Citations

Solitary plasmacytomas (SPs) are rare localized tumors of clonal plasma cells, either in the bone (solitary bone plasmacytoma) or in soft tissue/extraosseous (extramedullary) with either no or with minimal bone marrow (BM) infiltration (<10% clonal plasma cells by immunohistochemistry) and no evidence of systemic involvement or myeloma defining events. Approximately 50% of SPs will progress to symptomatic myeloma within 5 years after initial definitive local radiotherapy. Increased availability of improved diagnostic and monitoring tools has increased the sensitivity of detection of additional lesions and marrow involvement and has implications for the follow-up strategy after treatment. Thus, the definitions and requirements for the diagnosis and follow-up of SPs are evolving. The diagnosis of SP requires the careful exclusion of multiple myeloma (MM) that would require systemic therapy, by using all the available methods to detect systemic disease (advanced imaging, sensitive BM assessment methods, blood and urine tests). Local radiotherapy remains the mainstay of therapy, and despite the availability of innovative drugs for MM, the clinical benefit of systemic therapy currently remains poorly defined. The International Myeloma Working Group provides here updated recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and response assessment of patients with SPs, incorporating recent data and advances in diagnostic tools.

Abstract Improved understanding of how chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and endogenous T‐cell phenotypes associate with progression‐free survival (PFS) is needed to individualize and improve immunotherapy outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM). We characterized and investigated the prognostic value of immune dynamics defined with multidimensional and computational flow cytometry in 258 bone marrow aspirates from 107 MM patients treated with idecabtagene vicleucel in the KarMMa trial. At screening, there was an association between longer PFS and increased percentages of PD1 + cytotoxic T cells and ICOS − TIGIT + Tregs. At Month 1 after infusion, the presence of >1% CAR‐T cells, a CD4/CD8 CAR‐T‐cell ratio >0.09, and greater abundance of non‐activated non‐cytolytic CAR‐T cells identified patients with longer PFS. Notably, 47 of the 115 endogenous T‐cell clusters were prognostic at the latest assessment performed after CAR‐T infusion. Lower percentages of ICOS + TIGIT − Tregs showed the strongest association with longer PFS. Altogether, this large dataset of dynamic immune profiling throughout treatment with anti‐B‐cell maturation antigen (anti‐BCMA) CAR‐T cells uncovered that the T‐cell composition prior to apheresis as well as CAR‐T and endogenous T‐cell phenotypes after infusion associates with PFS. These findings have potential for translation into routine laboratory practice for improved understanding of response and resistance to CAR‐T cells in relapsed/refractory MM.

