Citations

8022 Background: Bone marrow (BM) assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) is being considered as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and is prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma (MM). Timing of BM assessment is variable across Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cell (CART) therapy trials and differs from standard of care practice. BM myeloma cell clearance can be detected by month 1 post CART, even before serum immunofixation becomes negative. BM is still hypocellular at month 1, thus prognostic value of MRD negative (MRDneg) at this timepoint is unclear. We examined impact of Day 30 MRD status in patients (pts) who received CART at Mayo Clinic. Methods: Medical records were reviewed retrospectively for MM pts who received CART between 8/2016 and 6/2021. PFS and OS were plotted by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Sixty MM pts received CART and had BM biopsy at month 1. Median age was 62 yrs, 53% were male, and 78% were BM MRDneg by flow cytometry. Baseline demographics were similar between MRDneg and MRD+ (Table). Overall, 85% (40/47) who were month 1 BM MRDneg had i/u FLC<normal. Patients who achieved CR/sCR had higher rates of BM MRDneg (100% vs 61%, p<0.001) and i/u FLC< normal (89% vs 58%, p<0.001). At month 1, 24/60 (40%) pts had hypocellular BM. Serial BM samples at month 3 (n=35), 6 (n=28) and 12 (n=23) showed MRDneg rate of 93% (25/27), 56% (9/16) 58% (7/12), respectively.. Rate of hypocellularity was 54% (19/35), 32% (9/28) and 30% (7/23), respectively. Among the MRDneg/hypocellular pts at month 1, hypocellular BM was seen in 8/11 (73%) pts at month 3 and 2/4 (50%) pts at month 6 and 12. Compared to MRD+, pts who had BM MRDneg at months1 had longer PFS (Table). PFS was not statistically significantly different between pts who had BM MRDneg and were either hypocellular or not. MRDneg pts with i/u FLC<normal at months1 had better median PFS compared to those who did not. (MRD+:2.9 months (1.2-NR). MRDneg/FLC>normal: 4.9 months (2.3-NR). vs MRDneg/FLC<normal:17.9 months (11.8-NR), p<0.0001). Conclusions: Hypocellular BM is common in the 3 months post CART. Regardless of BM cellularity, BM MRDneg at month 1 correlates with deep response and prolonged PFS. Majority of BM MRDneg pts at month 1 also had FLC<normal. BM MRDneg status and FLC normalization were associated with longer survival. Our data support the continued evaluation of BM early post CART infusion as a prognostic tool. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE CARTITUDE-1, a phase Ib/II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, yielded early, deep, and durable responses at 12 months. Here, we present updated results 2 years after last patient in (median follow-up [MFU] approximately 28 months), including analyses of high-risk patient subgroups. METHODS Eligible patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug and had received prior proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 therapy. Patients received a single cilta-cel infusion 5-7 days after lymphodepletion. Responses were assessed by an independent review committee. RESULTS At a MFU of 27.7 months (N = 97), the overall response rate was 97.9% (95% CI, 92.7 to 99.7); 82.5% (95% CI, 73.4 to 89.4) of patients achieved a stringent complete response. Median duration of response was not estimable. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached; 27-month PFS and OS rates were 54.9% (95% CI, 44.0 to 64.6) and 70.4% (95% CI, 60.1 to 78.6), respectively. Overall response rates were high across all subgroups (95.1%-100%). Duration of response, PFS, and/or OS were shorter in patients with high-risk cytogenetics, International Staging System stage III, high tumor burden, or plasmacytomas. The safety profile was manageable with no new cilta-cel–related cytokine release syndrome and one new case of parkinsonism (day 914 after cilta-cel) since the last report. CONCLUSION At approximately 28 months MFU, patients treated with cilta-cel maintained deep and durable responses, observed in both standard and high-risk subgroups. The risk/benefit profile of cilta-cel remained favorable with longer follow-up.

