Citations

Abstract Background and Significance Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other LBCLs account for 35–40% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is the standard first-line treatment for DLBCL, achieving cure rates in approximately 60–70% of patients. However, 30–40% of patients will relapse or become refractory (R/R) to treatment, facing poor prognosis. Patients with high International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores (3–5) and those with IPI 1–2 who have bulky disease and/or very high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) are recognized as high-risk (HR) subsets with suboptimal outcomes (Maurer et al, ASH 2023, #4512). Novel combination strategies are an area of focus for improving efficacy in this population. GOLCA is a potential, first-in-class, oral CELMoD agent designed for the treatment of lymphoma, with preferential distribution to lymphoid organs and enhanced activity in lymphoma cell lines. GOLCA drives the closed, active conformation of cereblon to induce rapid and deep degradation of Ikaros and Aiolos, leading to direct cell killing (agnostic of cell of origin [COO]) and immunomodulatory activity. In the Phase 1b study CC-220-DLBCL-001, GOLCA in combination with R-CHOP demonstrated a predictable and manageable safety profile with high rates of durable responses, irrespective of COO, in previously untreated aggressive B-cell lymphomas (BCL), including promising activity in HR patients (Amzallag et al, ASH 2024, #579). The median relative dose intensity for GOLCA and CHO components was high (97–99%), indicating uncompromised delivery of curative standard-of-care treatment and combinability. GOLCA ± rituximab has also shown encouraging efficacy and safety in patients with R/R DLBCL (Bachy et al, ICML, #148). These findings support the further study of GOLCA + R-CHOP combination in the Phase 3 setting. Study Design and Methods GOLSEEK-1 (NCT06356129) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study evaluating GOLCA + R-CHOP versus placebo + R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated HR LBCL. Approximately 850 patients with previously untreated LBCL will be randomized 1:1 to either GOLCA + R-CHOP or placebo + R-CHOP. Eligible patients include those with histologically confirmed LBCL per WHO 2022 criteria—including DLBCL (not otherwise specified [NOS], ABC/GCB), high-grade BCL with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements or NOS, T-cell/histiocyte–rich LBCL, or Epstein Barr Virus-positive DLBCL. HR status is defined by IPI ≥3, or IPI 1–2 with HR features: LDH >1.3× upper limit of normal and/or bulky disease (≥7 cm lesion). All patients must have measurable disease as defined by Lugano criteria. Key exclusion criteria are other lymphoma subtypes such as primary mediastinal LBCL; primary cutaneous DLBCL-leg type, grade 3b follicular lymphoma (FL); transformed indolent lymphoma; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive LBCL; primary effusion lymphoma; and Burkitt lymphoma and known or suspected central nervous system involvement. Randomization will be stratified by IPI score (HR 1–2 and 3 vs 4–5) and bulky disease status (≥7 cm vs <7 cm). After a screening period of ≤4 weeks, patients will receive either GOLCA (0.4 mg) or placebo orally once daily for 7 consecutive days in each of 6 cycles, combined with R-CHOP every 21 days. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator assessment per Lugano Response Criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS in non–high-grade BCL, event-free survival, independently assessed complete metabolic response, undetectable minimal residual disease by PhasED-Seq (defined as undetectable circulating tumor DNA levels at end of treatment), and overall survival. Patients will be followed up for up to approximately 67 months after beginning treatment. This study is currently recruiting at 309 sites in 36 countries , across the United States, Europe, Latin America, and East Asia. Acknowledgement BMS Artificial Intelligence was used to revise existing text with human author oversight.

