.94, p=0.84). Patients without bone disease at baseline remained on BMAs for a median of 1.8 years while patients with bone disease received BMAs for a median of 2 years. There was no statistically significant difference found with varying duration or cumulative dose and SRE development (Table 1). Relapse or progression occurred in 32.1% of patients within 2 years of starting BMA, while death occurred in 7.5% of patients. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 1 patient with bone disease at baseline who received zoledronic acid every 3 months for a duration of 596 days. Conclusions: No significant association between time of BMA initiation, dosing frequency, or duration on development of SREs were observed. This suggests delaying the start time of BMAs to allow for dental clearance and initial treatment would not increase risk of SREs. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.