D’Souza, Anita

8057 Background: Following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto HCT), maintenance therapies improve survival, reduce relapse risk in multiple myeloma (MM), and are the de facto standard-of-care. However, clinical trials have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM) with maintenance therapy, including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We examined data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to evaluate the impact of SPM on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and the utilization of allogeneic HCT in patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with MM who underwent first auto HCT in the United States with a melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011-2018 and subsequently received maintenance therapy were included (N=3948). The primary endpoint of interest was the impact of SPM and SHM on OS. Multivariate analytic (MVA) modelling was applied, accounting for competing risks while integrating significant covariates to determine the impact of SPM on PFS and OS. Finally, we studied the utilization and survival following allogeneic HCT for SHM. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Maintenance regimens used were lenalidomide (2836, 72%), bortezomib (370,9 %) or lenalidomide + bortezomib (372, 9%) based combinations. At a median follow up of 37 months, 175 (5%) pts developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid 36 (21%) myeloid, and 27 (15%) lymphoid cancers. In MVA, the development of SPM and SHM was associated with an inferior PFS (HR 2.62, P<0.001 and HR 5.01, P<0.001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P<0.001 and 8.13, P<0.001, respectively). The two commonest causes of death were MM (42%) and SPM (30%) for those developing SPM. Similarly, MM (53%) and SHM (18%) were the two commonest causes of death for those developing SHM. Nine (14%,5 t-MDS and 4 t-AML) of 63 patients with SHM underwent an allogeneic HCT. Patients undergoing allogeneic HCT were more likely to have Karnofsky score ≥90 (100% vs. 50%, P=0.02) compared to those who did not. One year survival from allo SCT was 66.7% (CI 34.6-92%). Conclusions: The three-year cumulative incidence of SPM was 3.3 (2.6-4)% in this large contemporaneous CIBMTR cohort. Disease relapse remains the primary cause of death in MM patients who develop SPM or SHM. Given the median OS for MM is now > 10 years, longer follow-up is needed to assess the SPM and SHM risks with maintenance therapy post-auto HCT.

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score &lt;90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Prognosis is poor for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; median overall survival: &lt;1 year), indicating a clear need to identify agents with novel mechanisms of action. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) has recently emerged as a novel treatment target for MM due to its highly selective expression in plasma cells. TNB-383B, a BCMA x CD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, was designed to overcome the toxicity limitations of existing BCMA therapies and has demonstrated promising results in an ongoing first-in-human phase 1 study in pts with RRMM (Rodriguez C, et al. Blood 2020;136[suppl 1]:43-44). Herein, we report the updated efficacy and safety outcomes of this phase 1 study. Methods This multicenter, phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation/expansion study (NCT03933735) enrolled pts with RRMM (≥3 prior lines of therapy that included a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min as calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula, and ECOG performance status ≤2. Prior BCMA-targeted therapy is prohibited. Primary objectives include safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); secondary objectives include assessment of clinical activity (per IMWG criteria 2016). TNB-383B is administered intravenously over 1-2 hours every 3 weeks (Q3W) with the first dose administered inpatient. The study uses a 3+3 design with backfilling for dose and permits intrapatient dose escalation to highest safe dose. Dose expansion was initiated on selection of RP2D. Pts are treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria are met. The efficacy-evaluable population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of TNB-383B and have at least 1 postdose assessment. The safety population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of study drug; adverse events (AEs) are graded according to NCI CTCAE v5.0. Results As of 10 May 2021, 103 pts (dose escalation, n=73; dose expansion, n=30) have been treated with TNB-383B (0.025-120 mg). The RP2D of 60 mg Q3W was selected on the basis of tolerability, safety, PK, and clinical activity. Pt demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in dose escalation (platelet count decreased: grade [Gr] 4, 60 mg; cytokine release syndrome [CRS]: Gr 3, 90 mg and 120 mg); none were reported as serious. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 79 (77%) pts, with Gr ≥3 and serious AEs occurring in 33 (32%) and 23 (22%) pts, respectively. The most common TRAEs (Table 2) include CRS (n=54, 52%), neutropenia (n=18, 17%), and fatigue (n=14, 14%). At the RP2D (n=39), the Gr ≥3 CRS rate was 3% (n=1). Onset of CRS typically occurred on the same or next day following the first dose and all pts recovered using tocilizumab or standard supportive care measures. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) of infusion-related reactions were reported in 8 (8%) pts and infections occurred in 29 (28%) pts; pneumonia (n=5, 5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (n=4, 4%) were the most common. Five deaths from TEAEs were reported; all were unrelated to study drug. Forty-two (40%) pts discontinued treatment due to disease progression. In the dose-escalation cohorts of ≥40 mg Q3W (n=24), the objective response rate (ORR) was 79% (19/24), with a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate of 63% (15/24), and a complete response (CR) rate of 29% (7/24) at the data cutoff date; these pts have the longest follow-up (ie, mature data) with median time on study of 6.1 months (Figure 1). At doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation and -expansion cohorts (n=44), the observed ORR, ≥VGPR, and CR rates were 64% (28/44), 43% (19/44), and 16% (7/44), respectively; these pts have shorter follow-up (ie, immature data) with median time on study of 3.1 months. Twenty-nine (66%) of the 44 pts administered ≥40 mg were triple-class refractory and reported an ORR of 55% (16/29). Conclusions TNB-383B in pts with RRMM is well tolerated with an ORR of 79% observed at doses ≥40 mg in the dose-escalation cohorts. Despite having a shorter follow-up period, this trend was also observed at doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation/expansion cohorts (ORR: 64%). Enrollment into the dose-expansion arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. D'Souza: Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy. Shah: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Rodriguez: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Voorhees: AbbVie Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Consulting Agreement: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Committee; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring. Bueno: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Buelow: Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Freise: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Yue: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pothacamury: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Polepally: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria.

BackgroundConsolidative autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) is commonly used for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We studied AHCT use and outcomes in patients with MM ≥75 years old.MethodsPatients with MM ≥75 years old receiving AHCT between 2013 and 2017 in the United States were identified using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. Relapse and/or progression (REL), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were modeled using Cox proportional hazards models. Covariates used were age, sex, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), HCT‐comorbidity index (HCT‐CI), International Staging System and/or Durie‐Salmon stage, high‐risk cytogenetics, melphalan dose, and disease status at and 1 year after transplant. AHCT utilization rate using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to estimate specific incidence among ≥75 years old by race and gender.ResultsOf 360 patients, 63% were male, 84% were White, 56% had KPS <90, and 57% had HCT‐CI ≥3. The 100‐day transplant‐related mortality was 1% (0%‐2%) with a 2‐year REL rate of 27% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22%‐33%), PFS of 66% (95% CI, 60%‐72%), and OS of 83% (95% CI, 78%‐87%). On multivariate analysis, only high‐risk cytogenetics was associated with REL risk and decreased PFS. In White males, transplant utilization rate was 5.2%‐5.8% compared to 3.5%‐4.0% in African American males (P = .02). There was 3.37‐3.79% transplant utilization in White females compared to 1.88‐2.12% in African American females (P < .01).ConclusionsThe use of AHCT was associated with excellent 2‐year outcomes in this selected MM population ≥75 years old. Transplant utilization for patients ≥75 years old remains low with significant racial and gender disparities.

