Search

Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) ± daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy ± D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, ≥162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal.

What is this summary about? This is a summary of a clinical trial called MAIA. The trial tested 2 combinations of cancer drugs (daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone) in people with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. None of the participants who took part in the study had been treated before or were eligible to receive stem-cell transplants. How was the study in this summary conducted? A total of 737 participants took part. Half of the participants took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, while the other half of the participants took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Once participants started taking the drugs, the cancer was monitored for improvement (response to treatment), worsening (disease progression), or no change. Participants' blood and urine were tested for myeloma protein to measure response to the treatment. Participants were also monitored for side effects. What were the results of the study? After approximately 56 months of follow-up, more participants who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone were alive and had decreased myeloma protein levels (indicating improvement of cancer) than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The most common side effects were abnormally low white and red blood cell counts and increased lung infections. What do the results of the study mean? In the MAIA study, participants with multiple myeloma who took daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone lived longer and had decreased myeloma protein levels than participants who took only lenalidomide and dexamethasone, indicating survival could be more likely with daratumumab added. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02252172 (Phase 3 MAIA study)

PDF file - 3.02MB

Purpose: This phase I/II study evaluated safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of escalating, multiple doses of siltuximab, a chimeric anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibody derived from a new Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell line in patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors.Experimental Design: In the phase I dose-escalation cohorts, 20 patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors received siltuximab 2.8 or 5.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 11 or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously (i.v.). In the phase I expansion (n = 24) and phase II cohorts (n = 40), patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma-2 (KRAS)-mutant tumors, ovarian, pancreatic, or anti-EGF receptor (EGFR) refractory/resistant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal, or H&N cancer received 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The phase II primary efficacy endpoint was complete response, partial response, or stable disease >6 weeks.Results: Eighty-four patients (35 colorectal, 29 ovarian, 9 pancreatic, and 11 other) received a median of three (range, 1–45) cycles. One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at 5.5 mg/kg. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were hepatic function abnormalities (15%), physical health deterioration (12%), and fatigue (11%). Ten percent of patients had siltuximab-related grade ≥3 adverse events. Neutropenia (4%) was the only possibly related adverse event grade ≥3 reported in >1 patient. Serious adverse events were reported in 42%; most were related to underlying disease. The pharmacokinetic profile of CHO-derived siltuximab appears similar to the previous cell line. No objective responses occurred; 5 of 84 patients had stable disease >6 weeks. Hemoglobin increased ≥1.5 g/dL in 33 of 47 patients. At 11 and 15 mg/kg, completely sustained C-reactive protein suppression was observed.Conclusions: Siltuximab monotherapy appears to be well tolerated but without clinical activity in solid tumors, including ovarian and KRAS-mutant cancers. The recommended phase II doses were 11 and 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Clin Cancer Res; 20(8); 2192–204. ©2014 AACR.

PDF file - 99KB, Supplementary Methods: The supplemental material contains additional detail on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic methods used during the study as well as a summary table of safety events and a figure detailing patient disposition. Supplemental Table 1: Summary of safety events in all study cohorts.

XLS file - 78K

PDF file - 17.3K

PDF file - 91K

PDF file - 1.49MB

PDF file - 25KB, Supplementary Figure S1. Patient disposition: AE, adverse event. KRAS, Kirsten rat sarcoma-2. PD, progressive disease. q2w, every 2 weeks. q3w, every 3 weeks.

PDF file - 3.52MB

Purpose: We investigated whether inhibition of interleukin 6 (IL-6) has therapeutic activity in ovarian cancer via abrogation of a tumor-promoting cytokine network.Experimental Design: We combined preclinical and in silico experiments with a phase 2 clinical trial of the anti-IL-6 antibody siltuximab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.Results: Automated immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays from 221 ovarian cancer cases showed that intensity of IL-6 staining in malignant cells significantly associated with poor prognosis. Treatment of ovarian cancer cells with siltuximab reduced constitutive cytokine and chemokine production and also inhibited IL-6 signaling, tumor growth, the tumor-associated macrophage infiltrate and angiogenesis in IL-6–producing intraperitoneal ovarian cancer xenografts. In the clinical trial, the primary endpoint was response rate as assessed by combined RECIST and CA125 criteria. One patient of eighteen evaluable had a partial response, while seven others had periods of disease stabilization. In patients treated for 6 months, there was a significant decline in plasma levels of IL-6–regulated CCL2, CXCL12, and VEGF. Gene expression levels of factors that were reduced by siltuximab treatment in the patients significantly correlated with high IL-6 pathway gene expression and macrophage markers in microarray analyses of ovarian cancer biopsies.Conclusion: IL-6 stimulates inflammatory cytokine production, tumor angiogenesis, and the tumor macrophage infiltrate in ovarian cancer and these actions can be inhibited by a neutralizing anti-IL-6 antibody in preclinical and clinical studies. Clin Cancer Res; 17(18); 6083–96. ©2011 AACR.

In the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial, patients treated with daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) had significantly higher rates of organ and hematologic response compared with patients who received VCd alone. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the ANDROMEDA trial. PROs were assessed through cycle 6 using three standardized questionnaires. Treatment effect through cycle 6 was measured by a repeated-measures, mixed-effects model. The magnitude of changes in PROs versus baseline was generally low, but between-group differences favored the D-VCd group. Results were generally consistent irrespective of hematologic, cardiac, or renal responses. More patients in the D-VCd group experienced meaningful improvements in PROs; median time to improvement was more rapid in the D-VCd group versus the VCd group. After cycle 6, patients in the D-VCd group received daratumumab monotherapy and their PRO assessments continued, with improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reported through cycle 19. PROs of subgroups with renal and cardiac involvement were consistent with those of the intent-to-treat population. These results demonstrate that the previously reported clinical benefits of D-VCd were achieved without decrement to patients' HRQoL and provide support of D-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis.

Background: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. Methods: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1–2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3–6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1–21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. Findings: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7–59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8–not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6–39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43–0·66]; p15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. Interpretation: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. Funding: Janssen Research & Development.

Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a multisystem disorder with a high early mortality and diagnostic delays of >1 year from symptom onset. This retrospective observational study sought to characterize the clinical prodrome and diagnostic delay to inform early detection. We identified 1,523 adults with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in the Optum de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart US health care claims database as those with ≥2 new diagnosis codes for AL or other amyloidosis in 90 days with ≥1 multiple myeloma treatment within 730 days, excluding patients with prior hereditary or secondary amyloidosis and Familial Mediterranean Fever. We considered 34 signs/symptoms using diagnosis codes in all observable time on or before AL amyloidosis diagnosis. Sign/symptom prevalence was compared to that of 1:4 matched population controls. The overlap and sequence of signs/symptoms and the median time from first sign/symptom to AL amyloidosis diagnosis were explored. Health care utilization was summarized. The most common individual AL amyloidosis signs/symptoms were malaise/fatigue (61%) and dyspnea (59%). Cardiac signs/symptoms were observed in 77% of patients, followed by renal (62%) and nervous (59%) signs/symptoms. Multisystem involvement (≥3 systems) was present in 54%. Monoclonal gammopathy was detected in 29% before diagnosis. Median time from symptom onset to AL amyloidosis diagnosis was 2.7 years. Health care utilization was high between first AL amyloidosis signs/symptoms and diagnosis, with 50% visiting ≥5 physician types. AL amyloidosis patients have a lengthy and complex clinical prodrome. Novel approaches to early diagnosis are needed to improve outcomes.

