Search

What is this summary about? This is a summary of a publication about Black participants of the GRIFFIN clinical study that was published in Blood Cancer Journal in April 2022. The GRIFFIN clinical study looked at the treatment combination of daratumumab plus a standard therapy for multiple myeloma (called RVd therapy, which stands for lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) in adult patients who had not been treated before for multiple myeloma and so were considered to have newly diagnosed multiply myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a blood cancer of plasma cells. Based on the participants' age, medical history, and indicators of good general health, the participants in the GRIFFIN study were also eligible to receive autologous stem cell transplant as part of their therapy. This summary describes results for the Black participants of the GRIFFIN clinical study who received daratumumab plus RVd therapy (called D-RVd) to see if D-RVd therapy is better than RVd therapy at reducing the amount of multiple myeloma cancer cells in a patient's body. Why did the researchers evaluate the results for Black patients in the GRIFFIN study? Due to racial disparities leading to historically low representation of minority groups in clinical studies, optimal treatments are not defined for Black patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Since previously published results from the overall population in the GRIFFIN study indicated that D-RVd therapy was better than RVd therapy, the researchers wanted to determine if this was also the case among Black participants. What were the results? Out of 207 participants in the GRIFFIN study, 15% (32 participants) were Black and 78% (161 participants) were White. In both Black and White participants, D-RVd therapy reduced the amount of myeloma cancer cells more than RVd therapy. Additionally, D-RVd and RVd therapy had similar safety results for Black and White participants. What do the results mean? This analysis of GRIFFIN by race shows that Black people benefit from the daratumumab-containing D-RVd therapy as much as White people. Additionally, D-RVd therapy had similar safety results to RVd therapy for both Black and White people. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02874742 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

Supplementary Methods, Tables and Figures

PDF file - 1065KB, Supplemental Data for Figure 4.

PDF file - 48KB

PDF file - 54KB, Adverse Events Table.

Supplemental table 1. Bone marrow BI-505 concentration and MM-cell ICAM-1 expression

PDF file - 198KB, MAGE-A3 Trojan Peptide Vaccine Reactogenicity.

PDF file - 40KB, ELISA Antibody Responses for the PCV (Prevnar-13(registered trademark)).

Purpose:The oral proteasome inhibitor oprozomib has shown preclinical antitumor activity. Here, we report phase Ib/II study results investigating single-agent oprozomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.Patients and Methods:The primary objectives were to determine the MTD, safety, and tolerability of oprozomib (phase Ib) as well as overall response rate (ORR; phase II). Oprozomib was administered once daily on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (2/7 schedule) or days 1 to 5 (5/14 schedule) of a 14-day cycle.Results:In patients with multiple myeloma or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (n = 71), the determined MTDs were 300 mg/day (2/7 schedule) and 240 mg/day (5/14 schedule). Median oprozomib treatment duration for patients with multiple myeloma was 11.4 weeks (2/7 schedule, 240/300 mg/day), 5.4 weeks (5/14, 240 mg/day), and 10.1 weeks (5/14, 150/180 mg/day). For patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, these values were 34.6 weeks (2/7 schedule, 240/300 mg/day) and 8.1 weeks (5/14 schedule, 240 mg/day). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AE) in phase Ib included gastrointestinal and hematologic AEs. Three AE-related deaths in phase II prompted enrollment into 2/7 and 5/14 step-up dosing schedules (240/300 mg/day and 150/180 mg/day, respectively). In phase II, ORRs in 95 response-eligible multiple myeloma patients were 41.0%, 28.1%, and 25.0% in the 2/7, 240/300-mg/day; 5/14, 150/180-mg/day; and 5/14, 240-mg/day cohorts, respectively. ORRs in 31 response-eligible Waldenström macroglobulinemia patients were 71.4% and 47.1% for the 2/7 and 5/14 cohorts, respectively.Conclusions:This study demonstrated promising efficacy of single-agent oprozomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

Purpose: Myeloma-directed cellular immune responses after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) may reduce relapse rates. We studied whether coinjecting the TLR-3 agonist and vaccine adjuvant Poly-ICLC with a MAGE-A3 peptide vaccine was safe and would elicit a high frequency of vaccine-directed immune responses when combined with vaccine-primed and costimulated autologous T cells.Experimental Design: In a phase II clinical trial (NCT01245673), we evaluated the safety and activity of ex vivo expanded autologous T cells primed in vivo using a MAGE-A3 multipeptide vaccine (compound GL-0817) combined with Poly-ICLC (Hiltonol), granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) ± montanide. Twenty-seven patients with active and/or high-risk myeloma received autografts followed by anti-CD3/anti-CD28–costimulated autologous T cells, accompanied by MAGE-A3 peptide immunizations before T-cell collection and five times after ASCT. Immune responses to the vaccine were evaluated by cytokine production (all patients), dextramer binding to CD8+ T cells, and ELISA performed serially after transplant.Results: T-cell infusions were well tolerated, whereas vaccine injection site reactions occurred in >90% of patients. Two of nine patients who received montanide developed sterile abscesses; however, this did not occur in the 18 patients who did not receive montanide. Dextramer staining demonstrated MAGE-A3–specific CD8 T cells in 7 of 8 evaluable HLA-A2+ patients (88%), whereas vaccine-specific cytokine-producing T cells were generated in 19 of 25 patients (76%). Antibody responses developed in 7 of 9 patients (78%) who received montanide and only weakly in 2 of 18 patients (11%) who did not. The 2-year overall survival was 74% [95% confidence interval (CI), 54%–100%] and 2-year event-free survival was 56% (95% CI, 37%–85%).Conclusions: A high frequency of vaccine-specific T-cell responses were generated after transplant by combining costimulated autologous T cells with a Poly-ICLC/GM-CSF–primed MAGE-A3 vaccine. Clin Cancer Res; 20(5); 1355–65. ©2013 AACR.

Purpose: This multicenter, first-in-human study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BI-505, a human anti-ICAM-1 monoclonal antibody, in advanced relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients.Experimental Design: BI-505 was given intravenously, every 2 weeks, at escalating doses from 0.0004 to 20 mg/kg, with extension of therapy until disease progression for responding or stable patients receiving 0.09 mg/kg or higher doses.Results: A total of 35 patients were enrolled. The most common adverse events were fatigue, pyrexia, headache, and nausea. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and those attributed to study medication were mostly limited to the first dose and manageable with premedication and slower infusion. No maximum tolerated dose was identified. BI-505′s half-life increased with dose while clearance decreased, suggesting target-mediated clearance. The ICAM-1 epitopes on patient bone marrow myeloma were completely saturated at 10 mg/kg doses. Using the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 7 patients on extended therapy had stable disease for more than 2 months.Conclusions: BI-505 can be safely administered at doses that saturate myeloma cell ICAM-1 receptors in patients. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01025206). Clin Cancer Res; 21(12); 2730–6. ©2015 AACR.

