Search

Simulation is a technique where the situation or a process is imitated. This process makes one to pretend the scenario. Aviation industry is one of the oldest industry which uses simulation technique to simulate the aviation technique. The main aim of having simulation lab is to make students acquire psychomotor skills before they actually treat the patients. Presently the National Medical Council of India has made it mandatory to have a skill lab but desirable to have a simulated mannequin for the training of medical students before actually treating the patients. Various advantages and disadvantages are appreciated in simulation technique. It is not very far that Dental council of India may make compulsory training of certain simulated modules in dentistry before treating the patient. Simulation lab in the pandemic like COVID has really helped people to undergo extensive training before treating patients, especially one who were catering the COVID ward or intensive care units. The simulation in dentistry is not a very old technique, certain technique are already in practice, but this article tries to highlight the necessity and gray areas where simulation can be improved for the benefit of students to learn and for the benefit of patients in view of safety.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Azadirachta Indica (A. Indica)/ neem mouth rinse in conjunction with scaling and root planning in the treatment of chronic gingivitis and chronic periodontitis. Total of 50 patients who were diagnosed with generalized chronic gingivitis and chronic periodontitis were divided equally into 2 groups. In first group subgingival ultrasonic instrumentation was performed along with the 0.2% chlorhexidine mouth rinse and in the other group 10% A. indica-mouth rinse was used. Clinical parameters were recorded on the baseline, 7thday, 30th day and 90th-day post-therapy. The intra-group comparison showed a statistically significant difference in clinical parameters at different intervals post-therapy whereas in the inter-group comparison the difference in clinical parameters was statistically non-significant at various time intervals. Neem mouthwash as an irrigant during ultrasonic scaling enhances the benefits of scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic gingivitis and chronic periodontitis and can be used as an effective alternative for chlorhexidine.

The development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.

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.

Aims and Objectives: C-reactive protein is an acute-phase-reactant primarily produced by the liver in response to infection or trauma. Recent studies have demonstrated a correlation between periodontitis and elevated CRP levels. This study aims to relate the serum-CRP level in chronic and aggressive periodontitis patients, before and after periodontal treatment, with healthy controls. Materials and Method: A case-control clinical study was conducted with a total of 75 systemically healthy subjects, where 25 subjects were selected in each groups: Group I, Healthy control subjects; Group II, generalized chronic periodontitis patients, and Group III, generalized aggressive periodontitis patients. Serum-CRP levels were quantified by using turbidimetric immunoassay at baseline and 3month post-treatment. Kit used was “TURBILYTE-CRP” (Tulip Diagnostics, Goa, India). In the treatment phase, patients received single visit nonsurgical periodontal treatment, completed within 24hrs under LA for GCP & GAP group. Results: Mean serum CRP levels were significantly higher in both GCP and GAP groups as compared to the control group at baseline. On comparing the clinical parameters at 3 months post-treatment for GCP & GAP group with control group values, the mean score of serum CRP levels for the GAP group was statistically significant (P

Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a potentially life threatening and rare mucocutaneous disease that usually manifests first in the oral cavity and may later spread to the skin or other mucous membrane. Lesions may occur anywhere on the mucosa but it is unusual for PV to present over the gingiva as a primary site of involvement. A 64 year old female patient reported with a chief complaint of reddish, painful gums with burning sensation since 8 years. The diagnosis of PV is based on clinical findings (Nikolsky’s sign positive) and confirmed by histopathological analysis. Medications were prescribed as per indications and requirements. Oral hygiene instructions were given. No recurrence was observed at 1½ year of follow-up. Thus, this case serves to enhance our awareness of gingiva as a site at which systemic disease can manifests itself.

Background: Frenum that encroaches on the margin of the gingiva may interfere with plaque removal and can lead to gingival recession and midline diastema. Thus, to maintain proper oral hygiene and prevent gingival recession, frenectomy is done. Frenectomy can be accomplished by conventional frenectomy technique, which has certain disadvantages. To overcome those drawbacks, paralleling technique of frenectomy has been introduced. Both the techniques can be performed by using various treatment modalities. Aim: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the bleeding during surgery, post-operative wound healing and patient's perception towards the conventional frenectomy technique with scalpel, paralleling frenectomy technique with scalpel and paralleling technique with electrocautery. Materials and method: A total of 30 subjects with gingival or papillary frenal attachment were selected and equally divided into three groups. Group 1 was treated by conventional technique with scalpel, Group 2 by paralleling technique with scalpel and Group 3 by paralleling technique with electrocautery. Various parameters such as bleeding during surgery, patient's perception towards the various techniques and post-operative wound healing were evaluated. Results: The results showed that bleeding during surgery was minimum in group 3 as compared to other two groups. Patient's perception towards paralleling technique with scalpel, was found better than the other groups. At 7th day, though there was a difference in the healing but at 21st day wound healing was almost similar in all the three groups. Conclusion: Based on our findings and clinical outcome, paralleling technique with scalpel provided better patient's perception and an efficient and satisfactory option for frenectomy.

Next generation sequencing studies in Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have revealed novel genetic variants that have been associated with disease characteristics and outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of recurrent molecular abnormalities in patients with CLL. Therefore, we assessed their incidences and associations with other clinical and genetic markers in the prospective multicenter COMPLEMENT1 trial (treatment naive patients not eligible for intensive treatment randomized to chlorambucil (CHL) vs. ofatumumab-CHL (O-CHL)). Baseline samples were available from 383 patients (85.6%) representative of the total trial cohort. Mutations were analyzed by amplicon-based targeted next generation sequencing (tNGS). In 52.2% of patients we found at least one mutation and the incidence was highest in NOTCH1 (17.0%), followed by SF3B1 (14.1%), ATM (11.7%), TP53 (10.2%), POT1 (7.0%), RPS15 (4.4%), FBXW7 (3.4%), MYD88 (2.6%) and BIRC3 (2.3%). While most mutations lacked prognostic significance, TP53 (HR2.02,p

Background: Tobacco smoking is an independent risk factor for periodontal disease which increases periodontal pocketing, attachment loss, as well as bone loss leading to varied severity and bone destruction in the form of horizontal and vertical patterns. Aim: The aim of the present study is to determine and measure the types and severity of bone destruction in chronic periodontitis (CP) patients with tobacco smoking habit using intraoral periapical (IOPA) radiographs and transgingival probing. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 male participants with CP were included in the study. Group A comprised 30 heavy cigarette smokers and Group B comprised 30 nonsmokers. Clinical parameters such as plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment loss (CAL) were recorded. Amount and pattern of bone loss were assessed using IOPA and transgingival probing. Results: The mean values of PI, PPD, and CAL were 2.50 ± 0.28 mm, 9.33 ± 1.42 mm, and 10.2 ± 1.62 mm, respectively, for cigarette smokers, which were found to be higher and statistically significant as compared to nonsmokers. Cigarette smokers showed more bone destruction than nonsmokers in respect to maxillary molars 4.42 ± 1.31 mm and incisors 3.90 ± 1.10 mm as compared to nonsmokers. Types of bone destruction were more of vertical patterns (93.3%) in cigarette smokers. Conclusions: Tobacco smoking was associated with severe attachment loss. Tobacco smoking not only affects soft tissues but also hard tissues such as bone. Palatal sides of maxillary molars showed significantly higher bone loss and also had more percentage of vertical patterns of bone loss compared to nonsmokers. IOPA and transgingival probing may be used as noninvasive methods for the determination of types and severity of bone destruction in CP patients with or without tobacco smoking habit.

Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a BCMA-targeted antibody–drug conjugate recently approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received ≥4 prior therapies. Belamaf binds to BCMA and eliminates myeloma cells by multimodal mechanisms of action. The cytotoxic and potential immunomodulatory properties of belamaf have led to novel combination studies with other anticancer therapies. Here, we describe the rationale and design of DREAMM-5, an ongoing Phase I/II platform study evaluating the safety and efficacy of belamaf combined with novel agents, including GSK3174998 (OX40 agonist), feladilimab (an ICOS; GSK3359609), nirogacestat (a gamma-secretase inhibitor; PF-03084014) and dostarlimab (a PD-1 blocker) versus belamaf monotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.Clinical trial registration: NCT04126200 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Hemangioma is a relatively common benign proliferation of blood vessels that primarily develops during childhood. Two main forms of hemangioma recognized: capillary and cavernous. The capillary form presents as a flat area consisting of numerous small capillaries. Cavernous hemangioma appears as an elevated lesion of a deep red color, and consists of large dilated sinuses filled with blood. The present case report is an presentation of gingival growth, which was clinically diagnosed as gingival polyp but histopathologically as capillary haemangioma. These lesions present as a diagnostic dilemma to the clinician and can lead to serious complications if not carefully managed. The purpose of the case report is to present the case of a capillary hemangioma in a patient and to describe the successful treatment of this case.

8019 Background: Preclinical data demonstrate that nirogacestat, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, may increase cell-surface levels of a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and reduce soluble BCMA levels, which could enhance anti-BCMA agent activity in multiple myeloma. In the DREAMM-5 (NCT04126200) Phase I/II platform trial belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP), a BCMA-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, is being evaluated in combination with nirogacestat to determine if the combination can result in similar efficacy and an improved ocular safety profile compared to the currently approved belamaf schedule (single agent dose 2.5 mg/kg Q3W) in patients with RRMM which showed a 31% overall response rate (ORR) and 44.5% Gr3/4 keratopathy (BLENREP US prescribing information). Methods: This cohort within the DREAMM-5 nirogacestat combination sub-study has a sequential dose-exploration (DE) phase evaluating 0.95 mg/kg Q3W belamaf with 100 mg BID nirogacestat continuously, followed by a randomized cohort expansion (CE) comparing the combination to a belamaf 2.5 mg/kg Q3W arm. Results: Preliminary results from the 10 patients (pts) in the DE cohort with low-dose belamaf + nirogacestat are presented in this abstract. Pts had a median (range) of 4.5 (3–10) prior lines of therapy. At time of data cut-off (Nov 15, 2021), pts received a median (range) of 7 cycles (1–26). The ORR was 60% (n=6/10) and 20% (n=2) achieved a very good partial response (Table). The key emergent adverse events (AEs) included ocular events (n=7 [70%]; ≥Grade [Gr] 3, n=2 [20%] of which Gr 3 keratopathy was reported in 1 pt [10%]), diarrhea (n=7 [70%]; Gr 3, n=1 [10%]) and hypophosphatemia (n=7 [70%]; Gr 3, n=1, [10%]). There were 2 Grade 5 AEs, neither of which were related to study treatment. No pt permanently discontinued study due to treatment related AEs. Conclusions: Encouraging clinical activity and a manageable safety profile is observed with low dose belamaf (0.95 mg/kg Q3W) + nirogacestat (100 mg BID continuously) in pts with RRMM. This ongoing sub-study is actively recruiting patients and will continue to evaluate belamaf + nirogacestat efficacy and safety. Updated results will be reported at the congress. Funding: GSK (208887); drug linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc.; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Clinical trial information: NCT04126200. [Table: see text]

DREAMM-2 (NCT03525678) is an ongoing global, open-label, phase 2 study of single-agent belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; GSK2857916), a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in a frozen-liquid presentation in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Alongside the main study, following identical inclusion/exclusion criteria, a separate patient cohort was enrolled to receive belamaf in a lyophilised presentation (3.4 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary outcome was independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Twenty-five patients were enrolled; 24 received ≥1 dose of belamaf. As of 31 January 2020, ORR was 52% (95% CI: 31.3–72.2); 24% of patients achieved very good partial response. Median duration of response was 9.0 months (2.8–not reached [NR]); median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (2.2–9.7); median overall survival was not reached (8.7 months–NR). Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were keratopathy (microcyst-like corneal epithelial changes, a pathological finding seen on eye examination [75%]), thrombocytopenia (21%), anaemia (17%), hypercalcaemia and hypophosphatemia (both 13%), neutropenia and blurred vision (both 8%). Pharmacokinetics supported comparability of frozen-liquid and lyophilised presentations. Single-agent belamaf in a lyophilised presentation (intended for future use) showed a deep and durable clinical response and acceptable safety profile in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM.

Introduction: The bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen is an acceptable standard of care (SoC) for both transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM). Ongoing development of novel therapies and combinations strive to improve survival outcomes beyond what is expected from SoC. Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen-binding antibody-drug conjugate that eliminates myeloma cells by a multimodal mechanism and has demonstrated durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Preclinical evidence of belamaf in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide suggests enhanced anti-myeloma activity, providing rationale for this treatment combination. We report the preliminary findings of belamaf + VRd for TI NDMM patients. Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase I, open-label, randomized, dose and schedule evaluation study of belamaf + VRd in patients with TI NDMM. Eligible patients include those ≥18 years old with ECOG status 0-2 and adequate organ system functions. The study evaluates safety and tolerability of belamaf + VRd in up to 8 cohorts, up to 144 patients, to establish the recommended phase 3 dose (RP3D). VRd is administered Q3W until cycle 8, followed by lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rd) Q4W. Belamaf + VRd is administered until cycle 8, and then in combination with Rd thereafter. The belamaf dose cohorts currently being evaluated are: cohort 1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W), cohort 2 (1.4 mg/kg Q6/8W), cohort 3 (1.9 mg/kg Q6/8W), cohort 4 (1.0 mg/kg Q3/4W), and cohort 5 (1.4 mg/kg Q3/4W). After evaluation of safety data for cohort 1, cohorts 2-5 were opened in parallel and enrolled patients were randomized 1:1:1:1. Safety data, clinical activity, and drug concentrations will be assessed, and used to determine the belamaf RP3D. This analysis reports the preliminary results from cohort 1. Primary endpoints include number of patients with adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints include establishing relative dose intensity of lenalidomide and bortezomib in combination with belamaf, cumulative dose of belamaf, pharmacokinetics (PK) profile of belamaf when combined with VRd, overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), stringent complete response (sCR), complete response rate ([CRR]; % of patients with a confirmed CR or better), and rate of very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). Exploratory endpoints include assessing minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve ≥VGPR, and safety and efficacy exposure-response relationships. Results: Twelve patients in cohort 1 were included in this preliminary analysis. Eight patients (67%) were male; median age (range) was 72.5 years (63-77). Ten patients (83%) were white and 2 (17%) were Asian. Nine patients (75%), were ISS stage II or III, and 4 (33%) patients had high-risk cytogenetics (consisting of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p, 17p13del). AEs related to study treatment were experienced by all 12 patients. Dose reductions occurred in 12 (100%) patients, all of whom also experienced a dose delay. Most common AEs leading to dose modification were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and corneal events. Grade 3 or 4 AEs related to belamaf occurred in 9 (75%) patients. During the trial, one patient experienced a fatal severe AE due to COVID-19 infection (unrelated to study treatment; Table). All patients, 100% (n=12; 95% CI: 73.5-100) achieved ≥VGPR. Early deep responses were observed; 2 (17%) patients achieved VGPR as early as 4 weeks. As of data cut-off, 5 (42%) remain in CR and 3 (25%) in sCR. Based on real-time data captured in the clinical database, 7 out of 9 patients achieved MRD-negative status at the first test after VGPR. Belamaf PK profile was similar to that observed in patients with RRMM taking into consideration baseline patients characteristics. Conclusion: Preliminary data suggest addition of belamaf to VRd did not reveal new safety signals and demonstrates high response rates, albeit with short follow-up. The study is ongoing to confirm safety and evaluate the efficacy of belamaf + VRd. Updated data for cohort 1 will be reported at the congress. Funding: GSK (Study 209664); belamaf drug linker technology licensed from Seagen; belamaf monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Usmani: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Quach: Celgene: 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; GlaxoSmithKline: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, 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; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koh: Pfizer: Consultancy; Jassen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Guenther: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zhou: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Kaisermann: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mis: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Williams: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Yeakey: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ferron-Brady: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Figueroa: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Kremer: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Gupta: Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Janowski: Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Single-agent belamaf, a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, induced durable responses with a manageable safety profile in patients with RRMM at 13 months of follow-up (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678). The unique multimodal mechanisms of action (MoAs) of belamaf, in combination with MoAs of selected agents, have the potential to achieve synergistic effects in RRMM to further enhance the benefit-risk profile. Belamaf is being evaluated in DREAMM-5 in various lines of treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other agents. Methods DREAMM-5 (NCT04126200) is a phase 1/2 platform study that utilizes a master protocol with separate sub-studies comprised of sequential dose-exploration (DE) and cohort-expansion (CE) phases to identify effective belamaf combinations compared with a shared single-agent belamaf control arm (CE phase only). In the DE phase, patients will be assigned to one of the multiple belamaf dosing combination cohorts by a predetermined algorithm (N≤10 per cohort). A recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each combination will be identified based on safety and preliminary efficacy in the DE phase. An interim analysis of safety, pharmacokinetic, biomarker, and efficacy data will be performed for each combination to determine if it should move forward to the CE phase. Patients in the CE phase (N≥35 per cohort) will be randomized to a sub-study, and within a sub-study, to either the combination arm or belamaf control arm. Patients will also be stratified by number of prior therapies; eligible patients will have received ≥3 prior lines, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody. All patients will provide informed consent for participation. Primary objectives of the study are to identify the RP2D (DE phase), the overall response rate (≥partial response, CE phase), and safety and tolerability for each combination. Sub-study 1 (combination with GSK3174998, OX40 agonist antibody) is no longer open to enrollment. Sub-studies 2 (combination with GSK3359609, feladilimab, anti-ICOS agonist), 3 (combination with nirogacestat [PF-03084014; SpringWorks Therapeutics], gamma-secretase inhibitor), and 4 (combination with dostarlimab, PD-1 antagonist antibody) are currently open to enrollment. Sub-study 5 (combination with isatuximab [Sanofi], CD38 antagonist antibody) will be open to enrollment soon. Additional sub-studies will be explored based on scientific rationale and/or available preclinical combination data. Funding GSK (208887; NCT04126200). Belamaf drug linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc.; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Nirogacestat and isatuximab produced by and used in collaboration with SpringWorks Therapeutics and Sanofi, respectively Encore Statement ©2021 European Hematology Association, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2021 EHA Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.

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

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.

Introduction: Single-agent belamaf (GSK2857916), a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated deep and durable responses with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM (median 7 lines of prior therapy) refractory to an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and refractory and/or intolerant to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody in the pivotal Phase II DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678). At 13-month follow-up, the overall response rate (ORR) was 32% and the median duration of response (DoR) was 11.0 months in the belamaf 2.5 mg/kg arm (Lonial. ASCO 2020 Poster 436). The multimodal mechanism of action, efficacy and safety profile of belamaf, as well as preclinical data suggest possible synergy with standard of care agents and a potential benefit in combination with IMiDs and PIs. DREAMM-6 (NCT03544281) is an ongoing Phase I/II, two-part study of belamaf in combination with lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Arm A) or BorDex (Arm B) in patients with RRMM who had received ≥1 prior therapy (bortezomib-refractory patients were not excluded); preliminary results from Arm B have been reported (Nooka. ASCO 2020 Oral 8502). Methods: Part 1 (dose escalation) and Part 2 (dose expansion) of Arm B in DREAMM-6 evaluated belamaf (2.5 and 3.4 mg/kg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks [Q3W]) administered as SINGLE (Day 1) or SPLIT dose (divided equally on Days 1 and 8) plus BorDex (Bor 1.3 mg/m2 [subcutaneously] and Dex 20 mg [IV or orally]). Combination treatment continued for up to 8 cycles, with single-agent belamaf maintenance therapy thereafter. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and efficacy (ORR [≥ partial response, PR] per investigator-assessed best confirmed response). We report safety and efficacy results from the 2.5 mg/kg SINGLE dose cohort from Arm B. Results: As of March 30, 2020, 18 patients had received belamaf 2.5 mg/kg SINGLE + BorDex in Parts 1 and 2 of Arm B. The median age was 67 years, 61% were male, and 33% had high-risk cytogenetics; patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1-11) prior lines of therapy. All 18 patients had treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 16 (89%) had Grade 3/4 events (see Table). Treatment-related serious AEs occurred in 5 (28%) patients. There were no Grade 5 AEs of interest. Thirteen (72%) patients had dose reductions (8/13 belamaf) and all patients had dose delays (16/18 belamaf) to manage AEs. Five (28%) patients discontinued a study treatment due to AEs: 4 bortezomib, 2 dexamethasone, no patients discontinued belamaf. Of the AEs of interest, thrombocytopenia occurred in 12 patients (67%; maximum Grade 4 in 8 patients and Grade 3 in 3 patients) and led to dose reduction in 6 (33%) patients, dose delay in 7 (39%) patients, and no discontinuations. Three (17%) patients had Grade 2 infusion-related reactions (with no dose modifications or discontinuations). Changes in the corneal epithelium (keratopathy/microcyst-like epithelial changes [MECs], an eye exam finding with or without symptoms), an anticipated AE associated with monomethyl auristatin F, the payload in belamaf, occurred in all 18 patients (maximum Grade 3 in 10 patients, Grade 2 in 7 patients, and Grade 1 in 1 patient), and led to dose reduction in 7 (39%) patients, dose delay in 15 (83%) patients, with no discontinuations. Response was evaluable in all patients; ORR was 78% (95% CI 52.4-93.6), with very good partial response (VGPR) in 9 (50%) and PR in 5 (28%) patients. One (6%) patient had minimal response, and 3 (17%) patients had stable disease. Clinical benefit rate was 83% (95% CI 58.6-96.4). After a median of 18.2 weeks (range 6.0-46.4 weeks) on treatment, median DoR was not reached. Conclusions: The combination of belamaf 2.5 mg/kg Q3W with standard-of care BorDex demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in patients with RRMM who had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, with AEs as expected, and no new safety signals to date. Corneal events were common but manageable with belamaf dose modifications. At interim follow-up, best response data indicate a high ORR of 78%, VGPR of 50%, and clinical benefit rate of 83%. Final data for the 2.5 mg/kg SINGLE + BorDex cohort will be reported at the congress. Funding: GSK (Study 207497); drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Disclosures Popat: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nooka:Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stockerl-Goldstein:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbott Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Abbvie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GSK: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellerant: Other: Other relationship. Abonour:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Khot:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Other: Speaker fees; Novartis: Other: Travel grant. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy. Augustson:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Spencer:AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Mateos:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chopra:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rogers:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Davidge:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montes de Oca:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ferron-Brady:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yeakey:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Talekar:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kremer:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gupta:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Quach:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Belamaf (GSK2857916), a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), demonstrated deep and durable responses with a manageable safety profile as a single agent in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM in the pivotal DREAMM-2 study (NCT03525678; Lonial ASCO 2020 Poster 436). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated via the cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30; Popat EHA 2020 Poster EP1746), a PRO used extensively in oncology/MM studies to evaluate symptoms, functioning, and QoL. The EORTC-QLQ-MY20 module was used to assess MM symptoms. Corneal events are expected during belamaf treatment, as with other monomethyl auristatin F-containing ADCs, so two ophthalmic vision-related PRO questionnaires (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 item [NEI-VFQ-25] and Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI]) were used to characterize the impact of corneal events on patient symptoms and visual function. Meaningful within-patient changes in OSDI and NEI-VFQ-25 scores were estimated to better interpret outcomes in this population (Eliason ISPOR 2020). We report here the results of the PRO analyses in DREAMM-2 according to measures used in the trial. Methods: In DREAMM-2, patients who received single-agent belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg, every 3 weeks [Q3W]) completed PRO questionnaires electronically at baseline and Q3W during treatment. Group-level, mean change from baseline over time was evaluated on EORTC domains. We also evaluated the percentage of patients with ≥10-point meaningful change threshold for improvement (Osoba J Clin Oncol 1998) on EORTC domains over time. Meaningful change thresholds in ocular PROs measuring treatment-related corneal events were estimated using recommended anchor and distribution-based methods, with 12.5-16.6 points estimated as meaningful in this population, depending on the domain (Eliason ISPOR EU 2020). We report results of the PRO data analysis for patients in the 2.5-mg/kg group selected for clinical development. Results: At Weeks 7 and 13, 46% (21/46) and 41% (12/29) of patients who completed PROs improved ≥10 points in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 Fatigue domain score, respectively; 30% (14/46) and 31% (9/29) improved their General Pain domain score. For EORTC-QLQ-C30, there were trends toward improvement in Fatigue at some time points on treatment; Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL, Role Functioning, and Physical Functioning domain scores remained relatively stable. The EORTC-QLQ-MY20 Disease Symptoms domain score (representing pain in different locations) showed a general trend toward improvement over time, with improvements of ≥10 points at Weeks 7 and 13 for 38% (17/45) and 29% (8/28) of participants. Ocular PRO data were available for 95% (92/97) of patients. Based on the OSDI vision-related functioning domain, a total of 49.5% of patients experienced a ≥12.5-point worsening from baseline (median time to worsening: 44 days). Meaningful improvement of these changes (based on defined 12.5-point thresholds) from worst severity post baseline was seen in 72% of patients (median time to improvement: 24 days). Importantly, even among patients with meaningful worsening in visual functioning, patient-reported QoL/GHS, Physical Functioning, and Role Functioning domains of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 remained stable while on treatment (Figure). Conclusions: Disease symptoms, functioning, and QoL did not worsen over time in these heavily pretreated patients receiving belamaf in DREAMM-2. Patients showed a general improvement in fatigue, which is often a difficult-to-manage symptom for patients with RRMM. Group-level, meaningful worsening in vision-related PRO domains was observed, which improved in the majority of patients. Despite ocular symptoms, even in patients with meaningful worsening, EORTC-QLQ-C30 data suggest that overall HRQoL and patient functioning remained stable while on treatment. These PRO results demonstrate a balance between overall QoL/functioning and vision-related impacts that, together with its clinical efficacy, supports the use of belamaf in the treatment of patients with RRMM. Funding: GSK (study 205678); drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; mAb produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Figure 1 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. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding. Voorhees:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Personal fees; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health: Current Employment; TeneoBio: Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptides: Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees. Degli Esposti:Moorfields Eye Hospital: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gupta:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Opalinska:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sapra:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gorsh:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. He:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kleinman:Triphase Accelerator U.S Corporation: Consultancy; ONL Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy; Revolution Medicines, Inc: Consultancy; Editas Medicine, Inc: Consultancy; Cleave Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Synergy Research Inc: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Eyeon Therapeutics, LLC.: Current equity holder in private company; Zenith Epigenetics Ltd: Consultancy. Schaumberg:Evidera, Inc: Current Employment; GSK: Consultancy; Novaliq: Consultancy; SilkTech: Consultancy; University of Utah School of Medicine: Current Employment. Loubert:Modus Outcomes: Current Employment. Meunier:Modus Outcomes: Current Employment. Regnault:Modus Outcomes: Current Employment. Eliason:GSK: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Introduction: Single-agent belamaf (GSK2857916), a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, induced deep and durable responses in patients with RRMM, with a manageable safety profile with 13 months of follow-up (DREAMM-2; NCT03525678; Lonial et al, ASCO 2020, Poster 436). A platform trial design allows efficient evaluation of belamaf in combination with other anti-myeloma agents, such as a humanized wild-type IgG1 anti-OX40 agonist, an IgG4-inducible T-cell co-stimulator (ICOS) agonist, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, and a humanized programmed cell death (PD)-1 antagonist. The unique, multimodal mechanisms of action (MoAs) of belamaf, in combination with MoAs of these agents, has the potential to achieve synergistic effects in RRMM to further enhance anti-myeloma activity without compromising safety. Methods: DREAMM-5 (NCT04126200) is a Phase I/II study that utilizes a master protocol with separate substudies comprised of sequential dose-exploration (DE) and cohort-expansion (CE) phases, to identify promising, effective belamaf combinations when compared with a shared single-agent belamaf control arm (CE phase only). The DE phase consists of multiple dosing cohorts with belamaf combinations in which patients are assigned to treatment slots by a predetermined algorithmic approach (N≤10 per cohort). A recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) for each combination treatment will be identified based on the safety and preliminary efficacy in the DE phase. At the end of the DE phase, an interim analysis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy data will also be performed for each substudy treatment combination to determine whether the combination should move forward at the RP2D to the CE phase. Patients in the CE phase (N≥35 per cohort) will be randomized to a substudy and within a substudy to either combination treatment or the belamaf monotherapy control arm; patients will also be stratified by number of prior therapies). Eligible patients will have RRMM and will have received ≥3 prior therapy lines, which includes a prior immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody; all patients will provide informed consent for participation. The primary objectives of the study are to identify the RP2D (DE phase) and the overall response rate (≥partial response, CE phase), along with safety and tolerability, for each combination treatment. Substudies 1 (combination with GSK3174998, OX40 agonist antibody), 2 (combination with GSK3359609, ICOS agonist antibody), and 3 (combination with nirogacestat [PF-03084014; SpringWorks Therapeutics], gamma-secretase inhibitor) are currently open to enrollment. Substudy 4 (combination with dostarlimab; PD-1 antagonist antibody) is under review. Additional substudies will be explored based on scientific rationale and/or preclinical combination study results. Funding: GSK (Study 208887); belamaf drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; belamaf monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa; nirogacestat gamma-secretase inhibitor produced by and used in collaboration with SpringWorks Therapeutics. Figure: DREAMM-5 study design Figure 1 Disclosures Richardson: Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Nooka:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Quach:Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Amgen Canada: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen, GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Genentech: Research Funding. Routledge:Celgene, Sandoz: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Sandoz: Honoraria. Song:Otsuka: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene,Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paul:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Khan:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Brouch:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ferron-Brady:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yeakey:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shelton:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montes de Oca:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith:SpringWorks: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Im:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahlers:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Paul:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Holkova: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. Kremer:GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rodriguez-Otero:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Context: Single-agent belamaf demonstrated deep and durable responses in the DREAMM-2 ( NCT03525678 ) primary analysis (1) and long-term follow-up (2,3). Keratopathy (microcyst-like epithelial changes [MECs] observed on eye examination with/without symptoms) were managed through dose delays and reductions. Objective: To provide an update on the impact of dose delays on responses in patients receiving single-agent belamaf 2.5-mg/kg in DREAMM-2 (13-month follow-up). Methods: In the DREAMM-2 study (single-agent belamaf 2.5 mg/kg [n=97] or 3.4 mg/kg [n=99] Q3W), dose modifications were permitted to manage adverse events (AEs), including keratopathy (MECs), an eye examination finding that may/may not be associated with symptoms. Objective response (IMWG criteria 2016) was assessed by an independent review committee Q3W, regardless of treatment delays. Here, we report a post-hoc analysis on the impact of dose delays >63 days on clinical response in the 2.5-mg/kg arm (the selected dose for future clinical development based on risk–benefit assessment). Results: In patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg), dose delays (54%) and reductions (35%) due to AEs were common (2,3). Keratopathy (MECs) was the most frequent reason for dose delays (47%) and reductions (25%), leading to only 1 patient (1%) discontinuing treatment (2,3). Of 31 patients with ≥partial response, 16 had prolonged treatment interruptions (>63 days). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) continued experiencing a clinical benefit during the first prolonged delay: 6 (38%) deepened their response during delay (1 SD to MR; 2 PR to VGPR; 2 MR to VGPR; 1 VGPR to CR); 6 (38%) maintained the same response category as that of the last evaluable assessment during delay/first evaluable assessment after delay; 2 (13%) had increasing paraproteins during the delay but did not meet progression criteria. Two (13%) developed disease progression (1 patient 6 weeks into delay; 1 patient 3 weeks after delay). Conclusions: Despite dose delays lasting for several cycles to manage AEs, most responses were sustained throughout the delay, thus maintaining clinical benefit for the majority of patients. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline (205678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seattle Genetics; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. References: [1] Lonial Lancet Oncol 2020. [2] Lonial ASCO 2020, EP436. [3] Lonial EHA 2020, EP970.

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.

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.