Warsame, Rahma

Introduction: Light chain multiple myeloma (LCMM) is a distinct subtype of multiple myeloma (MM) characterized by the exclusive production of immunoglobulin light chains, unlike the common form of MM that produces the complete immunoglobulin. There is a paucity of literature on the specific tumor cell alterations leading to light chain-only disease as opposed to the typical presentation in MM. Additionally, data on treatment response and outcomes in this subgroup of patients is sparse. This study explores the differences in baseline characteristics, including cytogenetic abnormalities and treatment response between LCMM and multiple myeloma with heavy chain involvement. Materials and Methods: We reviewed patient charts to obtain clinical and laboratory information for individuals diagnosed with LCMM and those with heavy chain MM (comparison cohort) from 2004 to 2022. Patients were matched for age, sex, and year of diagnosis. Data collected included treatment assessment, overall survival, and progression-free survival (PFS). Associations between outcomes and categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test, while the Mann-Whitney U test was employed to compare medians. Progression-free survival following initiation of initial therapy and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study. Results: We identified 848 patients, representing 17.1% of newly diagnosed MM cases. The median age of the LCMM cohort was 63 years (range 16-92), with a female-to-male ratio of 1:5. The LCMM cohort had higher levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), beta-2 microglobulin (p<0.0001), higher baseline creatinine (p<0.0001) and calcium (p<0.0001). The two cohorts had no significant difference in the International Staging System (ISS) or revised ISS (R2-ISS). Additionally, hemoglobin (Hb) and white blood cell count at presentation were higher in the LCMM cohort. Chromosome 1 abnormalities were lower in the LCMM cohort: 1q gain (OR-0.7; 95% CI: 0.6-0.9) and 1p deletion (OR-0.7; 95% CI: 0.6-0.9, p=0.02). Likewise, the frequencies of trisomies and hyperdiploidy were lower in the LCMM cohort, with odds ratios of 0.32 (p=0.012) and 0.37 (p<0.001), respectively. The frequencies of translocations t(4;14) (OR-0.35, p<0.001) and t(14;16) (OR-0.6, p=0.03) were lower in LCMM compared to heavy chain MM. In contrast, the frequencies of t(11;14) (OR-3.4) and t(6;14) (OR-4.9) and deletion of 13q(OR-1.3) was higher in the LCMM cohort. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of del(17p)/TP53 abnormalities. The median PFS after the first regimen was shorter in the LCMM cohort (23 months vs. 27 months, p=0.03), and this difference remained significant after adjusting for baseline adverse prognostic indices and treatment regimen. Median PFS in LCMM patients with monoclonal antibody (Mab) as part of their treatment was 37 months vs. 23 months (Proteasome Inhibitor or immunomodulator-based regimen without Mab), though this difference is not statistically significant p=0.87. No significant difference was found in overall survival between the two groups. Conclusion: This study highlights unique features of light chain multiple myeloma, including increased frequencies of specific cytogenetic abnormalities. Further evaluation of observed differences in cytogenetic abnormalities may enhance our understanding of LCMM and potentially guide baseline treatment choices to improve outcome.

