Citations

PURPOSE In immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, amyloid fibrils cause organ dysfunction. Anselamimab, a monoclonal antibody, selectively binds to amyloid fibrils, accelerating their clearance. METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo 2004 stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomly assigned to receive anselamimab or placebo with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab). The primary end point was a hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVHs), analyzed using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win ratio estimation. RESULTS Among 406 randomly assigned patients, the primary end point win ratio for anselamimab versus placebo was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.83, 1.50; P = .332) and the hazard ratio (HR) for ACM was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57, 1.13; P = .290). CVH rates in the anselamimab and placebo groups were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.83) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55, 1.43), respectively ( P = .145). Among patients with kappa isotype (n = 72), the win ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 0.98, 4.31; P = .100) and anselamimab reduced ACM by 62% versus placebo (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.86; nominal P = .012), and CVH by 71% (IRR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87; nominal P = .028) with improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Score. There was no clinical benefit observed in the lambda population. Anselamimab was generally well-tolerated; safety data were comparable between treatment arms overall. CONCLUSION Treatment with anselamimab, an antifibril antibody used alongside antiplasma cell dyscrasia therapy, while not meeting the primary end point in the overall population, significantly improved ACM and CVH in patients with kappa AL, potentially offering a new therapeutic option for this isotype.

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 <100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC >50% to <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 >20%, monoclonal spike >2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio >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 (<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 <65, 65 to <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.

Abstract Background: The t(11;14) translocation occurs in 50-60% patients with systemic AL amyloidosis. Venetoclax, an oral BCL2 inhibitor, has shown promising efficacy across t(11;14)-positive plasma cell disorders. However, till date, there are no prospective data in patients with previously treated AL amyloidosis, including those with prior exposure to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated phase 1/2 multicenter open-label trial of venetoclax (± dexamethasone) in patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis. Key inclusion criteria were central-laboratory confirmed t(11;14) by FISH analysis in ≥5% of CD-138-selected cells on bone marrow aspirate, measurable hematologic disease (dFLC≥2 mg/dL and/or M-spike ≥0.5 g/dL), prior exposure to anti-CD38 mAb, and ≥1 prior line of therapy. Key exclusion criteria were NT-proBNP>8500 pg/mL, NYHA class IIIb/IV, and ECOG>2. Phase 1 dose escalation utilized Bayesian Optimal Interval Network (BOIN) design to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) across four levels: DL1 (venetoclax 200mg), DL2 (400mg), DL3 (400mg + dexamethasone 10mg weekly), and DL4 (400mg + dexamethasone 20mg weekly). A maximum of 6 cycles of therapy on the protocol were planned, with dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) being evaluated in cycle 1. The design accommodated 12-15 patients with ~67% probability of selecting the dose closest to the 25% target toxicity rate. Here, we present the results of the Phase 1 portion of the study, which has completed enrollment. Accrual in Phase 2 portion is currently ongoing. Results: Of 16 patients screened, 12 were enrolled and evaluable for safety and efficacy. Screen failures were attributed to second malignancy (n=2), t(11;14) positivity in <5% CD-138-selected cells (n=1), and t(11;14) negativity (n=1). Enrolled patients had a median age of 64 years, with 25% female, and 17% Black representation. At screening, the median percentage of CD-138-selected cells with t(11;14)-positivity on FISH was 65%. All patients had prior anti-CD38 mAb-exposure by protocol design, with 11/12 patients also exposed to bortezomib. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 1 (range, 1-5). Disease markers at treatment initiation included median dFLC of 14.35 mg/dL (range, 2.13-186.28), median NT-proBNP of 712.5 pg/mL (range, 54-8831), and the median serum creatinine of 0.99 mg/dL (range, 0.69-3.01). Regarding safety, there were no DLTs encountered during the specified timeframe. One patient each received DLs 1, 2, and 3, with all remaining patients receiving DL 4 (400mg + dexamethasone 20mg weekly), which is the RP2D in this trial. There was only one patient that developed grade 3 infection (lung infection; COVID-19). No tumor-lysis syndrome, grade 3 or higher cytopenia, or treatment-emergent deaths occurred. Hematologic overall response (PR or better) was achieved in 11/12 patients (91.7%), with 9/12 (75%) attaining ≥VGPR [4/12 (33.3%) heme-CR, with the remaining being VGPR]. The median time from treatment initiation to best response was 29 days. Among 7 patients that were evaluable for cardiac response, one underwent heart transplant after 3 cycles of study treatment (while in heme-CR), hence was no longer evaluable for cardiac organ response. Of the remaining 6 patients, 2 have achieved cardiac response till date. Renal organ response was observed in 4/7 evaluable patients. At a median follow-up of 8.8 months, 4 out of 12 patients have completed 6 treatment cycles, with 2 receiving ongoing therapy. Six patients discontinued treatment early due to hematologic progression (n=1), suboptimal hematologic response (n=2), patient preference (n=2), and heart transplant (n=1). Patient-reported outcomes (assessed by PROMIS-29) showed no significant changes in Physical Functioning and Fatigue domains among 5 patients with paired baseline and end-of-treatment assessments. Updated follow-up data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the first prospective evaluation of venetoclax-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory t(11;14) AL amyloidosis. The combination demonstrated substantial hematologic efficacy (75% ≥VGPR rate) and a favorable safety profile without dose-limiting toxicities. Our results support investigation of venetoclax-based combinations in the frontline treatment of newly diagnosed t(11;14) AL amyloidosis.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and <100, and/or clonal BMPCs >50% to <60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P <0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P <0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P <0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

The NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma provide recommendations for diagnosis, initial workup, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care for patients with various plasma cell neoplasms, including multiple myeloma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight some of the important updates/changes specific to the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma in the 2022 version of the guidelines.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve survival compared to conventional chemotherapy alone. However, the ability to perform ASCT relies, in part, on collecting a sufficient number (#) of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), typically from peripheral blood. The ideal HSC mobilization regimen would enable collection of optimal #s of HSCs (5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) within the minimum # of apheresis sessions possible. Yet, despite currently available G-CSF (G) based mobilization regimens and multiple apheresis days, many remain unable to collect optimal #s of HSCs. Motixafortide (M) is a novel CXCR4 inhibitor, with high affinity (IC 50 0.54-4.5 nM) and long receptor occupancy (>48 hours). Methods: In this prospective, phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either M+G or placebo (P)+G for HSC mobilization prior to ASCT for MM. All patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and 6-8, if needed). Patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) or P on day 4 (and 6, if needed). Apheresis began day 5, with the primary (PEP) and secondary (SEP) endpoints of collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 apheresis days or 1 day, respectively. Apheresis continued on days 6-8 if needed. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by central laboratory. Patients that did not collect ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg by day 8 proceeded to rescue mobilization. The # of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice (minimum ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). Analyses of the PEP/SEPs were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Demographics between the 2 treatment arms were similar. Mobilization with M+G resulted in 92.5% of patients collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 2 apheresis days vs 26.2% with P+G (Odds Ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% CI 14.12-201.33, p<0.0001). Furthermore, 88.8% of patients with M+G collected ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 1 apheresis day vs 9.5% with P+G (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, p<0.0001); and 96.3% with M+G collected ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 1 apheresis day vs 64.3% with P+G (OR 18.9, 95% CI 4.47-80.04, p<0.0001). The PEP and SEPs were confirmed as statistically significant by central laboratory (all respective p-values <0.0001). The median # of HSCs mobilized in 1 apheresis day with M+G was 10.80x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg vs 2.14x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G. The # of cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days in both arms (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). Median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range: 17-19) with M+G and 17 days (range: 17-18) with P+G (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57). Graft durability at day 100 post-ASCT was 92.2% in the M+G arm and 91.9% in the P+G arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.2-4.5, p=0.96). Overall, adverse events were reported in 98.8% (Grade 3/4: 68.8%) of patients with M+G vs 95.2% (Grade 3/4: 42.9%) with P+G, with cytopenias in the post-ASCT period prior to engraftment accounting for the majority of Grade 3/4 AEs in both arms, as expected. The most common AEs related to M included: local injection site reactions (any grade: 70.0%, Grade 3/4: 11.3%); and systemic reactions such as pruritis (33.8%), flushing (32.5%) and urticaria (12.5%). Additionally, mobilization with M+G resulted in a 10.5x increase in mean absolute # of CD34+CD45RA-CD123loCD38-CD90+CD49f+ primitive HSCs collected vs P+G (p<0.0001). Multicolor FACS and scRNA sequencing of CD34+ HSCs from both arms will be reported in a separate ASH abstract. Conclusions: A single injection of M on top of G significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg for ASCT (92.5%) vs G (26.2%) in up to 2 apheresis days (p<0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in just 1 apheresis (p<0.0001, Figure 1A). Despite the higher # of cells mobilized by M+G, the # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice with comparable engraftment kinetics and graft durability between the 2 arms. Finally, M+G mobilized 10.5x more immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of durable multilineage hematopoietic engraftment vs P+G (p<0.0001, Figure 1B). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bioline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Illés: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Roche: 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. Stiff: Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sborov: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Gliko-Kabir: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Goldstein: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Kadosh: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment.