Leung, Nelson

Abstract Background: MASS-FIX is a screening method for serum and urine monoclonal proteins in multiple myeloma and related plasma cell disorders, which uses immunoglobulin enrichment coupled with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass-spectrometry (MALDI-TOF). In addition to superior sensitivity over conventional gel-based techniques, MASS-FIX can distinguish therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) from patient's M protein. As the utilization of therapeutic MoAbs increases, it is essential to understand the persistence pattern of these therapeutic antibodies in the serum. We designed this study to evaluate the duration of daratumumab detection by MASS-FIX in the serum of treated patients. Methods: We used a prospectively maintained database at Mayo clinic to identify patients with multiple myeloma and related plasma cell disorders who were treated with a daratumumab-containing regimen anytime during their disease course and had serial MASS-FIX data available after discontinuation of daratumumab. A univariate analysis was performed to assess for factors that may impact the clearance of daratumumab. Results: We included 125 patients with plasma cell disorders who received daratumumab as first or subsequent line of treatment between March 15 th, 2016, and March 4 th, 2020. The median age was 60.2 years and 57% were male. The most common diagnoses were multiple myeloma (70%) and light chain amyloidosis (18%). Daratumumab-based treatments were initiated after a median of 28.8 (IQR: 6.4-76.3) months from initial diagnosis. The most common regimen used was daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone (23%); 26% underwent transplant after daratumumab-based induction. The median duration of treatment with a daratumumab-based regimen was 208 (IQR: 99-479) days. The median follow-up from the time of daratumumab discontinuation was 457 (95% CI: 346-NR) days. By last follow up, daratumumab was not detected by MASS-FIX in 93 (74%) patients but remained detectable in 32 (26%) patients. The median time from daratumumab discontinuation to disappearance of daratumumab by MASS-FIX was 160 (IQR: 107-233) days. On univariate analysis, the presence of ≥0.5 grams of urine protein was associated with earlier disappearance of daratumumab on MASS-FIX [risk ratio (RR): 2.0, P=0.02). The median time from daratumumab discontinuation to disappearance of daratumumab on MASS-FIX was 116 (95%CI: 76-160) days in patients with urine protein ≥0.5 grams and 203 (95%CI: 162-216) days in patients with urine protein <0.5 grams (P=0.02). There was no association between the time to disappearance of daratumumab by MASS-FIX and old age ≥70 (RR: 0.9, P=0.81], male gender (RR: 0.9, P=0.60), eGFR <60 (RR: 1.0, P=0.98), daratumumab schedule (every 1/2 weeks vs >2weeks) (RR: 1.0, P=0.97), treatment duration (<200 days vs ≥200 days) ( RR: 1.0, P=0.95), or transplantation status (RR: 1.0, P=0.98). Conclusion: The therapeutic monoclonal antibody daratumumab remains detectable in the serum of treated patients by MASS-FIX for several months after discontinuation and the duration varies between individual patients. This data has implications for diagnostic and monitoring testing and may provide guidance for reuse of daratumumab in clinical trials and practice. Proteinuria is associated with earlier disappearance of daratumumab by MASS-FIX and may have implications in patients with amyloidosis and monoclonal immunoglobulin deposition disease (MIDD). Further studies are needed to identify additional factors associated with the timing of disappearance. Disclosures Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: 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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION POEMS syndrome is a paraneoplastic disorder that results in multi-organ disease, and Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is associated with disease activity. There is evidence that the cytokine Interleukin- 6 (IL-6) stimulates VEGF production in several cancer cell lines. It has also been suggested that patients with POEMS syndrome experience symptoms improvement when IL-6 levels are low. Our study aims to understand the role of IL-6 and whether it is a contributor to disease activity in POEMS syndrome. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of patients (pts) seen at Mayo Clinic within 1 year of diagnosis for POEMS syndrome with an IL-6 level within 3 months of diagnosis between 01/01/2011-05/31/2021 were included. Our database comprised 358 pts,7 were excluded because did not have official diagnosis of POEMS syndrome. Two hundred and ninety-nine pts did not have IL-6 testing within 90 days of diagnosis and were excluded. Clinical data was abstracted from our electronic medical record. Descriptive statistics were used for IL-6 levels. The majority of IL-6 laboratory testing for pts utilized the same reference range. A minority of pts had alternate reference ranges; thus, all IL-6 values and reference ranges were fold-corrected to have a unified reference to determine elevation in IL-6. High IL-6 was considered any value above the normal range, also analyzed pts in quartiles and deciles. Hematologic, VEGF and PET response criteria were utilized to group pts into responders or non-responders. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Differences between curves were by log rank. Statistical analysis was conducted via JMP software package (SAS, Cary, NC, USA). Univariate analysis was done to determine the prognostic value of IL-6. Statistical significance is considered with p-values <0.05. RESULTS 52 patients from among 352 met criteria and were included for analysis. Twenty-one patients (40%) had elevated IL-6 levels (IQR 5.67, 22.6) at the time of diagnosis. The fold elevation about normal was typically not very high, with a median of 3.1-fold elevation (IQR 1.3, 4.4; and range 1.0, 8.3). The percentage of males in the high IL-6 versus the normal Il-6 group were 90% versus 65%, p=0.03. Compared to normal IL-6, those with elevated IL-6 values had more instances of hepatomegaly (43% vs 16%, p=0.03), ascites (28% vs 6%, p=0 .04), abnormal DLCO (26% vs 3%, p=0.03), mixed bone lesions (57% vs 29%, p= 0.04), and lower serum albumin (range 2.3-3.5 vs 2.5-4.5 g/dL, p=0.0008).There was a trend for lower VEGF values among the high IL-6 group, but this did not meet statistical significance (median 250 vs 438 pg/mL). There was no significant difference in the time to progression between pts with high versus normal IL-6 levels (HR 1.36; p=0.456). Overall survival was significantly longer in pts with normal IL-6 compared to pts with high IL-6 levels (Median OS 67.4 vs 47.8 months, p=0.02). Forty-two pts were evaluated for VEGF response after treatment; there was a significant improvement in time to progression (85.5 vs 14.9 months, p=0.03) in pts who were VEGF responders. Among pts evaluable for a hematologic response (n=15), time to progression in pts with baseline high IL6 was longer in hematologic responders compared to non-responders (p=0.02). Conclusion Although OS was longer for pts with normal IL-6, elevated IL-6 at the time of diagnosis does not prevent pts from achieving disease remission. The study demonstrates that response to treatment rather than interleukin-6 levels in pts with POEMS syndrome is more prognostic. This study is an important initial step into understanding the utility of IL-6 in POEMS syndrome. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: 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. Dingli: GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Lin: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) prognostication models routinely used in clinical practice were developed for use at diagnosis. However, retrospective studies have shown that in SMM patients the risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM) decreases over time. Therefore, this study assessed whether the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 scores could be used dynamically to risk stratify patients post-diagnosis, and whether they could identify SMM patients with evolving disease. Methods: We retrospectively studied 704 SMM patients diagnosed between January 2000 to January 2020. Patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 and involved FLC ≥10 mg/dL or baseline bone marrow plasma cells ≥60% were excluded. We collected serial laboratory data and available pathology data and re-applied the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 SMM risk stratification models at annual landmark timepoints up to 5 years post SMM diagnosis. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time to progression (TTP) was defined as time from diagnosis or landmark timepoint to treatment initiation for MM or systemic AL amyloidosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At SMM diagnosis, 271 (38%) patients were low risk, 228 (32%) were intermediate risk, and 205 (29%) were high risk per the Mayo 2018 score. Applying the IMWG 2020 score at diagnosis, 90 (34%) of patients were low risk, 111 (42%) were low-intermediate risk, 54 (21%) were intermediate risk, and 9 (3%) were high risk. The Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 risk scores was re-assessed annually post-diagnosis in patients without progression (respective sample sizes: n=430 and n=197 at year 1 landmark, n=326 and n=143 at year 2 landmark, n=260 and n=106 at year 3 landmark, n=203 and n=73 patients at year 4 landmark). The Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 models reliably stratified patients