Progression and persistence of malignancies are influenced by the local tumor microenvironment, and future eradication of currently incurable tumors will, in part, hinge on our understanding of malignant cell biology in the context of their nourishing surroundings. Here, we generated paired single-cell transcriptomic datasets of tumor cells and the bone marrow immune and stromal microenvironment in multiple myeloma. These analyses identified myeloma-specific inflammatory mesenchymal stromal cells, which spatially colocalized with tumor cells and immune cells and transcribed genes involved in tumor survival and immune modulation. Inflammatory stromal cell signatures were driven by stimulation with proinflammatory cytokines, and analyses of immune cell subsets suggested interferon-responsive effector T cell and CD8+ stem cell memory T cell populations as potential sources of stromal cell–activating cytokines. Tracking stromal inflammation in individuals over time revealed that successful antitumor induction therapy is unable to revert bone marrow inflammation, predicting a role for mesenchymal stromal cells in disease persistence. Multiple myeloma disease progression and therapy response are influenced by the bone marrow niche in which the tumor cells reside. To characterize this supportive niche, Cupedo and colleagues use single-cell transcriptomic analysis of bone marrow stromal cell populations from individuals with multiple myeloma. They identify a myeloma-specific inflammatory mesenchymal stromal cell (iMSC) population that spatially colocalizes with tumor cells. Anti-myeloma induction therapy does not influence iMSC presence, suggesting a role for bone marrow inflammation in myeloma persistence or relapse.

We assessed the concordance between immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene expression profiling (GEP) for determining diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cell of origin (COO) in the phase III PHOENIX trial of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) with or without ibrutinib. Among 910 of 1114 screened patients with non-germinal centre B cell-like (non-GCB) DLBCL by IHC, the concordance with GEP for non-GCB calls was 82·7%, with 691 (75·9%) identified as activated B cell-like (ABC), and 62 (6·8%) as unclassified. Among 746 of 837 enrolled patients with verified non-GCB DLBCL by IHC, the concordance with GEP was 82·8%, with 567 (76·0%) identified as ABC and 51 (6·8%) unclassified; survival outcomes were similar regardless of COO or treatment, whereas among patients with ABC DLBCL aged

Background: Systemic AL amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits, most commonly in the heart and kidneys; there are currently no health authority-approved treatments. Therapies for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), including bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd), have been shown to improve outcomes in AL amyloidosis, but more effective therapies are needed to achieve deep and rapid hematologic responses, reverse amyloid-mediated organ dysfunction, and improve overall survival. Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved as monotherapy or in combination with other agents for the treatment of MM. ANDROMEDA (NCT03201965) is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 trial of VCd ± daratumumab subcutaneous (DARA SC) in patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. After a median follow-up of 11.4 months, the complete hematologic response rate was 53% for DARA SC + VCd (DARA-VCd) and 18% for VCd (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.2-8.2; P Methods: Patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage (Mayo 2004) I-IIIA, eGFR ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic MM were randomized 1:1 to DARA-VCd or VCd and treated for six 28-day cycles; thereafter, patients in the DARA-VCd group received DARA SC alone every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles. PROs were assessed on Day 1 of Cycles 1-6 for both treatment groups and every 8 weeks thereafter in the DARA-VCd group. PRO assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L), and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS) and fatigue scale scores and SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) score were secondary endpoints. Assessment of physical functioning, symptom improvement, functional improvement, and health utility as measured by the SF-36, EORTC QLQ-C30 with supplemental symptom items, and the EQ-5D-5L were exploratory outcomes. Patients completed PRO questionnaires prior to study assessments or study drug administration. Analyses of PROs were performed on the intent-to-treat analysis set; patients without a baseline or post-baseline assessment were censored at date of randomization. Compliance with PRO assessments was calculated as the number of assessments received divided by the number of assessments expected at each time point. Descriptive statistics are provided for all PRO endpoints at each time point by treatment group. A distribution-based method was used to define worsening/improvement in scores. Time to worsening/improvement, hazard ratios, and associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Kaplan Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Change from baseline at each time point up to Cycle 6 (Week 24) was calculated using a mixed effects model with repeated measures with patients as a random effect and baseline value, treatment group, time (weeks), treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effects. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized (DARA-VCd, n=195; VCd, n=193). Compliance rates for all PRO questionnaires were >90% at baseline and >83% through Cycle 6. Median time to improvement was shorter and median time to worsening was longer in the DARA-VCd group than in the VCd group for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS and fatigue scales and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS) (Table 1). Least squares mean scores for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS and fatigue, EQ-5D-5L VAS, and SF-36 MCS remained stable in the DARA-VCd group but worsened compared with baseline in the VCd group; between-group differences are shown in Table 2. The greatest between-group differences in PRO score changes from baseline were observed at Week 16 (Cycle 4). After Cycle 6, patients in the DARA-VCd group reported improvements in mean GHS and fatigue scores that continued while on treatment (Figure). Conclusions: Patients with AL amyloidosis treated with DARA-VCd experienced clinical improvements without any decrement in health-related quality of life over 6 cycles. Following Cycle 6, improvements in GHS and fatigue were reported in patients in the DARA-VCd group. These findings further support the value of DARA-VCd in patients with AL amyloidosis. Disclosures Sanchorawala: UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other: advisory board; Proclara: Other: advisory board; Caleum: Other: advisory board; Regeneron: Other: advisory board; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Caelum: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Palladini:Celgene: Other: Travel support; Jannsen Cilag: Honoraria, Other. Minnema:Servier: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: travel support, Research Funding. Jaccard:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Janssen., Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Celgene., Research Funding. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Gibbs:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Pfizer, Caelum, Abbvie and Eidos: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mollee:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venner:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding. Schönland:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding. Suzuki:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda, Celgene, ONO, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie and Janssen: Honoraria. Kim:BMS, Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira:Janssen, Akcea Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational lectures. Beksac:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Valent:Celgene: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau. Wong:GSK: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Bumma:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Gries:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fastenau:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tran:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin:Janssen: Current Employment. Vasey:Janssen Research & Development: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Comenzo:Caleum: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Unum: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kastritis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wechalekar:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory; Caelum: Other: Advisory.