Abstract Introduction: Idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by systemic inflammation of unknown etiology. Clinically, iMCD is classified into idiopathic plasmacytic lymphadenopathy (IPL), thrombocytopenia, anasarca, fever, renal dysfunction/reticulin fibrosis, and organomegaly (TAFRO), and not otherwise specified (NOS) subtypes. Among these, TAFRO and a subset of NOS cases share overlapping clinicopathological features and often follow a fatal clinical course. However, the pathogenesis remains largely undefined. This study combines a comprehensive transcriptomic analysis with histological assessment, focusing on vascular proliferation to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of the TAFRO subtype. Methods: We conducted a pathological analysis of nine IPL, nine TAFRO, and eight NOS cases, and performed transcriptome analysis from frozen lymph node specimens from 12, two, and four IPL, TAFRO, and NOS cases, respectively. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and KEGG pathway analysis were performed to identify significant pathways in TAFRO and NOS, with IPL cases as controls. Results: Histologically, TAFRO and NOS exhibited a significantly higher degree of vascularization than IPL (IPL vs TAFRO: p < 0.001, IPL vs NOS: p = 0.002). In addition, “whirlpool vessels” in GCs were seen in most cases in TAFRO and NOS (TAFRO: 9/9, 100%, NOS: 6/8, 75%), but not in IPL (IPL vs TAFRO: p < 0.001, IPL vs NOS: p = 0.007). Immunostaining for Ets-related gene revealed that the number of endothelial cells of TAFRO and NOS was significantly larger than that in IPL (TAFRO vs IPL: p < 0.001, NOS vs IPL: p = 0.002). KEGG pathway analysis revealed the PI3K–Akt signaling pathway was significantly enriched in the TAFRO/NOS groups. Immunohistochemistry of phosphorylated Akt and phosphorylated p38, both upstream and downstream effectors of the PI3K–Akt signaling pathway, were positive in vascular endothelial cells of TAFRO and NOS. Discussion: TAFRO and NOS exhibit marked angiogenesis and are histologically distinct from IPL. Furthermore, this angiogenesis is thought to be driven by upregulation of the PI3K–Akt signaling pathway, which may also contribute to extravascular fluid leakage, potentially leading to pleural and ascitic effusion or systemic edema observed in the TAFRO subtype. Conclusion: The present results suggest the crucial role of PI3K–Akt signaling pathway in TAFRO pathogenesis from transcriptomic and histopathological findings. This mechanistic insight may help elucidate the distinct pathogenesis of iMCD subtypes.

Abstract Aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas represent a clinically heterogeneous group of malignancies characterized by rapid progression and varied molecular features. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and encompasses a biologically diverse group of diseases, now classified into 18 molecular subtypes (Alaggio et al. Leukemia, 2022). While first-line R-CHOP therapy cures approximately 60% of patients (Coiffier et al. N Engl J Med. 2002), those with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease face poor outcomes. Although CAR T-cell therapies (e.g. axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel) have improved outcomes, access remains limited due to logistical and disease-related constraints (Locke et al. N Engl J Med. 2022). More recently, bispecific CD20xCD3 antibodies such as epcoritamab and glofitamab have shown clinical activity in the R/R setting after ≥2 prior lines, with complete response (CR) rates of ~40% (Dickinson et al. N Engl J Med. 2022; Thieblemont et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023). However, treatment sequencing and mechanisms of resistance to CD20-targeted therapies remain areas of active investigation. One emerging resistance mechanism to CD20 bispecific antibodies is the downregulation or loss of CD20 expression, which has been associated with treatment failure and disease progression (Bannard et al. Clin. Cancer Research, 2022). This highlights the need for novel strategies to overcome CD20 resistance. Dapolsertib (MEN1703) is a first-in-class dual PIM/FLT3 kinase inhibitor that targets key oncogenic and survival pathways in hematologic malignancies. PIM kinases (PIM1, PIM2, PIM3) regulate translation, metabolism, apoptosis, and immune modulation. Overexpression and mutations in PIM genes are associated with poor prognosis in DLBCL, particularly in the ABC subtype, and are known to cooperate with MYC and BCL6 (Szydłowski et al. Cancer Res. 2021). Simultaneous inhibition of all three PIMs downregulates MYC and induces marked cytotoxicity in preclinical models. In AML, dapolsertib has demonstrated preliminary clinical single-agent activity, with ~10% CR/CRi reported in the DIAMOND study (NCT03008187; Martinelli et al. Blood Neoplasia, in press). Dapolsertib has also shown strong antitumor activity in lymphoma models, both in vitro and in vivo (Bellon et al. Mol Cancer. 