Background On the basis of the DREAMM‐2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03525678), single‐agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) was approved for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received ≥4 prior therapies, including anti‐CD38 therapy. The authors investigated longer term efficacy and safety outcomes in DREAMM‐2 after 13 months of follow‐up among patients who received belamaf 2.5 mg/kg. Methods DREAMM‐2 is an ongoing, phase 2, open‐label, 2‐arm study investigating belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg) in patients with RRMM who had disease progression after ≥3 lines of therapy and were refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors and refractory and/or intolerant to an anti‐CD38 therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients that achieved an overall response, assessed by an independent review committee. Results As of January 31, 2020, 10% of patients still received belamaf 2.5 mg/kg. Thirty‐one of 97 patients (32%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 21.7%‐43.6%) achieved an overall response, and 18 responders achieved a very good partial response or better. Median estimated duration of response, overall survival, and progression‐free survival were 11.0 months (95% CI, 4.2 months to not reached), 13.7 months (95% CI, 9.9 months to not reached), and 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6‐3.6 months), respectively. Response and survival outcomes in patients who had high‐risk cytogenetics or renal impairment were consistent with outcomes in the overall population. Outcomes were poorer in patients with extramedullary disease. In patients who had a clinical response and prolonged dose delays (>63 days; mainly because of corneal events), 88% maintained or deepened responses during their first prolonged dose delay. Overall, there were no new safety signals during this follow‐up. Conclusions Extended follow‐up confirms sustained clinical activity without new safety signals with belamaf in this heavily pretreated patient population with RRMM., Extended follow‐up of patients enrolled in the ongoing phase 2 DREAMM‐2 study confirms sustained clinical activity without new safety signals in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who receive belantamab mafodotin 2.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. These data show that belantamab mafodotin has the potential to shift the treatment paradigm in this heavily pretreated, anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody–exposed patient population, which has a poor prognosis and few alternative treatment options.

Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) demonstrated deep and durable responses in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in DREAMM-2 (NCT03525678). Corneal events, specifically keratopathy (including superficial punctate keratopathy and/or microcyst-like epithelial changes (MECs), eye examination findings with/without symptoms), were common, consistent with reports from other antibody–drug conjugates. Given the novel nature of corneal events in RRMM management, guidelines are required for their prompt identification and appropriate management. Eye examination findings from DREAMM-2 and insights from hematology/oncology investigators and ophthalmologists, including corneal specialists, were collated and used to develop corneal event management guidelines. The following recommendations were formulated: close collaboration among hematologist/oncologists and eye care professionals is needed, in part, to provide optimal care in relation to the belamaf benefit–risk profile. Patients receiving belamaf should undergo eye examinations before and during every treatment cycle and promptly upon worsening of symptoms. Severity of corneal events should be determined based on corneal examination findings and changes in best-corrected visual acuity. Treatment decisions, including dose modifications, should be based on the most severe finding present. These guidelines are recommended for the assessment and management of belamaf-associated ocular events to help mitigate ocular risk and enable patients to continue to experience a clinical benefit with belamaf.

Background CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) has emerged as effective for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL). The neurologic toxicity seen with CAR-T, referred to as immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), is poorly understood. To better elucidate the clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and correlative biomarkers of ICANS, we review here a single-center analysis of ICANS after CAR T-cell therapy in R/R LBCL. Methods Patients (n = 45) with R/R LBCL treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) were identified. Data regarding treatment course, clinical outcomes, and correlative studies were collected. Patients were monitored and graded for ICANS via CARTOX-10 scoring and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 criteria, respectively. Results Twenty-five (56%) patients developed ICANS, 18 (72%) of whom had severe (CTCAE grades 3–4) ICANS. Median time to development of ICANS was 5 days (range, 3–11). Elevated pre-infusion (day 0 [D0]) fibrinogen (517 vs 403 mg/dL, upper limit of normal [ULN] 438 mg/dL, P = 0.01) and D0 lactate dehydrogenase (618 vs 506 units/L, ULN 618 units/L, P = 0.04) were associated with ICANS. A larger drop in fibrinogen was associated with ICANS (393 vs 200, P < 0.01). Development of ICANS of any grade had no effect on complete remission (CR), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS). Duration and total dose of steroid treatment administered for ICANS did not influence CR, PFS, or OS. Conclusions ICANS after CAR-T with axi-cel for R/R LBCL was seen in about half of patients, the majority of which were high grade. Contrary to previous reports, neither development of ICANS nor its treatment were associated with inferior CR, PFS, or OS. The novel finding of high D0 fibrinogen level can identify patients at higher risk for ICANS.

Primary plasma cell leukemia (PCL) has a consistently ominous prognosis, even after progress in the last decades. PCL deserves a prompt identification to start the most effective treatment for this ultra-high-risk disease. The aim of this position paper is to revisit the diagnosis of PCL according to the presence of circulating plasma cells in patients otherwise meeting diagnostic criteria of multiple myeloma. We could identify two retrospective series where the question about what number of circulating plasma cells in peripheral blood should be used for defining PCL. The presence of ≥5% circulating plasma cells in patients with MM had a similar adverse prognostic impact as the previously defined PCL. Therefore, PCL should be defined by the presence of 5% or more circulating plasma cells in peripheral blood smears in patients otherwise diagnosed with symptomatic multiple myeloma., This work has been supported in part by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS PI19/00669), Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and 2017SGR00792 (AGAUR; Generalitat de Catalunya).

Purpose: The oral proteasome inhibitor oprozomib has shown preclinical antitumor activity. Here, we report phase Ib/II study results investigating single-agent oprozomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients and Methods: The primary objectives were to determine the MTD, safety, and tolerability of oprozomib (phase Ib) as well as overall response rate (ORR; phase II). Oprozomib was administered once daily on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (2/7 schedule) or days 1 to 5 (5/14 schedule) of a 14-day cycle. Results: In patients with multiple myeloma or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (n = 71), the determined MTDs were 300 mg/day (2/7 schedule) and 240 mg/day (5/14 schedule). Median oprozomib treatment duration for patients with multiple myeloma was 11.4 weeks (2/7 schedule, 240/300 mg/day), 5.4 weeks (5/14, 240 mg/day), and 10.1 weeks (5/14, 150/180 mg/day). For patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, these values were 34.6 weeks (2/7 schedule, 240/300 mg/day) and 8.1 weeks (5/14 schedule, 240 mg/day). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AE) in phase Ib included gastrointestinal and hematologic AEs. Three AE-related deaths in phase II prompted enrollment into 2/7 and 5/14 step-up dosing schedules (240/300 mg/day and 150/180 mg/day, respectively). In phase II, ORRs in 95 response-eligible multiple myeloma patients were 41.0%, 28.1%, and 25.0% in the 2/7, 240/300-mg/day; 5/14, 150/180-mg/day; and 5/14, 240-mg/day cohorts, respectively. ORRs in 31 response-eligible Waldenström macroglobulinemia patients were 71.4% and 47.1% for the 2/7 and 5/14 cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrated promising efficacy of single-agent oprozomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

Immune checkpoints and agonists modulate ongoing, antigen-specific immune responses. Therapeutic blockade of CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 has proven to be an effective treatment approach for a subset of patients with a variety of cancers of epithelial, mesenchymal, or hematologic origin. In multiple myeloma, a B-cell lymphoid malignancy of terminally differentiated plasma cells, PD-1 pathway blockade is ineffective as a single agent. The initial promise in combination approaches utilizing anti–PD-1 with the immunomodulatory drugs, lenalidomide or pomalidomide, was not confirmed in randomized trials. Here, we explore available data for and against manipulation of the PD-1 pathway and other immune checkpoints in myeloma and highlight several promising concepts and challenges that face ongoing development of immunotherapeutics for this disease.