Although no therapies are approved for light chain (AL) amyloidosis, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is considered standard of care. Based on outcomes of daratumumab in multiple myeloma (MM), the phase 3 ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) is evaluating daratumumab-CyBorD vs CyBorD in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. We report results of the 28-patient safety run-in. Patients received subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) weekly in cycles 1 to 2, every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 2 years. CyBorD was given weekly for 6 cycles. Patients had a median of 2 involved organs (kidney, 68%; cardiac, 61%). Patients received a median of 16 (range, 1-23) treatment cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with DARA SC in MM and CyBorD. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 1 patient (grade 1). No grade 5 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred; 5 patients died, including 3 after transplant. Overall hematologic response rate was 96%, with a complete hematologic response in 15 (54%) patients; at least partial response occurred in 20, 22, and 17 patients at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Renal response occurred in 6 of 16, 7 of 15, and 10 of 15 patients, and cardiac response occurred in 6 of 16, 6 of 13, and 8 of 13 patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Hepatic response occurred in 2 of 3 patients at 12 months. Daratumumab-CyBorD was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns versus the intravenous formulation, and demonstrated robust hematologic and organ responses. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03201965.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, incurable lymphoma subtype characterized by heterogeneous outcomes. To better understand the clinical behavior and response to treatment, predictive biomarkers are needed. Using residual archived material from patients enrolled in the MCL3001 (RAY) study, we performed detailed analyses of gene expression and targeted genetic sequencing. This phase III clinical trial randomized patients with relapsed or refractory MCL to treatment with either ibrutinib or temsirolimus. We confirmed the prognostic capability of the gene expression proliferation assay MCL35 in this cohort treated with novel agents; it outperformed the simplified MCL International Prognostic Index in discriminating patients with different outcomes. Regardless of treatment arm, our data demonstrated that this assay captures the risk conferred by known biological factors, including increased MYC expression, blastoid morphology, aberrations of TP53, and truncated CCND1 3' untranslated region. We showed the negative impact of BIRC3 mutations/deletions on outcomes in this cohort and identified that deletion of chromosome 8p23.3 also negatively impacts survival. Restricted to patients with deletions/alterations in TP53, ibrutinib appeared to abrogate the deleterious impact on outcome. These data illustrate the potential to perform a molecular analysis of predictive biomarkers on routine patient samples that can meaningfully inform clinical practice.

Patients with amyloid light chain amyloidosis and severe cardiac dysfunction have a poor prognosis. Treatment options that induce rapid and deep hematologic and organ responses, irrespective of cardiac involvement, are needed.The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of baseline cardiac stage on efficacy and safety outcomes in the phase 3 ANDROMEDA trial.Rates of overall complete hematologic response and cardiac and renal response at 6 months and median major organ deterioration-progression-free survival and major organ deterioration-event-free survival were compared across cardiac stages (I, II, or IIIA) and treatments (daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone [D-VCd] or bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone [VCd]). Rates of adverse events (AEs) were summarized for patients with and without baseline cardiac involvement and by cardiac stage.Median follow-up duration was 15.7 months. The proportions of stage I, II, and IIIA patients were 23.2%, 40.2%, and 36.6%. Across cardiac stages, hematologic and organ response rates were higher and major organ deterioration-progression-free survival and major organ deterioration-event-free survival were longer with D-VCd than VCd. AE rates were similar between treatments and by cardiac stage; serious AE rates were higher in patients with cardiac involvement and increased with increasing cardiac stage. The incidence of cardiac events was numerically greater with D-VCd vs VCd, but the rate of grade 3 or 4 events was similar. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate for cardiac events was lower with D-VCd than VCd (median exposure 13.4 and 5.3 months, respectively).These findings demonstrate the efficacy of D-VCd over VCd in patients with newly diagnosed amyloid light chain amyloidosis across cardiac stages, thus supporting its use in patients with cardiac involvement. (NCT03201965).

Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only. Methods: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18–65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants. Findings: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2–39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]–NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0–NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42–0·68, p

Background The single‐arm DAWN trial (NCT01779791) of ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 20.9% and a median response duration of 19.4 months. This biomarker analysis of the DAWN dataset sought to determine genetic classifiers for prediction of response to ibrutinib treatment. Methods Whole exome sequencing was performed on baseline tumor samples. Potential germline variants were excluded; a custom set of 1216 cancer‐related genes was examined. Responder‐ versus nonresponder‐associated variants were identified using Fisher's exact test. Classifiers with increasing numbers of genes were created using a greedy algorithm that repeatedly selected genes, adding the most nonresponders to the existing “predicted nonresponders” set and were evaluated with 10‐fold cross‐validation. Results Exome data were generated from 88 patient samples and 13,554 somatic mutation variants were inferred. Response data were available for 83 patients (17 responders, 66 nonresponders). Each sample showed 100 to >500 mutated genes, with greater variance across nonresponders. The overall variant pattern was consistent with previous FL studies; 75 genes had mutations in >10% of patients, including genes previously reported as associated with FL. Univariate analysis yielded responder‐associated genes FANCA, HISTH1B, ANXA6, BTG1, and PARP10, highlighting the importance of functions outside of B‐cell receptor signaling, including epigenetic processes, DNA damage repair, cell cycle/proliferation, and cell motility/invasiveness. While nonresponder‐associated genes included well‐known TP53 and CARD11, genetic classifiers developed using nonresponder‐associated genes included ATP6AP1, EP400, ARID1A, SOCS1, and TBL1XR1, suggesting resistance to ibrutinib may be related to broad biological functions connected to epigenetic modification, telomere maintenance, and cancer‐associated signaling pathways (mTOR, JAK/STAT, NF‐κB). Conclusion The results from univariate and genetic classifier analyses provide insights into genes associated with response or resistance to ibrutinib in FL and identify a classifier developed using nonresponder‐associated genes, which warrants further investigation. Trial registration: NCT01779791., Using patient samples from the single‐arm DAWN trial (NCT01779791), we performed univariate and genetic classifier analyses to gain insights into genes associated with response (responders, n = 17) or lack of response (nonresponders, n = 66) to ibrutinib monotherapy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. Genetic classifiers were developed using nonresponder‐associated genes, and the top five genes associated with no response to ibrutinib included ATP6AP1, EP400, ARID1A, SOCS1, and TBL1XR1, suggesting that resistance to ibrutinib might be related to broad biological functions outside Bruton tyrosine kinase signaling.

Summary In diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), tumors belonging to the ABC but not GCB gene expression subgroup rely upon chronic active B cell receptor signaling for viability, a dependency that is targetable by ibrutinib. A phase III trial (“Phoenix;” ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01855750 ) showed a survival benefit of ibrutinib addition to R-CHOP chemotherapy in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL, but the molecular basis for this benefit was unclear. Analysis of biopsies from Phoenix trial patients revealed three previously characterized genetic subtypes of DLBCL: MCD, BN2, and N1. The 3-year event-free survival of younger patients (age ≤60 years) treated with ibrutinib plus R-CHOP was 100% in the MCD and N1 subtypes while the survival of patients with these subtypes treated with R-CHOP alone was significantly inferior (42.9% and 50%, respectively). This work provides a mechanistic understanding of the benefit of ibrutinib addition to chemotherapy, supporting its use in younger patients with non-GCB DLBCL.