Summary: The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

AbstractIdentifying biomarkers associated with disease progression and drug resistance are important for personalized care. We investigated the expression of 121 curated genes, related to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) responsiveness. We analyzed 28 human multiple myeloma (MM) cell lines with known drug sensitivities and 130 primary MM patient samples collected at different disease stages, including newly diagnosed (ND), on therapy (OT), and relapsed and refractory (RR, collected within 12 months before the patients’ death) timepoints. Our findings led to the identification of a subset of genes linked to clinical drug resistance, poor survival, and disease progression following combination treatment containing IMIDs and/or PIs. Finally, we built a seven‐gene model (MM‐IMiD and PI sensitivity‐7 genes [IP‐7]) using digital gene expression profiling data that significantly separates ND patients from IMiD‐ and PI‐refractory RR patients. Using this model, we retrospectively analyzed RNA sequcencing (RNAseq) data from the Mulltiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) CoMMpass (n = 578) and Mayo Clinic MM patient registry (n = 487) to divide patients into probabilities of responder and nonresponder, which subsequently correlated with overall survival, disease stage, and number of prior treatments. Our findings suggest that this model may be useful in predicting acquired resistance to treatments containing IMiDs and/or PIs.

Abstract Background: Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have triple class exposure to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) have a poor prognosis and high unmet medical need. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy which may offer long-term disease control for these patients. CARTITUDE-1 is an open-label, single arm phase 1b/2 clinical trial conducted to characterize the safety and efficacy of cilta-cel in adult patients with triple-class exposed RRMM. Since CARTITUDE-1 is a single-arm study, adjusted comparisons to other currently available therapies can provide valuable information on relative efficacy and safety benefits of cilta-cel over current real-world clinical practice (RWCP). LocoMMotion is the first prospective study of RWCP efficacy and safety outcomes in triple-class exposed patients with RRMM. It was designed a priori to serve as an external control cohort for CARTITUDE-1, using aligned inclusion criteria and endpoint definitions, to enable robust, high quality indirect comparisons vs. cilta-cel. Objective: To compare patient outcomes of cilta-cel vs. RWCP, including overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better rate (≥CR rate), progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by a review committee and overall survival (OS) in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM. Methods: Individual patient level data available from both CARTITUDE-1 (clinical cut-off February 2021) and LocoMMotion (clinical cut-off March 2021) were pooled to conduct the comparative analyses. Imbalances between both cohorts on key prognostic baseline characteristics, including refractory status, ISS stage, time to progression on prior line, number of prior lines, average duration of prior lines, age, creatinine clearance, ECOG PS and MM type were adjusted for using inverse probability weighting. Average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) weights derived from propensity scores estimated using multivariable logistic regression modeling were applied to the LocoMMotion patients to have the weighted RWCP cohort reflecting the CARTITUDE-1 patient population. Balance between the ATT weighted RWCP cohort versus the CARTITUDE-1 population was evaluated based on reduction of standardized mean differences and overlap of propensity score distributions. Weighted logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the relative treatment effects for cilta-cel vs. RWCP on binary endpoints (Odds ratios (OR), transformed into Response-rate Ratios (RR) and time to event endpoints (Hazard ratios (HR)), respectively. The base case analyses included all enrolled (apheresed) patients from CARTITUDE-1, reflecting an intention to treat approach. Additional analyses were conducted including only patients who received cilta-cel infusion compared to an aligned population of LocoMMotion where patients that progressed or died within 52 days were excluded from the LocoMMotion cohort. Results: 113 patients were enrolled in CARTITUDE-1, of which 97 were infused with cilta-cel. 246 patients were enrolled in LocoMMotion receiving RWCP in Italy (24%), Germany (15%), France (14%), UK (11%), Spain (10%), USA (9%), Belgium (5%), Poland (5%), Netherlands (4%) and Russia (3%). Therapies within the RWCP cohort were diverse and &gt;90 unique treatment regimens were used. The most frequent regimens were Kd (13.8%), PCd (12.6%) and Pd (11.0%). The weighted LocoMMotion population was well balanced with the CARTITUDE-1 cohort. Adjusted comparisons (Table 1) showed statistically significant improvements for cilta-cel vs. RWCP for ORR (RR=4.43), ≥CR (RR=568.92), PFS (HR=0.15) and OS (HR=0.38), all comparisons with p&lt;0.001. All additional analyses were consistent with these findings (Table 1). Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with RWPC observed in LocoMMotion are poor, illustrating the high unmet medical need. Adjusted comparisons vs. CARTITUDE-1 demonstrate significantly improved ORR, ≥CR, PFS and OS for cilta-cel compared to a diverse set of RWCP. These findings highlight cilta-cel's potential as a highly effective treatment option for patients with triple-class exposed RRMM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mateos: Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Weisel: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Martin: Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Berdeja: Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding. Jakubowiak: Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gracell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Skyline diagnostics: Consultancy; Genomcs England: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PikSci Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Jagannath: Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Diels: Janssen: Current Employment. Ghilotti: Janssen-Cilag SpA, Cologno Monzese, Italy: Current Employment. Perualila: Janssen: Current Employment. Cabrieto: Janssen: Current Employment. Haefliger: Janssen-Cilag AG: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Cilag GmbH International: Current Employment. Erler-Yates: Janssen: Current Employment. Hague: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jackson: Janssen: Current Employment; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Consultancy. Strulev: Janssen Pharmaceutica NV: Current Employment. Nesheiwat: Legend Biotech USA: Current Employment. Pacaud: Legend Biotech: Current Employment. Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy with 2 B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeting single-domain antibodies, demonstrated early, deep, and durable responses in the phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had been heavily pretreated (Berdeja, Lancet, 2021). After a median follow-up of 12.4 months, the overall response rate (ORR; as assessed by independent review committee) was 97%, with 67% of pts achieving stringent complete response (sCR). The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 77% and 89%, respectively. Here, we report updated results from CARTITUDE-1 with longer duration of follow-up (median 18 months). Methods: Eligible pts had MM and received ≥3 prior therapies or were refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and had received a PI, IMiD, and an anti-CD38 antibody. After apheresis, bridging therapy was permitted. Pts received a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose 0.75×10 6 CAR+ viable T cells/kg; range 0.5-1.0×10 6) 5-7 days (d) after lymphodepletion (300 mg/m 2 cyclophosphamide, 30 mg/m 2 fludarabine daily for 3 d). Primary objectives were to characterize cilta-cel safety, confirm the recommended phase 2 dose (phase 1b), and evaluate cilta-cel efficacy (phase 2). Response was assessed per IMWG criteria by an independent review committee and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity at 10 -5 by next-generation sequencing. In this combined phase 1b and phase 2 analysis, cytokine release syndrome (CRS; per Lee et al Blood 2014 grading criteria) and neurotoxicity (by CTCAE v5.0) were mapped to the ASTCT criteria for CRS and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), respectively. Results: As of Feb 11, 2021, 97 pts (58.8% male; median age 61.0 years [range 43-78]) received cilta-cel. Pts had received a median of 6 (range 3-18) prior lines of therapy; 83.5% were penta-drug exposed, 87.6% were triple-class refractory, 42.3% were penta-drug refractory, and 99.0% were refractory to last line of therapy. ORR was 97.9% (95% CI: 92.7-99.7); 80.4% of pts achieved sCR, and 94.8% achieved very good partial response or better (Figure). The median time to first response was 1 month (range 0.9-10.7), median time to best response was 2.6 months (range 0.9-15.2), and median time to complete response or better was 2.6 months (range 0.9-15.2). The median duration of response was 21.8 months (95% CI: 21.8-not estimable). Of 61 pts evaluable for MRD, 91.8% were MRD negative at the 10 -5 threshold; MRD 10 -5 negativity was sustained for ≥6 months in 44.3% (27/61) of pts and ≥12 months in 18% (11/61) of pts. The 18-month PFS and OS rates were 66.0% (95% CI: 54.9-75.0) and 80.9% (95% CI: 71.4-87.6), respectively. 18-month PFS rates in pts who achieved sustained MRD for ≥6 months and ≥12 months were 96.3% (95% CI: 76.5-99.5) and 100%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic AEs in ≥25% of pts were neutropenia (94.8%), anemia (68.0%), leukopenia (60.8%), thrombocytopenia (59.8%), and lymphopenia (49.5%). There were no fatalities related to cytopenias, and no new safety signals with longer follow-up. CRS occurred in 94.8% of pts (mostly grade 1/2); median time to onset was 7 d (range 1-12), and CRS resolved within 14 d in 98.9% of pts. There was no new CAR T-cell neurotoxicity since the previous report. Post cilta-cel infusion, 21 deaths occurred during the study: 0 within first 30 d, 2 within 100 d, and 19 more than 100 d post infusion. Ten deaths were due to disease progression, 6 were treatment-related (as assessed by the investigator), and 5 were due to AEs unrelated to treatment. One patient was retreated with cilta-cel (for progressive disease) and had stable disease (per computerized algorithm) post-retreatment with no incidence of CAR T-cell neurotoxicity. Conclusions: At a longer median follow-up of 18 months, a single cilta-cel infusion led to early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pre-treated pts with MM. Follow-up is ongoing and updated data will be presented. Cilta-cel demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no new safety signals observed with longer follow-up. Further investigations of cilta-cel are ongoing in earlier lines of therapy (CARTITUDE-2 [NCT04133636], CARTITUDE-4 [NCT04181827], and CARTITUDE-5 [NCT04923893]) and in outpatient settings. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Martin: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Usmani: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy. Berdeja: Lilly, Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida, Sanofi, Teva: Research Funding; GSK, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte: Research Funding; Bluebird bio, BMS, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy; Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen: Research Funding; EMD Sorono, Genentech: Research Funding. Jakubowiak: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gracell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cohen: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hari: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Avigan: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Partner Tx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aviv MedTech Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Legend Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Parexcel: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Deol: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Lesokhin: bristol myers squibb: Research Funding; Iteos: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Behringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy; Serametrix, Inc: Patents & Royalties; Genetech: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Munshi: Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: scientific founder, Patents & Royalties; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. O'Donnell: Onocopeptide: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Stewart: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Skyline diagnostics: Consultancy; Genomcs England: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PikSci Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Schecter: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Goldberg: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Jackson: Janssen: Current Employment; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Consultancy. Yeh: Janssen: Current Employment. Banerjee: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Allred: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Zudaire: Janssen: Current Employment. Deraedt: Janssen: Current Employment. Olyslager: Janssen: Current Employment. Pacaud: Legend Biotech: Current Employment. Lin: Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath: Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: At the time of abstract submission, cilta-cel is being investigated for the treatment of multiple myeloma but is not yet approved.

Abstract Data from germline testing in unselected patients with hepatobiliary cancers are limited. Identification of germline predisposition can have important implications on cancer treatment and family counseling. To determine prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with hepatobiliary cancer, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using a &gt;80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among patients with hepatobiliary cancers receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected on the basis of stage, family cancer history, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no cost. Of 205 patients, the median age was 65 years, 58.5% were male, 81% were White, and 64.4% had cholangiocarcinoma, 21.5% hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.8% gallbladder cancer, and 4.3% carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. PGV were found in 15.6% (n = 32) of patients, including 23 (71%) in moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. A total of 75% of patients with a positive result would not have been detected using guidelines for genetic evaluation. Prevalence of PGV was 15.7% in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 17% in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 15.9% in hepatocellular cancer, and 33% in carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. On the basis of these genetic findings, 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Universal multi-gene panel testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with detection of heritable mutations in over 15% of patients most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers. Prevention Relevance: Universal multi-gene testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with heritable mutations in over 15% of patients, most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers.

