Search

In the primary analysis of LYRA, daratumumab + cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (DARA + CyBorD) was effective and well tolerated in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). We report the final analysis of LYRA (median months of follow-up: NDMM, 35.7; RMM, 35.3) after all patients completed study therapy, were followed for 36 months, or discontinued. Patients received DARA + CyBorD induction, autologous stem cell transplant (if eligible), and 12 months of daratumumab maintenance. Eighty-seven NDMM patients enrolled, 39 underwent transplant, and 63 completed maintenance. Rates of complete response or better were 48.7% and 29.8% for NDMM transplant and NDMM non-transplant patients, respectively, and 36-month progression-free survival rates were 69.3% and 72.6%. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 61.6% of NDMM patients. Efficacy and safety data are also reported for the smaller RMM cohort (

Purpose We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis. Methods In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony–stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles. Results This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2–7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5–11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47–0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42–0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40–0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9–95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2–61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group. Conclusion Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis.

Multiple available combinations of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibodies are shifting the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape. Lack of head-to-head trials of triplet regimens highlights the need for real-world (RW) evidence. We conducted an RW comparative effectiveness analysis of bortezomib (V), carfilzomib (K), ixazomib (I), and daratumumab (D) combined with either lenalidomide or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd or Pd) in RRMM. A retrospective cohort of patients initiating triplet regimens in line of therapy (LOT) ≥ 2 on/after 1/1/2014 was followed between 1/2007 and 3/2018 in Optum’s deidentified US electronic health records database. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; regimens were compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Seven hundred forty-one patients (820 patient LOTs) with an Rd backbone (VRd, n = 349; KRd, n = 218; DRd, n = 99; IRd, n = 154) and 348 patients (392 patient LOTs) with a Pd backbone (VPd, n = 52; KPd, n = 146; DPd, n = 149; IPd, n = 45) in LOTs ≥2 were identified. More patients ≥75 years received IRd (39.6%), IPd (37.8%), and VRd (36.7%) than other triplets. More patients receiving VRd/VPd were in LOT2 vs other triplets. Unadjusted median TTNT in LOT ≥ 2: VRd, 13.9; KRd, 8.7; IRd, 11.4; DRd, not estimable (NE); and VPd, 12.0; KPd, 6.7; IPd, 9.5 months; DPd, NE. In covariate-adjusted analysis, only KRd vs DRd was associated with a significantly higher risk of next LOT initiation/death (HR 1.72; P = 0.0142); no Pd triplet was significantly different vs DPd in LOT ≥ 2. Our data highlight important efficacy/effectiveness gaps between results observed in phase 3 clinical trials and those realized in the RW.

Content: CART QUOL is a study that has recently opened in the University Hospital of Wales Cardiff and was designed and set up by the Chief Investigator Emma Williams. Emma is a nurse and has been working within haematology since 2009. The study will be used to inform a dissertation project though will be done within her capacity of a research manager of the Clinical Research Group. Cellular therapies and regenerative medicine are a research theme of specialist interest within the South Wales Bone Marrow Transplant programme and a joint initiative between them and Wales Blood Service to establish a translational research platform in which to bring novel therapies to clinics. As we have become more focused on establishing outcomes in a patient centred way, this project aligns to values based healthcare with its aim to collect real world data and experiences. The aim of this study is to build on previous published data looking at the quality of life of patients who undergo CART therapy and follows on from a study published by Mariarz et al in BJH 2019. Two quality of life tools will be used, one FACTLYM as used within the Mariarz study, specifically for Lymphoma patients and the EQ5DL tool which is widely established in clinical trials and recommended by health assessment bodies (EQ5DL 2019).The CART team looked at the tools used in the previous study and decided that the EQ5D was easier to navigate and the terminology was easier for our patients to understand. This study will align with Standard of care visits and patients will be consented after their initial CART counselling visit and prior to the infusion of cells. The rest of the quality of life forms will be collected at day 30, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Our CART service aims to treat 12-15 patients per year with CART therapy and it has been estimated that accrual into the trial would be 8-10 patients per year. There is an invisibility of nursing research due to a number of factors Seidlecki (2016) and this abstract aims to highlight the need for projects such as this despite Covid being an added obstacle. The REC authority and all involved with this study could see its relevance, moreso at this difficult time due to heightened anxieties of patients. Emma has progressed from research nurse to research manager to PI and most recently CI and hopes this work will encourage others to take a lead on nursing projects which will in turn add breadth to the research portfolio. This project was initially designed as a pilot study and for a single centre however it has potential to become a multi centred study and grow and benefit the haematology community and our patients further. The author is also keen to share her experiences of the R&D process and REC submission and how projects can be turned around quite quickly as this one if thought through and collaboration has been made between all parties.

Background Studies have reported racial disparities in access to and use of multiple myeloma (MM) treatments between African American (AA) and White patients. Although AA patients demonstrate longer disease‐specific survival, this has not uniformly translated into improved survival over time. The association between race and treatment patterns and survival outcomes was analyzed using data from the Connect MM Registry. Methods The Connect MM Registry is a large US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients who received first‐line (1L) stem cell transplantation (SCT) or who did not receive SCT (non‐SCT or non–stem cell transplantation [NSCT]) were grouped by raceEffects of race and transplantation status on the use of triplet treatment were estimated using logistic regression. Results Treatment patterns in 1L (types and duration of induction, posttransplantation maintenance) were similar between AA and White patients. SCT rates in 1L (32% vs 36%) and triplet treatment use (AA: 44% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients; and White: 48% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients) during first induction were similar. No significant effect of race or transplantation status on 1L triplet treatment use was observed. Race was not found to be associated with survival outcomes among patients who underwent NSCT; however, AA patients who received SCT had significantly longer overall survival compared with White patients who underwent SCT (not reached vs 88.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35‐0.89 [P = .0141]). Conclusions AA and White patients were found to have similar treatment patterns in the Connect MM Registry, suggesting that both groups had equal access to health care. In this real‐world setting, AA patients received standard‐of‐care treatment, which might have contributed to better MM‐specific survival compared with White patients., Real‐world data from the mostly community‐based Connect MM Registry demonstrated that African American patients have multiple myeloma treatment patterns that are similar to those of White patients. Similar (progression‐free survival) and better (overall survival) survival outcomes are reported in African American individuals.

The availability of biosimilars in oncology has provided an opportunity for increased patient access to biologic therapies. However, healthcare professional perceptions concerning the relatively limited clinical data sufficient to support their regulatory approval may contribute to varied uptake and use. We review key aspects of the development program for the rituximab biosimilar PF-05280586 (Ruxience™) that supported its approval for lymphoid malignancies, to illustrate the rationale for an abbreviated clinical program. In particular, we describe the extensive analytical assessment, comprising sensitive techniques that established similarity with the reference product in key product attributes, underlying structure, function, potency, safety and quality, which formed the foundation for a successful development program, culminating in a confirmatory comparative clinical trial in patients with follicular lymphoma.