The purpose of this study is to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (PopPK) of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone and explore the relationship between daratumumab systemic exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with newly diagnosed systemic light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. The PopPK analysis included pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity data from patients receiving daratumumab SC in combination with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in the ANDROMEDA study (AMY3001; safety run-in, n = 28; randomized phase, n = 183). Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was used to characterize the PopPK and quantify the impact of potential covariates. The exposure-response (E-R) analysis included data from all patients in the randomized phase of ANDROMEDA (n = 388). Logistic regression and survival analysis were used to evaluate the relationships between daratumumab systemic exposure and efficacy endpoints. The E-R analysis on safety was conducted using quartile comparison and logistic regression analysis. The observed concentration-time data of daratumumab SC were well described by a 1-compartment PopPK model with first-order absorption and parallel linear and nonlinear Michaelis-Menten elimination pathways. None of the investigated covariates were determined to be clinically meaningful. Daratumumab systemic exposure was generally similar across subgroups that achieved different levels of hematologic response, and there was no apparent relationship between daratumumab systemic exposure and the investigated safety endpoints. In conclusion, the PopPK and E-R analyses supported the selected 1,800 mg flat dose of daratumumab SC in combination with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone regimen for the treatment of light-chain amyloidosis. No dose adjustment was recommended for investigated covariates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: Systemic AL amyloidosis is characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils produced by light chains synthesized by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Combining daratumumab (DARA) with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) has demonstrated significantly improved outcomes in patients with AL amyloidosis. The classification of hematologic complete response (CR) in this disease is evolving, and the absolute reduction of the involved free light chain (iFLC) and the difference between iFLC and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) are being recognized as very meaningful endpoints. Here, we present results from the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) to demonstrate the impact of achieving deep reductions of iFLC and dFLC on major organ deterioration progression-free survival (MOD-PFS), a novel, key secondary endpoint in this study. Methods: Key eligibility criteria included newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease (serum monoclonal protein ≥0.5 g/dL by protein electrophoresis or serum free light chain ≥5.0 mg/dL with an abnormal kappa:lambda ratio or dFLC ≥50 mg/L), ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, eGFR ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive DARA-VCd or VCd alone. All patients received bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneous [SC] weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 oral [PO] or intravenous [IV] weekly), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg PO or IV weekly) for six 28-day cycles. DARA SC (1800 mg, co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered by injection weekly in Cycles 1-2, every other week in Cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 24 cycles. Disease evaluations occurred every 4 weeks (Cycles 1-6) and every 8 weeks (after Cycle 7) until major organ deterioration, death, end of study, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of FLC levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if iFLC Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive DARA-VCd (n=195) or VCd alone (n=193). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups. The median age was 64 years and 65% of patients had ≥2 organs involved. The proportions of patients with heart and kidney involvement were 71% and 59%, respectively, and the proportions of patients with cardiac stage I, II, and IIIA were 23%, 40%, and 37%, respectively. The median duration of treatment was 9.6 months for DARA-VCd and 5.3 months for VCd. Median follow-up was 11.4 months (range, 0.03-21.3+). The rates of deep hematological responses by all criteria strongly favored the DARA-VCd treatment arm (Table). MOD-PFS was longer in patients achieving deep hematological responses by all criteria (Figure). In addition, the corresponding MOD-PFS was similar regardless of the hematological response criteria used. Conclusions: Regardless of the criteria used, the addition of DARA to VCd increased the rates of deep hematologic responses in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, which, in turn, was associated with prolonged MOD-PFS. These results support the benefit of DARA in this patient population. References 1. Comenzo RL, et al. Leukemia. 2012;26(11):2317-25 2. Sidana S, et al. Leukemia. 2019;34(5):1472-75 3. Muchtar E, et al. Leukemia. 2019;33(3):790-94 4. Manwani R, et al. Blood. 2019;134(25):2271-2280 Disclosures Comenzo: Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caleum: Consultancy. Kastritis:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Palladini:Celgene: Other: Travel support; Jannsen Cilag: Honoraria, Other. Minnema:Celgene: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Wechalekar:Caelum: Other: Advisory; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Celgene: Honoraria. Jaccard:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Celgene., Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Janssen., Research Funding. Sanchorawala:Proclara: Other: advisory board; Abbvie: Other: advisory board; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Regeneron: Other: advisory board; Caleum: Other: advisory board; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Caelum: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gibbs:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Pfizer, Caelum, Abbvie and Eidos: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mollee:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Schönland:Janssen, Prothena, Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding. Suzuki:Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, ONO, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie and Janssen: Honoraria. Kim:Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira:Janssen, Akcea Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational lectures. Beksac:Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Valent:Amgen Inc.: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: Teaching, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Fortis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Bumma:Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, 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. Tran:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin:Janssen: Current Employment. Vasey:Janssen Research & Development: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

60th Annual Meeting of the American-Society-of-Hematology (ASH) -- DEC 01-04, 2018 -- San Diego, CA Jurczak, Wojciech/0000-0003-1879-8084; Johnson, Peter/0000-0003-2306-4974; ZINZANI, PIER LUIGI/0000-0002-2112-2651; Leppa, Sirpa/0000-0002-8265-511X WOS: 000468868300004 PubMed: 30901302 PURPOSE Ibrutinib has shown activity in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This double-blind phase III study evaluated ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in untreated non-germinal center B-cell DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to ibrutinib (560 mg per day orally) plus R-CHOP or placebo plus R-CHOP. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and the activated B-cell (ABC) DLBCL subgroup. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS A total of 838 patients were randomly assigned to ibrutinib plus R-CHOP (n = 419) or placebo plus R-CHOP (n = 419). Median age was 62.0 years; 75.9% of evaluable patients had ABC subtype disease, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Ibrutinib plus R-CHOP did not improve EFS in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.934) or ABC (HR, 0.949) population. A preplanned analysis showed a significant interaction between treatment and age. In patients age younger than 60 years, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP improved EFS (HR, 0.579), PFS (HR, 0.556), and OS (HR, 0.330) and slightly increased serious adverse events (35.7% v 28.6%), but the proportion of patients receiving at least six cycles of R-CHOP was similar between treatment arms (92.9% v 93.0%). In patients age 60 years or older, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP worsened EFS, PFS, and OS, increased serious adverse events (63.4% v 38.2%), and decreased the proportion of patients receiving at least six cycles of R-CHOP (73.7% v 88.8%). CONCLUSION The study did not meet its primary end point in the ITT or ABC population. However, in patients age younger than 60 years, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP improved EFS, PFS, and OS with manageable safety. In patients age 60 years or older, ibrutinib plus R-CHOP was associated with increased toxicity, leading to compromised R-CHOP administration and worse outcomes. Further investigation is warranted. (C) 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Amer Soc Hematol Janssen Global Services; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA008748] Supported by Janssen Global Services, which also provided writing and editorial support, and by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 (A.Y.).

Background Amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits made up of toxic light chains causing organ dysfunction and death. Prompt treatment is crucial to achieve deep hematologic responses, reverse organ damage, and improve overall survival (OS). Recent published studies suggest that hematologic response may be an important predictor of OS in AL amyloidosis. Here, we report the results of a meta-analysis evaluating the association between hematologic complete response (CR) and OS and very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and OS in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in November 2020 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Databases were searched for articles published in English in August 2005 or later. Quality assessments were conducted and a feasibility assessment identified studies to include in the meta-analysis. Studies that reported OS hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by hematologic response were included in the analysis. If HRs were not reported, survival curves were digitized, and individual survival and censoring times were reconstructed using an algorithm by Guyot (2012). For curves with missing at-risk patient numbers, individual data were reconstructed manually. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test and a random effects model was used. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA v16.1. Results The SLR yielded a total of 52 studies (4 RCTs and 48 observational studies). Eight of the 52 studies reported data on hematologic response and OS and were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; of these, 5 reported OS stratified by hematologic CR status and 3 reported OS stratified by ≥VGPR status. The meta-analysis showed that achieving hematologic CR was associated with improved OS (HR, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13–0.25). The I2 statistic was 0%, indicating a high degree of consistency across studies and that the heterogeneity observed across studies could be explained by sampling variability alone. Achieving ≥VGPR was also associated with improved OS (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.09–0.28; I2 0%). Conclusion The meta-analysis revealed that in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, achieving hematologic CR or ≥VGPR was associated with significantly improved OS and substantially decreased the risk of death. Potential limitations include the small number of RCTs (consistent with the rarity of the disease) and inconsistent reporting of results. Overall, these results support the use of deep hematologic response (CR or ≥VGPR) as an endpoint in studies of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Structured data collection of depth of response in future RCTs will further strengthen these observations.

