Citations

Abstract Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) have transformed the treatment landscape for CLL, offering significant improvement in patient outcomes. Despite the widespread adoption of BTKis and their proven clinical benefits, data on the treatment preferences and priorities of patients with CLL in Asia, particularly in Japan, are limited. Understanding patient preference is critical for optimizing clinical decision-making and tailoring treatment strategies for Japanese patients. A comprehensive quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate patient preferences for covalent BTKi treatment attributes and trade-offs among these attributes. Methods: An online survey applying discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology was administered between April 29 and June 30, 2025 to Japanese adults (≥18 years of year) diagnosed with CLL. The design of DCE attributes and levels was informed by literature review and clinical consultations. Treatment attributes included efficacy (i.e., progression-free survival [PFS]), safety (i.e., impacts of diarrhea, headache, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension on quality of life [QoL]), and convenience (i.e., formulation type including tablet or capsule, and dosing frequency including once daily or twice daily). A conditional logistic regression was applied to estimate preference weights, which were used to calculate the relative importance as well as willingness-to-tradeoff between BTKi treatment attributes. Results: The study included 50 patients (mean age: 62 years; 30% female; 38% employed full-time; 60% reported no comorbid conditions). More than half (60%) were diagnosed ≥5 years ago. Around one quarter (24%) were treatment naive, and 76% received ≥1 treatment (40% first-line, 26% second-line and 10% third-line or later). Most patients (82%) reported living with or near their caregiver. In terms of travel time to obtain CLL medication, 46% reported travel time of one hour, 40% traveled less than 30 minutes, and 14% traveled more than two hours. The majority of patients (66%) were using High-Cost Medical Expense Benefit, while an additional 10% were either currently applying or planning to apply. In general, patients preferred treatments with less impact of AEs on QoL, higher efficacy, and less dosing frequency (P<.05). The top three treatment attributes with the highest relative importance were the impact of atrial fibrillation (24.7%) and diarrhea (21.0%) on QoL, and PFS (15.8%), followed by impact of headache (15.7%) and hypertension (14.1%) on QoL, dosing frequency (7.8%), and formulation type (capsule or tablet) (0.9%). Patients were willing to trade off PFS for improved quality of life: accepting reductions of 3.1 years for less impact from atrial fibrillation, 2.7 years for diarrhea, 2.0 years for headache, and 1.8 years for hypertension (none or mild vs. significant impact). Additionally, they were willing to accept a reduction of 1.0 years of PFS to receive a treatment given once daily rather than twice daily.Conclusions: This is the first quantitative assessment of treatment preferences among Japanese patients with CLL using a DCE approach. Findings from this study provide valuable Japan-specific insights, highlighting that although efficacy is important, patients prioritize safety factors, such as the impact of atrial fibrillation and diarrhea on QoL. These findings support the integration of patient perspectives into treatment planning to enhance shared decision-making, personalize care, and promote better adherence to long-term therapies in CLL management.