Background Long-term PI-based treatment is associated with improved outcomes in MM. Nonetheless, prolonged therapy with parenteral PIs (e.g. bortezomib) can be challenging in the real world, with median duration of therapy (DOT) of 4-7 months. Barriers to this long-term approach may include the burden of repeated intravenous/subcutaneous administration, difficulty travelling to/accessing treatment centers (e.g. due to environmental factors, travel restrictions, social/family situations), patient preference for treatment outside of a hospital or clinic setting, comorbidities, and toxicity. The US MM-6 study (NCT03173092) is investigating in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-based therapy (ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; IRd) in the diverse US community population with the aim of increasing PI-based treatment duration while maintaining quality of life and improving outcomes. We report updated efficacy and safety for the first 101 patients. Methods Transplant-ineligible/delayed-transplant (>24 months) NDMM patients with stable disease or better after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based induction are being enrolled at US community sites (including Veterans Affairs hospitals) to receive IRd (ixazomib 4 mg, days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg, days 1-21; dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, 22) for up to 39 x 28-day cycles or until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints include rates of partial (PR), very good PR (VGPR), and complete response (CR), and DOT. Results As of June 1 2020, 101 patients had been treated at 21 sites. Median age was 73 years (range 48-90), with 46% aged ≥75 years; 16% and 10% were of African American and Hispanic ethnicity, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of these real-world patients. A total of 95% of patients had ≥1 comorbidity at the start of IRd therapy including renal and urinary disorders (38%), cardiac disorders (29%), peripheral neuropathy (PN; 14%), and diabetes mellitus (13%) (Table 2). With 53 (52%) patients remaining on therapy and enrollment ongoing, mean duration of PI therapy from the start of bortezomib-based induction was 12.4 months, and mean duration of IRd therapy after iCT was 9.2 months (Table 3). Patients have received up to 29.4 months (31 cycles) of IRd to date. The overall response rate (ORR) after bortezomib-based induction was 62% (7% CR, 32% ≥VGPR). After iCT to IRd, the ORR increased to 71%, with the CR and ≥VGPR rates increasing to 29% and 53%, respectively (Figure); of 33 patients with stable disease following bortezomib-based induction, 14 (42%) achieved CR (n=10) or VGPR (n=4) after iCT. With a median follow-up of 12 months and enrollment ongoing, 13 patients had progressed and two had died during PFS analysis. The 12-month PFS rate was 84% (95% CI, 73-91) from the start of bortezomib-based induction and 80% (95% CI, 69-88) from the start of IRd. During IRd treatment to date, 91% of patients have had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (54% grade ≥3). Grade 3 TEAEs (≥5% of patients) were diarrhea (8%), pneumonia (7%), and syncope (5%). TEAEs led to study drug modification in 52% of patients and discontinuation in 7% of patients; 37% had serious TEAEs. Diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting occurred in 43%, 23%, and 14% of patients (8%, 2%, 2% grade 3), and led to dose modification in 11%, 5%, and 2%. PN (not elsewhere classified; high-level term) occurred in 32% of patients (2% grade 3) and led to dose modification in 9%. There were three on-study deaths (i.e. occurring Conclusions US MM-6 patients reflect the heterogeneous real-world US MM population; the population for this study includes patients from the community who may not be eligible for traditional clinical trials. These updated data in mostly elderly, comorbid, NDMM patients treated in the community setting demonstrate the feasibility and tolerability of iCT to IRd after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based induction; approximately half of patients remain on treatment, and enrollment is ongoing. iCT to IRd resulted in improved responses, with increased rates of ≥VGPR, and prolonged DOT and may thereby improve outcomes for real-world patients. iCT to an all oral regimen could also prevent treatment interruptions for patients who are unable to or prefer not to travel in the context of travel restrictions or other factors. Disclosures Girnius: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Yimer:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment; BeiGene: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Noga:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Manda:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials. Lyons:Texas Oncology/US Oncology: Current Employment; Novartis: Honoraria. Bogard:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Whidden:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Cherepanov:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Lu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Aiello:Takeda: Honoraria; Travera: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Richter:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy. Rifkin:McKesson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Other: Stock ownership; Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Mylan, Coherus BioSciences, Fresenius: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie sponsored clinical trials; Takeda, Amgen, BMS (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Real-world evaluation of long-term proteasome inhibition with ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in non-transplant patients with stable disease after 3 cycles of a bortezomib-based induction.

Objectives This observational study identified attributes of patient-reported satisfaction with therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), described the treatment-related time burden and indirect costs, and investigated the effect of administration route (oral vs. injectable) on these outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and among caregivers. Methods Patients residing in the USA with a self-reported diagnosis of NDMM were recruited from PatientsLikeMe, MyelomaCrowd, and Facebook (16 December 2016 and 6 July 2017) to complete an electronic survey including questions on treatment experience, economic burden, and standardized patient-reported outcome measures, including the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication with three domains (global satisfaction, effectiveness, and convenience) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified predictors of patient-perceived treatment satisfaction. Results Among 188 patients, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was correlated with lower patient-perceived effectiveness and convenience of their current treatment. White race and oral administration route were independently correlated with higher patient-perceived convenience of treatment. Injectable therapy use was associated with a trend towards increased activity impairment (43 vs. 34%; p = 0.05) and significantly higher time burden of treatment administration, with threefold higher adjusted indirect costs of MM therapy compared with solely orally administered therapies (monthly mean $US482 vs. 153; 2016 values; p

Median overall survival (OS) has improved for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but prognosis varies depending on baseline patient characteristics. Current models use data from selected clinical trial populations, which prevent application to patients in an unselected community setting that reflects routine clinical practice. Using data from the Connect® MM Registry, a large, US, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study (Cohort 1: 2009-2011; Cohort 2: 2012-2016) of 3011 patients with NDMM, we identified prognostic variables for OS via the multivariable analysis of baseline patient characteristics in Cohort 1 (n = 1493) and developed a tool to examine individual outcomes. Factors associated with OS (n = 1450 treated patients; P < 0·05) were age, del(17p), triplet therapy use, EQ-5D mobility, International Staging System stage, solitary plasmacytoma, history of diabetes, platelet count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and serum creatinine, which were used to create survival matrices for 3- and 5-year OS. The model was internally and externally validated using Connect MM Cohort 2 (Harrell's concordance index, 0·698), MM-015 (0·649), and the phase 3 FIRST (0·647) clinical trials. This novel prognostic tool may help inform outcomes for NDMM in the era of triplet therapy use with novel agents.

Summary This United States community study evaluated the combination of daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (D‐VCd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). Patients received 4–8 induction cycles of bortezomib 1·5 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered as approved except for a split‐first dose in Cycle 1. Eligible patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. All patients received ≤12 daratumumab maintenance doses monthly. Eighty‐six NDMM and 14 RMM patients received ≥1 treatment dose. In NDMM patients, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and overall response rates after 4 induction cycles were 44% (primary endpoint) and 79%, respectively, and 56% and 81% at end of induction. The 12‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) rate was 87%. Efficacy was also observed in RMM patients. Fatigue (59%) and neutropenia (13%) were the most frequent treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE) and grade 3/4 TEAE, respectively. Infusion reactions occurred in 54% of patients, primarily during the first dose, and were mild (2% grade 3). The first 2 daratumumab infusions were 4·5 and 3·8 h (median). Overall, D‐VCd was well tolerated, split‐first daratumumab dosing was feasible, the ≥VGPR rate after 4 cycles was 44% and the 1‐year PFS rate was 87%.

[Aim]: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed., [Results]: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events., [Conclusion]: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1., This work was supported by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

Background The t (11;14) (q13;32) translocation [t (11;14)] is present in ∼20% of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but studies examining its prognostic ability have yielded divergent results, and data are lacking on outcomes from first-line therapy. Patients and Methods Data from the Connect MM Registry, a large US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with NDMM were used to examine the effect of t (11;14) status on first-line therapy outcomes in the Overall population (n = 1574) and race groups (African American [AA] vs. non-African American [NAA]). Results Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with (n = 378) and without (n = 1196) t (11;14). Prevalence of t (11;14) was similar by race (AA, 27%; NAA, 24%). In the overall population, regardless of first-line therapy, t (11;14) status did not affect progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.02; P = 0.7675) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .9417). AA patients with t (11;14) had higher likelihood of death (Nominal Cox regression P = .0298) vs. patients without t (11;14). Conclusions Acknowledging observational study and inferential limitations, this exploratory analysis of a predominantly community-based population suggests that t (11;14) is a neutral prognostic factor in the general MM population but may be a negative factor for overall survival in AA patients.