Background DARA is approved across lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). The phase 2 GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) investigated DARA+RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM; at the primary analysis, D-RVd improved efficacy, and safety was consistent with prior reports for DARA and RVd. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of GRIFFIN to evaluate anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use, in concordance with IMWG guidelines, and the incidence of VTEs, given a historical risk of VTEs with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone occurring in 10-25% of MM patients (pts). Methods Pts with NDMM eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 cycles of D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy, ASCT, 2 cycles of D-RVd/RVd consolidation, and maintenance with DARA-R/R for 24 months. During induction and consolidation (21-day cycles), pts received R (25 mg PO on Days 1-14); V (1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11); and d (40 mg QW). DARA (16 mg/kg IV) was given on Days 1, 8, 15 of Cycles 1-4 and Day 1 of Cycles 5-6. During maintenance (Cycles 7-32; 28-day cycles), pts received R (10 mg PO on Days 1-21; if tolerated, 15 mg in Cycles 10+)±DARA (16 mg/kg IV Q8W or Q4W per protocol amendment 2). VTE prophylaxis was recommended for all pts (aspirin, ≥162 mg) with alternative prophylaxis for pts at increased VTE risk, based on medical history. VTEs were identified through standardized MedDRA queries, and treatment group comparisons were by descriptive analyses. Results VTEs occurred in 10% (10/99) of D-RVd pts and 15% (15/102) of RVd pts. Grade 3/4 VTEs occurred in 4% of D-RVd pts and 6% of RVd pts, with grade 3 pulmonary embolism in 1% of D-RVd pts and 4% of RVd pts. The median (range) time to VTE was 379 (6-810) and 232 (21-511) days in the D-RVd and RVd groups, respectively. Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was reported in 83% of D-RVd pts and 83% of RVd pts, including heparin derivates in 14% and 19% of pts, respectively (majority of pts on LMWH). Among pts who developed a VTE, 80% (8/10) of D-RVd pts and 93% (14/15) of RVd pts received anti-thrombosis medication, including LMWH in 30% and 27% of pts, respectively. However, only 60% (6/10) of D-RVd pts and 67% (10/15) of RVd pts were on anti-thrombosis prophylaxis at the time of the VTE, including aspirin in 40% and 60% of pts and LMWH in 10% and 7% of pts, respectively. One D-RVd pt received DOAC (rivaroxaban). Bone marrow involvement ≥60% plasma cells was seen in 50% of D-RVd pts and 60% of RVd pts developing VTEs, compared with 43% of all D-RVd pts and 41% of all RVd pts. Conclusion In this descriptive analysis, the use of daratumumab did not increase the VTE rate, and the median time to VTE was longer for D-RVd. Although no formal conclusion can be drawn, these observations indicate additional and larger investigations may be warranted to understand optimal VTE prophylaxis in NDMM pts, as current data show VTE prophylactic therapy adherence may be suboptimal.

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development., European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.

The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published up to 8 June 2019, with no date limit on the indexed database. Clinical end points stratified by MRD status (positive or negative) were extracted, including hazard ratios (HRs) on PFS and OS, P values, and confidence intervals (CIs). HRs were estimated based on reconstructed patient-level data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Forty-four eligible studies with PFS data from 8098 patients, and 23 studies with OS data from 4297 patients were identified to assess the association between MRD status and survival outcomes. Compared with MRD positivity, achieving MRD negativity improved PFS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29-0.37; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51; P < .001). MRD negativity was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes regardless of disease setting (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM), MRD sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, method of MRD assessment, depth of clinical response at the time of MRD measurement, and MRD assessment premaintenance and 12 months after start of maintenance therapy. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity and its association with favorable outcomes in various disease and treatment settings sets the stage to adopt MRD as a treatment end point, including development of therapeutic strategies. This large meta-analysis confirms the utility of MRD as a relevant surrogate for PFS and OS in MM.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard frontline therapy for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab (D) to RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM patients was evaluated. Patients (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to D-RVd or RVd induction (4 cycles), ASCT, D-RVd or RVd consolidation (2 cycles), and lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus D maintenance (26 cycles). The primary end point, stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation, favored D-RVd vs RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.82; 1-sided P = .068) and met the prespecified 1-sided α of 0.10. With longer follow-up (median, 22.1 months), responses deepened; sCR rates improved for D-RVd vs RVd (62.6% vs 45.4%; P = .0177), as did minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10−5 threshold) rates in the intent-to-treat population (51.0% vs 20.4%; P < .0001). Four patients (3.8%) in the D-RVd group and 7 patients (6.8%) in the RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more common with D-RVd. More infections occurred with D-RVd, but grade 3/4 infection rates were similar. Median CD34+ cell yield was 8.2 × 106/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 × 106/kg for RVd, although plerixafor use was more common with D-RVd. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were comparable. Daratumumab with RVd induction and consolidation improved depth of response in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742.