This study in patients with relapsed, refractory, or high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) evaluated the safety and activity of autologous T cells engineered to express an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor (TCR) that recognizes a peptide shared by cancer antigens New York esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) and L-antigen family member 1 (LAGE-1) and presented by HLA-A*02:01. T cells collected from 25 HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with MM expressing NY-ESO-1 and/or LAGE-1 were activated, transduced with self-inactivating lentiviral vector encoding the NY-ESO-1c259TCR, and expanded in culture. After myeloablation and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), all 25 patients received an infusion of up to 1 × 1010 NY-ESO-1 specific peptide enhanced affinity receptor (SPEAR) T cells. Objective response rate (International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria) was 80% at day 42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.93), 76% at day 100 (95% CI, 0.55-0.91), and 44% at 1 year (95% CI, 0.24-0.65). At year 1, 13/25 patients were disease progression-free (52%); 11 were responders (1 stringent complete response, 1 complete response, 8 very good partial response, 1 partial response). Three patients remained disease progression-free at 38.6, 59.2, and 60.6 months post-NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T-cell infusion. Median progression-free survival was 13.5 months (range, 3.2-60.6 months); median overall survival was 35.1 months (range, 6.4-66.7 months). Infusions were well tolerated; cytokine release syndrome was not reported. No fatal serious adverse events occurred during study conduct. NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T cells expanded in vivo, trafficked to bone marrow, demonstrated persistence, and exhibited tumor antigen-directed functionality. In this MM patient population, NY-ESO-1 SPEAR T-cell therapy in the context of ASCT was associated with antitumor activity. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01352286.

Outcomes and life expectancy for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have improved substantially over the last two decades with advancements in therapy, including autologous stem cell transplantati...

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562.

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population.

Objectives To describe progressive corneal microcyst-like epithelial changes (MECs) that developed in patients treated with the investigational drug belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) for refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Methods This is a single center case series of patients with MM receiving the investigational drug belamaf. Results All 12 patients included in this analysis who were treated with belamaf developed MECs that initially appeared in the peripheral cornea and progressed centrally with time. Cessation of therapy resulted in regression of the MECs first in the periphery then centrally. Microcyst-like epithelial changes recurred in all patients on retreatment. With prolonged therapy, eight patients developed corneal staining patterns suggestive of limbal stem cell dysfunction (LSCD). Conclusion We describe MECs and LSCD associated with systemic administration of belamaf. Further study is needed to determine the etiology and composition of the MECs and the mechanism of limbal stem cell involvement.

Introduction Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) represent an unmet clinical need. Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; GSK2857916) is a first-in-class antibody–drug conjugate (ADC; or immunoconjugate) that delivers a cytotoxic payload, monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF), to myeloma cells. In the phase II DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678), single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-myeloma activity (overall response rate 32%) in patients with heavily pretreated disease. Microcyst-like epithelial changes (MECs) were common, consistent with reports from other MMAF-containing ADCs. Methods Corneal examination findings from patients in DREAMM-2 were reviewed, and the clinical descriptions and accompanying images (slit lamp microscopy and in vivo confocal microscopy [IVCM]) of representative events were selected. A literature review on corneal events reported with other ADCs was performed. Results In most patients receiving single-agent belamaf (72%; 68/95), MECs were observed by slit lamp microscopy early in treatment (69% had their first event by dose 4). However, IVCM revealed hyperreflective material. Blurred vision (25%) and dry eye (15%) were commonly reported symptoms. Management of MECs included dose delays (47%)/reductions (25%), with few patients discontinuing due to MECs (1%). The first event resolved in most patients (grade ≥2 MECs and visual acuity [each 77%], blurred vision [67%], and dry eye [86%]), with no reports of permanent vision loss to date. A literature review confirmed that similar MECs were reported with other ADCs; however, event management strategies varied. The pathophysiology of MECs is unclear, though the ADC cytotoxic payload may contribute to on- or off-target effects on corneal epithelial cells. Conclusion Single-agent belamaf represents a new treatment option for patients with RRMM. As with other ADCs, MECs were observed and additional research is warranted to determine their pathophysiology. A multidisciplinary approach, involving close collaboration between eye care professionals and hematologist/oncologists, is needed to determine appropriate diagnosis and management of these patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03525678.

Perifosine, an investigational, oral, synthetic alkylphospholipid, inhibits signal transduction pathways of relevance in multiple myeloma (MM) including PI3K/Akt. Perifosine demonstrated anti-MM activity in preclinical studies and encouraging early-phase clinical activity in combination with bortezomib. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study was conducted to evaluate addition of perifosine to bortezomib-dexamethasone in MM patients with one to four prior therapies who had relapsed following previous bortezomib-based therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was discontinued at planned interim analysis, with 135 patients enrolled. Median PFS was 22.7 weeks (95% confidence interval 16·0-45·4) in the perifosine arm and 39.0 weeks (18.3-50.1) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 1.269 [0.817-1.969]

Introduction: Standard induction therapy for multiple myeloma consists of 3-6 cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) or carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd). Receiving greater than 6 cycles of a lenalidomide containing regimen is thought to negatively impact the ability to collect sufficient CD34+ stem cells for autologous stem cell transplant (Kumar, Dispenzieri et al. 2007, Bhutani, Zonder et al. 2013). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, at least 20 patients at University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center (UMGCC) had transplant postponed, potentially resulting in prolonged exposure to lenalidomide containing induction regimens. Here, in the context of modern stem cell mobilization methods, we describe a retrospective study that suggests prolonged induction does not inhibit adequate stem cell collection for transplant. Methods: By chart review, we identified 56 patients with multiple myeloma who received induction with VRd or KRd and underwent apheresis or stem cell transplant at UMGCC between 10/1/19 and 10/1/20. Patients were excluded if they received more than 2 cycles of a different induction regimen, had a past medical history of an inborn hematological disorder, or participated in a clinical trial of novel stem cell mobilization therapy. We defined 1 cycle of VRd or KRd as 1 cycle of "lenalidomide containing regimen". In accordance with routine clinical practice, we defined standard induction as having received 3-6 cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen and prolonged induction as having received 7 or more cycles. Results: 29 patients received standard induction (Standard induction cohort) and 27 received prolonged induction (Prolonged induction cohort) with lenalidomide containing regimens. The median number of cycles received by the Standard cohort was 6 (range 4-6), and the median number of cycles received by the Prolonged cohort was 8 (range 7-13). The frequency of KRd use was similar between patients who received standard induction and prolonged induction (27.58% vs. 25.93%, respectively). Standard induction and Prolonged induction cohorts were similar with respect to clinical characteristics (Fig 1), as well as the mobilization regimen used for stem cell collection (p = 0.6829). 55/56 patients collected sufficient stem cells for 1 transplant (≥ 4 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg), and 40/56 patients collected sufficient cells for 2 transplants (≥ 8 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg). There was no significant difference in the total CD34+ stem cells collected at completion of apheresis between standard and prolonged induction (10.41 and 10.45 x 10 6 CD34 cells/kg, respectively, p = 0.968, Fig 2). Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between the number of cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen a patient received and total CD34+ cells collected (R 2 = 0.0073, p = 0.5324). Although prolonged induction did not affect final stem yield, prolonged induction could increase the apheresis time required for adequate collection or result in more frequent need for plerixafor rescue. There was no significant difference in the total number of stem cells collected after day 1 of apheresis between patients who received standard or prolonged induction (8.72 vs. 7.96 x 10 6 cells/kg, respectively, p = 0.557). However, patients who received prolonged induction were more likely to require 2 days of apheresis (44% vs. 25%, p = 0.1625) and there was a trend toward significance in which patients who received prolonged induction underwent apheresis longer than patients who received standard induction (468 vs 382 minutes, respectively, p = 0.0928, Fig 3). In addition, longer apheresis time was associated with more cycles of lenalidomide containing regimen, which neared statistical significance (R 2 = 0.0624, p = 0.0658, Fig 4). There was no significant difference between standard and prolonged induction with respect to the frequency of plerixafor rescue. Conclusions: Prolonged induction with lenalidomide containing regimens does not impair adequate stem cell collection for autologous transplant. Prolonged induction may increase the apheresis time required to collect sufficient stem cells for transplant, but ultimately clinicians should be re-assured that extending induction when necessary is not likely to increase the risk of collection failure. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Badros: Janssen: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.