7569 Background: MAIA and CEPHEUS trials demonstrated that daratumumab (Dara) with standard of care (SOC) VRd or Rd significantly improved clinical outcomes versus SOC in TIE NDMM. Here we describe efficacy and safety in TIE pts from both trials by age and baseline (BL) frailty using the latest data cuts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to DRd (n=368) or Rd (n=369) in MAIA and 1:1 to DVRd (n=144) or VRd (n=145) in CEPHEUS. Progression-free survival (PFS), complete response or better (≥CR), overall MRD negativity (neg) at 10 -5 with ≥CR, sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (confirmed MRD neg ≥12 ± 1 months [mo] apart without MRD positivity in between), and safety were assessed by age (<70, 70–<75, or ≥75 years [y]) and BL frailty (assessed by IFM simplified frailty score: 0–1, non-frail; ≥2, frail). Results: Median follow-up was 64.5 mo in MAIA and 76.0 mo in CEPHEUS. In MAIA, 155 (21%) pts were <70 y, 261 (35%) 70–<75 y, and 321 (44%) ≥75 y; 341 (46%) pts were frail, 88.0 % of whom were ≥70 y. In CEPHEUS TIE pts, 70 (24%) pts were <70 y, 133 (46%) 70–<75 y, and 86 (30%) ≥75 y; 83 (29%) pts were frail, 86% of whom were ≥70 y. DRd or DVRd improved PFS, MRD neg rates, sustained MRD neg rates, and ≥CR rates vs Rd or VRd arms across age and frailty subgroups in both trials (Table). Safety was consistent with established individual drug profiles, and adverse event rates were generally comparable across treatment arms and subgroups within both trials. Additional data on patient-specific factors relevant to these subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens improved efficacy outcomes across subgroups in MAIA and CEPHEUS trials, reinforcing Dara-based regimens as SOC in TIE NDMM regardless of age or frailty. These data offer clinically relevant insights to help guide treatment selection for TIE pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03652064 ; NCT02252172 . PFS, hazard ratio (95% CI) ≥CR rate, % MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Age/ Frailty status MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** <70 y 0.35 (0.21–0.56) 0.60 (0.31–1.18) 56.4 vs 31.2 85.7 vs 68.6 35.9 vs 11.7 74.3 vs 42.9 25.6 vs 3.9 62.9 vs 28.6 70–<75 y 0.64 (0.45–0.89) 0.60 (0.37–0.99) 56.2 vs 31.3 77.9 vs 69.2 36.2 vs 12.2 55.9 vs 47.7 20.8 vs 5.3 45.6 vs 38.5 ≥75 y 0.59 (0.44–0.79) 0.46 (0.22–0.94) 44.4 vs 28.6 80.5 vs 44.4 26.9 vs 9.9 58.5 vs 26.7 13.8 vs 3.1 43.9 vs 15.6 Frail 0.64 (0.48–0.85) 0.62 (0.32–1.18) 44.8 vs 33.1 72.9 vs 54.3 25.6 vs 13.0 56.3 vs 34.3 15.7 vs 4.1 39.6 vs 17.1 Non-frail 0.48 (0.36–0.64) 0.51 (0.34–0.78) 56.6 vs 27.5 84.4 vs 63.6 37.8 vs 9.5 63.5 vs 41.8 21.4 vs 4.0 54.2 vs 32.7 *MAIA: DRd vs Rd; **CEPHEUS: DVRd vs VRd.

7563 Background: Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery options have become more widely available in multiple myeloma (MM). SC delivery of isatuximab (Isa), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, has been investigated across clinical trials via a novel hands-free on-body injector (OBI). Isa SC OBI features a small, retractable needle, establishing the first device-enabled delivery of an oncologic treatment. The Phase 3 IRAKLIA, Phase 2 IZALCO, and Phase 1b (TCD15484) trials consistently demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of Isa SC OBI vs Isa IV in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Here, we present a cross-trial analysis exploring safety and reliability of Isa SC OBI in RRMM pts. Methods: Pts with RRMM in IRAKLIA (N=263) and the Phase 1b expansion cohort (N=22) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d). In IZALCO, RRMM pts (N=64) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI + carfilzomib (K)-d. Pts were monitored for 4 hrs (IRAKLIA) or 1-2 hrs (IZALCO) following first administration and for 1 hr for the following cycle (C) 1 administrations to assess local tolerability. Pre-infusion medications included montelukast (C1), steroids, acetaminophen and H1 antihistamines. Pts without systemic infusion-related reactions (IRRs) after 4 consecutive administrations of Isa SC OBI had subsequent pre-medication reassessed at investigator’s discretion. Safety and device performance explored in this cross-trial analysis of company sponsored studies were assessed in the Isa SC OBI cohorts by the duration of injection, IRRs, local injection-site reactions (ISRs), and injection/device success, which were defined similarly across all trials. Results: The median duration of Isa SC OBI injection was 13 mins in IRAKLIA, 12 mins in IZALCO, and 10 mins in the Phase 1b trial (6426 total injections, N=349 pts). IRRs across trials occurred in 6/6426 (0.09%) injections and 4/349 (1.15%) pts. IRRs were mostly grade 1 (G; 3/6426, 0.05%) with 1 G3 (0.02%); none leading to discontinuation. In IRAKLIA, 80/263 (30.4%) pts did not require premedication (931/5145 injections, 18.1%); no IRRs occurred in this group. Across trials, ISRs occurred in 21/349 (6.02%) pts resulting in 35 (0.54%) ISR events. Most ISRs were G1 (33, 0.51%), the remaining were G2 (2, 0.03%) and generally occurred on the day of injection. 99.9% (6421/6426) of injections in 98.6% (344/349) pts were successful (completed without interruption) across all trials. Conclusions: These findings support overall low, self-limiting rates of IRRs and ISRs across trials, with >6000 (99.9%) Isa SC OBI injections successfully delivered. Isa SC OBI shows reproducible safety and reliability in IRAKLIA, IZALCO and Phase 1b trials, supporting it as a novel administration option for MM pts and its potential for future exploration in at-home administration. Clinical trial information: NCT04045795 , NCT05405166 , and NCT05704049 .