Background: Despite effective front-line therapies, DLBCL & MM have high relapse rates. Novel therapies like CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) offer deep & durable remission compared to salvage therapies, but have a unique toxicity profile (TP) that requires monitoring. With no head-to-head trials, the rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing preferences, & access barriers. Methods: Two anonymous surveys (MM and DLBCL) of US-based Hematologists were conducted from 2/2024 to 6/2024, on practice settings, CAR-T & BsAb availability, treatment preferences & barriers. Responses were analyzed to assess preferences across clinical scenarios. Results: Surveys were completed by 37 MM & 45 DLBCL providers. Most were at centers offering both CAR-T & BsAb. Most gave CAR-T inpatient, & BsAb outpatient. CAR-T was given by 73% MM providers & 66% DLBCL (92% used Cilta-cel, 96% used Ide-cel; 100% used Axi-cel, 90% used Liso-cel & 73% Tisa-cel). In MM, 78% used Teclistamab, 60% Talquetamab & 24% Elranatamab. In DLBCL, 62% used Epcoritamab & 40% Glofitamab. Providers preferred CAR-T over BsAb in MM after 4+ prior lines of therapy (LOT) (89%), & in DLBCL after 2+ prior LOT (93%). CAR-T was favored more among academic providers & those at CAR-T centers. Practice volume did not impact selection. Among providers at centers with BsAb-only, CAR-T was preferred by 60% (MM) and 50% (DLBCL). Providers at centers without both favored CAR-T (MM: 75%, DLBCL: 86%). CAR-T was chosen for better outcomes, short treatment, center choice, & prior experience. Other factors that influenced decisions were lower incidence of cytopenia/infection & “BsAb effective post-CAR-T, less so vice versa” (MM), & “curative potential of CAR-T” (DLBCL). Logistical barriers & institutional constraints influenced BsAb selection: CAR-T unavailability, access to specialized centers, referral complexity, insurance delay, manufacturing delay & hospitalization needs. In MM, 78% providers preferred Cilta-cel over Ide-cel, especially academic providers & those with CAR-T experience. CAR-T volume did not impact selection. Cilta-cel was preferred due to perceived better response rate (RR), more experience, “progression-free survival (PFS) benefit”, center choice, & logistical issues with Ide-cel. Ide-cel was selected due to center choice, favorable TP & insurance preference. Teclistamab was preferred by 78% due to more experience, better RR, TP & center choice, Elranatamab by 11% (better TP, RR, & “PFS”), & Talquetamab by 11% due to having a non-BCMA target. Academic providers preferred Teclistamab (89% vs 50%), & nonacademic providers preferred Talquetamab (38% vs 4%) and Elranatamab (13% vs 8%). In DLBCL after 2+ LOT, 69% favored Axi-cel due to prior experience, RR, center choice, & logistical issues with other products. Liso-cel & Tisa-cel were chosen by 27% & 2%, respectively, due to favorable TP. Axi-cel was also preferred 2nd line by 73% for similar reasons, while 24% favored Liso-cel for its favorable TP. Epcoritamab was preferred by 56% (subcutaneous injection, more experience & center choice) & Glofitamab by 42% (shorter treatment duration, easy administration, more experience, & center choice). Practice setting & volume did not impact selection between products in DLBCL. InBCMA-naïve MM pts, majority (97%) chose an anti-BCMA agent over GPRC5D due to better RR, TP, prior experience, & center choice. InBCMA-exposed pts, most (92%) favored an anti-GPRC5D agent. In contrast in DLBCL, 80% chose CD19 CAR-T after prior CD19-directed therapy, & 18% chose CD20 BsAb. Therefore, antigen escape was less of a concern in DLBCL vs MM. For relapse after 2nd line CAR-T in DLBCL, 78% preferred BsAb over other salvage options due to better RR, TP, & more experience. Providers prioritized RR, survival, & TP in decision making. Treatment logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less crucial. MM providers also prioritized quality of life, which was less so in DLBCL. There were no differences in priority based on practice setting & experience with CAR-T. Conclusion: The study highlights factors influencing therapy choices in MM & DLBCL. Despite CAR-T's potential for better outcomes, significant access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expanding availability are crucial to improve outcomes. Understanding these preferences & barriers can guide future management strategies.

Abstract Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) in the clinical trial setting. However, most PRO tools are time consuming, which hinders use in routine practice. Our institution incorporated a “Hematology Patient-Reported Symptom Screen” (HPRSS), a 3-item questionnaire for fatigue, pain, and quality of life (QOL). The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of these symptoms on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a real-world cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM. This retrospective study included patients with MM diagnosed between April 2011 and December 2017, seen at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN), who completed the HPRSS. Patients rated their symptoms on a scale from 0 to 10. Clinically relevant symptoms were defined as scores ≥5 for pain and fatigue, and ≤5 for QOL. At diagnosis, 735 patients had scores for all domains. The median follow-up was 8.1 years. Age was associated with increased odds of fatigue and decreased QOL. Female sex and comorbidities were associated with fatigue and pain. Higher disease stage, anemia, lytic lesions, and increased plasma cell burden were associated with fatigue, pain, and decreased QOL. Clinically relevant fatigue, pain, and decreased QOL were associated with decreased PFS and OS. On multivariate analysis including age, International Staging System III, high-risk cytogenetics, and postinduction transplantation, fatigue and decreased QOL were independently associated with decreased OS. A composite HPRSS score stratified patients into 3 groups with distinct OS. Patient-reported symptoms are prognostic in patients with newly diagnosed MM. The prognostic values of fatigue and decreased QOL are independent of age, disease stage, and transplant status.