With the introduction of new drugs with different mechanisms of action, multiple myeloma (MM) patients’ outcomes have improved. However, the efficacy seen in clinical trials is often not seen in real-world settings and data on the effectiveness of MM therapies are needed. INSIGHT MM is a prospective, global, non-interventional, observational study that is enrolling approximately 4200 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM, making it the largest study of its kind to date. The study aims to describe contemporary, real-world patterns of patient characteristics, clinical disease presentation, therapies chosen, clinical outcomes (response, treatment duration, time-to-next-therapy, progression-free and overall survival), safety, healthcare resource utilization and quality of life. One interim analysis has been conducted to date; current accrual is approximately 3094 patients. Trial registration number: NCT02761187, Lay abstract Survival of patients with myeloma, a type of bone marrow cancer affecting the production of healthy blood cells, has improved due to the development and approval of new treatments. Treatments are approved based on clinical trials; however, limited data are available that confirm the effectiveness of these same treatments in real-world routine clinical practice. INSIGHT MM is a large, global study that will follow approximately 4200 myeloma patients from real-world settings for a minimum of 5 years, describing their clinical characteristics, type of therapy received and their response to treatment, including survival and toxicity. This review describes the study aims and methods.

Background The ongoing US MM-6 study is investigating in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) with the aim of increasing proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence/duration while maintaining quality of life (QoL) and improving outcomes. Patients and Methods US community sites are enrolling non-transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients with no evidence of progressive disease after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based therapy to receive ixazomib-Rd (up to 39 cycles or until progression/toxicity). Patients use mobile/wearable digital devices to collect actigraphy (activity/sleep) data and electronically complete QoL/treatment satisfaction/medication adherence questionnaires. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints include response rates and therapy duration. Results At data cutoff, 84 patients had been treated (median age 73 years; 44% ≥ 75 years; 49% male; 15% black/African American; 10% Hispanic/Latino); 62% of patients remain on therapy. Mean duration of total PI therapy was 10.1 months and of ixazomib-Rd was 7.3 months. With 8 months median follow-up, 12-month PFS rate was 86% (95% confidence interval, 73–93) from both the start of bortezomib-based treatment and the start of ixazomib-Rd. Overall response rate was 62% (complete response [CR], 4%; very good partial response [VGPR], 25%; partial response [PR], 33%) after bortezomib-based induction and 70% (CR, 26%; VGPR, 29%; PR, 15%) after iCT. The ixazomib-Rd safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial data. QoL/treatment satisfaction were maintained. Conclusion US MM-6 patients are representative of the real-world US MM population; iCT may permit prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy, without impacting patients’ QoL/treatment satisfaction., Graphical abstract, While long-term proteasome inhibitor therapy improves outcomes in multiple myeloma, many patients cannot tolerate long-term treatment or may require/prefer to continue treatment outside the hospital/clinic. US MM-6 evaluates in-class transition from parenteral bortezomib- to oral ixazomib-based therapy in routine clinical practice. Preliminary results indicate feasibility, prolonged duration of therapy, and promising efficacy and treatment adherence/satisfaction.

Maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is recommended for use in multiple myeloma (MM); however, more data are needed on its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Presented here is an analysis of HRQoL in a Connect MM registry cohort of patients who received ASCT ± maintenance therapy. The Connect MM Registry is one of the earliest and largest, active, observational, prospective US registry of patients with symptomatic newly diagnosed MM. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-MM (FACT-MM) version 4, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) at study entry and quarterly thereafter until death or study discontinuation. Patients in three groups were analyzed: any maintenance therapy (n = 244), lenalidomide-only maintenance therapy (n = 169), and no maintenance therapy (n = 137); any maintenance and lenalidomide-only maintenance groups were not mutually exclusive. There were no significant differences in change from pre-ASCT baseline between any maintenance (P = 0.60) and lenalidomide-only maintenance (P = 0.72) versus no maintenance for the FACT-MM total score. There were also no significant differences in change from pre-ASCT baseline between any maintenance and lenalidomide-only maintenance versus no maintenance for EQ-5D overall index, BPI, FACT-MM Trial Outcomes Index, and myeloma subscale scores. In all three groups, FACT-MM, EQ-5D Index, and BPI scores improved after ASCT; FACT-MM and BPI scores deteriorated at disease progression. These data suggest that post-ASCT any maintenance or lenalidomide-only maintenance does not negatively impact patients’ HRQoL. Additional research is needed to verify these findings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00277-018-3446-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Myelodysplastic syndromes are characterised by ineffective erythropoiesis leading to anaemia. Sotatercept (ACE-011) is a novel activin receptor type IIA fusion protein that acts as a ligand trap to neutralise negative regulators of late-stage erythropoiesis. The aim of the study was to establish a safe and effective dose of sotatercept for the treatment of anaemia in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Methods This open-label, multicentre, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial took place at 11 treatment centres in the USA and France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had International Prognostic Scoring System-defined low-risk or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, had anaemia requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, and were ineligible for, or refractory to, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Patients were not eligible if they had chromosome 5q deletion myelodysplastic syndromes without documented failure of lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0·1 or 0·3 mg/kg sotatercept subcutaneously, using a permuted-block method with stratification for serum erythropoietin concentration and transfusion burden. Patients were assigned to 0·5, 1·0, and 2·0 mg/kg groups in a non-randomised fashion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved haematological improvement–erythroid (HI-E), according to International Working Group 2006 criteria. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01736683 and at EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2012–002601–22, and is ongoing. Findings Between Dec 5, 2012, and July 22, 2015, 74 patients were enrolled into the study (seven to receive 0·1 mg/kg sotatercept, six to 0·3 mg/kg, 21 to 0·5 mg/kg, 35 to 1·0 mg/kg, and five to 2·0 mg/kg). 36 (49%; 95% CI 38–60) of 74 patients achieved HI-E; 29 (47%; 95% CI 35–59) of 62 patients with a high transfusion burden achieved HI-E (RBC-transfusion reduction from baseline of 4 or more units for at least 56 days), and seven (58%; 95% CI 32–81) of 12 patients with a low transfusion burden achieved HI-E (haemoglobin increase of 1·5 g/dL or more sustained for at least 56 days in the absence of transfusions). The most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue in 19 (26%) of 74 patients and peripheral oedema in 18 (24%) of 74 patients. Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 25 (34%) of 74 patients; four (5%) patients had grade 3–4 TEAEs that were considered to be treatment related. The most common grade 3–4 TEAEs were lipase increase and anaemia, which each occurred in three (4%) of 74 patients. 17 (23%) of 74 patients had at least one serious TEAE, and one patient died from a treatment-emergent subdural haematoma due to a fall. Interpretation Sotatercept, a novel activin-receptor fusion protein, was well tolerated and effective for the treatment of anaemia in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in whom previous ESA treatment had failed. Treatment with sotatercept could be beneficial for these patients who have few available treatment options. Funding Celgene Corporation.

Background: Use of long-term PI-based therapy can improve outcomes across treatment settings in MM. However, there are various physical, geographical, and/or socioeconomic barriers to prolonged therapy with parenteral PIs in community practice. The US MM-6 study (NCT03173092) is assessing in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib (V)-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-based therapy with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in the diverse US community population. The objective of the study is to increase the duration of PI-based treatment, while maintaining quality of life and improving outcomes. We previously reported efficacy and safety results for the first 101 US MM-6 patients (Girnius Blood 2020). Here we have analyzed updated data for this patient subset with an additional 11 months of follow-up to further evaluate efficacy and safety, and to determine reasons for premature (within 4 cycles of IRd) discontinuation. Methods: Transplant-ineligible/delayed-transplant (≥24 months) NDMM patients at US community sites, who had achieved stable disease or better after 3 cycles of V-based induction, received IRd (ixazomib 4 mg, days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg, days 1-21; dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, 22) for up to 39 × 28-day cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Rates of partial response (PR), very good PR (VGPR), and complete response (CR), and duration of therapy are key secondary endpoints. For the current analysis, sites with patients who discontinued US MM-6 were queried for more detailed information. Results: As of June 1, 2020, 101 patients had been enrolled and treated at 21 sites. Median age was 73 years (range, 48-90 years), with 81% aged >65 years; 97% had ≥1 comorbidity at the start of IRd therapy. Efficacy data after an additional 11 months of follow-up (data cut-off: May 4, 2021) showed that iCT to IRd improved responses (Table 1). Overall response rate (ORR) had improved from 65% (CR 9%, VGPR 25%, PR 32%), at the end of 3 cycles of V-based induction, to 78% (molecular CR [mCR] 1%, stringent CR [sCR] 3%, CR 32%, VGPR 25%, PR 17%) following iCT to IRd. Thirty-three patients (33%) were still ongoing on therapy at the latest data cut-off; median duration of IRd was 11.7 months and overall median duration of therapy (for all PI-based therapy, including V-based induction) was 14.6 months. At a median follow-up of 18.5 months, the 18-month PFS rate was 84%. The safety profile of IRd was consistent with previous clinical studies. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 64% of patients and treatment-related serious TEAEs in 12% (including 4 on-study deaths), while 16% of TEAEs led to study drug discontinuation. Sixty-eight patients (67%) had completed or discontinued the study since first patient enrolment on November 15, 2017. Among these patients, 14 (21%) discontinued within 2 cycles of IRd and 27 (40%) discontinued within 4 cycles; reasons for discontinuation are presented in Table 2. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, use of iCT from V-based induction to IRd to achieve long-term PI-based therapy in NDMM patients demonstrates efficacy via improved response rates and acceptable PFS in this real-world setting. Over 80% of US MM-6 patients were aged >65 years and most had ≥1 comorbidity prior to study entry. The rate of patients discontinuing within 4 cycles of iCT (7 cycles of PI-based therapy in total) is concerning because these patients may not receive the full benefit of long-term PI-based treatment. To date, the majority of premature discontinuations were reported as being due to patient request (44%) followed by TEAEs (30%). Expanded site education and closer patient follow-up to reduce premature discontinuations will be addressed in the planned US MM7 iCT study in relapsed/refractory MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Rifkin: Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Noga: Takeda Oncology: Current Employment. Girnius: Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bogard: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Manda: Morphosys: Honoraria; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yimer: Texas Oncology: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau. Whidden: Takeda Oncology: Current Employment. Birhiray: Bayer: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Coheris: Honoraria; Kyte Pharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Helsin: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Tessaro: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Exelexis: Speakers Bureau; Clovis Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Genomic Health: Speakers Bureau; Puma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jansen Bioncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Guo: Takeda Oncology: Current Employment. Bernal-Mizrachi: Kodikaz Therapeutic Solutions: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Bigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: Real-world evaluation of long-term use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in non-transplant patients with stable disease after 3 cycles of a bortezomib-based induction

Introduction: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate approved in the United States (US) and Europe as a monotherapy for triple-class refractory adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis of DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) data examined relationships between corneal exam findings (superficial punctate keratopathy and/or microcyst like epithelial changes), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and direct patient-reported ocular symptoms per the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. This approach could provide insight into the relationship between corneal exam findings, BCVA, and ocular symptoms and their impact on quality of life to help determine if BCVA decline and symptoms could guide dosing. Currently, in the US, eye exams with eye-care professionals (ECPs) are required for each belamaf treatment, which can add to patients' therapy-related burden. Identifying a surrogate marker for results from corneal exam findings would help providers determine if dosing adjustments are necessary. Methods: Eye exams (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment using the Snellen chart) were performed on all patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) by ECPs at baseline (BL) and before each dose, administered q3w. Corneal exam findings (keratopathy) and BCVA were assessed per protocol-defined criteria, and grade (GR) assessment was based on the worst finding in the worse eye. BCVA and keratopathy grading were relative to BL. Patient-reported ocular symptoms and vision-related functioning, as per the OSDI, were used to evaluate the impact of treatment-related ocular toxicity. The OSDI is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that assesses eye symptoms and effects on vision-related function in the past week and was performed in all patients before each belamaf dose. Items 1-5 address the frequency of eye-related symptoms (eg, painful or sore eyes, blurred vision) while items 6-9 address the frequency of functional limitations (eg, driving at night or reading). OSDI was considered positive, clinically meaningful, and potentially associated with treatment when at least one question 1-5 (ie, sensitivity to light, gritty or painful eyes, blurred or poor vision) was reported as experienced "all of the time" and at least one question 6-9 (ie, driving at night, reading, working with PC, or watching TV) was reported as experienced "most of the time." Results: Overall, GR 3-4 (severe) keratopathy was observed only 5% of the time in patients who did not report frequent ocular symptoms as measured by the OSDI questionnaire (no items 1-9 ≥ "most of the time"). A further breakdown of the questions revealed that, in patients who reported no items 1-5 "all of the time" AND no items 6-9 ≥ "most of the time" (OSDI negative), GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed only 6% of the time (Table). When considering individual OSDI items, in patients who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any of the OSDI eye-related symptoms or functional limitations, GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed ~3%-7% of the time while GR 0-2 (mild) keratopathy was observed ~23%-34% of the time. Similar results were observed in patients with BCVA ≤20/30 at BL who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any eye-related adverse events (AEs) or functional limitations (GR 3-4 keratopathy: ~2%-6% of the time; GR 0-2 keratopathy: ~19%-28% of the time); patients with worse visual acuity at BL (BCVA >20/30) who reported "no deterioration" for items 1-9 had lower incidence of GR 3-4 and GR 0-2 keratopathy (~0%-1% and ~3%-8%, respectively). Conclusions: The results from this hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis suggest that hematologists/oncologists may be able to use clinical indicators/tools (eg, ocular symptoms, the OSDI tool) as potential surrogate markers for eye exam results to help determine whether dosing changes are needed. This approach will be explored in trials with other belamaf dose regimens that are currently under evaluation. If the results are validated, it may be possible for hematologists/oncologists to manage belamaf dose modifications, due to ocular AEs, without a confirmatory eye exam by the ECP, reducing the patient burden. Funding Source: GSK (205678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Badros: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Rodríguez-Otero: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and other expenses. Cohen: BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Other: Personal fees and other association with, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and other association with; Janssen: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Manier: Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Voorhees: Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin: Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Chari: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weisel: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Farooq: Five Prime Therapeutics/Amgen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Jeng: OysterPoint: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eyegate: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chng: Abbvie: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Aslan: Research Funding. Lee: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Berdeja: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; SecuraBio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Jadhav: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tosolini: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Eliason: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Palumbo: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Lonial: Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trudel: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen Canada: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Terpos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and >4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and >6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (>4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Background For pts with MM, HRQL is a key determinant of treatment choice in late-line therapies such as ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy. In KarMMa (NCT03361748), 54.2% of pts showed clinically meaningful improved HRQL from baseline to quarter (Q) 3, as measured by EQ-5D-5L; 8.5% experienced deterioration (Blood. 2020;136 [Suppl]:28–29). Analysis of HRQL in pts who received alternate, non-CAR T cell therapies could contextualize the impact of ide-cel on HRQL. The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of largely community-based pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) at study entry. It was used for a descriptive analysis assessing HRQL outcomes in triple-class exposed real-world pts who met KarMMa trial eligibility criteria but received alternate therapies. Method From 2009-2016, the Registry enrolled 3011 pts with symptomatic NDMM diagnosed ≤2 months prior to study entry at 250 community, academic, and government sites across the US. Pts agreed to complete HRQL forms at study enrollment and every Q of follow-up. Pts with RRMM included in this analysis met KarMMa eligibility criteria. HRQL was measured from the time of KarMMa eligibility (D1) using EQ-5D-3L and FACT-MM total score instruments. Results As of data cutoff (7 Feb 2020), 32 pts with RRMM from the Registry met KarMMa eligibility criteria. Median age was 64.1 y (range, 45.5–88.8). Median time to D1 since initial diagnosis was 3.4 y (range, 1.6–5.5); 24 pts (75%) had prior stem cell transplant; median prior lines of therapy was 7.5. At D1, pts initiated regimens that included IMiDs (n=20), proteasome inhibitors (n=15) and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (n=7). HRQL form completion rate at Q3 was 64.7%. The baseline index score was 0.73 for Registry pts. Median EQ-5D-3L score (range) at D1 (n=21) was 0.761 (0.263–1) and 0.708 (0.263–1) at Q3 (n=11). At D1, 30% of pts experienced clinically meaningful improvement in EQ-5D-3L from baseline; 35% each experienced no change or deterioration in HRQL. By Q3, 20%, 30%, and 50% of pts experienced improvement from baseline, no change, and deterioration in HRQL, respectively. By Q3 post treatment initiation, a substantial proportion of ide-cel–eligible real-world pts with RRMM from the Connect MM Registry who received various alternate (non-CAR T cell) MM regimens experienced meaningful deterioration of HRQL (measured by EQ-5D-3L) from D1 over time. Conclusion In the context of the KarMMa trial, it was observed that a higher proportion of pts on ide-cel experienced meaningful improvement in HRQL (measured by EQ-5D-5L) and fewer pts experienced deterioration by Q3 after treatment. Limitations of this analysis may include small sample size and use of different versions of EQ-5D assessments. HRQL remains an important goal of MM treatment, and therapies that improve HRQL should be developed explicitly. These results support the need for replication in a larger pt sample and complement clinical trial findings.