Introduction : Despite recent advances, MM remains incurable and new therapeutic options are needed, particularly for pts with RRMM. IBER is a novel, potent oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD ®) compound with enhanced tumoricidal and immune-stimulatory effects compared with immunomodulatory (IMiD ®) agents. Preclinically, IBER demonstrated marked synergy with DEX and with other standard myeloma treatments. CC-220-MM-001 (NCT02773030) is an ongoing phase 1/2 study evaluating IBER with different treatment combinations in independent cohorts of pts with RRMM; in phase 1, the recommended phase 2 dose of IBER, when given in combination with DEX, was determined at 1.6 mg (Lonial S, et al. Blood 2019;134[suppl 1]:3119). Here we report results from the dose expansion of IBER + DEX in pts with heavily pretreated, triple-class exposed (including ≥ 1 IMiD agent, ≥ 1 proteasome inhibitor [PI], and ≥ 1 anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) RRMM. Methods : Eligible pts had RRMM; had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide (LEN), pomalidomide (POM), a PI, a glucocorticoid, and an anti-CD38 mAb; had experienced disease progression within 60 days of last myeloma therapy; and were refractory to an IMiD agent, a PI, a glucocorticoid, and an anti-CD38 mAb. Pts with central nervous system involvement were not eligible. Pts who had received prior anti-BCMA therapy were excluded, but included in a supportive cohort for safety and preliminary efficacy assessment. IBER (1.6 mg) was given orally on days (D) 1-21, in combination with DEX (40 mg; 20 mg if > 75 years of age) on D1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle. Thrombo-embolism prophylaxis was mandatory for all pts. Primary objective was to determine efficacy expressed as overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included additional efficacy and safety assessments. Exploratory endpoints included evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results : As of June 2, 2021, 107 pts had received IBER + DEX. Median age was 64 (44-83) years; median time since initial diagnosis was 6.9 (1.6-24.5) years. Extramedullary plasmacytomas were present in 25.2% of pts; 29.9% of pts had high-risk cytogenetics. Median number of prior regimens was 6 (3-23). All pts were triple-class exposed; prior therapies included autologous stem cell transplantation (78.5%), PIs (100%), IMiD agents (LEN [100%] and POM [100%]), and anti-CD38 mAbs (100%); 99.1% of pts were refractory to last myeloma regimen and 97.2% of pts were triple-class refractory. Median follow-up was 7.69 (0.5-17.5) months, with a median number of 4 (1-17) cycles received and 13 (12.1%) pts continuing treatment. Main reason for discontinuation was progressive disease (69.2%). ORR was 26.2%, with 1 (0.9%) stringent complete response, 8 (7.5%) very good partial responses, and 19 (17.8%) partial responses (Table); the clinical benefit rate (≥ minimal response) was 36.4% and disease control rate (≥ stable disease) was 79.4%. Median duration of response was 7.0 (4.5-11.3) months (Table), median progression-free survival was 3.0 (2.8-3.7) months, and median overall survival was 11.2 (9.0-not reached) months. Similar response rates were observed among a cohort of pts also exposed to BCMA therapies (N = 24, Table). Grade (Gr) 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 88 (82.2%) pts. Most frequent (≥ 20% pts) hematologic Gr 3-4 TEAEs were neutropenia (44.9%; and 4.7% febrile neutropenia), anemia (28.0%), thrombocytopenia (21.5%), and leukopenia (20.6%). Gr 3-4 infections were reported in 27.1% of pts; Gr 3-4 pneumonia and COVID-19 occurred in 10.3% and 4.7% of pts, respectively. Occurrence of other Gr 3-4 non-hematologic TEAEs was generally low, including gastrointestinal disorders (5.6%), fatigue (2.8%), rash (1.9%). Fifty-six (52.3%) pts and 20 (18.7%) had IBER dose interruptions and reductions due to TEAEs, respectively. Five (4.7%) pts discontinued due to TEAEs. No pt discontinued IBER due to neutropenia. Overall, HRQoL was maintained in these pts. Conclusions : IBER + DEX demonstrated promising efficacy in pts with heavily pretreated, triple-class exposed and refractory RRMM, as well as in pts who had previously received anti-BCMA therapy; this combination was generally well tolerated and TEAEs were manageable with dose reductions and interruptions. These results support the further development of IBER in MM, including phase 3 trials in combination regimens. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lonial: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Popat: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Hulin: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; abbvie: Honoraria. Jagannath: Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Oriol: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, 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; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Weisel: Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: 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; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Minnema: Cilag: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Badros: J&J: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Knop: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Stadtmauer: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Nguyen: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Amin: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Kueenburg: Celgene a BMS company: Current Employment. Peluso: Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. van de Donk: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis /bayer/servier: Consultancy.