based on progression risk post diagnosis (as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively). As shown in Figure 1, if only diagnostic values were used in risk categorization with the Mayo 2018 model, the TTP between risk categories became less distinct over time. However, when follow-up laboratory values were used to re-stratify patients, the TTP between risk categories was more consistent over time. The respective 2-year progression risk in Mayo 2018 high-risk versus IMWG 2020 intermediate-high risk patients was 51% versus 62% at the 1-year landmark, 60% versus 65% at the 2-year landmark, 47% versus 62% at the 3-year landmark, and 47% versus 45% at the 4-year landmark. To assess the prognostic significance of an increase in SMM risk category, we stratified patients based on whether the SMM risk category at follow-up had increased versus was stable or decreased compared to the baseline SMM risk stratification. We found that patients evolving to a risk category during follow up consistently had an increased risk of progression compared to patients with a stable/decreased risk categorization using both the Mayo 2018 (HR 3.34, 95% CI 2.04-5.48, p<0.001 at 2-year landmark; HR 3.41, 95% CI 2.05-5.68, p<0.001 at 3-year landmark; HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.34-5.38, p=0.005 at 4-year landmark) and IMWG 2020 (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.42-3.77, p<0.001 at 1-year landmark; HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.69-5.70, p<0.001 at 2-year landmark; HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.30-4.78, p=0.004 at 3-year landmark; HR 2.26, 95% CI 0.91-5.60, p=0.072 at 4-year landmark) risk models. However, patients categorized as Mayo 2018 high-risk at follow-up had a similar risk of progression regardless of whether the baseline risk categorization was low-intermediate versus high-risk (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51-1.48, p=0.606 at 2-year landmark; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59-1.73, p=0.972 at 3-year landmark; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.34-1.65, p=0.467 at 4-year landmark). Conclusions: Our findings support the use of the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 scores post-diagnosis. We showed that patients migrating to a higher risk category have an increased risk of progression. This suggests that if patients evolve to a high-risk score during follow-up, they should be considered for an early intervention treatment approach. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: 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.

Abstract Background: Achievement of a complete response (CR) to therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) early in disease course correlates with improvement in clinical outcomes, reflective of therapeutically sensitive disease biology. While depth of response is known to impact overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the effect of known prognostic variables at baseline including FISH risk and International Staging System (ISS) score outside of clinical trial settings is not well described. We sought to determine the impact of known prognostic variables in MM including FISH and ISS risk in the context of NDMM patients achieving a CR to therapy and to also examine additional predictors of outcome among this cohort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 1869 NDMM patients who had ≥ 2 consecutive monoclonal protein immunofixation (IFE) studies in the serum and urine available within 24 months from diagnosis. We identified the number of patients who had ≥ 2 negative serum and urine IFE as a surrogate for achieving CR (N=461), since a bone marrow biopsy is not routinely performed to confirm CR in the non-trial setting. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to compare median PFS and OS between patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR and a multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for known prognostic variables. A cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of baseline FISH (high risk vs. standard risk) and ISS scores (3 vs.1 and 2) on PFS and OS, among patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR, and identify additional prognostically significant variables within the CR cohort. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort (n=1869) was 64 months (range: 1-199). The median time from diagnosis to achievement of CR among the CR cohort was 9.8 months (0.20-23.8 months). The median PFS for CR (n=461) vs. non-CR (n=1408) patients was 42.0 vs. 29.3 months (p<.0001) and median OS was 124.4 vs. 85.6 months (p<.0001), respectively (Figure 1). The impact of achieving a CR on outcomes was retained after adjusting for FISH, ISS, age, sex, autologous stem cell transplant, and involved heavy chain as follows: PFS HR 0.57 (0.43-0.76; p=0.0001); OS HR 0.56 (0.43-0.74; p<0.0001). The baseline FISH and ISS risk on PFS and OS comparing CR vs. non-CR patients are shown in Table 1, with both variables having statistically insignificant impact on PFS and OS among the CR cohort. We examined several variables present at baseline and at the time of CR to determine their impact on PFS and OS, including age, sex, and non-IgG involved heavy chain (baseline), and thrombocytopenia (<150,000), hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL), and immunoparesis (at time of CR). The following variables were found as inferior predictors on PFS within the CR cohort with hazard ratios as follows: male gender, HR 1.36 (1.05-1.75; p=0.02) and non-IgG involved heavy chain, HR 2.2 (1.55-3.2).The following variables were found as predictors for inferior outcomes on OS within the CR cohort with hazard ratios as follows: Age> 75 years, HR 2.7 (1.54-4.8; p=.0005); male gender, HR 1.5 (1.1-2.02; p=.008); serum albumin <3.5, HR 1.54 (1.1-2.08; p=.004); and non-IgG involved heavy chain, HR 1.75 (1.23-2.47; p=.002). On multivariate analysis, age, hypoalbuminemia, and non-IgG involved heavy chain retained prognostic significance for OS. Conclusion: Attainment of an early CR in NDMM confers improvement in PFS and OS. Our study confirms these findings and suggests that achievement of CR neutralizes the impact of baseline FISH and ISS risk on PFS and OS. Among the CR cohort, age> 75 years, male sex, non-IgG involved heavy chain, and hypoalbuminemia at the time of CR predict for inferior overall survival. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Multiple Myeloma (MM) remains incurable with current approaches and eventually relapses in nearly all patients. At relapse, patients may present with increasing serum and/or urine monoclonal (M) protein or with clinical features suggestive of progression. The outcomes of different progression patterns need to be better understood to provide insight about the optimal time to intervene with salvage therapy. This study aimed to describe the prevalence and outcome of biochemical (BP) versus clinical progression (CP) in a real-world setting. Methods We retrospectively assessed 1347 relapsed MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic between February 2001 and December 2018. CP was defined as per IMWG criteria (increase ≥50% in size or new plasmacytomas/bone lesions, hypercalcemia ≥11.5 mg/dl, decrease in hemoglobin ≥2 g/dl or to ≤10 g/dl, rise in serum creatinine ≥2g/dl, hyperviscosity), while BP was defined as increase in serum or urine M protein leading to initiation of a new line of therapy without meeting criteria for CP. Aggressive relapse was defined as new extramedullary disease (EMD), plasma cell leukemia or hyperviscosity requiring plasmapheresis. The overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from 1 st relapse to last follow-up or death. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was defined as the time between initiation of 2 nd and 3 rd line therapy. Results Prevalence of different patterns of relapse is presented in Table 1. The majority of progressions were BP (60.4%); among the CP (39.6%), the most common presentation was a new bone lesion. Similar proportions of BP and CP patients were diagnosed before 2013 (70% and 73%; p=0.2). The median time from diagnosis to 1 st relapse was 22.8 months (range, 0.4-154.7) and was shorter in the CP group in comparison to BP (20.8 [range, 1.0-152.1] vs 23.7 [range, 0.4-154.7] months, p=0.001). With the exception of ISS stage, patients in the CP group had higher risk features at MM diagnosis including: high-risk (HR) FISH ([4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], deletion 17p or p53 mutation; 29% vs 20%, p=0.01); elevated LDH (23% vs 17%, p=0.03); and EMD (19% vs 10%, p<0.001). CP patients more often had non-secretory disease at baseline (6% vs 2%, p<0.001). At 1 st line, patients with eventual CP were less likely to have received novel agents (78% vs 85%, p<0.001), upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT, 43% vs 51%, p=0.004), and lenalidomide-based maintenance (11% vs 16%, p=0.01). While patients in the CP group were less likely to have achieved very good partial remission (VGPR) or better to the 1 st line therapy (53% vs 60%, p=0.01), the percentage of patients who achieved CR was similar between the groups (22% vs 24%, p=0.4). Relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance was more prevalent in the CP (46% vs 40%, p=0.04). On multivariable logistic regression model male sex, plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) ≥2% and EMD at diagnosis were associated with higher risk of CP, whereas achieving VGPR or better after 1 st line treatment was associated with decreased risk of CP. Patients with CP had shorter median TTNT from 2 nd line therapy compared to BP (9.6 vs 17.0 months, p<0.001) as well as shorter median OS from 1 st relapse (26.2 vs 59.4 months, p<0.001; Figure 1). Amongst patients with CP, those presenting with typical "aggressive" versus "CRAB" features at relapse had a significantly shorter median TTNT (6.0 vs 11.0 months, p<0.001) and OS (17.2 vs 28.1 months, p<0.001). Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, CP (vs BP) was a predictor of shorter TTNT from 2 nd line therapy (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.20-1.62, p<0.001), along with ISS stage III, HR FISH at diagnosis and relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance, whereas the use of upfront ASCT was a predictor of longer TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. CP was also a predictor of shorter OS from 1 st relapse (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-1.81, p<0.001) along with age >65 years, male sex, ISS stage III, HR FISH at diagnosis, EMD at diagnosis and relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance. Conclusions Patients with clinical features at relapse have a worse prognosis after 1 st relapse than patients who relapsed solely biochemically. Approximately half of CP presented while on active treatment, which suggests that even patients monitored closely may develop CRAB features at relapse. Factors that help predict the occurrence of CP include male sex, PCLI ≥2% and EMD at diagnosis. Patients with deeper response to 1 st line treatment are less likely to develop CP. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease, and its prognosis is largely influenced by clinicopathological features, response to therapy, and relapse characteristics. Despite novel agents and the attempts to individualize treatment strategies based on baseline risk stratification, significant variations in progression-free survivals (PFS) and overall survivals (OS) are observed between patients. We examined the outcomes of MM patients stratified according to timing of first relapse into early (<2 years) and late (>5 years). Methods We retrospectively assessed 1441 MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2018. Patients were 18 years or older and had at least one disease relapse that required an additional line of treatment. The study cohort was divided into three groups based on time of first relapse: early relapse (<2 years from diagnosis), relapse between 2 to 5 years from diagnosis, and late relapse (>5 years from diagnosis). The independent predictors of early/late relapse were identified using a forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression. Odds ratios in multivariate models were adjusted for age and sex. Results Early relapse has been recognized in 758 patients (52.6%), relapse between 2-5 years in 561 patients (38.9%), late relapse in 122 patients (8.5%). Six patients had a PFS >10 years. In comparison to patients with late relapse, patients with early relapse were older (median 63 vs 61 years, p=0.04), more frequently ISS stage III (40% vs 20%, p<0.001) had higher bone marrow plasma cell infiltration (median 60% vs 40%, p<0.001), and were more likely to have high-risk (HR) FISH (defined as translocation t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], deletion 17p or p53 mutation; 28% vs 11%, p<0.001). At diagnosis, early relapse group more often presented with anemia (35% vs 21%, p=0.004), hypercalcemia (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), renal insufficiency (19% vs 5%, p<0.001) and higher serum beta-2-microglobulin (median 4.4 vs 3.4 mg/l, p<0.001). In terms of first line treatment, novel agents use was higher in early relapse group in comparison to late relapse group (82% vs 72%, p=0.007). Early relapse patients more often received PI-based therapy (30% vs 10%, p<0.001) or PI+IMID-based therapy (22% vs 12%, p=0.01), whereas late relapse patients received more often IMID-based therapy (63% vs 37%, p<0.001). No differences in the maintenance therapy were observed. Early relapse patients were less frequently treated with upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT, 35% vs 60%, p<0.001). Progression on active treatment/maintenance was observed more often in the early relapse group (55% vs 18%, p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression model early relapse (vs all remaining patients) was predicted by HR cytogenetic features (odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-5.46, p<0.001), non-IgG isotype disease (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, p=0.02), a non-ASCT pathway (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.71-4.52, p<0.01), and by achieving less than a very good partial remission (VGPR; OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.96-5.35, p<0.01). The only factor associated with decreased chances of late relapse (vs all remaining patients) on multivariate logistic regression model was the presence of HR FISH features (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.82, p=0.03). Median PFS from first relapse for the whole population was 13.9 months (95% CI 12.9-15.1), median OS from first relapse - 44.6 months (95% CI 41.7-183.0). Early relapse group exhibited worse median PFS and OS from first relapse (median PFS 9.1 months; median OS 26.6 months) than patients who relapsed 2-5 years after diagnosis (median PFS 18.5 months; OS 71.9 months), or late relapse group (median PFS 31.6 months; median OS 87.8 months; p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusions Early relapse (<2 years) is an indicator for shorter duration of response to subsequent treatments, and worse OS. Treatment with upfront ASCT and achieving VGPR or better after first line therapy lower the risk of early relapse. The only parameter that is predictive for both early and late relapse is HR FISH features. Although factors that predict worse survival in MM are well defined, further studies are needed to identify predictors of a more indolent disease course so that future therapeutic approaches can be tailored to each individual. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies remains an unmet need. Belantamab mafodotin is a first in class antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in MM utilizing a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting monomethyl auristatin F. The efficacy of belantamab in relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) patients has been reported in several randomized clinical trials. However, clinical trials have restricted patients' eligibilty. We report the "real world" efficacy and safety of belanatmab in patients treated at all three Mayo Clinic sites. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive MM patients that received at least one dose of belantamab outside a clinical trial. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR) and safety. Results: Thirty-seven RRMM patients were treated with belantamab between September 2020 and June 2021. The median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 37-83) and 64% were male. The median age at belantamab administration was 67 (IQR 59-74) and 14 patients (38%) were 70 years or older. Fifteen of 34 patients (44%) had high-risk FISH and 13 patients of 33 (39%) had ISS 3. Two patients had a creatinine of >2.5 mg/dL, and one patient was on dialysis. All three received full dose belantmab (2.5 mg/kg). The median time from diagnosis to belantamab initiation was 7 years (IQR 4-11), and the median prior lines of therapy was 8 (IQR 7-11). Twenty-seven patients (73%) underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation prior to belantamab therapy, and all patients were penta refractory (IMiD, PI, and anti CD38). Seven patients (19%) received CAR-T therapy prior to belantamab. The median number of belantamab doses administered was 3 (range 1-6). Thirty-one (84%) received belantamab monotherapy and 6 patients (16%) received belantamab in combination [pomalidomide (n=3), cyclophosphamide (n=2), or thalidomide (n=1)]. The overall response (ORR) rate to belantamab was 33% (out of 36 evaluable patients). Two patients (6%) achieved complete response (CR), 3 patients (8%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR), and 7 patients (19%) achieved partial response (PR). At data cutoff 20 patients (54%) are alive. Seventeen patients died of MM complications. The median follow-up was 6 months (IQR 3.5-7). The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort was 2 months (95% CI 1-3) and 7 months (95% CI 3--NR), respectively. Two patients died within the first cycle of belantamab (due to PD), and overall, 12 died within 100 days of belantamab therapy, all due to disease progression. Eleven patients (30%) were hospitalized during belantamab therapy. The reasons for hospitalization were related to MM in 4 patients (one patient with malignant ascites, one with hypercalcemia, 2 patients for pain management). Three patients were hospitalized due to thrombocytopenia (related to disease), and one due to an infusion-related reaction (IRR). Other reasons for hospitalization were infection (soft tissue abscess, n=1), proctitis (n=1) and tumor lysis (n=1). Keratopathy developed in 16 patients (43%). Keratopathy was grade 1 in 6 patients, grade 2 in 7 patients, and grade 3 in 3 patients. Only one patient had corneal erosions and 6 patients reported decreased visual acuity, (1 grade 3 keratopathy, 4 had grade 2 keratopathy, and 1 had grade 1 keratopathy). Two patients had IRR. Two patients reported gaining 3.5 kg each after therapy with belantamab was discontinued. Conclusions: The response rates are similar to those reported in randomized clinical trials. The role of belantamab in the era of other BCMA directed therapy (CAR-T, BiTEs) remains unclear. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract Background Recommendations for 2 nd line treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients have been changing over the past two decades, given the introduction of novel agents, different side-effect profiles, and attempts at more individualized treatment approaches. We designed this study to characterize how 2 nd line treatment strategies have evolved over the last two decades for MM patients. Methods Patients with MM with at least one relapse treated with a 2 nd line regimen, seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003-2021, were included. To visualize trends in treatment choices we divided the study period into 2-year intervals and for descriptive purpose the period was divided into three 6-year intervals. We used "100% stacked area" charts to show how the constituent parts of the whole have changed over time. The height of each colored stack represents the proportion of patients in that category at a given point in time. Results A total of 1439 patients were included. Patients were diagnosed between 2001 and 2018, the initiation of 2 nd line treatment occurred between June 2003 and February 2021. Median age at diagnosis was 62.7 years (interquartile range, 55.8-69.3), 60.0% were male. International Staging System stage I was present in 23.5% of patients, stage II in 32.9% and stage III in 28.8%. In the 1 st line therapy novel agents were used in 82.8% of cases, regimens based on proteasome inhibitors (PI) in 26.5%, immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) in 42.0% and combination of PI+IMID in 21.1%. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was performed in 50.1% of patients, and maintenance after 1 st line was used in 25.2%. For 2 nd line treatment, during 2003-2008 the majority were treated with doublets (70.5%), followed by triplets (14.8%) and salvage ASCT (7.7%) (Figure 1A). Patients were treated with IMID or PI-based therapy (50.7% and 21.8%, respectively); only 3.7% received PI+IMID and 20.1% of patients received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. The most frequently used regimens were lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, 32.2%) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, 18.1%, Figure 1B). Between 2009-2014, the use of triplets in 2 nd line increased (43.0%), although doublets were still more common (50.9%). Like previous years, IMID-based therapy was most frequently used (37.3%), however, the use of PI-based therapy increased (36.0%). PI+IMID-based therapy was implemented in 17.9% of patient, and 27.3% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens included: RD (29.4%), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (CYBORD, 17.4%), bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, 13.4%) and VD (13.3%). Finally, during 2015-2021, triplets were most common (68.9%), followed by doublets (23.0%). IMID- and PI+IMID-based therapies were most often implemented (34.2% and 31.1%, respectively), followed by PI-based therapy (26.8%). 28.1% of patients received monoclonal antibodies; only 15.9% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens include RD (13.8%), carfilzomib-RD (11.6%), daratumumab-RD (9.8%), CYBORD (9.3%), VRD (8.8%), daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (5.9%) and daratumumab-VD (5.2%). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) from 2 nd line therapy has improved over the course of the three time periods (p<0.01; Figure 1C): years 2003-2008, 10.4 months; years 2009-2014, 13.2 months; and years 2014-2021, 16.6 months. Similarly, the median overall survival from 1 st relapse has increased over the three intervals: 30.9 months, 48.4 months, and 65.8 months, respectively. Conclusions Over the past two decades, the effectiveness of 2 nd line treatment has improved, reflected by improved TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. With the introduction of new agents in 2012-2015 (carfilzomib, pomalidomide and daratumumab) and favorable results for triplets demonstrated in randomized trials, the triplet therapies started to be used more frequently. Over time, the landscape of 2 nd line therapies has become more diverse, which may reflect a more individualized approach to each patient. Moreover, the large variety of treatment strategies makes comparisons more and more challenging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: 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; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

Abstract Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that are refractory to a proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiDs) and CD38/SLAMF7 directed monoclonal antibodies are commonly referred to as triple class refractory (TCR). This is an increasingly common clinical problem and here we present the outcomes, prognostic markers and response to therapy for patients with TCR disease. Methods: Consecutive patients with MM diagnosed between 01/01/2013 and 12/31/2018 and seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN were included in this study after institutional review board approval. Refractoriness to therapy was defined as progression or non-responsiveness (failure to achieve at least a minimal response) to therapy within 60 days of discontinuation of therapy, based on the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus definition. Patients meeting the definition for refractory disease for at least 1 PI (bortezomib, carfilzomib or ixazomib), 1 IMiD (lenalidomide, pomalidomide or thalidomide) and 1 monoclonal antibody (daratumumab, isatuximab or elotuzumab) were considered to have TCR disease and included in the study population. The first date when patients satisfied the above-mentioned criteria for TCR was used to calculate the follow-up, progression free survival (PFS) and OS for TCR disease. The mSMART 3.0 (www.msmart.org) classification was used to characterize high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics features in interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The currently prevalent international myeloma working group (IMWG) criteria were used for response assessment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for estimation of time-to-event endpoints. Reverse censoring was used for estimation of follow-up time. Cox regression was used for multivariate analyses. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of continuous variables and Chi square test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables, respectively Results: In this retrospective study, 249 consecutive patients with TCR status were identified. The median follow-up from diagnosis of MM till date of last follow-up was 6.8 years (95% CI: 6.3-7.3 years) and 1.9 years (95% CI: 1.6-2.4) from TCR MM to last follow-up. The median age at diagnosis of MM was 61 years (range 31-89) and at TCR was 65 years (range 32-93). The median number of lines of therapy for the entire cohort were 8 (range 1-17); the patients were exposed to a median of 5 (range 1-12) lines of therapy prior to TCR status. Baseline characteristics for the cohort are depicted in Table 1. The median time to development of triple refractory disease was 2.9 years (95% CI: 2.6-3.2 years) from diagnosis of MM. The time to TCR disease was shorter for high-risk cytogenetics at 2.3 years (95% CI: 2-2.7) compared to 3.4 years (95% CI: 3.1-4.1) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.4) p<0.0001], Figure 1A. The median overall survival (OS) from TCR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) years. High-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis of MM were associated with an inferior OS from TCR disease even after adjustment for age, and ISS stage [median 1.05 years (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) for high-risk vs 1.3 years (95% CI: 0.9-2.9) for standard-risk cytogenetics; hazard ratio 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01-2.05); p=0.04]. Of 249 patients, 227 had data available for therapy post TCR (initial therapy details post TCR status are depicted in Table 2) with a median PFS of 4 months (95% CI: 3.5-5) for the salvage therapy post attainment of TCR. Patients achieving a deeper response [≥partial response (PR)] were noted to have a significantly improved PFS with the initial therapy post TCR disease [median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-12.7)] compared to patients not achieving a PR [median PFS 2 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.7); HR 0.2 (95% CI: 0.13-0.27); p<0.0001], Figure 1B. Deeper response (≥PR) to initial therapy at TCR disease was associated with an improved PFS [HR 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16-0.34); p <0.0001] after adjusting for age at TCR status, ISS stage and cytogenetic risk categories at diagnosis. Conclusion: Patients with triple refractory MM have a guarded prognosis and demonstrate an underwhelming median PFS of 4 months and median OS of 1 year. Achievement of a deeper response to therapy at triple refractory status is associated with a prolonged PFS. High-risk cytogenetic features at diagnosis confer a negative prognosis in TCR patients. Newer therapies are the needed to sustain the improvement in outcomes for this group of patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.