8022 Background: Maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) after first autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT1) is considered standard of care. Data regarding maintenance therapy after a salvage AHCT (AHCT2) in the setting of relapsed MM are scarce. Therefore, we used data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to examine the use of maintenance therapy after AHCT2 in MM patients and its effect on post-transplant patient outcomes. Methods: We included US adult MM patients who underwent AHCT2 after melphalan conditioning regimen from 2010-2018, and excluded patients who underwent tandem transplants. Outcomes of interest included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). Cox proportional hazards models were developed to study the main effect (maintenance use) with other covariates of interest including age, sex, race, performance status, HCT-comorbidity index, MM subtype, stage, creatinine, cytogenetic, conditioning melphalan dose, disease status at transplant, and time from AHCT1 to AHCT2. Results: Of 522 patients, 342 received maintenance therapy and 180 did not after AHCT2. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Median follow up was 58 months in the maintenance group and 61.5 months in the no-maintenance group. Common maintenance regimens included immunomodulatory drugs (IMID)-lenalidomide (N = 145, 42%) or pomalidomide (N = 46, 13%) and proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (N = 45, 13%). Univariate analysis showed superior outcomes at 5 years in maintenance compared to the no-maintenance group: NRM 2 (0.7-3.9)% vs 9.9 (5.9-14.9)%, p < 0.001, REL 70.2 (64.4-75.8)% vs 80.3 (73.6-86.3)%, p 0.003, PFS 27.8% (22.4-33.5) vs. 9.8% (5.5-15.2), p < 0.001, and OS 54% (47.5-60.5) vs 30.9% (23.2-39.2) p < 0.001, respectively. IMID-containing maintenance regimens were associated with an improved 5-year PFS and OS compared to other maintenance regimens. Use of maintenance therapy retained its association with improved outcomes in multivariate analysis, including NRM: hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 (0.08-0.44), p 0.0001, REL: HR 0.58 (0.47-0.72), p < 0.0001, PFS HR 0.52 (0.43-0.64), p < 0.0001, and OS HR 0.46 (0.36-0.60), p < 0.0001. We conducted additional analyses to investigate a possible selection bias in the maintenance group including landmark analysis at 100-days and 6-months post-AHCT2 as well as a subgroup analysis of patients who received melphalan 200mg/m2 as conditioning for AHCT2 (as a surrogate for fitness)- all these analyses also showed improved outcomes in the maintenance group. Second cancers were reported in 17 (5%) patients in the maintenance group and 6 (3%) patients and no-maintenance group (p 0.39). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy after AHCT2 is associated with superior outcomes in MM patients.

Abstract Background Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell neoplasm associated with high early mortality and severe morbidity that can cause severe disability. We explored the impact of AL amyloidosis on symptoms and well-being from the perspectives of patients and health care providers who regularly care for AL patients. We intended to develop a conceptual understanding of patient-reported outcomes in AL amyloidosis to identify the context of use and concept of interest for a clinical outcome assessments tool in this disease.Method Twenty patients and 10 professionals were interviewed. Patient interviews captured the spectrum of amyloidosis experience including time from diagnosis, type of organ involvement, and presence and type of treatment received. Interviews with professionals included physicians, advanced practice providers, registered nurse, and a patient advocate; these interviews covered similar topics. Results The impact of AL amyloidosis on patients’ life was multidimensional, with highly subjective perceptions of normality and meaning. Four major themes from patients and experts included diagnosis of AL amyloidosis, living with AL amyloidosis, symptom burden, and social roles. Barriers to patient-reported outcomes data collection in patients were additionally explored from experts. The themes provide a comprehensive understanding of the important experiences of symptom burden and its impact on daily life from AL amyloidosis patients’ and from the perspectives of professionals who care for patients with AL amyloidosis. Conclusion These findings further the conceptual understanding and identification of a preliminary model of concept of interest for development of a clinical outcome assessments tool for AL amyloidosis.

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease in which deposits of insoluble amyloid derived from immunoglobulin light chains accumulate and cause dysfunction of organs including the heart and kidneys. In order to reverse organ damage and improve overall survival, treatment must provide rapid, deep, and sustained hematologic responses. Although therapies approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma have demonstrated some efficacy, there are currently no health authority-approved treatments for AL amyloidosis. A retrospective observational study was undertaken to characterize patients and describe treatment patterns in patients with AL amyloidosis from real-world data in the US. Methods: Data were extracted from Optum Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (claims) databases. Eligible patients had (1) a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis (ICD-10 code E85.81) on or after January 1, 2008 or (2) a diagnosis of amyloidosis (ICD-9 codes 277.30, 277.39; ICD-10 codes E85.89, E85.9) on or after January 1, 2008 and at least one line of therapy (LOT) comprising one or more of the following treatments: bendamustine