Introduction: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a high rate of relapse resulting in a need for multiple lines of therapy. In contrast to MM with standard risk cytogenetics (SR-Cyto), high-risk cytogenetics (HR-Cyto) in MM such as del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and gain(1q) (≥3 copies), can result in shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with less durable responses. Treatment regimens that can overcome the negative effect of HR-Cyto abnormalities are required to address this area of unmet medical need. Exportin 1 (XPO1), is overexpressed in many hematologic and solid tumor malignancies including MM, and exports tumor suppressor proteins from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, leading to their inactivation. Elevated levels of XPO1 are correlated with more aggressive MM and resistance to therapy and confers a poor prognosis. The potent oral XPO1 inhibitor, selinexor, has been approved as a triplet combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for previously-treated MM. In the Phase 3 BOSTON study, treatment with XVd in patients with previously treated MM significantly prolonged median PFS and improved the overall response rate (ORR), with a trend towards a prolonged OS amongst all patients as well as those with HR cytogenetics. Methods: We performed post hoc analyses on patients with previously-treated MM from the XVd arm of the Phase 1b/2 study STOMP (NCT02343042) and the Phase 3 BOSTON (NCT03110562) study to determine the effects of cytogenetic abnormalities on outcomes. The HR-Cyto group included patients with at least one of the following cytogenetic abnormalities at initial diagnosis or screening: del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), or gain(1q) (≥3 copies). Efficacy was based on independent review committee. Results: A total of 106 patients with HR-Cyto were identified, including del(17p) (n=25), t(4;14) (n=25), t(14;16) (n=10), and gain(1q) (n=80). There were 131 patients classified as SR-Cyto including those with unknown cytogenetics. Baseline demographics were similar between groups with median age of 66 years old (range 40-87). Patients with HR-Cyto had a median PFS of 12.9 months and patients with SR-Cyto had a median PFS of 16.6 months; PFS on the BOSTON Vd control arm were 8.6 and 9.5 months with HR- and SR-Cyto, respectively. Of the individual abnormalities, a PFS of 13.2 and 13.9 months was observed in the t(4;14) and gain1q subgroups, respectively. Of the HR-Cyto subgroups with more than 10 patients, a similar median OS was observed in comparison to SR-Cyto and ranged from 20.4 months to not reached. The response of XVd treatment was maintained across HR-Cyto risk subgroups, with an ORR of 76.4% overall and the following values for subgroups: del(17p) (72.0%), t(4;14) (88.0%), and gain1q (73.8%). The ORR of the SR group was 69.5%. Of all patients that received XVd, there were 6 CRs (5.7%) and 32 VGPRs (30.2%) in the HR group and 9 CRs (6.9%) and 29 VGPRs (22.1%) in the SR group. The ORRs on the BOSTON Vd control arm were 57.7% and 64.7% for HR- and SR-Cyto, respectively. The rates of the most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were similar across risk groups (HR- vs SR-Cyto): thrombocytopenia (65.1% vs. 54.2%), nausea (53.8% vs. 53.4%), fatigue (47.2% vs. 45.0%) decreased appetite (37.7% vs. 42.0%) and anemia (34.6% vs 40.5%). Rates of AEs of any grade peripheral neuropathy (PN) were 35.8% overall, 40.0% in del(17p), t(4;14) (40.0%), t(14;16) (30.0%), gain(1q) (38.8%), and 23.7% in the SR group. The rates of PN in the HR and SR groups of the XVd arm of the BOSTON and STOMP studies were 37.1% and 29.6% and 11.1% and 15.2%, respectively. The corresponding rates for Vd alone in the BOSTON study were 48.6% and 47.0%. Conclusions: Patients with MM with HR-Cyto treated with XVd demonstrated a comparable ORR and PFS, with a manageable safety profile compared to patients with SR-Cyto, supporting the use of XVd in patients with any cytogenetic profile. These results are consistent with the distinct and broad mechanism of action associated with XPO1 inhibition and the use of the agent in earlier lines of therapy. Further assessment of selinexor in combination with other therapies in patients with MM across the entire cytogenetic spectrum is warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bahlis: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richard: Karyopharm, Janssen: Honoraria. White: Amgen, Antengene, BMS/Celgene, Forus, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chen: Gilead: Research Funding; BMS, Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Gilead, AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Delimpasi: Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sutherland: Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Sebag: Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gavriatopoulou: GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Lentzsch: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celularity: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Caelum Biosciences: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Ossium Health: Consultancy; Magenta Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kadmon: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chari: Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: 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; 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: 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; Antengene: 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. Kriachok: Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Roche, Abbivie, Janssen, MSD: Consultancy. Dimopoulos: BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria. Auner: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda, Karyopharm: Other: Advisory role. Leleu: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Usenko: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Ascentage: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Celgene: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Il-Yang: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Karyopharm: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Oncopeptides: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Rigel: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; Takeda: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator; UCB: Other: Clinical Trials Investigator. Hajek: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Venner: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Garg: Takeda Janssen Novartis Sanofi: Other: Travel Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen Janssen Novartis Sanofi Takeda: Honoraria; University Hospital Leicester: Current Employment. Quach: Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, 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; Janssen/Cilag: 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, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Moreau: Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Levy: Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,Janssen.: Consultancy. Badros: J&J: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Anderson: Celgene, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mateos: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sea-Gen: 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; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; 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. Cavo: AbbVie: 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, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. DeCastro: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chai: Karyopharm: Current Employment. Van Domelen: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mishal: Karyopharm: Current Employment. Bentur: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah: Karyopharm: Current Employment. Shacham: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Richardson: Secura Bio: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients suffer from disease symptoms and impact on quality of life (QoL) - a patient's sense of enjoyment, well-being, and ability to carry out activities of daily living. Reports on QoL in MM have focused on clinical trials that usually involve younger patients with adequate performance status (PS), mostly Caucasians. The median age of MM onset is 69 years; advanced age is associated with multiple comorbidities and deteriorating PS. Blacks have twice the incidence of MM compared to Caucasians; they also have a higher risk of dying due to poor healthcare utilization. Here, we explored the multifactorial nature of race, sex, age, and clinical stage in patient reported QoL outcomes using quantitative cross-sectional analyses from a single center in urban setting. Methods . Participants with a diagnosis of plasma cell disorders at various stages: MGUS, smoldering myeloma (SMM), or MM (newly diagnosed, maintenance, relapsed/refractory) were sequentially enrolled for a one-time measurement of QOL outcomes. Consent and study questionnaire were conducted verbally. Participants simply responded 'yes' or 'no' to nine question prompts outlined in Table 1, followed by verbal reasoning which was transcribed by the interviewer. The questionnaire included three main domains of QoL assessment based on existing literature review and feedback with our patient population. The first is physical symptoms and function (disease-related symptoms, treatment-related adverse events, sexual health and satisfaction with care), the second is mental health (depression, spirituality), and the third is social impact (financial burden, family support). Data were analyzed using chi-square test of independence. Participants will be re-approached for a second interview to determine changes to impact across the same QoL variables over time. The questionnaires validated within the current study will be used for a longitudinal cohort study to investigate whether a greater degradation is observed in one or more QoL domains during a specific time-point of MM disease course. Results. A total of 100 patients (males n=52) were enrolled. Median age was 64 years (IQR 55 - 68); 59 were Caucasian, 34 were Black, and 7 from other racial groups. At the time of interview: 7 were newly diagnosed or receiving induction therapy, 25 were undergoing stem cell transplant (SCT), 22 were on maintenance therapy, 33 were relapsed on salvage therapy, and 13 on no therapy (MGUS/SMM). Regardless of race, age, or sex, patients on therapy felt their QOL was impacted by fatigue (67%), and myeloma symptoms (65%). Black participants reported more fatigue as an impact on their QoL compared to other racial groups, p = .009. Women reported more impact from MM on sexual intimacy, p = .04, and impact from financial burden than male participants, p = .03. Younger patients 60 years. Not surprisingly, patients with active MM (n=87); newly diagnosed on therapy, those undergoing SCT, or on maintenance, and relapsed disease) reported more MM symptoms p = Conclusions. Patients 60 years. Women felt their QoL was impacted by MM's affect on sexual intimacy and resulting financial burden in comparison to men. Black participants felt greater impact from fatigue in comparison to Caucasian and other races. Active MM patients on treatment were more impacted by disease-related symptoms and fatigue compared to early-stage patients. MGUS/SMM patients not on therapy were more impacted by dissatisfaction of information received compared to patients receiving treatment at time of data collection. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Badros: Janssen: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.

Context Belamaf is a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate approved in the US and EU for the treatment of RRMM. Ocular events (OEs) during the DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) included corneal exam findings (punctate keratopathy and microcyst-like epithelial changes), BCVA changes, and ocular symptoms. Dose reductions or delays based on corneal exam findings and BCVA were used to manage OEs. Objective To study relationships between exam findings, BCVA changes, and patient-reported ocular symptoms in a post hoc analysis to explore if BCVA changes and symptoms alone could guide dosing. Methods Patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) had eye evaluations (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment of Snellen visual acuity) performed by ophthalmologists at baseline and prior to each dose. Changes in the corneal epithelium (Ker) and BCVA were assessed per protocol-defined criteria and assessment of grade was based on the worse eye. BCVA grading was relative to baseline. Patient-reported ocular symptoms were reported per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Results In 12.5% of eye evaluations Grade 3–4 Ker was associated with minimal or no (Grade ≤1) BCVA changes. When patient-reported ocular symptoms were also considered, only 7.5% of evaluations found Grade 3–4 Ker with Grade ≤1 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms. Mild or no (Grade ≤2) Ker was associated with Grade ≤1 BCVA changes in 59.5% of evaluations, or in 38.8% of evaluations with no ocular symptoms reported. Overall, Grade 3–4 Ker were found in 24.9% of evaluations; by contrast, patients had Grade 2–4 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms in 53.7% of evaluations. Conclusions BCVA changes and ocular symptoms should be further investigated to determine if they can be used as alternatives (e.g., frequency of eye examinations based on symptoms) for the management of belamaf dosing to potentially reduce the burden on patients and healthcare professionals. Funding GlaxoSmithKline (205678; NCT03525678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc.; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. © 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.

