Citations

8503 Background: Outcomes are poor in triple-class exposed RRMM patients (pts) who progress on immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and CD38 antibodies (mAbs). Ide-cel, a BCMA targeted CAR T cell therapy, showed promising tolerability and efficacy in RRMM pts in the phase I CRB-401 study ( NEJM2019;380:1726). We present primary efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase II KarMMa trial of ide-cel in RRMM (NCT03361748). Methods: Enrolled pts had ≥3 prior regimens (including IMiD, PI, and CD38 mAb) and were refractory to their last regimen per IMWG criteria. After lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2+ fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3), pts received 150─450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (target dose range). Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), and PFS. Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 128 received ide-cel. Median age was 61 y; median no. of prior regimens was 6; 84% were triple- and 26% were penta-refractory. Most pts (88%) had bridging therapy. At data cutoff (16 Oct 2019), median follow up was 11.3 mo. ORR was 73% and median PFS was 8.6 mo; both increased with higher dose (Table). All subgroups had an ORR ≥50%, including older and high-risk pts. Most common any-grade (Gr) toxicities were cytopenias (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 84%). CRS was mainly Gr 1/2; 5 pts (5%) had Gr 3, 1 had Gr 4, and 1 had Gr 5 (at 300 × 106). Neurotoxicity developed in 23 pts (18%); 4 (3%) Gr 3 and 0 Gr ≥4. Median peak CAR+ T cell expansion occurred at 11 d. Expansion was higher in responders and parameters (AUC0−28d, Cmax) increased with higher dose, with exposure overlap across doses. Persistence was durable, with CAR+ T cells detected in 29/49 (59%) and 4/11 pts (36%) at 6 and 12 mo. Conclusions: Ide-cel demonstrated deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated RRMM pts. Efficacy and safety reflected prior reports and support a favorable ide-cel clinical benefit-risk profile across the target dose range. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748 . [Table: see text]

e19505 Background: CFZ combined with dexamethasone is approved to treat pts with RRMM, with CFZ given once-weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW) or twice-weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW). No randomized trials have directly compared Kd70 QW with Kd56 BIW. We performed a post hoc comparison between pts who received Kd56 BIW in the ENDEAVOR trial and pts who received Kd70 QW in the A.R.R.O.W. or CHAMPION-1 trials. Methods: Data were analyzed from 3 trials of CFZ in RRMM: A.R.R.O.W. (240 pts in Kd70 QW arm; 2–3 prior therapies and refractory to most recent therapy), CHAMPION-1 (104 pts received Kd70 QW; 1–3 prior therapies), and ENDEAVOR (464 pts in Kd56 BIW arm; 1–3 prior therapies). Pts who received Kd70 QW in A.R.R.O.W. and CHAMPION-1 were pooled and compared with pts who received Kd56 BIW in ENDEAVOR. As study populations slightly varied among the 3 trials, an analysis of safety and efficacy was performed in a subgroup of pts who received 2–3 prior therapy lines and were not refractory to bortezomib (BTZ). Also, we performed regression analyses (controlling for age, ISS stage, BTZ and lenalidomide refractory status, and number of prior regimens) among all pts in the trials who received Kd70 QW or Kd56 BIW. Results: Among BTZ non-refractory pts with 2–3 lines of prior therapy, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.4–14.3) for Kd70 QW (n = 146) and 14.5 months (95% CI 10.2–NE) for Kd56 BIW (n = 217), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% CI 61.7–77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI 65.9–78.2) for Kd56 BIW. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 67.6% and 85.3%; among adverse events of interest, the grade ≥3 rate was 1.4% and 5.1% for cardiac failure, 3.4% and 6.0% for renal failure, and 5.5% and 15.7% for hypertension. Kd70 QW represents a convenient and well-tolerated treatment modality for pts with RRMM. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for PFS (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.69–1.19), and in a logistic regression model the odds ratio for ORR (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.74–1.69). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis suggests that once-weekly Kd70 has a comparable benefit-risk profile to twice-weekly Kd56. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878, NCT01677858, NCT01568866.