bortezomib, carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, daratumumab, dexamethasone, doxorubicin, elotuzumab, etoposide, interferon alfa-2a, interferon alfa-2b, ixazomib, lenalidomide, melphalan, panobinostat, pomalidomide, prednisone/prednisolone, thalidomide, vincristine, or autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were required to have continuous medical enrollment during the 365 days prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date (claims data) or have first active date at least 365 days prior to index amyloidosis date (EHR data), must not have had prior cancer in the 365-day period prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date, and must have been age ≥18 years at time of amyloidosis diagnosis. Patients treated with dexamethasone only or dexamethasone and prednisolone only for ≤90 days and those treated with prednisone/prednisolone only irrespective of duration were excluded. LOTs were defined by a start date, an end date, and a distinct regimen made up of ≥1 drugs. Patients may have multiple sequential LOTs during the available follow-up period. Comorbidities were scored according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). A score of 0 reflects no comorbidities; higher scores reflect increased mortality risk and the maximum score is 24. Descriptive statistics are provided for patient characteristics at index diagnosis date for patients who had ≥1 LOT, distribution of regimens in each LOT, treatment attrition, and duration of treatment in each line of therapy and by regimen. Results: Data from 1688 patients (Optum claims, n=624; Optum EHR, n=1064) were included in the analysis (Figure). Median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 55.7% of patients were male. Almost 70% of patients had an index diagnosis date between 2013 and 2019. The median CCI score at index diagnosis date (based on comorbidities in the 365-day pre-index diagnosis period) was 1 and 10.9% of patients had a stem cell transplant on or after the index diagnosis date. The three most common comorbidities were hypertension (50.8%), renal failure (26.2%), and congestive heart failure (24.6%). Median follow-up period was 28 months. Treatment information for regimens used by ≥5% of patients for LOT1 is summarized in the Table. The most common treatment regimen for LOT1 was a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an alkylating agent, and a steroid (n=392, 23.2%); this combination was used for an average of 111 days. Of patients treated with this combination, the most common regimen was bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd), used by 358 patients. Steroid only (dexamethasone for ≥90 days) regimens accounted for 16.4% and a PI ± steroid for 13.2% of LOT1. A limitation of the study is that assumptions were used to classify AL amyloidosis vs other types of amyloidosis. Conclusions: VCd is the most commonly used regimen in patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This is consistent with clinical guidelines and real world data from Europe (Palladini et al, EHA 2020), supporting this regimen as the current standard of care for treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Intellia, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Regeneron, Alnylam, Caelum, Oncopeptides: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Research Funding. Hoffman:Loxo: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Liedtke:Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. D'Souza:Amgen, Merck, TenoBio: Research Funding; Akcea, Imbrium, Janssen, Pfizer: Consultancy. Lee:Janssen: Current Employment. Nair:Janssen: Current Employment. Potluri:SmartAnalyst Inc.: Current Employment. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam:Janssen: Current Employment. Mehra:Janssen: Current Employment.

Introduction: VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) are the two most commonly used triplet induction regimens in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). VCD is commonly used in patients with renal dysfunction at diagnosis. Given the variable results seen in head to head comparison of these (or similar) regimens to date, no definitive conclusion can be made on whether they are equivalent. This large CIBMTR registry study compares the outcomes with VRD vs. VCD induction therapy in patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Patients were included if they underwent upfront ASCT for MM from January 2013 to December 2018 within 6 months of diagnosis, received VRD or VCD induction therapy and achieved at least a partial response pre-transplant. Of 1,135 patients, 914 patients received VRD and 221 received VCD therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were created for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The following covariates were adjusted in the models: induction regimen (main effect), age, sex, race, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at diagnosis, immunoglobulin subtype, cytogenetics, ISS stage, response status at transplant, melphalan dose, and maintenance therapy. Results: As shown in Table 1, patients in the VRD and VCD cohorts had similar age at transplant, adjusted HCT-CI scores, and distribution of high-risk cytogenetics. Patients in the VCD group were more likely to have renal impairment and ISS stage III disease. An eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) at diagnosis &lt; 60 was seen in 26% of VRD patients vs. 48% of VCD patients. ISS stage III was seen in 17% vs. 34% of patients, respectively. Treatment and Response: Pre-transplant response in the VRD cohort was: complete response (CR)- 17%, very good partial response (VGPR)- 48% and partial response (PR)- 35%. Response in the VCD cohort was: CR- 17%, VGPR- 42% and PR- 41%. Conditioning dose was melphalan 200 mg/m2 in 80% of patients receiving VRD vs. 