INTRODUCTION: To report the prevalence and outcomes of unselected pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) detected using a universal testing approach. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multisite study of germline sequencing using a >80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among 250 patients with PC (not selected for age or family history of cancer) between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared between PGV carriers and noncarriers. RESULTS: Of 250 patients, the mean age was 65 years (SD 8.7), 56% was male, 83.6% was White, and 65.6% had advanced disease (stages III and IV). PGVs were found in 15.2% (N = 38) of patients, and 2 patients had more than 1 PGV. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 44.4% (N = 111). Family history of cancer (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.14–5.19, P = 0.025) was associated with a higher risk of PGV. In a median follow-up of 16.5 months, the median overall survival was 16.8 months in PGV carriers compared with 16.5 months in noncarriers (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.25–1.01, P = 0.05). Higher levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and advanced disease stages (III and IV) were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Overall, 68% of PGV carriers had mutations in homologous recombination repair genes, including BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , ATM , CHEK2 , NBN , and RAD51C . DISCUSSION: Universal multigene panel testing in PC reveals that 1 in 6 patients are carriers of PGV. Multigene germline testing should be used to aid in treatment selection, prognostication, and familial cancer counseling.

Abstract Background: The randomized phase 3 ASPIRE study demonstrated that the addition of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib to Rd resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Rd alone in patients with RRMM (median 26.3 vs 17.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.83; 2-sided P=0.0001; Stewart AK, et al. N Engl J Med . 2015;372:142-52; Table). OS data were immature at the time of the PFS analysis but showed a trend in favor of the KRd group (HR=0.79). Hereby, results from the planned final analysis of OS in ASPIRE are presented. Methods: Adults with RRMM who received 1─3 prior lines of therapy were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd in 28-day cycles until withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or the occurrence of unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified according to β2-microglobulin level (&lt;2.5 mg per liter vs. ≥2.5 mg per liter), previous therapy with bortezomib, and previous therapy with lenalidomide. Carfilzomib was given as a 10-minute infusion (starting dose of 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose of 27 mg/m2 thereafter) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1─12 and on days 1, 2, 15, and 16 (cycles 13─18). Lenalidomide (25 mg) was administered on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. After cycle 18 of carfilzomib, patients randomized to the KRd arm received Rd treatment only. In total, 510 deaths were required to provide 85% power to detect a reduction in the risk of death for KRd vs Rd, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. OS was compared between treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test. HRs were estimated using a stratified Cox model. Results: As of the data cutoff date (April 28, 2017) for the planned final OS analysis, median treatment durations were 72 weeks for carfilzomib (per protocol, carfilzomib was discontinued after cycle 18), 85 weeks (KRd arm) and 57 weeks (Rd arm) for lenalidomide, and 80 weeks (KRd arm) and 49 weeks (Rd arm) for dexamethasone. The median follow up was 67 months for both arms. Median OS (95% CI) was 48.3 (42.4-52.8) months for KRd vs 40.4 (33.6-44.4) months for Rd (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95; 1-sided P=0.0045; Table and Figure). Median OS was 11.4 months longer for KRd vs Rd in patients receiving 1 prior line (47.3 vs 35.9 months [HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62-1.06]) and 6.5 months longer for patients receiving ≥2 prior lines (48.8 vs 42.3 months; [HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99]). Among patients with 1 prior line of therapy, OS was improved with KRd vs Rd regardless of whether patients had received prior bortezomib; in patients with 1 prior line, median OS was improved by 12 months in the prior bortezomib group (45.9 vs 33.9 months [HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56-1.19]) and 7.9 months in the no prior bortezomib group (48.3 vs 40.4 months [HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.17]). With respect to risk, OS by Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage was assessed. For R-ISS stage I (KRd, n=42; Rd, n=46), median OS was not reached for KRd and was 58.0 months