57 Background: Biosimilars have potential to reduce healthcare costs and increase access in the United States, but lack of uptake has contributed to lost savings. Filgrastim-sndz was the first FDA-approved biosimilar, and much can be learned by evaluating its uptake. In February 2016, the US Oncology Network converted to filgrastim-sndz as its short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) of choice for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) following myelosuppressive chemotherapy (MCT). To understand utilization and cost patterns, this study analyzes real-world data of GCSFs within a community oncology network during the initial period of conversion to the first biosimilar available in the US. Methods: This descriptive retrospective observational study used electronic health record data for female breast cancer (BC) patients receiving GCSF and MCT at high risk of FN. Patient cohorts were defined by first receipt of either filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz during the 410 days before and after biosimilar conversion. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for GCSF and complete blood counts (CBC) were collected at GCSF initiation through the earliest of 30 days following end of MCT, loss to follow up, death, or data cutoff. Results: 146 patients were identified: 81 (55.5%) filgrastim and 65 (44.5%) filgrastim-sndz. No directional differences existed in baseline characteristics between the cohorts. Higher proportions of filgrastim-sndz patients received dose-dense MCT (33.8% vs 22.2%). Time trends show an initial spike in HCRU and cost for filgrastim-sndz patients after formulary conversion, which subsequently decreased and converged to that of the filgrastim cohort after 12 months. When aggregated, the overall median total administration counts, per patient per month (PPPM) and dosage, were marginally higher for filgrastim-sndz (5 vs 3; 2.9 vs 1.4; 1920 vs 1440 mcg, respectively). Median PPPM costs were higher for filgrastim-sndz ($803 vs $545). Median CBC utilization and costs were higher for filgrastim-sndz (2.8 vs 2.5; $28 vs $23, respectively). Conclusions: This study provides insight into real-world HCRU and cost patterns after formulary conversion to a biosimilar for BC patients receiving MCT and GCSF. As a descriptive study, causal inferences cannot be made and an underlying effect from index chemotherapy cannot be excluded. Convergence of HCRU and costs after 12 months suggests that overall results may be driven by behavior at initial formulary switch. Since filgrastim-sndz was the first US biosimilar approved, the uptake may be indicative of an experience with biosimilar acceptance in general. Future real-world studies of biosimilars must consider inconsistent utilization and practice trends during the time frame directly following formulary conversion.

Background Choice of treatment and sequencing of MM therapies is complex with multiple therapeutic options. LEN-containing regimens are a standard of care at induction, but there is a lack of consensus on the most appropriate therapy for patients (pts) after LEN treatment. Recent evidence describes the importance of continuous immune stimulation and suggests that use of immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiD® agents) sequentially (LEN to pomalidomide [POM]-containing regimens) vs class switching (LEN to non-POM containing regimens) may improve clinical outcomes. To assess if IMiD sequencing is used in real-world practice, this study aimed to characterize treatment sequences in pts with MM post-LEN in community oncology settings where most pts receive treatment. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted to identify adult pts with MM in the US Oncology Network (USON) who initiated a post-LEN treatment (index) within 90 days of LEN discontinuation between Jan 1, 2016 and May 1, 2019. Data were sourced from structured and unstructured data in USON’s iKnowMed electronic health records. Descriptive analyses were performed to assess demographic and clinical characteristics. Treatment sequences were presented in Sankey plots for pts with MM who initiated POM or non-POM containing regimens post-LEN. Treatment regimens were classified by drug class. Results In total, 257 pts were included in this study, mean age was 68 years (SD=10.7), 184 (72%) pts were White, 136 (53%) were male, and 163 (63%) had an ECOG performance score of 0/1. Overall, 83/257 (32%) pts initiated a POM-containing regimen and 174 (68%) initiated a non-POM containing regimen. Clinical and demographic characteristics were consistent in both cohorts. The most common LEN-containing regimen prior to index was LEN+proteasome inhibitor (PI)+/-dexamethasone (DEX) (n=139/257, 54%), more specifically, LEN+bortezomib+DEX (n=116). The most common index regimens in the POM cohort were POM+monoclonal antibody+/-DEX (n=32/83, 39%), most often POM+daratumumab+DEX (n=29), and POM+PI+/-DEX (n=32/86, 39%), most often POM+carfilzomib (CFZ)+DEX (n=19). The most common index regimen in the non-POM cohort was PI+/-DEX (n=81/174, 47%), most often CFZ+DEX (n=30). In total, 84 pts did not receive treatment after index: 25 (30%) in POM and 59 (34%) in the non-POM cohort. When assessing retreatment with IMiD agents in subsequent lines, 17/83 (20%) pts in the POM cohort had retreatment with LEN and/or POM after a POM-containing regimen vs 15/174 (9%) non-POM pts who had retreatment with LEN. Conclusions This real-world study provides insights into the heterogeneity of treatment sequences for pts with MM in a community oncology setting where approximately one-third of pts were sequenced on IMiD agents. Given recent data suggesting the benefit of using IMiD agents sequentially, further exploration and guidance is warranted to optimize treatment sequencing in MM and maximize therapeutic benefits.