Summary In 2014, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updated the criteria for diagnosing myeloma and added three additional criteria to the traditional Calcium elevation, Renal impairment, Anemia, Bone disease (CRAB) criteria, called the Sixty % marrow plama cells, Light chain ratio >60, Mri demonstates lytic lesions (SLiM) criteria (clonal bone marrow plasma cells ≥60%, involved to uninvolved free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥100 and >1 focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)). We report on the outcomes of 30 patients who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) where therapy was initiated solely based on SLiM criteria and compared them to a matched cohort of 60 patients whose myeloma‐defining event was CRAB. The SLiM cohort had a shorter median time to neutrophil (15 vs. 16 days, p = 0.049) and platelet (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.0004) engraftment. The 36‐month overall survival (OS) was 100% in the SLiM group and 93.27% in the control group (95% CI 83.06%–97.42%), with a trend towards longer OS in the SLiM cohort ( p = 0.065). The 36‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) was 91.61% in the SLiM (95% CI 69.93%–97.87%) and 65.95% in the control group (95% CI 52.31%–76.53%). There was no difference in the PFS between the cohorts ( p = 0.414). ASCT is efficacious and safe in MM patients transplanted only due to SLIM criteria. Early intervention in this asymptomatic cohort did not appear to result in deeper responses or better PFS compared to outcomes in symptomatic patients.

Abstract In 2003, the Institute of Medicine noted the need to improve workforce diversity. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) responded by developing the Minority Recruitment Initiative (MRI) to recruit diverse physicians/scientists into hematology. We evaluated the outcomes of the program. From 2004 to 2022, there were 405 awardees. Compared with national estimates, MRI awardees were less likely to discontinue their degree programs. MRI graduate student awardees had 0% attrition (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 10.6), whereas the national minority graduate student attrition was 36%. Medical student awardees had 2.2% (95% CI, 0.61-5.6) attrition, compared with the minority medical school attrition of 5.6%. Awardees were more likely than expected to pursue hematology-oncology (5.7% minority national estimate) because 14.4% (95% CI, 8.1-23.0) of medical student awardees and 88.5% (95% CI, 70.0-97.6) of early career awardees remain in the field. ASH has developed a successful program, but continued efforts are needed to advance equity in hematology.

Abstract As patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) continue to live longer, they might get exposed to most available drugs and drug classes during the disease course. For such late line RRMM or among patients without access to novel therapies, retreatment with a drug that the disease had previously been refractory to might be one option. In this retrospective study, we describe 315 patients with RRMM at our institution who were retreated with a drug that the disease had been previously refractory to. We found an overall response rate of 56.2% and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 11 months with retreatment. Patients with a longer time on initial therapy with the index drug (>28.4 months) had a superior PFS with retreatment (median PFS, 16.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .001). Similarly, patients with a longer time gap between the initial line of therapy with index drug and retreatment with index drug (>46.1 months) had better PFS with retreatment (28.2 vs 8.9 months; P = .016). In conclusion, retreatment with a previously refractory drug is a viable therapeutic option for RRMM, with the most significant benefit derived in disease demonstrating sensitivity to initial drug exposure and among those with a longer gap between initial drug exposure and retreatment.

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document detailing core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials, including physical function (PF). This study aimed to develop analytic methods and visualizations of patient-reported PF in patients with cancer. Methods We applied an estimand framework to a patient-reported tolerability endpoint to develop data summaries cross-sectionally and over time, along with visualizations. We accomplished this through iterative feedback with clinicians, statisticians, and FDA stakeholders using three clinical trial datasets in hematologic malignancies. Graphical approaches were applied to three datasets in hematologic malignancies: (1) patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms enrolled in MPN-RC 111/112 trials completed EORTC QLQ-C30 over 12 months; (2) patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR-T cell therapy or autologous transplant who completed FACT questionnaires over 6 months; and (3) patients with multiple myeloma or amyloidosis who completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire over 6 months. Zoom polls were administered to two stakeholder groups (clinicians/clinical investigators and patient advocates) to elicit feedback. Results Visualizations included stacked bar charts, line plots of arithmetic mean changes from baseline, pie charts, waffle plots, and waterfall plots of PF data. Graphics considered scaled scores and individual items and included delineation of PRO completion rate at each time point. Confidence intervals and reference lines were included as applicable, and colorblind accessible colors were implemented to ensure inclusivity of all visualizations. Data summaries over time reporting “worst” change were difficult to interpret. In terms of stakeholders’ preference, patients preferred stacked bar charts while clinicians equally favored stacked bar charts and line plots; both patients and clinicians preferred waterfall plots to pie charts. Patient feedback highlighted the need for various graphics to convey group level trends and granular individual-patient level information. Conclusion Patient-reported PF informs the evaluation of treatment tolerability in cancer trials. Data summaries and visualizations of physical function developed through an iterative process were reviewed favorably by patients, clinicians and FDA stakeholders in this study. Future work to systematically assess accuracy of interpretation of the various analytic and visualization methods is a necessary next step across clinical, regulatory, payer and patient stakeholders. Trial registration NCT01259817, NCT01259856

