ALBERT

Description: Multiple myeloma is incurable with currently available standard treatments, and novel therapies with lower toxicity, including immunological therapies, are needed. Myeloma cells express class I MHC molecules and several potentially immunogenic proteins. Candidate target antigens, other than the patient-specific immunoglobulin idiotype, include cancer-testis antigens, such as MAGE-C1 (CT-7), and tissue differentiation antigens, such as B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA). We have isolated, from normal donors, CD8+ T-cells that are CT-7 and BCMA peptide-specific, suggesting that immunologic tolerance to these proteins is incomplete. A subset of these CD8+ T-cells with the highest avidity are capable of recognizing myeloma cells. However, the frequency of T-cells recognizing these peptides is very low. Vaccination offers a potential approach for augmenting the frequency of tumor-reactive T-cells, provided that a vaccine strategy can be developed that elicits high-avidity T-cells. We have previously shown that adoptive transfer of autologous gene-modified T-cells leads to the rapid development of potent CD8+ T-cell immunity against transgene products expressed in the transferred T-cells. The aims of this study were to determine if vaccination with T-cells modified to express the CT-7 or BCMA genes (T-APC) could induce anti-myeloma immunity in an HLA-A2 transgenic mouse model, and to map additional immunogenic epitopes of these proteins presented by HLA-A2. To address this we genetically modified HLA-A2 transgenic mouse T-cells with retroviral vectors encoding the candidate myeloma antigens CT-7 and BCMA, or with a control vector encoding green fluorescent protein (GFP). The gene-modified T-APC were injected intravenously into HLA-A2 transgenic mice, and ELISPOT and cytotoxicity assays were performed on splenocytes from immunized mice to evaluate T-cell recognition of target cells expressing CT-7 or BCMA (including human myeloma cell lines). T-cell responses specific for CT-7, BCMA, and control antigens were elicited following gene-modified T-APC immunization, and in some cases these T-cells were capable of recognizing human myeloma cells. Furthermore, responses to CT-7 have been mapped to two different dominant CT-7 peptides. CD8+ T-cells from some normal A2+ donors also recognized these two epitopes after in vitro peptide stimulation, suggesting that these epitopes may be applicable to human myeloma therapy. Characterization of the BCMA target peptide(s) is ongoing. The ease with which T-cells can be obtained, genetically-modified, and expanded in vitro, together with data showing potent immunogenicity, suggests that T-APC vaccination should be evaluated as an alternative cell based vaccine strategy for human cancer therapy.

Description: Background: Recent advances have improved outcomes for patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM); however, novel agents targeting different pathways are still needed. Ibrutinib (ibr) is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), an enzyme overexpressed in malignant plasma cells, whose expression may positively regulate the myeloma stem cell-like population (Yang 2015). Clinical activity was observed at the 840-mg dose of ibr in heavily pretreated pts with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), when combined with weekly dexamethasone (dex) (Vij 2014). Furthermore, BTK-mediated upregulation of NF-κB p65 contributes to proteasome inhibitor (PI) resistance in MM cell lines; thus, BTK inhibition with ibr may help overcome PI resistance (Murray 2015). In vitro, ibr has demonstrated synergy with PIs in MM (Rushworth 2013) and mantle cell lymphoma cells (Ou 2013). PCYC-1119 (NCT01962792) is an ongoing phase 1/2b study of ibr + carfilzomib (CFZ) ± dex in RRMM. Methods: Eligible pts received ≥2 prior therapies, including bortezomib (BTZ) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and had either no response or documented disease progression following the most recent treatment. Dose escalation followed a 3+3 design, followed by expansion of 2 cohorts (Table). Phase 1 primary objectives were maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) determination and safety. Results: As of July 8, 2015, 40 pts were enrolled and received ibr combined with CFZ ± dex across multiple dose levels during the phase 1 portion. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed, and cohorts 2b and 3b were chosen for expansion to further evaluate safety and efficacy. Pts had a median age of 63 y (range, 44-83) and a median time from diagnosis of 4.3 y (range, 0.5-25.3). Cytogenetic assessment by FISH identified that 20% and 8% of pts had t4;14 and del17p, respectively. Overall, pts received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range, 2-11), including 10% prior CFZ, 25% pomalidomide, 25% thalidomide, 73% autologous stem cell transplant, and 100% BTZ and lenalidomide. Moreover, 88% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, with 73% refractory to BTZ, 73% refractory to lenalidomide, and 58% refractory both to IMiD and PI. No relevant differences were observed across cohorts. Thirty-six pts were evaluable for efficacy. With early follow-up, the initial objective response rate (ORR) was 58% and the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 67%. In cohort 3b, the ORR and CBR were 65% and 77%, respectively, including 3 very good partial responses (VGPRs) and 1 stringent complete response (sCR). No clinically meaningful tolerability differences were seen between cohorts, and no new safety findings were observed. Across all cohorts, the most common all-grade nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (43%), cough (35%), constipation and fatigue (30% each), and nausea (28%). Grade ≥3 hematologic AEs included thrombocytopenia (15%), anemia (13%), and neutropenia (5%). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic AEs occurring in ≥10% of pts were pneumonia and hypertension (15% each), diarrhea (13%), and fatigue (10%). Eleven pts reported treatment related SAEs. No clinically relevant differences in AEs were observed across cohorts. Ten pts discontinued study treatment due to progressive disease; an additional 6 pts discontinued due to an AE, and 6 pts discontinued due to investigator or pt decision. Duration of treatment ranged from 0.3 to 13.6 months, and 17 pts remain on treatment. Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: The initial phase 1 data indicated promising clinical potential for ibr + CFZ + dex, as it is well tolerated with no DLTs, no new toxicities, and no increase in the severity of known toxicities for the individual agents. The preliminary ORR of 58%, with 1 sCR and 3 VGPRs in cohort 3b, is encouraging in this mostly refractory patient population, especially with the high number refractory to BTZ. Cohort 3b was established as the RP2D and will be further evaluated in the phase 2 portion of the study. Table. Dosing Cohorts Cohort ibr* mg/qd CFZ† mg/m2 dex‡ mg 1(n=3) 560 20/27 - 2a(n=5) 560 20/36 - 2b(n=14) 560 20/36 20 3b(n=18) 840 20/36 20 *Starts on Day (D) 8 of Cycle (C) 1; continuous thereafter. †D1-2, 8-9, 15-16 through C12; thereafter D1-2, 15-16. ‡D1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23; 10 mg for pts age ≥75 y; 4 mg prior to CFZ during C1 only (cohorts 1 and 2a) with re-initiation as needed. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: ibrutinib in relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM. Usmani:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Larson:BMS: Consultancy. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Matous:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Holkova:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Lunning:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Valent:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Kwei:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Chang:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Graef:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Bilotti:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. McDonagh:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Description: Introduction: DARA, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care (SoC) regimens for multiple myeloma (MM). In randomized studies, DARA-based regimens significantly improved response rates, depth of response including minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and progression-free survival (PFS) in NDMM and relapsed/refractory MM pts. RVd followed by high-dose therapy (HDT), autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and consolidation is a SoC regimen for US pts with NDMM. This phase 2, randomized study (GRIFFIN; NCT02874742) evaluated DARA plus RVd (D-RVd) in ASCT-eligible NDMM pts. A 16-pt safety run-in showed no safety concerns. Here, we present results that adding DARA to RVd improves responses rapidly, including depth of response, which increases with longer duration of therapy. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to RVd ± DARA, stratified by ISS stage and creatinine clearance. Pts received 4 induction cycles, HDT, ASCT, 2 consolidation cycles, and maintenance with R ± DARA for 24 mo. During induction and consolidation (Cycles 1-6), pts received R 25 mg PO on Days 1-14; V 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11; and d 40 mg QW every 21 days. DARA 16 mg/kg IV was given on Days 1, 8, and 15 of Cycles 1-4 and Day 1 of Cycles 5-6. During maintenance (Cycles 7-32), pts received R 10 mg (15 mg in Cycles 10+ if tolerated) on Days 1-21 every 28 days ± DARA 16 mg/kg IV Q8W (or Q4W per pt decision after Amendment 2). The primary endpoint was the stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of consolidation per IMWG computer algorithm. The study had 80% power to detect a 15% improvement with a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 (equivalent to 2-sided alpha of 0.2). MRD (10-5 per IMWG criteria) was assessed by next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ; Adaptive Biotechnologies). Results: A total of 207 pts (D-RVd n = 104; RVd n =103) were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced between arms. Median age was 60 yrs; 48%, 37%, and 14% of pts were ISS stage I, II, or III, respectively; 30 (15%) pts had high cytogenetic risk defined by FISH for del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16). The study met its primary endpoint; D-RVd improved the sCR rate by the end of consolidation (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio 1.57; 95% CI, 0.87-2.82; 2-sided P = 0.1359); at the pre-set 2-sided alpha of 0.2. This improvement was observed in all pt subgroups except for the small subsets of ISS stage III or high-cytogenetic risk pts. Responses deepened over time (Figure); the sCR rate was 12% vs 7% with D-RVd vs RVd at the end of induction, increasing to 21% vs 14% after ASCT, and 50% vs 37% at the clinical cutoff (CCO; 13.5 mo median follow-up). D-RVd achieved higher overall response (99% vs 92%), ≥VGPR (91% vs 73%), and ≥CR (52% vs 42%) rates vs RVd by the end of consolidation. At the end of induction, 8/19 (42%) pts achieving ≥CR with D-RVd were MRD negative, compared to 1/13 (8%) pts achieving ≥CR with RVd. At the end of consolidation, 30/51 (59%) pts achieving ≥CR with D-RVd were MRD negative vs 10/41 (24%) pts achieving ≥CR with RVd. Due to the short median follow-up at CCO, PFS and OS were immature, with 6 PFS events in each arm. Median stem cell yield was 8.1 vs 9.4 × 106 cells/kg for D-RVd vs RVd. Median (range) time to platelet engraftment was 13 (2-31) and 12 (1-23) days for D-RVd vs RVd; median (range) time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 (3-31) and 12 (2-23) days for D-RVd vs RVd. Grade 3/4 TEAEs (≥10%) with D-RVd vs RVd included neutropenia (32% vs 15%), lymphopenia (23% vs 23%), thrombocytopenia (16% vs 8%), and leukopenia (15% vs 7%). There was no difference in the rate of grade 3/4 infections between arms. IRRs occurred in 41% of DARA-treated pts, which were primarily grade 1-2. Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that adding DARA to RVd significantly improves response rates and depth of response, including sCR and MRD negativity. As seen in other randomized studies, continued use of daratumumab improved depth of response. The overall safety profile of D-RVd is consistent with previous reports with DARA plus SoC. Likewise, similar to what was reported from CASSIOPEIA, stem cell mobilization and ASCT are feasible with D-RVd, without a significant effect on hematopoietic reconstitution. The study is ongoing, with pts continuing maintenance therapy. Disclosures Voorhees: BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; TeneBio: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Kaufman:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Sborov:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy. Reeves:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rodriguez:Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Chari:Janssen, Celgene, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacyclics, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, OncoPeptides, Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Silbermann:Janssen, Sanofi: Other: Consultant/Advisor. Costa:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor. Anderson:Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Shah:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Efebera:Takeda: Honoraria; Akcea: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Costello:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Takeda: 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; GSK: 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 Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkyLineDx: 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; Millennium: 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wildes:Carevive: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding. Orlowski:BioTheryX, Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kita Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ionis Pharmaceuticals; Legend Biotech; Molecular Partners; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shain:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cowan:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy. Murphy:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lutska:Janssen: Employment. Pei:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ukropec:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vermeulen:