8035 Background: D-Rd significantly reduced the risk of progression/death by 44% in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts vs Rd in the phase 3 MAIA study. To examine the impact of age on efficacy/safety of D-Rd vs Rd in this population, a subgroup analysis was conducted in pts <75 and ≥75 y of age. Methods: Transplant-ineligible NDMM pts were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA; stratification was based on age (<75 vs ≥75 y), ISS (I, II, III), and region (North America vs Other). Pts received 28-day cycles of either R 25 or 10 mg (based on renal function) PO QD on Days 1-21 and either d 40 or 20 mg (based on age or BMI) PO/IV weekly until progression. In the D-Rd arm, pts received daratumumab 16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter until progression. PFS is the primary endpoint. Results: Among 737 randomized pts (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369), 321 (44%) were ≥75 y of age. For D-Rd vs Rd, relative median dose intensity for R was 79% vs 93% for <75 y subgroup and 66% vs 89% for ≥75 y subgroup, respectively. After median follow-up of 28 mo, significant PFS benefit of D-Rd vs Rd was maintained in both <75 and ≥75 y subgroups (Table). Deeper responses and MRD-negative rate (10-5 threshold) remained higher with D-Rd vs Rd in both subgroups (Table). Most common (≥10%; D-Rd/Rd) grade 3/4 TEAEs in ≥75 y pts were neutropenia (60%/41%), lymphopenia (19%/12%), anemia (16%/22%), pneumonia (15%/10%), leukopenia (12%/6%), and thrombocytopenia (8%/11%). Fewer pts receiving D-Rd vs Rd discontinued treatment due to TEAEs (<75 y: 5% vs 12%; ≥75 y: 10% vs 21%). Conclusions: D-Rd pts received less R vs Rd group regardless of age. Efficacy of D-Rd in <75 and ≥75 y pts was consistent with the ITT population, and D-Rd demonstrated acceptable tolerability regardless of age. Together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study, these studies confirm clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard-of-care in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts ≥75 y of age. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]

8014 Background: TCR-MM is defined as being refractory to immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 mAbs, representing an urgent unmet medical need with a median OS of 3-5 months( Pick M et al, Eur J Haem 2018; Gandhi U et al, ASH 2018). Sd has shown a 26.2% overall response rate (ORR) in 122 patients (pts) with TCR-MM in the Phase 2b STORM study ( Chari A et al, ASH 2018). Here, we evaluate the OS of pts in the STORM study with Sd and in pts with bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab (“penta”)-exposed, TCR-MM from an observational cohort not receiving Sd. Methods: Data were drawn from STORM and a retrospective cohort from the nationally representative Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD). All pts from both sources had penta-exposed TCR-MM. In order to align study populations, OS was evaluated in pts in STORM whose first therapy after their MM reached TCR status was Sd and in pts in the FHAD who received ≥1 therapy after their MM reached TCR status. The index date for this evaluation was the start date of treatment after their MM reached TCR status. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to assess the survival impact of Sd. In STORM, ORR was assessed by an Independent Review Committee based on IMWG criteria. Results: In the FHAD, 69 pts with TCR-MM were identified. Characteristics of the two groups of pts were similar, except that pts in STORM were more heavily pretreated, had a higher frequency of high-risk MM, a longer time since initial diagnosis of MM, and higher baseline hemoglobin and platelet values. Among the 122 pts in STORM, 64 received Sd as their first therapy after their MM became TCR, and ORR was 32.8%. Among the 69 pts from FHAD, 37 received ≥1 therapy after their MM became TCR. Median OS (N = 64) was 10.4 months for pts receiving Sd in STORM and 5.2 months (N = 37) for pts not receiving Sd in FHAD (HR = 0.49, p = 0.0241). Conclusions: The prognosis of TCR-MM in the real-world population appears very poor. Within the limits of this analysis, median OS of pts receiving Sd as their first therapy after their MM becomes TCR is significantly better than those not receiving Sd, suggesting that Sd may be associated with an OS benefit in pts with TCR-MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02336815.

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

8583 Background: Poor prognosis and therapy exhaustion have been associated with reduced QOL in RRMM. In MM-003, a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial, POM + LoDEX (n = 302) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; n = 153) in pts who failed lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) and progressed on their last therapy. This analysis evaluated QOL changes in these pts. Methods: To assess pt-reported outcomes, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed. Minimal important differences for 5 clinically relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (Global Health Status, Physical Functioning, Fatigue, Emotional Functioning, and Pain) were calculated as meaningful change thresholds (1 standard error of measurement) from baseline through cycle (C) 5. Time to QOL worsening was compared between arms using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Favorable trends were observed for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in each of the 5 relevant domains. The cross-sectional analysis indicated statistically or marginally significant (P < .10) differences favoring POM + LoDEX in Global Health Status (C2, 4), Physical Function (C2, 3, 4), Emotional Function (C2, 3, 4), and Fatigue (C2) scores. Longitudinal comparisons between arms confirmed the significance of score changes for Global Health Status (C2; P = .01), Physical Functioning (C3 and 4; P = .018 and .028, respectively), Emotional Functioning (C3; P = .018), and Fatigue (C5; P = .008) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX. HiDEX pts exhibited clinically meaningful worsening in Global Health Status and Physical Functioning scores vs. POM + LoDEX by C2 (P = .04) and C3 (P = .02), respectively. POM + LoDEX extended median time to meaningful worsening vs. HiDEX for Global Health Status (114 vs. 85 days, P = .05), Physical Functioning (174 vs. 106 days; P = .09), Fatigue (113 vs. 60 days; P = .02), Emotional Functioning (190 vs. 124 days; P = .04), and Pain (147 vs. 113 days; P = .2). Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts who failed LEN and BORT, POM + LoDEX resulted in better clinical outcomes as well as improvement in clinically relevant QOL measurements over the course of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.