7558 Background: Survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) continues to improve with the newer therapies, but there is no clear evidence of a cure and patients continue to relapse. However, most patients have the most extended period without progression with their first-line therapy, and subsequent therapies often provide a shorter duration of response due to the use of drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and, more importantly, a shorter first remission, pointing toward more aggressive disease biology. With newer immunotherapies being used at 1st relapse, this may change. We designed this study to explore the natural history of MM after the 1st relapse and define the predictors of outcome after the initial relapse. Methods: We identified all patients in the Mayo Clinic database diagnosed between Jan 2004-June 2019 who had had initial disease progression. The study cohort included 2005 patients. We explored the overall survival (OS) from the time of documented disease progression or the start of second-line treatment in patients who had not met IMWG criteria before second-line therapy. Front-line therapy was grouped into those with either an IMiD or PI, both IMiD and PI, daratumumab with IMiD and PI, and none of these agents. The IMiD and PI were always used with dexamethasone with or without an alkylator. Results: The median age was 63 (range 24-95) years and 60% were male. The median estimated follow-up from diagnosis for all patients was 86 mos. (95% CI; 82, 88) and the median time to progression from the start of therapy was 25 mos. (95% CI; 24, 26). The median OS from the first progression was 45 mos. (95% CI; 42, 50), 36 mos. for those diagnosed before 2009, and 52-53 mos. for those diagnosed later. On univariate analysis, age <70 at 1st relapse, RISS I, novel agents in initial therapy, CR in the first line, diagnosis after 2009, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse (Table). On multivariate analysis, age <70, RISS I, initial remission >18 mos, and initiation of therapy before IMWG progression were all associated with improved OS after 1st relapse. Conclusions: The study provides an estimate of the outcomes and significant predictors of outcomes after 1st relapse in patients with MM. These factors should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials in this patient population. In particular, these factors identify a high-risk group of patients not always identified by baseline characteristics and should be the focus of future trials. [Table: see text]

7520 Background: There are 2 CAR-T products and 3 bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) that are FDA-approved for patients (pts) with relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Clinical trials experience to date suggests that clinical response of BsAb is less impacted after CAR-T therapy. We examined the outcome of pts who received BsAb in standard-of-care (SOC) practice at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Methods: Retrospective analysis of MM patients who received FDA-approved BsAb at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 12/2022- 1/2024. IMWG criteria was used for clinical response. Results: Sixty-two patients received BsAbs: 77% (48/62) received teclistamab, and 23% (14/62) received talquetamab. Median age was 62 years (range: 33-81), 60% (37/62) were males, and 45% (28/62) received prior CAR-T. Patients who had prior CAR-T therapy had more prior lines of therapy compared to those who did not. Overall, ORR to teclistamab was 61%, which is comparable to previous studies and other real-world reports. ORR and ≥CR rates were comparable between patients with and without prior CAR-T (Table). Of the 28 pts who received CAR-T before BsAbs, 61% (17/28) received idecabtagene vicleucel, 10% (3/28) were ciltacabtagene autoleucel, and 29% (8/28) on clinical trial. We then compared outcome of BsAb between pts who had relapsed from CAR-T within 1 year (n=21, median PFS: 8.84 months (range, 1.12, 10.84)) or after 1 year (n=7, median PFS: 16.62 months (range, 13.30, 36.20)). At the time of BsAb infusion, pts with who relapsed < 1 year vs ≥1 year post CAR-T had comparable blood counts, ALC, M-protein and involved FLC levels, CRP, ferritin and LDH. BsAb CR/sCR rate was significantly higher in pts with disease relapse ≥1 year compared to <1 year post CAR-T (57% vs 14%, p=0.02). Conclusions: Irrespective of prior CAR-T exposure, BsAb have clinical activity in SOC practice in pts with MM. Our preliminary data suggest that responses to BsAbs are better in pts with late compared to early relapse post CAR-T. Longer follow-up is needed to understand the duration of response. Larger, multi-center studies with longer follow-up will help identify factors that impact BsAb response post CAR-T.[Table: see text]