Introduction: The treatment paradigm for RRMM is characterized by continuous treatment to suppress the malignant plasma cell clone. Some treatments may affect the eye, leading to a broad spectrum of ocular disorders, from dry eye to glaucoma, causing impaired quality of life. Therefore, we examined the baseline eye health of patients with RRMM receiving single-agent belamaf in the DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678) and compared the findings to those of age-matched individuals in the general population. A better understanding of baseline ocular status is important as patients may have existing, undiagnosed eye conditions that may affect future treatment options. Methods: DREAMM-2 investigated belamaf, a B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate in patients with RRMM. Eligible patients had received ≥3 prior therapies and were refractory to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and refractory and/or intolerant to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Prior to receiving belamaf, patients underwent systematic ocular history collection and eye examination and completed the eye-specific National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (NEI-VFQ-25). We report pretreatment eye-related findings to describe the baseline ocular status of patients with RRMM in DREAMM-2. Results: Of 221 patients enrolled, 100 (45%) were female and 121 (55%) were male, with a median age (range) of 66 years (34-89), median time from diagnosis of 5.4 years (1.1-12.1), and median 6 (3-21) prior lines of therapy; 98% patients had received bortezomib. Previous ocular history reported by patients were cataract (60%), intraocular surgery and/or laser treatment (35%), dry eye (20%), and glaucoma (6%), and history of ocular disease requiring medical treatment (12%). On examination, the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Snellen score was worse than 20/50 in one or both eyes in 20 and 4 of 218 patients with data, respectively. Blepharitis (anterior) was evident in approximately 20% and the corneal epithelium was abnormal (mainly mild-grade keratopathy) in 43% of patients. Impaired tear film production was reported with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) in 33% of patients, and evidence of dry eye (Schirmer's test, median 8.2 mm [normal ≥15 mm] in the worse eye. Median worse-eye tear break up time was 8.6 sec [normal >10 sec]). Slit-lamp examination revealed a cataract in approximately 50% of patients. Ten (8%) patients had evidence of prior cataract surgery with an implanted lens (pseudophakia). Dilated fundoscopy identified an abnormal optic nerve in 10% of patients in either eye; of these, glaucomatous cupping was noted in 43% (right eye) to 50% (left eye) of patients. Median (range) overall composite vision score by NEI-VFQ-25 was 95.3 (28-100). Conclusions: There was a 60% prevalence of cataract in the study cohort and an increased prevalence of glaucoma (6% vs expected 3% in patients >65 years old; Kreft et.al. BMC Public Health 2019) in RRMM patients treated in the DREAMM-2 study. Both conditions can be associated with corticosteroids, often used in MM treatments, although cataract is also an age-related phenomenon. We noted a significant number of patients with blepharitis (anterior), dry eye, and MGD, which may be associated with prior bortezomib treatment. Forty-three percent of patients had an abnormal corneal epithelium at baseline, which may be related to dry eye. This is relevant as belamaf is associated with keratopathy (microcyst-like epithelial changes visible on slit-lamp examination, with or without symptoms). Overall NEI-VFQ-25 scores were comparable to those reported in patients >65 years old (Nickels et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017). Patients with RRMM may have a number of baseline ocular abnormalities suggesting a need for regular ophthalmic examinations in this vulnerable population to identify and manage underlying conditions and treatment-related complications. Specifically, attention should be paid to patients who may have ocular conditions associated with prior treatment with corticosteroids or bortezomib. The optimization of ocular heath in this population is particularly relevant given that emerging RRMM therapies such as belamaf are associated with significant ocular side effects. Funding: GSK (Study 205678); drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Popat: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Farooq:University of Chicago: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Thulasi:Emory University: Current Employment. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Jeng:University of Maryland: Current Employment; EyeGate: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kedrion, Merck, GSK: Consultancy. Opalinska:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Baron:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Piontek:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Byrne:Adaptimmune, Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Womersley:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gupta:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Degli Esposti:Moorfields Eye Hospital: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: IRRs are commonly reported by patients receiving intravenous (IV) treatments for RRMM (Nooka et al. J Oncol Pract 2018); these can be troublesome for patients and can lead to discontinuation of treatment, negatively impacting durability of response. In the Phase II DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678), single-agent belamaf (GSK2857916), a first-in-class B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated deep and durable responses with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM (Lonial et al. ASCO 2020; poster 436). As expected with IV biologic agents, IRRs were commonly reported in this study, but were considered self-limited. Here, we report details on IRRs for patients receiving belamaf 2.5 mg/kg (the recommended dose for future clinical development) after 13-months of follow-up. Methods: In the DREAMM-2 study, patients with RRMM progressing after ≥3 prior therapies, refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor, and refractory and/or intolerant to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and who provided informed consent, received single-agent belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks) on Day 1 of each cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pre-medication for IRR prophylaxis was not protocol mandated (administered per investigator discretion, if deemed medically appropriate). These events were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria version 4.03 and included the terms: IRR, pyrexia, chills, diarrhea, nausea, asthenia, hypertension, hypotension, lethargy, and tachycardia. Grade 2 IRRs were managed by stopping the infusion, providing medical treatment and continuing the infusion at half the original infusion rate until resolution to Grade ≤1. Grade 3 IRRs were managed by discontinuing the infusion until recovery to Grade ≤1, after which the treatment could only continue (with pre-medication and a longer infusion time) following discussion with the study sponsor; all future infusions were pre-medicated. Patients experiencing Grade 4 IRRs were permanently withdrawn from the study. IRRs were followed until resolution/stabilization. Results: After 13-months of follow-up, IRRs occurred in 20/95 (21%) patients; most were mild to moderate in severity, with no Grade 4 or 5 events (Grade 1, n=6 [30%]; Grade 2, n=11 [55%]; Grade 3, n=3 [15%]). Pyrexia was reported in 5/20 (25%) patients; chills, diarrhea, and nausea in 2/20 (10%) each; asthenia, hypertension, lethargy, and tachycardia in 1/20 (5%) patients each; and the adverse event term 'IRR' was recorded for 16/20 (80%) patients. In most patients (18/20 [90%]), IRRs occurred during Cycle 1, and the incidence of these events declined thereafter (Figure). Of 73/95 (77%) patients without pre-medication at Cycle 1, 12 (16%) experienced an IRR. A total of 22/95 (23%) patients received a pre-medication at Cycle 1; of these, 8 (36%) had an IRR. Among the 20 patients experiencing an IRR, 11 (55%) received ≥1 pre-medication over the course of the study (most commonly: antihistamine, n=6 [30%]; analgesic (paracetamol); n=7 [35%]; steroid, n=6 [30%]). The median time of onset of the first IRR occurrence was at Day 1 (range: 1-22). The median duration of IRRs was 1 day (range: 1-3). Most patients experiencing IRRs (12/20 [60%]) had only one event; 3 (15%) experienced two IRRs and 5 (25%) patients had ≥3 events. Treatment was permanently discontinued due to IRRs in 1 (5%) patient (Grade 3 IRR at first and second infusion); no dose reductions or interruptions/delays occurred due to an IRR. At 13-month follow-up, IRRs were considered recovered/resolved in most (18/20 [90%]) patients (recovered/resolved with sequelae; recovering/resolving, n=1 [5%] each). Conclusions: As expected with biologic treatments administered via IV infusion, IRRs were reported with belamaf in the DREAMM-2 study. However, IRRs were typically mild-to-moderate in severity and most were considered resolved at 13-month follow-up. Importantly, IRRs resulted in few dose modifications or discontinuations, allowing patients to continue active belamaf treatment, which has been associated with durable responses in patients with RRMM. Funding: GSK (Study 205678; drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Nooka: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Voorhees:TeneBio: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; GSK: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Other relationship. Hultcrantz:Intellisphere LLC: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Karlin:Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arnulf:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Zhi:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Baron:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Piontek:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lewis:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Opalinska: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. Cohen:Novartis: Other: Patents/Intellectual property licensed, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Takeda,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Onyx: Honoraria.