2023). Notably, dapolsertib demonstrated synergy with anti-CD20 antibody, rituximab, providing a rationale for combination strategies (Szydłowski et al. Cancer Res. 2021). The rationale for combining dapolsertib with a CD20 bispecific antibody lies in its potential to modulate survival pathways, sensitize malignant B-cells to immunotherapy, and circumvent resistance mechanisms such as CD20 loss by inducing CD20 expression. JASPIS-01 (NCT06534437) is an ongoing, international multicenter, Phase 2 study evaluating dapolsertib as monotherapy or in combination with glofitamab in patients with R/R aggressive B-cell lymphoma after ≥2 prior lines of therapy. The trial consists of three parts: a safety run-in (Part 1), optional enrichment (Part 2), and a potential randomized comparison vs. glofitamab (Part 3). Part 1 will include 2 groups of patients. Group 1 comprises bispecific-naïve patients randomized to a prospective dose-optimization evaluation of the combination with dapolsertib. Patients receive either 125 mg on a 2 weeks on / 1 week off schedule or 150 mg on a 1 week on / 2 weeks off schedule for up to 12 cycles to investigate optimal therapeutic window. Group 2 comprises patients who exhausted therapeutic standard options and who will receive dapolsertib monotherapy at 125 mg on a 2 weeks on / 1 week off schedule until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The initial safety run-in (Parts 1 of both groups) informs dose selection for Part 2. Dose continuation in Part 2 will be guided by Data and Safety Monitoring Board safety assessments after ≥2 completed treatment cycles. The primary objectives are to assess safety, tolerability, and preliminary anti-lymphoma activity. Key endpoints include incidence of adverse events, overall/complete response rates, and duration of response. As of July 11, 2025, Part 1 is enrolling in France, Poland, Spain and the UK with additional sites activation ongoing.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for nearly 20% of all hematologic cancers in the US and remains a substantial clinical burden, with patients (pts) requiring multiple lines of therapy (LOT). While advances such as BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy have improved outcomes, challenges persist, including disease relapse, treatment toxicities (CRS, ICANS, and non-ICANS neurotoxicities), and access. AZD0120 (formerly GC012F) is a first-in-class autologous BCMA/CD19 dual-targeting CAR T-cell therapy using the FasTCAR rapid manufacturing platform that preserves the naive and central memory T-cell phenotypes with marked in vivo proliferative capacity. Phase 1 investigator-initiated trials in China demonstrated deep, durable responses and a favorable safety profile following single-infusion AZD0120 in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) (Du J, et al. EHA 2024 and ASCO 2023). Here, we report for the first time preliminary phase 1b results from DURGA-1, an ongoing phase 1b/2 clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of AZD0120 in pts with RRMM. Methods: This open-label, single-arm, US-based, multicenter study (NCT05850234) evaluated the safety/tolerability of 2 dose levels (DL) of AZD0120 in pts with RRMM along with preliminary efficacy. Eligible ptswere aged ≥18 y with RRMM (3+ prior LOT [pLOT] including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody), ECOG PS 0–1, and documented evidence of progressive disease. Exposure to BCMA-directed therapy ≥6 mo with best response of PR or better was permitted. Pts underwent lymphodepletion followed by a single infusion of AZD0120. Pts in DL1 received 1x105 cells/kg; DL2 received 3x105 cells/kg. Dose escalation and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) were determined by a safety review committee. Phase 1b primary objectives included safety/tolerability and RP2D determination; secondary objectives included efficacy, cellular kinetics (CK), and pharmacodynamics. Results: As of data cutoff (DCO) on 18 July 2025, a total of 25 pts received infusion of AZD0120 (n=12 DL1; n=13 DL2). The median age was 64 y (range 44–78), median pLOT was 4 (range 3–7), 72% were triple-class refractory, 20% had prior BCMA CAR T-cell therapy, 4% had prior teclistamab, 28% had high-risk cytogenetic features [del(13q), del(17p13), t(4;14), t(14;16), amp(1q)], and 8% had extramedullary plasmacytomas. The median time from apheresis to release was 14 d (range 10–30). Median time from apheresis to infusion was 28 d (range 19–44) with 5 pts receiving bridging therapy. Median follow-up was 1.4 mo (range 0–19.3). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported for either dose. The most common treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs, any grade) were CRS (64%), neutrophil count decreased (56%), and anemia (32%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were neutrophil count decreased (52%), lymphocyte count decreased (32%), and white blood cell count decreased (32%). CRS was reported in 75% of pts at DL1 (all grade 1) and 54% at DL2 (46% grade 1; 8% grade 2), with no cases of grade ≥3 CRS. Median time to CRS onset (DL1/DL2) was 9 d (range 2–11), with a median duration of 2 d (range 1–4); 12 pts (48%) received tocilizumab for CRS management and 12% received dexamethasone. No cases of ICANS, related non-ICANS neurotoxicity, IEC-colitis, or secondary primary malignancies have been reported. There have been no deaths. For efficacy-evaluable patients (n=15), ORR was 100% (33% sCR, 47% VGPR, 20% PR). CR rates in evaluable pts were 30% in DL1 (n=10) and 40% in DL2 (n=5); median time to response was 0.9 mo for both DLs (range 0.9–1.9 DL1; 0.6–1.8 DL2). All MRD-evaluable pts (n=5 DL1; n=3 DL2; DCO 01 July 2025) were MRD-negative by NGS at a sensitivity of 10-5. Three pts in DL1 with ≥12 mo follow-up maintained MRD negativity. Consistent with robust in vivo expansion, CK analysis from 16 evaluable pts (DCO 12 June 2025) demonstrated a median Tmax of 13 d post-infusion with a median Cmax of 85,266 copies/mg gDNA. Median persistence was 42 d (range 13–273). Updated clinical data with additional follow-up will be presented. Conclusion: Preliminary phase 1b results demonstrated AZD0120 was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious AEs, no grade ≥3 CRS, and no ICANS. FasTCAR-manufactured AZD0120 had expectedin vivo expansion, which may have resulted in the predictable CRS profile. A single infusion of AZD0120 achieved early, deep responses with 100% MRD negativity from 4L+ triple-class‒exposed pts with RRMM.

