Suzuki, Kenshi

PURPOSE In immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, amyloid fibrils cause organ dysfunction. Anselamimab, a monoclonal antibody, selectively binds to amyloid fibrils, accelerating their clearance. METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo 2004 stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomly assigned to receive anselamimab or placebo with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab). The primary end point was a hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVHs), analyzed using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win ratio estimation. RESULTS Among 406 randomly assigned patients, the primary end point win ratio for anselamimab versus placebo was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.83, 1.50; P = .332) and the hazard ratio (HR) for ACM was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57, 1.13; P = .290). CVH rates in the anselamimab and placebo groups were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.83) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55, 1.43), respectively ( P = .145). Among patients with kappa isotype (n = 72), the win ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 0.98, 4.31; P = .100) and anselamimab reduced ACM by 62% versus placebo (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.86; nominal P = .012), and CVH by 71% (IRR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87; nominal P = .028) with improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Score. There was no clinical benefit observed in the lambda population. Anselamimab was generally well-tolerated; safety data were comparable between treatment arms overall. CONCLUSION Treatment with anselamimab, an antifibril antibody used alongside antiplasma cell dyscrasia therapy, while not meeting the primary end point in the overall population, significantly improved ACM and CVH in patients with kappa AL, potentially offering a new therapeutic option for this isotype.

7501 Background: AL amyloidosis is a plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) characterized by κ or λ Ig light chain amyloid fibrils that deposit in vital organs. Anselamimab is an investigational mAb designed to complement anti-PCD therapy through accelerated removal of amyloid fibrils. Cardiac Amyloid Reaching for Extended Survival (CARES) studies (NCT04512235 and NCT04504825) investigated the efficacy and safety of anselamimab compared with placebo, in addition to anti-PCD therapy. Methods: Alongside anti-PCD therapy with CyBorD (daratumumab was permitted) newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomized 2:1 to receive anselamimab (1000 mg/m 2 ) or placebo (normal saline) IV every 7 days for 4 weeks followed by every 14 days for the remainder of the blinded study (18 months after the last participant enrolled). The primary endpoint was a hierarchical combination of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of adjudicated cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVH) using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win-ratio in the combined study population. Subgroup analysis by involved κ or λ free light chain (iFLC) was prespecified. Results: 271 patients were randomized to receive anselamimab and 135 placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. The median duration of treatment was 21.4 months and 21.1 in the anselamimab and placebo arms, respectively. Daratumumab was used in 79.3% and 83.7% of the anselamimab and placebo arms, respectively. Results of the primary efficacy analyses are shown in the table. Anselamimab-treated patients with κ iFLC had a 62% reduction in ACM (HR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.86; nominal P = 0.012) and a 71% reduction in risk for CVH (estimated CVH rate ratio = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.87; nominal P = 0.028). Patients with λ iFLC had a 10% reduction in risk for CVH; none in ACM. Safety data were comparable between both treatment arms. In anselamimab-treated patients, safety findings were similar between κ subgroup and full population. Conclusions: Anselamimab, a κ light chain–directed anti-fibril monoclonal antibody used alongside standard of care chemotherapy, offers a first-in-class, new therapeutic option for patients with newly diagnosed κ AL amyloidosis. Clinical trial information: NCT04512235 and NCT04504825 . Summary of primary efficacy endpoints. Endpoint Overall κ Isotype λ Isotype Anselamimab (N=271) Placebo (N=135) P -value Anselamimab (N=48) Placebo (N=24) P -value Anselamimab (N=219) Placebo (N=109) P -value ACM and CVH win ratio (95% CI) 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) 0.332 2.06 (0.98, 4.31) 0.100 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 0.848 ACM n (%) 90 (33.2) 52 (38.5) 15 (31.3) 14 (58.3) 73 (33.3) 37 (33.9) HR (95% CI) 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) 0.290 0.38 (0.2, 0.9) 0.012 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) 0.647 CVH Frequency/year (95% CI) 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) 0.145 0.41 (0.2, 0.8) 1.4 (0.6, 3.4) 0.028 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 0.8 (0.4, 1.3) 0.664 Incidence risk ratio (95% CI) 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) 0.29 (0.1, 0.9) 0.9 (0.5, 1.7)