Early mortality (EM; death ≤ 6 months from diagnosis) has been reported in several newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) trials. Before the era of novel agents, the incidence was 10%-14%. Causes of death included infections/pneumonia, renal failure, refractory disease, and cardiac events. Staging systems, such as the revised International Staging System (r-ISS), and prognostic factors including cytogenetics, lactate dehydrogenase levels, and myeloma-specific factors, are useful to assess overall prognosis; however, they cannot predict EM. We evaluated patients treated with novel agents in the Connect MM® Registry and identified risk factors of the EM cohort. Eligible patients were enrolled in the registry within 60 days of diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between baseline characteristics and EM. Prediction matrices for EM were constructed from a logistic model. Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 patients were enrolled in the registry and had adequate follow-up. Of these patients, 102 (6.8%) had EM and 1391 (93.2%) survived for > 180 days. Baseline factors significantly associated with increased EM risk included age > 75 years, higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lower EQ-5D mobility score, higher ISS stage, lower platelet count, and prior hypertension. Renal insufficiency trended toward increased EM risk. These risk factors were incorporated into a prediction matrix for EM. The EM prediction matrix uses differential weighting of risk factors to calculate EM risk in patients with NDMM. Identifying patients at risk for EM may provide new opportunities to implement patient-specific treatment strategies to improve outcomes.

Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory SLAMF7-targeting monoclonal antibody, induces myeloma cell death with minimal effects on normal tissue. In a previous phase 3 study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), elotuzumab (10 mg/kg, ∼3-h infusion), combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, demonstrated durable efficacy and acceptable safety; 10% (33/321) of patients had infusion reactions (IRs; Grade 1/2: 29; Grade 3: 4). This phase 2 study (NCT02159365) investigated an accelerated infusion schedule in 70 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma or RRMM. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of Grade 3/4 IRs by completion of treatment Cycle 2. Dosing comprised elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously (weekly, Cycles 1-2; biweekly, Cycles 3+), lenalidomide 25 mg (daily, Days 1-21), and dexamethasone (28 mg orally and 8 mg intravenously, weekly, Cycles 1-2; 40 mg orally, weekly, Cycles 3+), in 28-day cycles. Premedication with diphenhydramine, acetaminophen, and ranitidine (or their equivalents) was given as in previous studies. If no IRs occurred, infusion rate was increased in Cycle 1 from 0.5 to 2 mL/min during dose 1 (∼2 h 50 min duration) to 5 mL/min for the entire infusion by dose 3 and also during all subsequent infusions (∼1-h duration). Median number of treatment cycles was six. No Grade 3/4 IRs occurred; only one Grade 1 and one Grade 2 IR occurred, both during the first infusion. These data support the safety of a faster infusion of elotuzumab administered over ∼1 h by the third dose, providing a more convenient alternative dosing option for patients.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is typically diagnosed in patients (pts) aged 65-74 y (SEER: Myeloma. 2019); therefore, many pts present with concomitant metabolic disorders such as diabetes (18%-22% prevalence of type 2 diabetes [T2D; BMC Cancer. 2020;20:489]). Obesity (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 30 kg/m2) is associated with increased prevalence of T2D (Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:737), and both are suggested risk factors for MM (Blood. 2012;119:4845; Bone Marrow Transpl. 2014;49:1009). Results from single-center, retrospective studies have shown poorer clinical features and survival outcomes in diabetic pts with MM vs their nondiabetic counterparts (Eur J Haematol. 2012;89:320, Br J Cancer. 2014;111:628). The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of largely community-based pts with NDMM. Reported here is a descriptive analysis assessing differences in baseline (BL) characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts enrolled in the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts with NDMM (N = 3011) were enrolled at 250 community, academic, and government sites. Eligible pts were aged ≥ 18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤ 2 months (mo) pre-enrollment per International Myeloma Working Group criteria (Leukemia. 2009;23:3). Diabetic pts were defined as those with a history of diabetes and also receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL; those without a history of diabetes and not receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL were defined as nondiabetic pts. Descriptive statistics were used for BL characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]) were analyzed using Cox regression and adjusted for covariates. Results: Of the 2845 pts included in this analysis, 467 (16%) were diabetic, and 2378 (84%) were nondiabetic. The median age was 69 y for diabetic pts and 66 y for nondiabetic pts, with fewer Black pts (12.2% vs 19.5%) in the nondiabetic group. The proportion of men was higher in the diabetic vs the nondiabetic group (61.9% vs 56.6%). Similar percentages of pts had ECOG PS of 0-1 in both groups (53.3% vs 55.3%). Obesity was more prevalent in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts (55.9% vs 30.4%). More diabetic pts had a history of hypertension requiring treatment vs nondiabetic pts (84.2% vs 52.5%). The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities was comparable between the groups (within the limitation that data were missing in a substantial number of pts). Among MM-defining criteria, diabetic pts had a higher incidence of hypercalcemia (11.8% vs 8.5%), anemia (50.3% vs 46.5%), and increased creatinine (23.8% vs 19%), whereas measured kidney function was similar. A lower proportion of diabetic than nondiabetic pts received stem cell transplantation (SCT; 28.9% vs 41.5%) and triplet regimens during first induction (48.2% vs 52.8%%). The use of ≥ 2 novel agents during first line (1L) was lower in diabetic than nondiabetic pts (27.8% vs 34.6%), but use of a single novel agent (63.4% vs 60%) and alkylator in 1L (20.6% vs 22.4%) was comparable. The top five 1L regimens were similar for both groups, with lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone being the most common 1L regimen, and lenalidomide the most common maintenance therapy. Diabetic pts had significantly shorter adjusted median PFS (24.4 vs 31.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P = 0.001; Fig. 1A) and median OS (60 vs 72.6 mo; HR, 1.29; P = 0.001; Fig. 1B) than nondiabetic pts. In a subgroup analysis by BMI, diabetic pts had significantly shorter OS than nondiabetic pts (for BMI < 30 [50.8 vs 73.1 mo; HR, 1.51; P = 0.0001] and BMI ≥ 30 [56.4 vs 78.6 mo; HR, 1.51; P < 0.0001]). Conclusions: Diabetic pts with NDMM had poorer BL features and were less likely to receive SCT and triplet regimens and/or aggressive upfront treatment. Regardless of BMI, diabetic pts had shorter median OS than nondiabetic pts, suggesting that diabetes might be a stronger factor for survival than obesity. These results support a previous analysis of the Connect MM Registry that identified history of diabetes as a predictive prognostic factor for poor OS (Br J Haematol. 2019;187:602). Limitations of this analysis include limited detail on the care/management of diabetes and steroid use/dosage (which can be challenging for glycemic control). These findings highlight the need to provide better supportive care for diabetes management in MM pts to improve survival. Disclosures La: Celgene BMS: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hardin:Celgene Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Lee:Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Narang:Maryland Oncology Hematology: Current Employment; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Consultancy, Honoraria. Omel:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:McKesson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Other: Stock ownership; Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Mylan, Coherus BioSciences, Fresenius: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie sponsored clinical trials; Takeda, Amgen, BMS (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Newland Medical Associates: Current Employment; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dhalla:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:TechData Inc: Consultancy. Yang:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joshi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eisai Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Abonour:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; GSK2857916) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate. In the pivotal Phase II DREAMM-2 study, single-agent belamaf demonstrated deep and durable responses and a manageable safety profile in patients refractory and/or intolerant to ≥3 lines of therapy, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody such as daratumumab (Lonial et al. Lancet Oncol 2020). Responses were sustained at 13 months of follow-up with belamaf (2.5 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 3 weeks [Q3W]); overall response rate (ORR) was 32% and median duration of response (DoR) was 11.0 months (Lonial et al. ASCO 2020 Poster 436). Triple combination regimens, such as daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd), are considered a standard of care for patients with RRMM and have demonstrated superior antimyeloma activity to monotherapy and dual combination regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone. Preclinical data suggest synergistic antimyeloma activity of belamaf and bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor), and initial results from the ongoing Phase I/II DREAMM-6 study of B-Vd indicate an acceptable safety profile for the combination (Nooka et al. ASCO 2020 Oral 8502). The DREAMM-7 study (NCT04246047) will evaluate the efficacy and safety of B-Vd compared with D-Vd in patients with RRMM. Methods: DREAMM-7 is an ongoing, randomized, open-label, global, multicenter, Phase III, two-arm study in patients with measurable RRMM who had received ≥1 prior therapy with documented disease progression during or after their most recent therapy. Patients aged ≥18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2, adequate organ system function, and who provide informed consent will be eligible. Patients intolerant/refractory to daratumumab or bortezomib, or with prior exposure to anti-BCMA therapy, will be excluded. Patients will be stratified by the Revised International Staging System, prior exposure to bortezomib, and number of prior lines of therapy. Approximately 478 patients will be randomized (1:1) to Arm A (B-Vd) or Arm B (D-Vd). In Arm A, patients will receive belamaf 2.5 mg/kg (IV) Q3W on Day 1 of each cycle; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 (subcutaneously) on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of Cycles 1-8 (21-day cycles); and dexamethasone 20 mg (IV or orally) on the day of, and the day after, bortezomib treatment. In Arm B, patients will receive daratumumab 16 mg/kg (IV) in 21-day cycles: Cycles 1-3 Q1W, Cycles 4-8 Q3W, and from Cycle 9 onwards Q4W; dexamethasone and bortezomib schedules will be the same as in Arm A. Treatment will continue in both arms until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or study end. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS; time from randomization to the earliest date of documented disease progression or death [any cause]). The key secondary endpoint is minimal residual disease negativity rate, as assessed by next-generation sequencing. Additional secondary endpoints include complete response rate, ORR, DoR, PFS2 (PFS after initiation of new anticancer therapy), overall survival, and endpoints related to pharmacokinetics, antidrug antibodies, safety, and health-related quality of life. As of August 2020, the study is enrolling. Funding: GSK (Study 207503); drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Rifkin: McKesson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Other: Stock ownership; Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Mylan, Coherus BioSciences, Fresenius: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie sponsored clinical trials; Takeda, Amgen, BMS (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boyd:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GILEAD, Incyte: Research Funding; Amgen, Takeda, Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arnulf:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Spencer:AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Davis:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Riccio:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kim:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wilkes:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rutledge:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Talekar:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kremer:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gupta:Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mateos:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Context: Continuous Rd-based regimens are among the standards of care in the diverse, transplant-ineligible NDMM patient population. An all-oral triplet may be useful for patients who cannot/prefer not to travel to the clinic frequently. Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), has predictable, manageable toxicities, enabling an all-oral PI-Rd regimen for use in this setting. Objective: Compare IRd vs. placebo-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients. Interventions: Patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) plus Rd (28-day cycles). After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and lower ixazomib and lenalidomide doses were administered until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Main Outcome Measure: Progression-free survival (PFS) - final analysis. Results: In the IRd vs. placebo-Rd arms, the median age was 73 vs. 74 years (43% vs. 44% ≥75 years), 16% vs. 17% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 38% vs. 41% had high-risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), or amp(1q21)]. The median PFS was 35.3 vs. 21.8 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.830, p=0.073; median follow-up 53.3 vs. 55.8 months). Overall response rates were 82% vs. 80%; depth of response was greater with IRd vs. placebo-Rd (26% vs. 14% complete response [CR], odds ratio [OR] 2.10, p Conclusions: IRd in NDMM demonstrated a strongly positive trend in PFS, improved TTP and CR rate, and improved the poor PFS associated with high-risk cytogenetics, as seen in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study of IRd in relapsed/refractory MM. Safety was consistent with the well-characterized toxicity profile of ixazomib/IRd. IRd is a feasible treatment option for certain transplant-ineligible patients who could benefit from an all-oral triplet combination.