Introduction: The 2-part phase 3 CASSIOPEIA study (NCT02541383) investigated the combination of DARA with VTd (D-VTd) in transplant-eligible NDMM pts. D-VTd induction/consolidation (ind/cons) led to increased rates of MRD negativity and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with VTd (Moreau P, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10192):29-38). In Part 2, DARA as post-autologous stem cell therapy (ASCT) maintenance significantly improved PFS in pts who received VTd ind/cons. Most common (≥2.5%) grade 3/4 adverse events included pneumonia (DARA: 2.5%; observation [OBS]: 1.4%), lymphopenia (3.6%; 1.8%), and hypertension (3.0%; 1.6%; Moreau P, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(no. 15_suppl):8004). Here, we present results from a detailed analysis of MRD negativity. Methods: Eligible pts were 18-65 years of age, had NDMM and were ASCT eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to 4 (28-day) cycles of pre-ASCT induction and 2 (28-day) cycles of post-ASCT consolidation with D-VTd or VTd (bortezomib, 1.3 mg/m 2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; thalidomide, 100 mg PO daily; dexamethasone, 20-40 mg IV/PO; ± DARA, 16 mg/kg IV weekly (QW) in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6). Pts who completed consolidation and achieved partial response or better were re-randomized 1:1 to maintenance DARA at reduced intensity (DARA, 16 mg/kg Q8W) for a maximum of 2 years, or OBS. Samples were collected for MRD analysis at predefined timepoints from all pts regardless of response to ind/cons and in pts with very good partial response or better during maintenance. The primary MRD assessment methodology was multiparametric flow cytometry during ind/cons and next-generation sequencing during maintenance, each at the 10 -5 threshold. MRD negativity is reported here for pts who achieved complete response or better. Results: 1,085 pts were randomized to ind/cons (D-VTd, n=543 or VTd, n=542) and 886 pts were re-randomized for post-ASCT maintenance (DARA, n=442 or OBS, n=444). The rate of MRD negativity was higher with D-VTd than with VTd following induction (9.2% vs 5.4%; odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P=0.0150) and consolidation (33.7% vs 19.9%; OR, 2.06; P During maintenance, the rate of MRD negativity significantly favored DARA over OBS (58.6% vs 47.1%; OR, 1.80; P=0.0001). In pts who received D-VTd ind/cons, the MRD-negativity rates with DARA and OBS were 64.2% and 57.6% respectively (OR, 1.43; P=0.1037). In contrast, pts who had received VTd ind/cons showed significantly higher MRD-negativity rates during DARA maintenance vs OBS (52.6% vs 35.8%; OR, 2.26; P=0.0002). The rates of sustained MRD negativity in the D-VTd group were not significantly different with DARA vs OBS (1yr sustained: 48.5% vs 41.0%; OR, 1.41; P=0.0885; 2yr sustained: 28.8% vs 21.8%; OR, 1.47; P=0.0789). In the VTd group, the 1-year sustained MRD-negativity rate was significantly higher with DARA vs OBS (35.7% vs 21.4%; OR, 2.22; P=0.0006) but no difference was observed in the 2-year sustained MRD rate (11.3% vs 13.0%; OR, 0.83; P=0.5481). Conclusion: In CASSIOPEIA, the highest and most durable rates of MRD negativity were achieved after D-VTd ind/ASCT/cons and DARA maintenance. Reduced intensity (Q8W) DARA maintenance did not significantly improve MRD negativity compared to OBS in patients treated with D-VTd. In patients treated with VTd, DARA maintenance did improve MRD negativity, but this effect was not long lasting. Longer follow-up is required to assess the potential long-term benefits of sustained MRD negativity for DARA vs OBS after D-VTd. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sonneveld: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. van der Velden: Janssen: Other: Service Level Agreement; BD Biosciences: Other: Service Level Agreement; Navigate: Other: Service Level Agreement; Agilent: Research Funding; EuroFlow: Other: Service Level Agreement, Patents & Royalties: for network, not personally. Hulin: abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Arnulf: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mohty: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Karlin: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; oncopeptide: Honoraria. Macro: Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria. Perrot: GSK: 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; BMS Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levin: Roche, Janssen, Abbvie: Other: Travel Expenses, Ad-Board. Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Van De Donk: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis /bayer/servier: Consultancy. Krevvata: Janssen: Current Employment. Rigat: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang: Janssen: Current Employment. Vanquickelberghe: Janssen: Current Employment. de Boer: Janssen: Current Employment. Kampfenkel: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Broyl: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: The specific regimen combination is not yet approved in the maintenance setting.