Abstract Background: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains the leading cause of non-relapse morbidity and mortality in allogeneic hematopoietic-stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) recipients. Clinical scoring systems (e.g., EBMT, HCT-CI, DRI, etc.) can stratify risk but show modest predictive performance (C-statistics 0.49–0.67) when it comes to GVHD. To address this gap, we developed GVHD-Intel 1.0, a real-time, scalable, and interpretable machine learning (ML) framework from an international study to predict both acute (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), providing individual and bulk predictions using common input variables and HLA alleles. Methods: This retrospective global study, approved by respective institutional review boards, included electronic health records from three tertiary care centers in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Jordan, from 2009 to 2023. The model was developed in phases. The UAE399 cohort (399 HSCT recipients) served as the baseline dataset. To enhance model generalizability, 55 adult allo-HSCT recipients from KHCC were added to the training set. Two distinct test cohorts were used: UAE46 (46 allogeneic HSCT recipients from UAE) and KHCC150 (150 adult allogeneic HSCT recipients from KHCC), collected later and independently of training data. Variables included donor type, sex mismatch, disease status, time from diagnosis to transplant, and agents used in conditioning and GVHD prophylaxis (e.g., TBI, ATG, alemtuzumab use etc.). HLA alleles (A, B, C, DQ, DR) were symbolically encoded and transformed via one-hot encoding. GVHD events were classified as aGVHD (<100 days) or cGVHD (≥100 days). Missing values were excluded, and class imbalance was handled via class weighting. GVHD-Intel 1.0, co-developed with MBZ University of Artificial Intelligence, features modular ensemble architecture, drug-level feature engineering, novel HLA encoding for low-resolution compatibility scoring, and built-in interpretability using SHAP and LIME. The framework is cloud-deployable for both real-time and batch predictions. Results: The GVHD-Intel 1.0 was externally tested on two independent, temporally and institutionally distinct cohorts (UAE46 and KHCC150), demonstrating strong and consistent predictive performance for both acute and chronic GVHD. For cGVHD prediction, the model achieved an AUC (area under the curve or C-statistic for binary outcomes) of 0.832, F1 score of 0.896, accuracy of 82.7%, PPV of 0.930, sensitivity of 0.864, Brier score of 0.178, and log loss of 0.543. For aGVHD, performance metrics included an AUC of 0.802, F1 score of 0.860, accuracy of 77.6%, PPV of 0.930, sensitivity of 0.799, Brier score of 0.196, and log loss of 0.581. Model calibration remained strong across both tasks, with Brier scores <0.20. Conclusions: GVHD-Intel 1.0 is a robust, interpretable machine learning framework developed from real-world, multicenter data. By integrating widely available clinical variables and HLA allele data, it outperforms conventional clinical risk scores in predicting both acute and chronic GVHD in allo-HSCT recipients. Slightly reduced performance in aGVHD prediction is likely due to the lack of relevant variables. Next steps include prospective validation across multiple transplant centers globally and continued refinement through expanded data integration. GVHD-Intel 1.0 holds strong potential as a clinically valuable, scalable decision-support tool that can be enacted widely and easily by practicing transplant physicians worldwide in all types of settings.