69% in the VCD group. Post-transplant response was at least VGPR in 74% vs. 75% of patients, respectively. Maintenance in the VRD group was: lenalidomide based (+/- bortezomib)- 80%, bortezomib based- 5%, other-3% and none- 12% of patients. In the VCD group, maintenance was: lenalidomide based- 63%, bortezomib based- 11%, other- 1% and none- 24%. Survival: Patients receiving VRD induction had superior outcomes compared to VCD induction with median PFS from transplant of 44.6 (38.0-55.8) months vs 34.1 (25.8-44.7) months, p 0.004 respectively. Median OS was not reached for either group, with 5-year OS 79 (74-83)% for VRD and 60 (50-69)% for VCD, p &lt;0.001. Univariate PFS and OS outcomes by induction regimen and eGFR at diagnosis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Multivariate analysis is shown in Table 3. After adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no statistically significant difference between the two induction regimens, with hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the VCD vs VRD group being 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96-1.55, p=0.10). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Similarly, on multivariate analysis for OS, there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups, with HR for OS in VCD vs VRD group being 1.33 (95% CI: 0.93-1.92, p=0.12). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: In patients with MM undergoing upfront transplant after VRD or VCD induction, no difference in outcomes was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. As several MM patients with renal dysfunction are started on VCD, it is reassuring to see that VCD was not associated with inferior PFS, likely due to the eventual transition to maintenance therapy in the majority due to subsequent improvement of renal function. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Giralt:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Actinuum: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OMEROS: Research Funding; SPECTRUM Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensenn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. D'Souza:Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Background: BCMA targeted immunotherapy has yielded promising results for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). TNB-383B is a BCMA x CD3 bispecific T-cell redirecting antibody incorporating a unique anti-CD3 moiety that preferentially activates effector over regulatory T-cells and uncouples cytokine release from anti-tumor activity, as well as 2 heavy-chain-only anti-BCMA moieties for a 2:1 tumor associated antigen to CD3 stoichiometry. Results from the ongoing phase 1 dose escalation and expansion First-in-Human (FIH) study of TNB-383B are presented (NCT03933735). Methods: Eligible patients have RRMM and have been exposed to at least 3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Patients have been treated with escalating doses of TNB-383B infused IV over 1-2 hours Q3W (without step-up dosing). The primary objectives are to determine the safety/tolerability and clinical pharmacology of TNB-383B and to identify the MTD/RP2D. The study used a 3+3 design for dose escalation, with additional patients enrolled on cleared dose levels. Patients on earlier dose cohorts were allowed to increase to the highest cleared dose with investigator consensus. Responses were assessed by IMWG criteria and Adverse Events (AEs) were graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment was performed via NGS on bone marrow samples in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Results: As of 13 July 2020, 38 subjects have been dosed with TNB-383B (0.025 - 40 mg). Demographics and disease characteristics at study entry are summarized in Table 1. The most common Gr 3/4 AEs were anemia (6/38; 16%) and thrombocytopenia (5/38; 13%). The most common drug-related AEs were CRS (8/38; 21%) and headache (5/38; 13%). One case of Gr 2 CRS was observed at 0.075 mg; all other CRS events were seen at 5.4 mg and above. Cases of CRS were grade 1 (5/8) or 2 (3/8) and occurred only after the first dose of TNB-383B. All but 3 subjects were managed with fluids and acetaminophen (the other 3 received 1 dose each of tocilizumab). One DLT, Gr3 confusion that resolved within 6 hours without sequelae was seen at the 20 mg dose in an additional patient enrolled on this cohort. No IRRs were observed. Dose modification was necessary in 1 subject for Gr 3 neutropenia associated with CRS; the subject escalated to their full dose after tolerating subsequent doses without incident. 5 subjects died from their underlying disease during follow-up. 15 subjects discontinued treatment, all of them for progressive disease. Preliminary PK data support Q3W dosing of TNB-383B. Activity was observed in one patient each at 0.2 mg and 1.8 mg; at doses of 5.4 - 40 mg an ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed. Depth and duration of response are summarized in Table 2. Conclusions: TNB-383B is well tolerated at doses up to 40 mg, without the need for step/split dosing. A preliminary ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed at doses ≥ 5.4 mg, including deep (6 PR / 3 VGPR / 3 CR) and durable (up to 24 weeks) responses despite dosing only every 3 weeks. Enrollment into the dose escalation arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Rodriguez: BMS, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. D'Souza:Amgen: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Voorhees:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptides: Other: Personal fees; TeneoBio: Other: Personal fees; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health: Current Employment. Buelow:Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Kumar:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.