Summary Median overall survival (OS) has improved for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but prognosis varies depending on baseline patient characteristics. Current models use data from selected clinical trial populations, which prevent application to patients in an unselected community setting that reflects routine clinical practice. Using data from the Connect® MM Registry, a large, US, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study (Cohort 1: 2009–2011; Cohort 2: 2012–2016) of 3011 patients with NDMM, we identified prognostic variables for OS via the multivariable analysis of baseline patient characteristics in Cohort 1 (n = 1493) and developed a tool to examine individual outcomes. Factors associated with OS (n = 1450 treated patients; P

Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective biosimilars. A biosimilar is 'highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency'. Biosimilars have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and use of biosimilars. ispartof: FUTURE ONCOLOGY vol:15 issue:7 pages:777-790 ispartof: location:England status: published

8035 Background: LYRA is a community practice-based, phase 2, single-arm study (NCT02951819) evaluating DARA + CyBorD as an immunomodulatory drug-sparing regimen in MM. The primary analysis demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DARA + CyBorD in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed MM (RMM), and an update showed that DARA maintenance therapy deepened responses. We present the final end-of-study analysis of LYRA. Methods: US pts aged ≥18 years with MM per IMWG criteria and ≤1 prior line of therapy received 4-8 induction cycles of DARA + CyBorD (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 PO weekly [QW]; bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 SC on Days [D] 1, 8, and 15; dexamethasone 40 mg PO or IV QW every 28 days; DARA IV 8 mg/kg on D1 and D2 of cycle [C]1, 16 mg/kg QW C1D8-C2, 16 mg/kg Q2W C3-6, and 16 mg/kg Q4W C7-8). After induction, eligible pts could receive autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Pts received up to 12 maintenance cycles with DARA 16 mg/kg IV Q4W and were followed for up to 36 months after induction. Results: In total, 101 (NDMM, n = 87; RMM, n = 14) pts were enrolled; 36% of pts had high-risk cytogenetics. NDMM and RMM pts received a median of 6 and 8 induction cycles, respectively. Among NDMM pts, 44.8% (39/87) underwent ASCT and 72.4% (63/87) completed 12 months of maintenance. Rates of ≥VGPR and ≥CR were 82.1% and 48.7% in NDMM pts who underwent ASCT, and 70.2% and 29.8% in NDMM pts who did not (Table). With a median follow-up of 35.7 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for NDMM pts. Estimated 36-month PFS rates were 69.3% and 72.6% for NDMM pts who did and did not receive ASCT, respectively; estimated 36-month OS rates were 94.9% and 84.3% (Table). Among RMM pts, 7.1% (1/14) underwent ASCT and 50.0% (7/14) completed 12 months of maintenance; efficacy outcomes are shown in the Table. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 62.0% of all pts, with the most common (≥10%) being neutropenia (14.0%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 33.0% of pts, the most common being pneumonia (4.0%) and pulmonary embolism (3.0%). TEAEs led to death in 2.0% of pts, all unrelated to study treatment. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 56.0% of pts; the majority were mild (4.0% of pts had grade 3/4 events). Conclusions: DARA used for induction with CyBorD and maintenance as monotherapy resulted in durable, deep responses in pts with NDMM or RMM, with a 3-year PFS rate of 70% in NDMM irrespective of ASCT status. With longer follow-up, no new safety concerns were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT02951819. [Table: see text]

Context: US MM-6 is investigating iCT from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral IRd in the diverse US community MM population, aiming to increase proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence/duration while maintaining quality of life and further improving patient outcomes. Objective: Analysis by patient age for the first 84 patients enrolled. Setting: Non-transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed MM patients with ≥stable disease after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based therapy are being enrolled across 22 US community sites to receive IRd for up to 39 28-day cycles or until progression/toxicity. Main outcome measures: Progression-free survival (not reported, data immature; enrollment ongoing). Results: At data cut-off, 47 and 37 patients aged Conclusions: This initial analysis of US MM-6 data by age suggests that by utilizing an iCT approach, long-term PI-based treatment with IRd may be feasible and tolerable in both older and younger patients, and may offer real-world patients the same improved efficacy obtained with long-term proteasome inhibition in clinical studies.