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

Abstract Introduction : Current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), is observation until progression to active MM. Increasing evidence suggests that patients (pts) with SMM at high risk for progression to active MM may benefit from early treatment (tx). In AQUILA, a phase 3 study in pts with high-risk SMM (NCT03301220), daratumumab (Dara) monotherapy significantly reduced risk of progression to active MM or death with a trend of extending overall survival (OS) vs active monitoring (ActMon), with no new safety concerns. Given the evolution in SMM risk stratification, a post hoc analysis was performed to assess outcomes using the IMWG 2020 and IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk models to assess which AQUILA pts benefited most from Dara monotherapy. Safety and efficacy analysis by age and stem cell collection outcomes were also assessed. Methods: Eligible pts with a confirmed diagnosis (≤5 y) of high-risk SMM per IMWG 2014 criteria, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (IgA SMM, serum protein ≥30 g/dL, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain [I/U FLC] ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC &gt;50% to &lt;60%) at study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous Dara or ActMon for 39 cycles, 36 months, or until confirmed disease progression (PD), whichever came first. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee, defined as progression to active MM (based on IMWG SLiM-CRAB diagnostic criteria) or death. Secondary endpoints included time to first-line (1L) MM tx and OS. For this post hoc analysis, we assessed outcomes by age, IMWG 2020 high-risk SMM criteria (BMPC &gt;20%, monoclonal spike &gt;2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio &gt;20; ≥2 factors=high risk; also known as the Mayo 2018 or the 20-2-20 criteria), and the IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic criteria (IMWG 2020 criteria + presence of ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q and/or del13q]; ≥3 factors=high risk). Results : Dara tx showed a PFS benefit across all IMWG 2020 risk subgroups (low: hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; intermediate: HR, 0.70), with the largest benefit in the high-risk subgroup, where the PD/death rate in the ActMon arm was ~1.6-fold that in the Dara arm (62.8% vs 37.5%; HR, 0.36). This benefit of Dara vs ActMon was preserved over time, with 5-year PFS rates of 78.2% vs 71.6%, 56.2% vs 42.9%, and 60.4% vs 23.6% in IMWG 2020 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. There was a positive trend favoring Dara for time to 1L MM treatment across all IMWG 2020 risk groups (low-risk HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.80; intermediate-risk HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.92; high-risk HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25–0.62). IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk classification results will be available at the time of presentation. When comparing the younger (&lt;65y HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79) vs the older (≥65y, HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.77) pt population, a PFS benefit was observed regardless of age. Similarity was also observed in TEAE incidence rate when looking into &lt;65, 65 to &lt;75, and ≥75 y subgroups (82.7%, 81.1%, and 87.5% with ActMon; 96.2%, 98.5%, and 95.2% with Dara); however, serious TEAEs were more frequently observed in older ActMon pts (12.2%, 18.9%, and 50.0% with ActMon; 24.8%, 35.8%, and 28.6% with Dara). Across all pts treated/monitored in AQUILA, 23 (11.9%) and 41 (20.9%) pts in the Dara and ActMon arms, respectively, received autologous stem cell transplant as part of their first tx after progressing to active MM, with very limited plerixafor use (Dara, 3 [1.6%] vs ActMon, 9 [4.6%]). Median (range) CD34+ cell yield was 5.0 (2–20)×106 cells/kg body weight among 22 pts in the Dara arm and 5.1 (2–21)×106 cells/kg body weight among 39 pts in the ActMon arm. Conclusions : In this analysis, pts with high-risk SMM from the phase 3 AQUILA study treated with Dara monotherapy experienced long-term PFS benefit across IMWG 2020 subgroups, with the most pronounced benefit in the high-risk subgroup. No notable differences in PFS or safety were observed across age subgroups. Early Dara tx for high-risk SMM did not have a detrimental impact on stem cell yield. Although mature OS analyses are forthcoming, overall, these results further support early intervention with Dara monotherapy vs ActMon among pts with high-risk SMM, regardless of risk stratification criteria used.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and &lt;100, and/or clonal BMPCs &gt;50% to &lt;60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P &lt;0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P &lt;0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P &lt;0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

7510 Background: The randomized Phase 3 CANOVA study’s (NCT03539744) primary analysis showed multiple numerically improved efficacy endpoints with VenDex v PomDex, but the primary endpoint of mPFS by IRC was not statistically significant. Here, we report correlative biomarker analyses from CANOVA. Methods: CANOVA is a randomized, global, open-label Phase 3 study of VenDex v PomDex in pts with t(11;14)+ RRMM and ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOTs). The primary endpoint was mPFS by IRC. Key secondary endpoints included ORR, ≥VGPR, mOS, and MRD negativity (<10-5). In post hoc mPFS sensitivity analysis, disease progression, death, and start of next LOT were defined as events. BCL2 gene expression by RNAseq (3.7 log2 FPKM prespecified median cutoff for BCL2high v BCL2low) and chr1q abnormalities by whole-exome sequencing (normal, gain, or amp) were assessed centrally from pretreatment, CD138-enriched BM aspirates. Results: mPFS, post hoc mPFS, and mOS in the VenDex arm were similar by BCL2 status, with numerically higher ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity rates in the BCL2highsubgroup. In contrast, mPFS and mOS within the PomDex arm were numerically longer in the BCL2lowsubgroup, despite equal ORR in both subgroups (Table). Presence of 1q abnormalities was evenly distributed across BCL2high v BCL2low subgroups in the VenDex arm (51% v 45%) but not in the PomDex arm (59% v 31%). Normal 1q and gain(1q) subgroups had numerically improved mPFS, mOS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and MRD negativity with VenDex; pts with amp(1q) had poor outcomes regardless of treatment, albeit the sample size was small. Conclusions: Pts with BCL2high or gain(1q) had numerically improved clinical efficacy with VenDex v PomDex. Clinical benefit was consistent across BCL2 subgroups ( BCL2high or BCL2low) with VenDex but not PomDex. Pts with amp(1q) fared poorly irrespective of treatment arm. Clinical trial information: NCT03539744 . [Table: see text]

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

AbstractPatient‐reported outcomes in AL amyloidosis have not been well‐studied. We analyzed health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms data from the phase 3 TOURMALINE‐AL1 trial (NCT01659658) (ixazomib‐dexamethasone, n = 85; physician's choice of chemotherapy [PC], n = 83). HRQOL and symptom burden were measured with the SF‐36v2, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG‐Ntx), and an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ). Score changes during treatment were analyzed descriptively and using repeated‐measures linear mixed models; analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity. Least‐squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQOL) for ixazomib‐dexamethasone at several cycles for SF‐36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p < .05); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring PC. For FACT/GOG‐Ntx, small but significant differences in LS mean changes favored ixazomib‐dexamethasone over PC at multiple cycles for seven items and both summary scores; significant differences favored PC for one item (trouble hearing) at multiple cycles. ASQ total score trended downward (lower burden) in both arms; significant LS mean differences favored ixazomib‐dexamethasone over PC at some cycles (p < .05). Patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis treated with ixazomib‐dexamethasone experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with PC despite longer duration of therapy.