Introduction: Patients with heavily pretreated RRMM have a poor prognosis (median overall survival [OS]: 6-9 months) and a need for novel, well-tolerated treatments that induce lasting responses (Gandhi Leukemia 2019; Chari NEJM 2019). Belamaf (GSK2857916) is a first-in-class, B-cell maturation antigen-targeting, antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) containing monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF). In DREAMM-2 (NCT03525678), patients with heavily pretreated RRMM who responded to single-agent belamaf maintained deep and durable responses at 13-month follow-up (median OS: >13 months) with a manageable safety profile (Lonial ASCO 2020, Poster 436). Consistent with other MMAF-containing ADCs, ocular events were common (Farooq et al. Ophthal Ther 2020). These events included keratopathy (microcyst-like epithelial changes [MECs]: an eye exam finding with/without symptoms), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, and symptoms (blurred vision and dry eye). Longer-term recovery data will help inform management strategies. Methods: In DREAMM-2, eye exams were conducted at baseline and prior to each dose in patients received single-agent belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg Q3W) and included a corneal exam and assessment of BCVA change from baseline (Snellen visual acuity [VA]). Dose modifications (delays/reductions) were permitted to manage these events. The corneal events were graded per the Keratopathy and Visual Acuity (KVA) scale, which combined corneal exam findings and BCVA changes from baseline. Dose modifications were determined based on the most severe KVA scale grade. These events were followed until recovery, defined as any Grade 1 exam findings/no exam findings, and ≤1-line decline in Snellen VA compared with baseline. A change to a BCVA 20/50 or worse (ie, limiting driving ability) in the better-seeing eye (in patients with BCVA better than 20/50 at baseline) was considered one definition of clinically meaningful VA decrease. Recovery of these events was defined as BCVA improvement to better than 20/50 (better-seeing eye). We report ocular event outcomes for patients receiving belamaf 2.5 mg/kg (recommended dose for future clinical development) from a 13-month follow-up post-hoc analysis. Results: In patients receiving single-agent belamaf 2.5 mg/kg, 72% (68/95) experienced a treatment-related eye exam finding of keratopathy (MECs) (Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020).Fewer patients (56%; 53/95) had symptoms (eg, blurred vision or dry eye) and/or a ≥2-line BCVA decline (better-seeing eye). Treatment discontinuations due to ocular events were rare (3% [3/95] total; 1% [1/95] each due to keratopathy [MECs], blurred vision, and reduced BCVA (Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020). In patients with keratopathy (MEC) events Grade ≥2 per KVA, 48% (29/60) had >1 event. The first event recovered in 77% (46/60; Table; Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020). At last follow-up, 48% (29/60) had documented recovery of their most recent event (Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020). In patients with unrecovered events at last follow-up, 45% (14/31) are receiving treatment or in follow-up. The remaining 55% (17/31) are no longer in follow-up (9 died; 4 withdrew from study; 4 lost to follow-up). 84% (37/44) of patients with Grade 3/4 events were improving or had recovered events at last follow-up. Seventeen (18%) patients had a clinically meaningful BCVA decline, with no reports of complete permanent vision loss (Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020). Of these patients, 76% (13/17) had 1 event and 24% (4/17) had 2 events (no patients had >2 events). 82% (14/17) had recovery of their first event and 82% (14/17) had recovery at last follow-up (Farooq Ophthal Ther 2020). Of the remaining 3 patients with unrecovered events, 1 patient is receiving treatment and 2 patients are no longer in follow-up (1 died due to disease progression; 1 withdrew from study). Conclusions: Though keratopathy (MECs) were frequently observed on eye exam, the majority of patients did not experience a clinically meaningful BCVA decline, and events rarely led to treatment discontinuation. The first keratopathy (MEC) event or clinically meaningful BCVA decline recovered in the majority of patients with events. In this ongoing study, patients are being followed for recovery. Based on experience, it is anticipated these events will likely recover over time. Funding: GSK (205678); drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Lonial: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy. Nooka:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Thulasi:Emory University: Current Employment. Badros:University of Maryland: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Jeng:Kedrion, Merck, GSK: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment; EyeGate: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Callander:University of Wisconsin: Current Employment; Cellectar: Research Funding. Sborov:University of Utah: Current Employment; Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Zaugg:University of Utah: Current Employment. Popat:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Degli Esposti:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Moorfields Eye Hospital: Current Employment. Byrne:Adaptimmune, Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Opalinska:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Baron:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Piontek: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. Dana:Kala: Consultancy; Alcon: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Aramis Biosciences, Claris Biotherapeutics, GelMEDIX: Current equity holder in private company; Novartis: Consultancy; Dompe: Consultancy; Massachusetts Eye and Ear; Harvard Medical School Department of Ophthalmology: Current Employment; NIH, DOD, Allegan: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Farooq:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; University of Chicago: Current Employment. Jakubowiak:Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Context: Belamaf showed deep and durable single-agent activity in the pivotal DREAMM-2 study primary analysis ( NCT03525678 ) (1–7) in a patient population that historically has a poor prognosis (overall survival [OS] 6–9 months). Objective: To present longer-term efficacy/safety outcomes (13-month follow-up) with single-agent belamaf in DREAMM-2 in the overall patient population and patients with HR cytogenetics and RI, subgroups with poor outcomes. Methods: DREAMM-2 is an ongoing study of belamaf 2.5 mg/kg (n=97) or 3.4 mg/kg (n=99). Primary outcome: overall response rate (ORR; ≥partial response). In post-hoc analyses, HR-cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), 17p13del, or 1q21 + . RI was based on eGFR (mild: ≥60– Results: Overall population ORRs in the 2.5 mg/kg and 3.4 mg/kg groups were 32% (97.5% CI: 21.7–43.6) and 35% (97.5% CI: 24.8–47.0); 19% and 23% of patients (58% and 66% of responders) achieved very good partial response or better. Median duration of response was 11.0 (95% CI: 4.2–not reached [NR]) and 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.8–NR). Median progression-free survival was 2.8 (95% CI: 1.6–3.6) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.0–5.8); median estimated OS was 13.7 (95% CI: 9.9–NR) and 13.8 months (95% CI: 10.0–NR). Most common Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were keratopathy (microcyst-like epithelial changes [MECs] observed on eye examination; 2.5 mg/kg: 46%; 3.4 mg/kg: 42%), thrombocytopenia (2.5 mg/kg: 22%; 3.4 mg/kg: 32%), and anemia (2.5 mg/kg: 21%; 3.4 mg/kg: 27%). AE-related permanent discontinuation occurred in 9% and 12%; discontinuation due to MECs was rare (2.5 mg/kg: 1%; 3.4 mg/kg: 3%). HR cytogenetics and RI subgroup analyses will be presented at the conference. Conclusions: Deep and durable responses to single-agent belamaf were sustained and no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up in this heavily pretreated RRMM population. Funding: GSK (205678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. References: [1] Lonial et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020. [2] Lonial et al. ASCO 2020. EP436. [3] Lonial et al. EHA 2020. EP970. [4] Cohen et al. ASCO 2020. EP441. [5] Trudel et al. EHA 2020. EP1037. [6] Lee et al. ASCO 2020. EP419. [7] Lee et al. EHA 2020. EP1006.

A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model and exposure-response (E-R) analysis was developed using data collected from 5 phase 1b/2 and 2 phase 3 studies in subjects with multiple myeloma. Subjects receiving intravenous infusion on 2 consecutive days each week for 3 weeks (days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) in each cycle at doses ranging from 15 to 20/56 mg/m2 (20 mg/m2 in cycle 1 and, if tolerated, escalated to 56 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1). The population PK analysis indicated that among all the covariates tested, the only statistically significant covariate was body surface area on carfilzomib clearance; however, this covariate was unlikely to be clinically significant. Despite inclusion of different populations (relapsed or relapsed/refractory), treatments (carfilzomib monotherapy or combination therapy), infusion lengths (2 to 10 minutes or 30 minutes), and different doses, the E-R analysis of efficacy showed that after adjusting for baseline characteristics, higher area under the concentration-time curve was associated with improved overall response rate (ORR), from 15 to 20/56 mg/m2 . No positive relationships between maximum concentration and ORR were identified, indicating that ORR would not be expected to be impacted by infusion length. For safety end points, no statistically significant relationship between exposure and increasing risk of adverse events was identified. The results of an E-R analysis provided strong support for a carfilzomib dose at 20/56 mg/m2 as a 30-minute infusion for monotherapy and combination therapy. This article illustrates an example of application of E-R analysis to support labeling dose recommendation in the absence of extensive clinical data.

Summary Background Belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916), an immunoconjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen, showed single-agent activity in the phase 1 DREAMM-1 study in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We further investigated the safety and activity of belantamab mafodotin in the DREAMM-2 study. Methods DREAMM-2 is an open-label, two-arm, phase 2 study done at 58 multiple myeloma specialty centres in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with disease progression after three or more lines of therapy and who were refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors, and refractory or intolerant (or both) to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were recruited, centrally randomly assigned (1:1) with permuted blocks (block size 4), and stratified by previous lines of therapy (≤4 vs >4) and cytogenetic features to receive 2·5 mg/kg or 3·4 mg/kg belantamab mafodotin via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks on day 1 of each cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The intention-to-treat population comprised all randomised patients, regardless of treatment administration. The safety population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of belantamab mafodotin. The primary outcome was the proportion of randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population who achieved an overall response, as assessed by an independent review committee. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03525678 , and is ongoing. Findings Between June 18, 2018, and Jan 2, 2019, 293 patients were screened and 196 were included in the intention-to-treat population (97 in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 99 in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort). As of June 21, 2019 (the primary analysis data cutoff date), 30 (31%; 97·5% CI 20·8–42·6) of 97 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 34 (34%; 23·9–46·0) of 99 patients in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the safety population were keratopathy (in 26 [27%] of 95 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 21 [21%] of 99 patients in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort), thrombocytopenia (19 [20%] and 33 [33%]), and anaemia (19 [20%] and 25 [25%]); 38 (40%) of 95 patients in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and 47 (47%) of 99 in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort reported serious adverse events. Two deaths were potentially treatment related (one case of sepsis in the 2·5 mg/kg cohort and one case of haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the 3·4 mg/kg cohort). Interpretation Single-agent belantamab mafodotin shows anti-myeloma activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.

8033 Background: Belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916; belamaf; BLENREP) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody–drug conjugate approved in the US and EU as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with RRMM. Ocular events (OEs) during the pivotal DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) included corneal exam findings (punctate keratopathy and microcyst-like epithelial changes), BCVA changes, and ocular symptoms. Dose reductions or delays based on corneal exam findings and BCVA were used to manage OEs. Here we performed a post hoc investigation of relationships between corneal exam findings, BCVA changes, and patient-reported ocular symptoms to explore if BCVA changes and symptoms could guide dosing, rather than corneal exams. Methods: Eye evaluations (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment of Snellen visual acuity) were performed on all patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) by ophthalmologists at baseline and prior to each belamaf dose. Changes in the corneal epithelium (Ker) and BCVA were both assessed as per protocol-defined criteria and assessment of grade (Gr) was based on the worse eye. BCVA grading was relative to baseline. Patient-reported ocular symptoms were reported as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Results: In 12.5% of eye evaluations Gr 3–4 Ker was associated with minimal or no (Gr ≤1) BCVA changes. When patient-reported ocular symptoms were also considered, only 7.5% of evaluations found Gr 3–4 Ker with Gr ≤1 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms. Mild or no (Gr ≤2) Ker was associated with Gr ≤1 BCVA changes in 59.5% of evaluations, or in 38.8% of evaluations with no ocular symptoms reported. Overall, Gr 3–4 Ker were found in 24.9% of evaluations; by contrast, patients had Gr 2–4 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms in 53.7% of evaluations. Association of corneal epithelium changes (Ker) with BCVA changes and ocular symptoms. Conclusions: These findings highlight that BCVA changes and ocular symptoms should be further investigated to determine if they can be used as alternatives (eg, frequency of eye examinations based on symptoms) for the management of belamaf dosing to potentially reduce the burden on patients and healthcare professionals. Clinical trial information: NCT03525678. [Table: see text]

e24126 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is unique among hematologic malignancies as an incurable disease. Patients are affected long-term by the disease symptoms as well as psychological, financial burden, and social impact, which may affect overall quality of life (QOL). The current literature related to QOL in MM is largely limited to a single clinical stage, impact concurrent with a specific treatment regimen, or focused on a single QOL factor. Changes in impact on QOL based on longitudinal follow up during the disease course have not been readily assessed. Here, we evaluated patient-reported QOL measures utilized by one time validated questionnaires. Methods: The study enrolled 100 participants in a sequential manner from the Myeloma Clinic at UMGCC with a diagnosis of plasma cell disorders at various stages: MGUS, smoldering myeloma, or multiple myeloma: newly diagnosed, maintenance, relapsed. Participants provided verbal responses to a series of questions listed in Table. Questions aligned with three main domains: physical symptoms and function, mental health, and social systems. The following is an interim analysis of the first 50 patients. Results: This sample of myeloma patients (N=50; males n=26), felt their QOL was impacted by myeloma symptoms (70%). More African American participants reported impact from financial burden (6, 50%) in comparison to Caucasian and other races (10, 26%). Interestingly, males reported less impact on sexual intimacy (3, 15%) than females (6, 43%). Females also reported more impact from financial burden (10, 42%) compared to males (6, 23%). Conclusions: Changes to impact on QOL as a function of clinical MM stage, race, and/or gender will be fully evaluated. Planned analyses include correlation statistics by age and social demographics to determine patterns in patient-reported outcomes. Finally, second interviews with current participants will be conducted to determine changes to impact across the same QOL variables over time.[Table: see text]

Summary Renal impairment (RI) is a major complication of multiple myeloma (MM). This study aimed to characterize the single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of the oral proteasome inhibitor, ixazomib, in cancer patients with normal renal function [creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥90 ml/min; n = 20), severe RI (CrCl

Summary While proteasome inhibition is a validated therapeutic approach for multiple myeloma (MM), inhibition of individual constitutive proteasome (c20S) and immunoproteasome (i20S) subunits has not been fully explored owing to a lack of effective tools. We utilized the novel proteasome constitutive/immunoproteasome subunit enzyme‐linked immunosorbent (ProCISE) assay to quantify proteasome subunit occupancy in samples from five phase I/II and II trials before and after treatment with the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib. Following the first carfilzomib dose (15–56 mg/m2), dose‐dependent inhibition of c20S and i20S chymotrypsin‐like active sites was observed [whole blood: ≥67%; peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs): ≥75%]. A similar inhibition profile was observed in bone marrow–derived CD138+ tumour cells. Carfilzomib‐induced proteasome inhibition was durable, with minimal recovery in PBMCs after 24 h but near‐complete recovery between cycles. Importantly, the ProCISE assay can be used to quantify occupancy of individual c20S and i20S subunits. We observed a relationship between MM patient response (n = 29), carfilzomib dose and occupancy of multiple i20S subunits, where greater occupancy was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving a clinical response at higher doses. ProCISE represents a new tool for measuring proteasome inhibitor activity in clinical trials and relating drug action to patient outcomes.