Abstract Both the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE studies demonstrated significant survival benefit with the addition of daratumumab to standard-of-care Rd (Revlimid [lenalidomide] and dexamethasone; D-Rd) or to VMP (Velcade [bortezomib], melphalan, and prednisone; D-VMP), respectively, vs Rd or VMP alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients with NDMM are highly susceptible to infection; therefore, gaining a greater understanding of infection incidence may help to mitigate future risk. We conducted a pooled analysis of infection incidence, timing, and management strategies from MAIA and ALCYONE. The median (range) age of the pooled population was 72 (40-93) years. Incidence was higher with D-Rd/D-VMP vs Rd/VMP for grade 3/4 (36.9% vs 22.4%) and grade 5 (3.0% vs 1.5%) infections; however, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were generally comparable between groups. Any-grade infections led to the discontinuation of study treatment in ∼2% of patients across treatment groups. Of the timing intervals explored, the highest incidence of grade 3/4 infection occurred within the first 6-month interval of study treatment initiation in both groups. Median time to the first onset of grade 3/4 infections (per Kaplan-Meier estimates) was 83.3 months and not estimable in the D-Rd/D-VMP and Rd/VMP groups, respectively. Although the rates of D-Rd/D-VMP treatment discontinuation due to infection remained low in MAIA and ALCYONE, clinicians should remain vigilant about infections throughout treatment and follow local guidelines and International Myeloma Working Group recommendations to minimize the risk of infection. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02252172 (MAIA) and NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

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

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.

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

Despite significant improvements in survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and a significant proportion of patients experience suboptimal outcomes. Importantly, traditional prognostic factors based on data from patients treated with older therapies no longer capture prognosis accurately in the contemporary era of novel triplet or quadruplet therapies. Therefore, risk stratification requires refinement in the context of available and investigational treatment options in routine practice and clinical trials, respectively. The current identification of high-risk MM (HRMM) in routine practice is based on the Revised International Staging System, which stratifies patients using a combination of widely available serum biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities assessed via fluorescence in situ hybridization. In recent years, a substantial body of evidence concerning additional clinical, biological, and molecular/genomic prognostic factors has accumulated, along with new MM risk stratification tools and consensus reports. The International Myeloma Society, along with the International Myeloma Working Group, convened an Expert Panel with the primary aim of revisiting the definition of HRMM and formulating a practical and data-driven consensus definition, based on new evidence from molecular/genomic assays, updated clinical data, and contemporary risk stratification concepts. The Panel proposes the following Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of HRMM which relies upon the presence of at least one of these abnormalities: (1) del(17p), with a cutoff of >20% clonal fraction, and/or TP53 mutation; (2) an IgH translocation including t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) along with 1q+ and/or del(1p32); (3) monoallelic del(1p32) along with 1q+ or biallelic del(1p32); or (4) β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L with normal creatinine (<1.2 mg/dL).