Abstract Introduction: CAR T-cell therapy is an important treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Three CAR T-cell products have received approval: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah). Although direct head-to-head studies comparing the three therapies do not exist, clinical trials have revealed notable differences in response rates and remission rates among them. All three products induce CRS and ICANS; however, variations in the incidence and severity of these adverse effects have been observed. We utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to gain further insights into the incidence of various adverse events associated with different CAR-T products in DLBCL. Method: In this retrospective study, the 2022 NIS database was used to identify hospitalizations with DLBCL and those who received Yescarta, Breyanzi, or Kymriah using appropriate ICD-10-CM diagnostic and ICD-10-PCS procedure codes. Data on CRS, ICANS, infections, and adverse cardiac events were extracted using relevant ICD-10-CM codes. These outcomes were compared across different CAR-T products using Pearson's chi-square analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was also performed, adjusting for demographics, hospital-specific characteristics, and comorbidities. Results: We identified 1440 patients with DLBCL. Among these, 1100 patients (64.6% male; 70.7% Caucasian, 8.8% African American, 20.5% other ethnicities) received Yescarta, 90 patients (66.7% male; 82.4% Caucasian, 0% African American, 17.7% other ethnicities) received Kymriah and 250 patients (64% male; 82.6% Caucasian, 10.9% African American, 6.5% other ethnicities) received Breyanzi. The incidence of CRS was 52% for Breyanzi, 44.4% for Kymriah and 68.6% for Yescarta, and the difference was statistically significant by chi-square analysis (p = 0.03). This difference remained statistically significant for Kymriah after multivariate analysis [Adjusted Odds ratio (OR) = 0.3, CI 0.1 to 0.9, p=0.032], but not for Breyanzi (Adjusted OR = 0.3, CI 0.1 to 0.9, p=0.032) in comparison to Yescarta. The incidence of ICANS was 16% for Breyanzi, 22.2% for Kymriah, and 33.2% for Yescarta, with a statistically significant difference observed by chi-square analysis (p = 0.05). This difference remained statistically significant for Breyanzi after multivariate analysis [Adjusted OR = 0.3, CI 0.1 to 0.6, p=0.002], but not for Kymriah (Adjusted OR = 0.6, CI 0.1 to 2.9, p=0.551) in comparison to Yescarta. Among cardiovascular events, there was no significant difference in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (Yescarta vs Kymriah vs Breyanzi, 0.5% vs 0% vs 0.2%, p = 0.487), stroke (0.5% vs 5.6% vs 2%, p = 0.07), cardiogenic shock (0.5% vs 0% vs 0%, p = 0.880), and arrhythmias (20.9% vs 27.8% vs 32%, p = 0.258) among these CAR T-cell therapies. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the incidence of infectious complications, including pneumonia (5.9% vs 5.6% vs 2%, p = 0.510), sepsis (5% vs 5.6% vs 6%, p = 0.962), or septic shock (2.3% vs 0% vs 0%, p = 0.535) among these CAR T-cell therapies. There was no difference in all-cause in-hospital mortality across these therapies (2.3% vs 5.6% vs 2%, p = 0.692). Conclusion: Kymriah showed lower CRS rates and Breyanzi showed lower ICANS rates in comparison to Yescarta in our study. All CAR T-cell therapies have the potential to cause infections and cardiac events, which require monitoring, early identification and prompt treatment. When selecting among various CAR T-cell products, several factors must be considered, including the patient's lymphoma type, prior treatment history, manufacturing turnaround time, cost, availability, and potential short-term and long-term side effects. The limitations of our study include its retrospective nature, reliance on ICD-10 codes to identify patients with adverse events, and the absence of longitudinal data on long-term adverse events. Nevertheless, this study provides essential insights for hematologists regarding the incidence of specific adverse events associated with different CAR T-cell products within the real-world population.

Abstract Background: Mosunetuzumab, a CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, can be administered in the outpatient setting for a fixed duration. Mosunetuzumab by intravenous (IV) administration is FDA- and EMA-approved in relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Interim results from the Phase II MorningSun study (NCT05207670) demonstrated promising efficacy and manageable safety of mosunetuzumab SC in pts with previously untreated HTB FL (Flinn et al. ASCO 2025). We report 12-month follow-up efficacy and safety data of mosunetuzumab SC in pts with previously untreated HTB FL in the MorningSun study, including pts who received optional maintenance therapy. Methods: Pts with previously untreated HTB FL, per Groupe D'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were enrolled, primarily from United States (US) community sites. Mosunetuzumab SC was administered as step-up dosing in Cycle (C)1 (Day [D]1, 5mg; D8, 45mg; D15, 45mg) followed by 45mg on D1 of each 21-day cycle, for up to 17 cycles (1 year). Pts with a partial or complete metabolic response (CMR) after C17 could receive optional mosunetuzumab maintenance treatment (45mg every 8 weeks for up to 1 year). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), duration of complete response (DOCR) and safety. Exploratory analysis of ctDNA levels was performed using the AOA-NHL assay. Results: As of February 10, 2025, 103 pts were enrolled (n=82 pts from community sites, n=21 pts from academic sites). Overall, the median age was 65 years (range: 24–86), 51.5% of pts were female and most pts had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (91.3%) and a FLIPI score ≥2 (78.6%). In total, 69 pts completed initial treatment (17 cycles), 33 discontinued (primarily due to progressive disease [PD; n=18] and adverse events [AEs; n=5]), and 1 pt was continuing treatment. After 17 cycles, 68 pts were eligible for maintenance treatment, of whom 46 received maintenance, and 15 were continuing maintenance treatment at the time of data cut-off. Median duration of follow-up was 22.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.9–24.1). The 12-month PFS rate was 85.5% (95% CI: 76.2–91.3). The ORR was 87.4% (95% CI: 79.4–93.1); 64.1% of pts had a CMR. The 12-month OS rate was 91.9% (95% CI: 84.5–95.9); the 12-month DOR and DOCR rates were 89.6% (95% CI: 80.2–94.7) and 91.1% (95% CI: 79.4–96.2), respectively. Of the 46 pts who received maintenance, no pts experienced PD, and 1 pt died (reason unknown). Of the 22 pts who were eligible but did not receive maintenance, 1 pt had PD. The most common AEs (≥30%) were injection-site reaction (67.0%), fatigue (44.7%), cytokine release syndrome ([CRS] 34.0%), headache (32.0%), and nausea (32.0%). Grade (Gr) ≥3 AEs and serious AEs were reported in 47.6% and 35.9% of pts, respectively. Five pts experienced Gr 5 AEs: COVID-19 pneumonia (n=2) and cardiogenic shock, unexplained death, pneumonia (n=1 each). Infections occurred in 77.7% of pts and were predominantly Gr 1/2 (Gr 1: 10.7%; Gr 2: 47.6%; Gr 3: 12.6%; Gr 4: 3.9%), with the most common infection being COVID-19 (24.3%). Of 3 (2.9%) Gr 5 infections reported, 1 occurred during initial treatment (COVID-19), 1 during maintenance (pneumonia), and 1 occurred 2.8 months after completion of treatment (COVID-19). AEs were reported in 80.4% of pts in the maintenance phase, mostly Gr 1/2 events. No CRS events occurred during maintenance treatment. Infections were reported in 45.7% of pts during maintenance, with the majority being Gr 1/2 events (37.0%), and were similar types of infection as during initial therapy. ctDNA levels were assessed in a subset of pts who achieved a CMR; 86.4% (19/22) of pts were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative (p-value cut-off 0.005).Conclusions: Longer follow-up of mosunetuzumab SC with optional maintenance treatment continues to demonstrate promising PFS and OS rates, and a manageable safety profile in pts with previously untreated HTB FL. Exploratory analysis of ctDNA in a subset of CMR pts showed MRD negativity in 86.4%, thus supporting fixed treatment duration of mosunetuzumab SC. Overall, these data support the outpatient administration of mosunetuzumab SC in US community practices and further evaluation of mosunetuzumab-based treatment in first-line HTB FL.

Abstract Introduction: The CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827) trial compared cilta-cel, a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell treatment (tx) targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), with 2 standard-of-care regimens in patients (pts) with RRMM and 1–3 prior lines of therapy (LOT). Cilta-cel significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.29). The DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047) and DREAMM-8 (NCT04484623) trials evaluated belamaf, an anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (BVd) and with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (BPd), respectively. Both trials demonstrated improved survival and response rates with belamaf in pts with ≥1 prior LOT. International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidance for RRMM tx recommends using anti-BCMA T-cell redirecting therapy (TCRT), such as CAR-T (eg, cilta-cel), before anti-BCMA ADCs (eg, belamaf). As cilta-cel and belamaf have not been compared head to head, we conducted unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) to estimate relative efficacies using CARTITUDE-4 study individual patient data (IPD) and published data from DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8. Methods: Unanchored MAICs were performed using IPD from apheresed pts in the CARTITUDE-4 cilta-cel arm. Eligibility criteriafrom DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 were applied to the cilta-cel cohort. Further adjustments were made by weighting cilta-cel IPDto match reported baseline characteristics (including refractory status [for DREAMM-8], cytogenetic risk, International Staging System stage, and presence of extramedullary disease) from DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8. Outcomes were compared using weighted IPD for cilta-cel and reported response rates and simulated IPD based on published Kaplan–Meier PFS curves for BVd and BPd. For each matched population, we compared PFS, ORR, and very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) rates. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate PFS HRs and 95% CIs. A weighted logistic regression analysis was used to derive relative response ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs to compare relative tx effects. Results: The MAICs included 208 apheresed pts from CARTITUDE-4 (cilta-cel), 243 pts from DREAMM-7 (BVd), and 155 pts from DREAMM-8 (BPd). To form comparable cohorts, we excluded cilta-cel pts who would not have been eligible for DREAMM-7 (n=87) or DREAMM-8 (n=55). Cilta-cel pts were most commonly excluded from the DREAMM-7 MAIC due to bortezomib refractoriness or anti-CD38 refractoriness (n=55 and n=50, respectively), and from the DREAMM-8 MAIC due to bortezomib refractoriness (n=55). After exclusions, 121 and 153 cilta-cel pts remained in the MAICs with BVd and BPd, respectively. After adjustment, cilta-cel was associated with significantly lower risk of progression or death compared with BVd (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.28–0.75]; P=0.0020) and BPd (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.39–0.96]; P=0.0320). ORR was significantly higher with cilta-cel vs BVd (92.9% vs 82.7%; RR 1.12 [95% CI 1.03–1.22]; P=0.0087) and vs BPd (89.3% vs 77.4%; RR 1.15 [95% CI 1.04–1.29]; P=0.0100). Rates of ≥VGPR and ≥CR were also higher with cilta-cel vs BVd (≥VGPR: 89.7% vs 65.8%; RR 1.36 [95% CI 1.21–1.53]; ≥CR: 86.0% vs 34.6%; RR 2.49 [95% CI 2.04–3.03]; both P<0.0001) and vs BPd (≥VGPR: 86.6% vs 63.9%; RR 1.36 [95% CI 1.18–1.56]; ≥CR: 81.8% vs 40.0%; RR 2.05 [95% CI 1.65–2.53]; both P<0.0001). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the adjusted comparisons and showed statistically significant PFS and tx response benefits with cilta-cel vs BVd and BPd. Conclusions: These MAICs demonstrated superior PFS and response rates with cilta-cel compared with 2 belamaf-containing regimens (BVd and BPd). Results should be interpreted with caution as there were substantial differences in the pt populations of CARTITUDE-4 vs DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8. However, adjusted cilta-cel cohort sizes remained large enough for robust comparisons that showed statistically significant differences across efficacy outcomes. Another limitation is the remaining potential unmeasured residual confounding differences. Nonetheless, these findings support IMWG guidance recommending anti-BCMA TCRTs prior to ADCs and provide valuable comparative evidence in the absence of head-to-head trials.

Abstract Introduction The treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) has rapidly evolved. Quadruplet induction combining an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, lenalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care. In this prospective randomized phase 2 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of induction with a four-drug combination of daratumumab (Dara), lenalidomide (R), ixazomib (I), and dexamethasone (d) (Dara-RId) in older, transplant ineligible or deferred patients, followed by maintenance with Dara RI versus R for up to 2 years. We hypothesized that this quadruplet would offer improved tolerability with less peripheral neuropathy in this older population as well as the convenience of largely oral therapy. Herein, we present the initial results of the induction phase of the study. Methods Transplant-ineligible or deferred patients with NDMM were eligible to participate. This was a multicenter trial sponsored by the Alliance Foundation Trials, LLC, AFT-41 (NCT04009109). Each cycle of treatment was 28 days. All patients received 12 cycles of induction therapy with daratumumab 1800 mg subcutaneously on the conventional schedule, lenalidomide 15 mg orally (po) on days 1-21, ixazomib 4 mg po on days 1, 8, 15, and dexamethasone weekly. After 12 cycles, patients received maintenance based on prior randomization (1:1) to Dara-RI or R for up to 2 years. In maintenance, R was reduced to 10 mg and I was reduced to 3 mg. Randomization assignment occurred prior to starting induction. Stratification was based on presence of high-risk features defined as ISS stage III or high-risk FISH cytogenetics (del 17, t (14;16), t (14;20), t (4;14), del (1p), or gain (1q)). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Results We enrolled 79 patients across 7 sites from October 2020 until December 2023. Accrual was affected by the COVID19 pandemic, leading to early closure to accrual in December 2023. Median age was 74 years (range 63-86); ≥75 years of age (45.6%); female (59.5%); white (83.5%), African American (7.6%), Asian (1.3%), and Hispanic ethnicity (6.3%). Additional baseline characteristics included ISS staging I (41.8%), II (35.4%), and III (22.8%) with high-risk features in 37% by ISS stage III and/or high-risk FISH. The 12-month PFS was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.1-98.4%). The ORR (≥ partial response [PR]) during induction was 92.4% (PR 22.8%; very good partial response [VGPR] 46.8%; complete response 15.2%; stringent complete response 7.6%). Notable grade ≥3 adverse events included neutropenia (16.5%), infections (11.4%), anemia (10.1%), thrombocytopenia (8.9%), and syncope (7.6%). There was no grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy (grade 1, 15%; grade 2, 14%). No treatment-related mortality was reported. Sixty-one patients went on to maintenance therapy and seven patients discontinued treatment for adverse events during induction (8.9%). Conclusions Dara-RId therapy in NDMM appears to be efficacious with an ORR of 92.4%; VGPR or better of 69.6% and 12-month PFS of 92%. The combination was generally tolerated well with manageable toxicity, despite 45.6% of patients being ≥75, offering the convenience of an oral proteasome inhibitor, ixazomib, that minimizes the risk of peripheral neuropathy for older, transplant-ineligible or deferred patients. Follow-up is ongoing to determine the benefit of maintenance with Dara-RI v. R alone in this population. Support: AFT, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda.