Introduction: In oncology clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard efficacy endpoint. However, in multiple myeloma, the prolonged survival times and availability of multiple salvage therapies render it difficult to rely on OS as a primary endpoint. Instead, progression-free survival (PFS) or clinical response can be a relevant biomarker. At the same time, some health technology assessment bodies will only consider evidence based on patient-relevant endpoints, such as morbidity, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), within their benefit assessments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide insights into how a treatment affects HRQoL, including symptoms and functioning. In the phase 3 MAIA trial, daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated a significantly prolonged PFS and rapid and sustained improvements in PROs compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone at a median follow-up of 28 months. Updated results with longer follow-up confirmed a continued PFS benefit, deepening best clinical responses, and a significant OS benefit with D-Rd. Here, we report the results of analyses exploring the relationship between clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs in the MAIA trial. Methods: In MAIA (NCT02252172), TIE patients with NDMM were randomized to D-Rd or Rd until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable side effects. Clinical response and PD were defined per the International Myeloma Working Group uniform response criteria. PROs were assessed at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12 for year 1, every 6 months thereafter until PD, or at end of treatment and at 8 and 16 weeks post-progression using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30). The current analyses were conducted on patients with a baseline PRO assessment and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment using a clinical cutoff date of February 19, 2021. Patients from both treatment groups were pooled and stratified by best clinical response. For PROs, the threshold for clinically meaningful change from baseline was defined a priori as ≥10 points based on published literature. Analyses were conducted for the global health status (GHS), fatigue, and pain scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. The proportions of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in these PROs from baseline at any time while on treatment were calculated for and compared across best clinical response subgroups. For this analysis, patients were censored at the time of PD or discontinuation of therapy. Results were summarized with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, the proportions of patients with clinically meaningful worsening in PROs from baseline at the time of and post-progression were also calculated for those who had PD. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Nominal P-values are presented. Results: Best clinical response at a median follow-up of 56.2 months for the 710 patients included in this analysis is shown in the Table. For GHS, fatigue, and pain, the proportion of patients who reported clinically meaningful improvement from baseline increased with increasing depth of best clinical response. Odds ratios comparing best clinical response vs stable disease reflect this relationship and are shown in the Figure. Of the 264 patients who experienced PD and had PRO data at the time of or post-progression, 38.6%, 54.9%, and 39.4% reported meaningful worsening of GHS, pain, and fatigue, respectively, at the time of or post-progression. Conclusions: Patients with deeper best clinical response were more likely to report meaningful improvements in PROs. Patients who experienced PD reported worsening of GHS and symptoms at the time of or following progression. These analyses provide evidence of the association between key clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs and demonstrate the patient relevance of these clinical endpoints. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perrot: Abbvie: Honoraria; BMS Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner: Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Abbvie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bahlis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Quach: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: GSK: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding. O'Dwyer: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Venner: Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisel: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: 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; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Leleu: Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Liu: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fastenau: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gries: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Ho: DRG Abacus: Consultancy; Emalex Biosciences: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Mistry: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Usmani: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a chronic hematologic malignancy with a high symptom burden that can have a substantial negative impact on patients' (pts) health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The introduction of novel triplet regimens for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) has extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); however, adverse events and demanding administration and monitoring schedules have a further negative effect on HRQoL, especially among pts who are transplant ineligible (TIE) due to older age and/or frailty. Optimizing initial treatment is particularly important in older pts, many of whom receive only 1 line of therapy. The phase 3 MAIA trial compared daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in TIE pts with NDMM. At a median follow-up of 28 months, D-Rd significantly prolonged PFS and was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs Rd. Results of an updated analysis with longer follow-up recently confirmed a significant benefit in OS with D-Rd vs Rd as well as a continued significant PFS benefit and higher rates of complete response or better and very good partial response or better. Here we present an update of the HRQoL analysis with additional follow-up. Methods: MAIA (NCT02252172) is a randomized, open-label, active controlled, multicenter, phase 3 study of TIE pts with NDMM who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were recorded using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. EORTC QLQ-C30 has 30 items comprising 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning), 1 global health status (GHS) scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and pain) and 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12 for year 1, and every 6 months thereafter until PD. Analyses were conducted on all pts with a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment. Pts were censored at PD or discontinuation of study treatment. Thresholds for meaningful improvement and worsening were defined a priori based on published literature (≥10-point change). Treatment effect was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measurements including baseline value, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and individual subject as random effect. Results: At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, discontinuation rates were lower with D-Rd than Rd (56.8% vs 80.8%). For GHS, physical functioning, fatigue, pain, and dyspnea, PROs that are particularly relevant to pts with MM, a numerically greater proportion of pts achieved a meaningful improvement with D-Rd vs Rd (Table 1). Differences were significant for physical functioning, fatigue, and dyspnea. The proportion of pts achieving a meaningful worsening on therapy was similar in both treatment groups (Table 1). The median time to improvement was numerically shorter with D-Rd vs Rd for physical functioning and pain and with Rd vs D-Rd for GHS and fatigue; differences were not significant (Table 2). The median time to worsening of fatigue was similar between groups, numerically longer for D-Rd vs Rd for GHS, and significantly longer with D-Rd than Rd for physical functioning, pain, and dyspnea (Table 2). Median time to worsening of pain with D-Rd vs Rd was 39.43 vs 17.97 months, reflective of an additional ~21 months without worsening pain among pts treated with D-Rd. Between-group differences for least squares mean change from baseline for these 5 PROs favored D-Rd vs Rd at all assessment time points except cycle 3 for physical functioning and cycle 6 for fatigue; differences were significant at ≥1 timepoint for each scale. Conclusions: These updated PRO analyses from the MAIA study demonstrate sustained and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL with D-Rd vs Rd with almost 5 years of follow-up. These results are consistent with the clinical benefits of superior PFS, OS, and deep responses observed with D-Rd compared with Rd and support the use of D-Rd in older pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perrot: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: 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; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner: Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Bahlis: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; abbvie: Honoraria. Quach: CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: 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; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt: Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. O'Dwyer: ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria. Leleu: Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Liu: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fastenau: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gries: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Ho: DRG Abacus: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Emalex Biosciences: Consultancy. Mistry: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Usmani: Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: DARA is approved across lines of therapy for multiple myeloma, including in combination with standard-of-care regimens for NDMM. The CXCR4 receptor antagonist plerixafor is used in conjunction with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to increase stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and can be given by upfront decision or as a rescue strategy. The phase 2 randomized GRIFFIN study (NCT02874742) evaluates frontline DARA in combination with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM. In the primary analysis, more pts undergoing stem cell mobilization/collection in the D-RVd group received plerixafor compared with the RVd group (69.5% [66/95] vs 56.3% [45/80]) (Voorhees PM, et al. Blood. 2020). The phase 2 MASTER study (NCT03224507) evaluates DARA plus carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-KRd) in transplant-eligible NDMM (Costa LJ, et al. EHA Library. 2020). Here, we present a summary of stem cell mobilization, collection yields, and ASCT data following frontline DARA-based induction therapy in GRIFFIN and MASTER. Methods: Eligible pts had NDMM and were candidates for ASCT. In GRIFFIN, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive D-RVd or RVd. Pts received 4 induction cycles (21 days) of lenalidomide (R; 25 mg PO on Days 1-14), bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11), and dexamethasone (d; 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW in Cycles 1-4). After Cycle 4, pts underwent stem cell mobilization with G-CSF ± plerixafor, per institutional standards; if unsuccessful, chemo mobilization was permitted. Pts then received ASCT and subsequently 2 consolidation cycles (21 days) of D-RVd or RVd followed by maintenance therapy with R ± DARA. In the single-arm MASTER study, pts received 4 D-KRd induction cycles, ASCT, and 0, 4 or 8 D-KRd consolidation cycles followed by maintenance therapy with R, based upon achievement of minimal residual disease-negativity. In each 28-day cycle, all pts received carfilzomib (20/56 mg/m 2 IV QW), R (25 mg PO on Days 1-21), d (40 mg PO or IV QW), and DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W for Cycles 7+). Mobilization was with G-CSF ± plerixafor as per institutional standards. Results: In GRIFFIN, among 207 (D-RVd, n=104; RVd, n=103) randomized pts, 91.3% (n=95) of D-RVd pts and 77.7% (n=80) of RVd pts underwent stem cell mobilization; of those mobilized, 98.9% (n=94) and 97.5% (n=78) underwent ASCT, respectively. In MASTER, 123 D-KRd pts enrolled and at last follow-up, 91.1% (n=112) underwent stem cell mobilization; of those mobilized, 98.2% (n=110) completed ASCT. In GRIFFIN, 46.3% (n=81) of mobilized pts received plerixafor upfront (D-RVd, 51.6%, n=49; RVd, 40.0%, n=32), and 18.3% (n=32 pts) received rescue plerixafor (D-RVd, 20.0%, n=19; RVd, 16.3%, n=13). In MASTER, 70.5% (n=79) D-KRd pts received upfront plerixafor and 25.9% (n=29) received rescue plerixafor. Median CD34 + cell yield was 8.3 × 10 6/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 ×10 6/kg for RVd in GRIFFIN, 6.0 ×10 6/kg for D-KRd in MASTER, and was numerically higher for pts who received upfront plerixafor. Median days for stem cell collection was 1 for pts receiving RVd and 2 for those receiving D-RVd or D-KRd. Median transplanted CD34 + cell count was 4.2 ×10 6/kg for D-RVd and 4.8 ×10 6/kg for RVd in GRIFFIN, and 3.2 ×10 6/kg for D-KRd in MASTER. In GRIFFIN, 93.7% of D-RVd pts and 98.8% of RVd pts reached the minimum institutional CD34 + threshold to perform a single ASCT, which was comparable to results in MASTER (95.5% of D-KRd pts) after first mobilization attempt; 85.3% of D-RVd pts, 92.5% of RVd pts, and 79.5% of D-KRd pts collected 2 times the minimum threshold of stem cells. Additional data by upfront and rescue plerixafor strategies are shown in the Table. Conclusion: The addition of DARA to proteasome inhibitor/immunomodulatory drug/dexamethasone-based induction therapy has a modest impact on stem cell mobilization, with a lower yield of stem cells and higher median number of days required for collection. Nonetheless, pts were able to undergo transplantation, and most pts collected sufficient stem cells for 2 transplants. Pts who received plerixafor by an upfront decision had numerically higher stem cell yields than pts who received plerixafor by a rescue strategy. An upfront plerixafor strategy for pts receiving DARA-based quadruplet induction therapy should be considered with allowance for additional days of apheresis as needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Costa: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kaufman: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Fortis Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche/Genetech, Tecnopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro, Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte, celgene: Consultancy; Tecnofarma SAS, AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte, TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Heidelberg Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Sborov: Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Reeves: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pharma Essentia: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rodriguez: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Chari: Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Silbermann: Sanofi Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anderson: Celgene, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shah: Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Bumma: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holstein: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Secura Bio, Sorrento: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gracell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wildes: Carevive: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski: CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shain: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithLine, LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cowan: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Harpoon: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding. Dholaria: Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Pei: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cortoos: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Patel: Janssen: Current Employment. Bartlett: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lin: Janssen: Current Employment. Richardson: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Voorhees: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The specific regimen combination is not yet approved, but individual components are.