for Rd (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92). For patients with R-ISS stage II (KRd, n=194; Rd, n=195), median OS was 45.4 months for KRd and 41.2 months for Rd (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.10). For the small number of patients with R-ISS stage III (KRd, n=37; Rd, n=47), median OS was 23.3 months for KRd and 18.8 months for Rd (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.66-1.68). For the overall study population, treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 19.9% (KRd) and 21.5% (Rd) of patients. Fatal AEs were reported in 11.5% (KRd) and 10.5% (Rd) of patients. Grade ≥3 AE rates were 87.0% (KRd) and 83.0% (Rd). Selected grade ≥3 AEs of interest (grouped terms; KRd vs Rd) included acute renal failure (3.8% vs 3.3%), cardiac failure (4.3% vs 2.1%), ischemic heart disease (3.8% vs 2.3%), hypertension (6.4% vs 2.3%), and hematopoietic thrombocytopenia (20.2% vs 14.9%). Conclusions: KRd demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 21% reduction in the risk of death vs Rd. KRd should be considered a standard of care in RRMM. Disclosures Stewart: Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Siegel: Celgene, Takeda, Amgen Inc, Novartis and BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Ludwig: Bristol-Meyers: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Facon: Amgen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak: Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Karypharm, Millennium-Takeda, Sanofi, SkylineDX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; University of Chicago: Employment. San Miguel: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Obreja: Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blaedel: Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Hereditary factors play a key role in the risk of developing breast cancers. Identification of a germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment decisions, risk-reducing interventions, cancer screening, and testing for family members. Aim: To determine the prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline mutations (P/LP) using a “universal” testing approach and uptake of no-cost cascade family testing in patients with breast cancer. Methods: We undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline genetic alterations among breast cancer patients receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Rochester, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Jacksonville, FL and Phoenix, AZ between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Patients with a new or active breast cancer diagnosis (all stages) irrespective of cancer family history were tested with a &gt;80-gene next generation sequencing panel.Results: Of 390 patients, the median age was 58 years (SD 12.3), 1% were male, 85% were white and 28% had advanced (stage 3-4) disease. P/LP were found in 12.1% (n=47) of patients, including 29 in moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. 13 (3.3%) patients had mutations in BRCA1 or 2, while 33 (8.4%) had mutations in BRCAness (ATM, BAP1, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, RAD51C, RAD51D, WRN) associated genes. Of the P/LP findings the most frequent aberrations were in BRCA2 (13.5%), BRCA1 (11.5%), CHEK2 (11.5%), MUTYH (11.5%), and WRN (9.6%). Variants of uncertain significance were found in 209 (53.6%) including 26 (6.6%) with concurrent P/LP and VUS. 37 (9.4%) patients had mutations associated with published management recommendations, precision therapies and/or clinical trial eligibility. 10 (2.6%) patients had P/LP that would not have met current screening guidelines, including 4 with moderate or high penetrance mutations. Patients with younger age of diagnosis were less likely than patients with older age of diagnosis to have a P/LP mutation (OR= 0.47, 95%CI: 0.25-0.90 p = 0.020). Only 10 (21%) patients with P/LP had family members undergo familial site- specific testing at no cost.Conclusions: In this prospective multi-center study of unselected breast cancer patients, universal multi-gene panel testing found that 1 in 8 patients harbor P/LP germline variants. Current guidelines were able to identify the majority of patients with P/LP mutations. Familial site specific testing is greatly under-utilized even when cost is not a barrier. Multigene panels impact cancer patient care by identifying precision medicine treatment interventions, and guiding long-term medical management and preventive surveillance. Citation Format: Brenda Ernst, Natalie Ertz-Archambault, Deborah J Rhodes, Donald W Northfelt, Myra Wick, Douglas L Riegert-Johnson, Scott Okuno, Katie Kunze, Michael Golafshar, Cindy M Azevedo, PLS Uson Junior, ED Esplin, Robert Nussbaum, Margaret Klint, Sarah Mantia, Megan Hager, Keith Stewart, Niloy Jewel Samadder. Universal genetic testing in breast cancer patients: A multi-center prospective study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-05.