Abstract Introduction: cBTKi have made a substantial impact in pts w/ MCL, but pts who develop PD while on treatment w/ cBTKi have historically had poor responses to subsequent lines of therapy (LOT). Brexucel, lisocel, and the non-covalent BTKi pirto have been approved in this population. While two RW studies have substantiated the benefit of brexucel, similar data for pirto are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pts treated w/ pirto in the RW setting. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adult pts w/ a diagnosis of MCL who experienced PD after any approved cBTKi and subsequently received pirto. Pts who received pirto w/ bridging intent and those who switched to pirto due to intolerance of cBTKi were excluded. The 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as the time from pirto start to PD or death, whichever occurred first, and the time from pirto start to death, respectively, and calculated w/ the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. A multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazard model was built to calculate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Analyses were performed w/ SAS, version 9.4. Results: Data on 111 pts w/ MCL treated across 21 institutions were collected. Median (mdn) age was 72 (range 33 – 93) years. Twenty-seven pts (24%) were female, 3 (3%) were Asian, 5 (5%) Black, 9 (8%) Hispanic, 86 (77%) White. Among the 53 (48%) pts w/ available MIPI-c at diagnosis, 28 (53%) pts were high-risk. Ki67 at diagnosis was available in 84 (76%) pts: of those, 58 (69%) had a Ki67 ≥30%, and 41 (49%) ≥50%. TP53 mutational status was available in 70 (63%) pts: 33 (47%) had documented TP53 mutation and 10/52 (19%) pts had a disease w/ complex karyotype. Pts had a mdn of 3 (range 1 – 9) prior LOT (n=106). Ninety-one pts (86%) received chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), 16 (15%) autologous stem cell transplant, 19 (18%) venetoclax (ven), 29 (27%) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, 4 (4%) allogeneic stem cell transplant. For cBTKi, 39 (35%) pts received ibrutinib, 56 (50%) pts acalabrutinib, 33 (30%) pts zanubrutinib, and 17 (15%) pts received more than one cBTKi. The mdn time from the last dose of cBTKi to pirto start was 55 (range 0 – 2587) days, w/ 51 (46%) pts who switched from a cBTKi directly to pirto. Thirty (27%) pts had no response (stable disease or PD as best response) to cBTKi, and 40 (36%) pts had no response to the last LOT. Two (2%) pts received pirto in combination w/ CIT, 8 (7%) w/ an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), 11 (10%) w/ ven ± a mAb, while 86 (77%) pts as single agent. In 104 (94%) pts, pirto was given at full dose, 10 (9%) pts had a subsequent dose reduction. A total of 35 serious (grade ≥3) adverse events (AE) were documented in 27 (24%) pts: 4 (4%) pts had a serious bleeding AE, 5 (5%) pts a serious cardiac AE, 10 (9%) a serious GI AE, and 16 (14%) a serious infectious AE. Ninety-eight (88%) pts were evaluable for response. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 30% – 50%) w/ a CRR of 29% (95% CI 20%– 39%). At the last follow-up, 29 (26%) pts remained on pirto w/ a mdn treatment duration of 15.1 months (range 0.4 – 26). Fifty-eight (52%) pts died, 35 (78%) because of PD. At a mdn follow-up of 15.8 (range 0.4 – 26) months among survivors, the mdn PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.3 – 8.2) and the mdn OS was 13 months (95% CI 9.2 – not available). Using the log-rank test, age (quartile groups), number of LOT (1-2 vs. 3-4 vs. 5+), time from cBTKi to pirto (quartile groups), Ki67≥30%, and high MIPI-C did not result in a statistically significant difference in PFS (p>0.05). Presence of TP53 mutation was associated w/ a non-statistically significant adverse trend in PFS (p=0.0585). No response to cBTKi and Ki67≥50% were associated w/ a statistically significant inferior PFS in log-rank test (p=<0.05), which persisted in a MV Cox regression model (aHR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, and aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.4, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first RW report on pirto in MCL pts. In this high-risk population, ORR to pirto was comparable to the BRUIN trial, while PFS was significantly worse, especially in pts w/ no response to cBTKi and w/ a high Ki67. However, prolonged remissions were seen in a subset of pts, suggesting that a better characterization of this population w/ durable benefit from pirto is needed.