Abstract Background: Four bispecific antibodies (bsAbs), teclistamab, elranatamab, talquetamab, and linvoseltamab have been approved for use in the U.S. in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). The objective of this analysis was to describe healthcare resources utilization (HCRU) in Medicare pts initiating treatment (≥1 medical claim) with teclistamab for R/R MM, and to explore how HCRU differs for pts who initiate in the inpatient (IP) vs outpatient (OP) setting. We focused only on teclistamab due to insufficient follow-up for robust analyses of other bsAbs. Methods: The study used data from a 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and medical (Parts A and B) claims data during the “study period” spanning from 12 months prior to the approval of teclistamab to the end of availability of claims data (Oct 25, 2021–Sep 30, 2024). The study population included all pts in the database with ≥1 diagnosis of MM and ≥1 claim for teclistamab ≥30 days prior to the end of the study period. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled for Medicare medical benefits for the 12 months up to and including the 1st claim for teclistamab (the “index date”). Other main eligibility criteria included: 1) index date on/after availability of both IP and OP procedure codes for teclistamab; 2) no claims for MM treatment other than teclistamab or a corticosteroid within 0–30 days post index date; 3) if 1st administration of teclistamab was in the OP setting, dosage was consistent with first step up dose (SUD) and 4) ≥65 years of age as of index date. For each patient, the follow-up period was defined as the period from the index date to first occurrence of death, end of continuous enrollment, or end of study period. Setting of initiation of treatment was defined based on the setting of the first claim for teclistamab (IP or OP). For pts who initiated teclistamab in the IP setting, completion of SUD was defined as ≥1 OP administration with a full treatment dose of teclistamab (i.e., not an SUD) that occurred ≥10 days post index date. For those who initiated teclistamab in an OP setting, completion of SUD was defined as ≥2 OP administrations of teclistamab at a full treatment dose. The number of hospitalizations and physicians' office and hospital OP visits during teclistamab treatment were calculated on a per patient per month (PPPM) basis. Results: A total of 2,185 pts had ≥1 claim for teclistamab during the study period. Of these, 1,373 met all eligibility criteria. Mean (median) age at index date was 75 (74) years and 49% were female. Mean (median [range]) follow-up was 8.2 (7 [0.2–22.7]) months. Overall, 87% of pts initiated teclistamab in an IP setting, with a mean length of stay (LOS) for the index hospitalization of 9.3 days. Among those initiating teclistamab in an OP setting, 41% were hospitalized within 1 month of treatment initiation. Among all pts (IP or OP initiation of treatment), the Kaplan–Meier estimated median duration of teclistamab treatment was 6.1 months; 87% of pts completed SUD. Patients had a mean (median) of 0.72 (0.32) hospitalizations PPPM and 6.4 (5.8) hospital outpatient or physician's office visits PPPM during teclistamab treatment. Conclusions:Most pts with MM receiving teclistamab initiate treatment in an IP setting, with hospital LOS consistent with dosing guidance from the prescribing information. A substantial proportion of those who initiate teclistamab in an OP setting are hospitalized within 30 days. Treatment duration and percentage of pts completing SUD were consistent with values in other real-world studies of teclistamab. Patients receiving teclistamab have a high hospitalization burden during treatment initiation and frequent hospitalizations and OP visits over the course of treatment. These results highlight the need for novel treatments, administration models, and/or implementation of standardized supportive care guidelines to reduce the hospital burden and increase time on treatment for pts receiving bsAbs in real world settings.

Abstract Purpose: R,R-1,2 cyclohexanediamine-pyrophosphato-platinum(II) (PT-112) is a novel immunogenic cell death–inducing small molecule under phase II development in several cancer types. It inhibits ribosome biogenesis and causes organelle stresses, leading to selective immunogenic cell death in cancer cells. The possibility of PT-112’s pyrophosphate moiety driving high drug concentrations to bone sites of disease has led to an interest in PT-112’s use in multiple myeloma. In this study, we present findings from phase I and in vivo studies for PT-112 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Experimental Design: PT-112 biodistribution was analyzed in mice via laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The activity of PT-112 was assessed in de novo and transplantable Tg(Igkv3-5*-MYC)#Plbe (Vk*MYC) multiple myeloma mouse models as monotherapy or combination therapies. M-spike levels and survival were measured. A phase I dose escalation study of PT-112 monotherapy was conducted using a 3 + 3 design in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with exhausted available therapies. Results: In vivo biodistribution imaging revealed high concentrations in the bone, kidney, lung, skin, and liver. PT-112 was active in Vk*MYC multiple myeloma mouse models, both alone and in combination. Phase I data showed that PT-112 monotherapy was safe and well-tolerated, establishing a recommended phase II dose of 360 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Confirmed responses and other signals of activity were observed. Conclusions: These results suggest a lack of cross-resistance with the standard of care and support the translational value of the Vk*MYC model system. Further clinical investigation of PT-112 is warranted in multiple myeloma.

CLL is the most prevalent adult leukemia in Western countries, characterized by the accumulation of monoclonal B lymphocytes. Over the past decade, the therapeutic landscape for CLL has undergone significant transformations, primarily due to the introduction of targeted small molecular therapies like BTK inhibitors and BCL-2 inhibitors, that have improved patient outcomes drastically. Despite significant advances, long-term disease management remains challenging for patients with double-refractory CLL, where responses with subsequent therapies are short-lived. Resistance to these therapies can arise through several mechanisms like kinase-altering BTK mutations, alterations in the BCL-2 pathway, and adaptations within the tumor microenvironment, necessitating the exploration of new therapeutic options. This review provides an in-depth overview of the promising novel treatment approaches under investigation in CLL, focusing on advanced cellular therapies (CAR T-cell therapy), T-cell engagers, new monoclonal antibodies, and various next-generation small molecule inhibitors including BTK degraders, PI3K inhibitors, MALT1 inhibitors, c-MYC inhibitors, CDK9 inhibitors, and agents targeting angiogenesis and DNA damage repair. In this review, we will discuss the novel therapeutic targets and agents as well as ongoing trials, emphasizing the potential of these treatments to overcome resistance and meet the unmet needs of patients, particularly those with double-refractory CLL.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

PURPOSE To report the results of the multicenter, open-label IRAKLIA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05405166 ) of isatuximab subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV), plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), to our knowledge, the first phase III MM trial using an on-body injector (OBI). METHODS Patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to Isa OBI (1,400 mg) or IV (10 mg/kg) once weekly in cycle (C)1 and then every 2 weeks, plus pomalidomide (4 mg once daily, day [D]1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly [age ≥75: 20 mg]) and treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR; noninferiority margin, 0.839) and Isa C trough (C6D1 predose; noninferiority margin, 0.8). Noninferiority of OBI versus IV was demonstrated if both coprimary end points achieved noninferiority. RESULTS IRAKLIA randomly assigned 531 patients (OBI, n=263; IV, n=268). After 12-month median follow-up, the ORR was 71.1% (OBI) and 70.5% (IV; relative risk, 1.008 [95% CI, 0.903 to 1.126]; lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin). The mean (standard deviation) C6D1 C trough was 499 (259) μg/mL (OBI) and 340 (169) μg/mL (IV). The C trough geometric mean ratio (90% CI) was 1.532 (1.316 to 1.784); lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event incidences were 81.7% (OBI) and 76.1% (IV); infusion reaction incidences were 1.5% and 25.0%. Injection site reactions occurred in 0.4% of OBI injections (all grade 1-2); 99.9% of injections completed without interruption. CONCLUSION IRAKLIA demonstrated efficacy and pharmacokinetic noninferiority between Isa OBI and IV. No unexpected safety signal was observed, with excellent local tolerability of Isa OBI. Efficacy and safety were comparable with Isa IV in ICARIA-MM, except the lower OBI infusion reaction rate. These results support potential use of the OBI, designed to improve practice efficiency.

e19503 Background: The uptake of BCMA directed ADCs in MM has been hindered by ocular toxicity. Belantamab mafodotin (BM) and MEDI2228 (MEDI) are BCMA directed monoclonal antibodies conjugated to the microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin F and the alkylator, pyrrolobenzodiazepine, respectively. Differences in the ADCs payload, antibody specificity and linker stability influence ocular toxicity. We investigated the patterns of ocular toxicity and tolerability of BCMA directed ADC therapy. Methods: Retrospective study of MM patients who commenced treatment with a commercial or investigational BCMA directed ADC at the Mayo Clinic between 2019-22. Results: 111 patients were included, the median age was 69 and median follow up 40 months. The median number of prior treatments was 6, 87% of patients were triple class refractory, 50% penta class refractory, 14% had prior BCMA directed therapy and 24% had extraosseous disease. Treatments included BM (n=56, 50%), BM in combination with other MM therapy (n=12, 11%) and MEDI (n=43, 39%). The overall response rate was 30% for BM and 44% for MEDI. The median OS and PFS for BM was 8 and 2 months, the median OS and PFS for MEDI was 11 and 5 months. The median number of ADC cycles was 2.5. Ocular toxicity is summarized in the table 1. Keratopathy was more common with BM (p=0.004). Only 4 MEDI patients developed keratopathy, all grade 1 and associated with dry eyes and/or photophobia. In contrast, 60% of BM patients developed keratopathy (13% grade 3-4 keratopathy). The median time to keratopathy onset was 1 month with BM, and 2.8 with MEDI. The median time until keratopathy was 4.6 months for BM. Loss of best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was significantly more common with BM (p<0.001). The median time to any decline in VA was 1.5 months for BM and 2.3 for MEDI. The median time until VA returned to baseline was 2.4 months for BM and 2.3 for MEDI. The frequency of dose delays for ocular toxicity was comparable between ADCs, as was the number of dose reductions (16% BM vs. 12% MEDI, p=0.5). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progression or death (BM=69%, MEDI=44%) and ocular toxicity (BM=18%, MEDI=30%). Conclusions: Treatment interruptions, dose reductions and drug discontinuation are common with BCMA directed ADC therapy. Further research to optimize the administration schedule of these agents is warranted. BM and MEDI produce distinct patterns of ocular side effects, namely keratopathy and reduced VA with the former, and photophobia and dry eyes with the latter. BM N = 68 MEDI N = 43 p-value 2 Prophylactic steroid eye drops 4 (6%) 28 (68%) <0.001 Prophylactic lubricant eye drops 42 (63%) 33 (80%) 0.051 Max grade keratopathy 0.004 1-2 29 (47%) 4 (19%) 3-4 8 (13%) 0 (0%) VA equal or worse than 20/40 26 (68%) 6 (20%) <0.001 Days of ADC treatment 59 (33, 167) 68 (41, 105) 0.9 Dose delay for ocular toxicity 19 (28%) 8 (19%) 0.2 n (%); Median (IQR); 2 Chisq test; Wilcoxon rank sum.