Daratumumab was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to be given intravenously over the course of several hours during each administration. Because the duration of the first dose can exceed 7 h, the US Oncology Network developed a split first dose schedule to administer the first administration (dose) over 2 consecutive days.This trial was a retrospective cohort study of adult multiple myeloma (MM) patients who initiated daratumumab within the US Oncology Network between November 1, 2015, and June 30, 2017. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare split dose versus single-dose groups, and a multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify factors associated with total administration time.In total, 622 patients were included in the analysis (364 split first dose patients and 258 single-dose patients). Infusion reactions to the first administration were documented for 47.8% of split first dose patients and 48.3% of single-dose patients. Among the total study population, the most common reactions were lower respiratory tract-related reactions (26.1%), upper respiratory tract-related reactions (17.2%), and gastrointestinal adverse events (12.5%), with no statistically significant differences between groups. The median infusion duration was 4.5 h for day 1 of the split first dose and 6.5 h for the single dose (P 0.0001); the total median infusion time was 8.7 h for the split first dose. In multivariable regression, the only factor associated with infusion time was dosing schedule.These results provide real-world evidence regarding the safety and infusion time of the first infusion of daratumumab. Although the total administration time was longer among patients receiving a split first dose, the shorter day 1 infusion for this dosing schedule without increased infusion reactions may be an option for community oncology clinics.

e19332 Background: US MM-6 is investigating iCT from parenteral V-based induction to all-oral I-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) with the aim of increasing proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence/duration while maintaining quality of life (QoL) & further improving outcomes in the diverse US community population. Methods: 21 US community sites, including VA hospitals, are enrolling non-transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM pts with ≥stable disease after 3 cycles of V-based therapy to receive IRd. Pts use mobile & digital devices to collect actigraphy (activity/sleep) data, complete QoL & treatment satisfaction questionnaires, & self-report medication adherence. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints include: response rates & duration of therapy. Results: As of Nov 18, 2019, 84 pts had been treated (median age 73 [range 49–90] yrs; 44% ≥75 yrs; 49% male; 15% black/African American; 10% Hispanic/Latino; 35% International Staging System stage III disease; 42% lytic bone disease). Comorbidities included hypertension (57%), anemia (44%), fatigue (43%), & peripheral neuropathy (13%). 85% of pts were receiving VRd at the time of iCT. 62% of pts are still on therapy & enrollment is ongoing. After initiating iCT, ≥complete response (CR) rate increased from 4% to 26% (Table). At 8 mos median follow-up, 6 pts had progressed & there were 2 on-study deaths. The 12-mo PFS rate was 86% (95% CI, 73–93) from the start of V-based regimen & from the start of IRd. During IRd treatment, 92% of pts had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (48% grade [G] ≥3). G3 TEAEs (≥5% of pts) were diarrhea (7%), pneumonia (6%), syncope (6%), & anemia (5%). TEAEs led to study drug discontinuation in 7% of pts; 36% had serious TEAEs. I/R/d dose was adjusted due to AEs in 39%/39%/29% of pts. Medication adherence (cycles 1–5) was ‘excellent’/‘very good’ in ≥78% of pts reporting adherence. QoL/treatment satisfaction were maintained in pts completing questionnaires. Actigraphy data showed normal activity levels & sleep durations. Conclusions: US MM-6 pts are representative of the RW US MM population & results show that iCT to an oral PI may permit prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy & without impacting pts’ QoL or treatment satisfaction. Clinical trial information: NCT03173092 . [Table: see text]

e19337 Background: In clinical trials, POM has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who received prior LEN. Few studies, however, have examined POM treatment for MM in the community oncology setting. This retrospective cohort study compared treatment patterns and outcomes between patients who received a post-LEN treatment, either POM or another antimyeloma regimen. Methods: Adult patients with MM in the US Oncology Network (USON) who initiated a post-LEN treatment within 60 days of LEN discontinuation between Jan 1, 2016 and May 1, 2018, were not clinical trial participants, and had ≥ 2 subsequent clinic visits, were eligible. Data were sourced from USON’s iKnowMed electronic health records. Among patients observed to have discontinued treatment, time to treatment discontinuation (TTTD) was estimated from date of initiation of post-LEN treatment (index treatment) to date of discontinuation. Among patients who started a new treatment after the index treatment, time to next treatment (TTNT) was estimated from date of initiation of index treatment until date of initiation of the next treatment. TTTD and TTNT were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier (KM) method across the whole study sample; patients who did not discontinue or start a next treatment were censored. Results: Of 547 eligible patients, 155 (28.3%) initiated POM and 392 (71.7%) initiated another antimyeloma regimen. Demographic characteristics were similar between the groups (for all patients, median age was 68 years, 54.5% patients were male and 71.7% were white). In total, 74.2% and 83.7% of patients discontinued the index treatment in the POM and other-treatment groups, respectively. Among the entire study population, KM estimates of median TTTD were 3.5 months (95% CI 2.8–4.6) and 1.9 months (95% CI 1.6–2.4) in the POM and other-treatment group, respectively (log-rank P < 0.001). In total, 65.2% and 71.2% of patients initiated subsequent treatment in the POM and other-treatment groups, respectively. KM estimates of median TTNT were 6.2 months (95% CI 4.5–7.8) and 4.5 months (95% CI 3.9–5.3) in the POM and other-treatment groups, respectively (log-rank P = 0.38). Conclusions: For patients with MM the use of POM following LEN treatment resulted in longer TTNT and TTTD compared with those who received other antimyeloma therapy. These findings support the use of POM treatment after LEN as an option for patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

8518 Background: Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and renal impairment (RI) are often excluded from clinical trials. Data are limited on the effects of induction treatment in these pts, who may also be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) due to severity of RI. This analysis investigated the impact of RVd induction on renal function in transplant eligible (TE) and noneligible (TNE) pts from the Connect MM Registry, a US, multicenter, prospective, observational study. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 y and had symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤ 2 mos prior to enrollment, as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. For this analysis, pts that received front-line RVd for ≥ 3 cycles were grouped per transplant eligibility and renal function at baseline (BL; creatinine clearance [CrCl] < 30, 30-50, > 50-80, and > 80). Pts with progressive disease at BL were excluded. Renal function at 3 mos was measured. Median unadjusted progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from start of regimen in TE and TNE populations, with pts grouped by CrCl (≤ 60 or > 60) at BL. Results: As of 7/23/19, 421 TE and 212 TNE pts received RVd for ≥ 3 cycles. TE and TNE pts were grouped by BL CrCl of < 30 (20 and 16 pts), 30-50 (36 and 50 pts), > 50-80 (117 and 63 pts), and > 80 (248 and 83 pts). Renal function improvement was observed in all pts receiving RVd, including those with moderate (30-50 CrCl) and severe (< 30 CrCl) RI at BL (Table). In pts with > 60 CrCl and ≤ 60 CrCl at BL, median PFS in TE pts was 48.6 mos and 43.2 mos, respectively. In TNE pts, median PFS was 36.4 mos and 30.6 mos, respectively. Conclusions: The results from the Connect MM Registry indicate that pts with NDMM and RI (including moderate and severe) who receive front-line RVd for ≥ 3 cycles may see improvement in renal function at 3 mos, regardless of transplant eligibility. RVd therefore can potentially be used in pts with RI. This analysis provides real-world data that support further investigation of RVd treatment in pts with moderate or severe RI. Clinical trial information: NCT01081028 . [Table: see text]