Introduction: DARA is approved for NDMM and previously treated MM. In the primary analysis of the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (NCT02874742) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible NDMM pts (median follow-up, 13.5 mo), DARA plus RVd (D-RVd) improved the rate of stringent complete response (sCR) by the end of post-ASCT consolidation versus RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%, 1-sided P=0.068) (Voorhees PM, et al. Blood. 2020). With longer follow-up (median, 27.4 mo), responses deepened and were improved for D-RVd versus RVd (sCR rate: 63.6% vs 47.4%, 2-sided P=0.0253), as did the MRD-negativity (10 -5) rate (62.5% vs 27.2%, P Methods: Pts with NDMM eligible for high-dose therapy (HDT) and ASCT were randomized 1:1 to receive RVd or D-RVd, stratified by ISS disease stage (I, II, or III) and creatinine clearance (30-50 or >50 mL/min). Pts received 4 RVd or D-RVd induction cycles, HDT, ASCT, 2 RVd or D-RVd consolidation cycles, and maintenance with lenalidomide (R) alone or with DARA (D-R) for 24 months. During induction and consolidation (21-day cycles), pts received R (25 mg PO on Days 1-14), bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11), and dexamethasone (40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of Cycles 1-4 and Day 1 of Cycles 5-6). During maintenance (Cycles 7-32; 28-day cycles), pts received R (10 mg PO on Days 1-21; if tolerated, 15 mg in Cycle 10+) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV) Q8W (or Q4W per pt decision after protocol amendment 2) until disease progression or up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was sCR rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation (tested at 1-sided α of 0.10). Responses were assessed per IMWG criteria by a validated computer algorithm. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and MRD negativity assessed by NGS at the minimum sensitivity threshold of 10 -5, at suspected complete response or better (≥CR), at the end of induction and consolidation, and after 12 and 24 months of maintenance, regardless of response. Secondary analyses were evaluated using 2-sided α of 0.05, not adjusted for multiplicity. Results: In total, 207 pts were randomized (D-RVd, n=104; RVd, n=103); baseline characteristics were well balanced. After 24 months of D-R or R maintenance therapy, the rate of sCR favored D-RVd versus RVd in the response-evaluable population (66.0% [66/100] vs 47.4% [46/97], 2-sided P=0.0096; Figure). In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, MRD-negativity (10 -5) rates also remained higher for D-RVd versus RVd (64.4% [67/104] vs 30.1% [31/103], P3-fold higher for D-RVd versus RVd (44.2% vs 12.6%, P Conclusion: After 24 months of maintenance therapy, the addition of DARA to RVd induction and consolidation in conjunction with ASCT, followed by DARA plus R maintenance, continued to demonstrate deep and durable responses in pts with transplant-eligible NDMM, including sCR and MRD-negativity (10 -5 and 10 -6) rates. While this study was not powered for PFS, there is a positive trend towards improved PFS in the D-RVd group. No new safety concerns were observed with longer follow-up. These results support the use of D-RVd induction/consolidation and D-R maintenance in transplant-eligible NDMM pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kaufman: Sutro, Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte, TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Tecnofarma SAS, AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Fortis Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte, celgene: Consultancy; Heidelberg Pharma: Research Funding; Roche/Genetech, Tecnopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sborov: Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reeves: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharma Essentia: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rodriguez: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chari: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Silbermann: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Anderson: Celgene, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Bumma: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Holstein: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Secura Bio, Sorrento: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jakubowiak: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gracell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wildes: Carevive: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski: Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shain: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithLine, LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy. Cowan: BMS: Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Harpoon: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding. Pei: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cortoos: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Patel: Janssen: Current Employment. Bartlett: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lin: Janssen: Current Employment. Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Voorhees: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The specific regimen combination is not yet approved, but individual components are.

Background Amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the production of light chains that form amyloid fibril deposits in tissues leading to organ dysfunction and death. Cytogenetic abnormalities are common in patients (pts) with AL amyloidosis, and some are associated with poor outcomes. The ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Here, we explore outcomes in pts with cytogenetic abnormalities in ANDROMEDA. Methods Pts (N=388) with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis were randomized 1:1 to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles; thereafter, pts in the D-VCd group received daratumumab alone every 4 weeks for ≤24 total cycles. The proportion of pts with t(11;14), amp1q21, del13q14, and del17p13 based on fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or karyotyping was calculated. Overall (at any time during the study) hematologic CR rate and cardiac and renal response rates at 6 months were evaluated for each subgroup and summarized with descriptive statistics. Within each treatment group, hematologic response among pts with and without t(11;14) or amp1q21 was compared. Results 321 pts had testing (D-VCd, n=155; VCd, n=166). In the D-VCd and VCd groups, respectively, 42.9% vs 40.0% had t(11;14), 25.4% vs 20.3% had amp1q21, 16.2% vs 22.0% had del13q14, and 6.7% vs 6.1% had del17p13. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months, the hematologic CR rate was higher with D-VCd vs VCd across all 4 cytogenetic subgroups, ranging from 56–72% vs 0–14% (P Conclusion Consistent with the primary analysis of ANDROMEDA, subgroup analyses showed the benefit of D-VCd vs VCd, irrespective of cytogenetic abnormalities. Rates of deep hematologic response were not impacted by t(11;14) and amp1q21 in patients treated with D-VCd, but were generally lower in VCd-treated patients with t(11;14) and amp1q21. These findings further support the use of D-VCd as standard of care in pts with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, regardless of cytogenetic abnormalities.

Context Daratumumab plus standard-of-care (SOC) showed superior efficacy vs SOC for patients with TIE-NDMM (phase 3 ALCYONE, MAIA, and CASSIOPEIA; primary analyses). In ALCYONE, after longer follow-up, adding daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone significantly reduced the risk of death by 40%. In MAIA (primary analysis), D-Rd reduced the risk of progression/death by 44% vs Rd (median follow-up, 28 months). Objective Updated efficacy and safety of D-Rd vs Rd from MAIA (NCT02252172; pre-specified interim OS analysis). Design Open-label, randomized, active-controlled. Patients Patients with TIE-NDMM were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive D-Rd (n=368) or Rd (n=369); median age: 73 years. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. Interventions 28-day cycles of oral Rd (R: 25 mg QD [Days 1–21]; d: 40 mg [Days 1, 8, 15, 22]) ± IV daratumumab (16 mg/kg QW [Cycles 1–2], Q2W [Cycles 3–6], and Q4W thereafter) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Main Outcome Measures Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR), OS, and safety. Results After a median follow-up of 56.2 months, the risk of death significantly reduced with D-Rd vs Rd; median OS: not reached (NR) in either arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.53–0.86]; P=0.0013). The median PFS was NR with D-Rd vs 34.4 months with Rd (HR, 0.53 [0.43–0.66]; P 15% incidence) grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Rd/Rd were neutropenia (54.1%/37.0%), pneumonia (19.2%/10.7%), anemia (16.8%/21.6%), and lymphopenia (16.5%/11.2%). Conclusions After a median follow-up of ≈5 years, patients with TIE-NDMM had a significant and clinically meaningful OS improvement with D-Rd vs Rd. The significant PFS benefit of D-Rd was maintained, with a 47% reduction in the risk of progression/death. The favorable benefit-risk profile supports the use of D-Rd in patients with TIE-NDMM. Together with the OS benefit observed in ALCYONE, these results support using frontline daratumumab-based regimens to maximize PFS for optimal long-term outcomes.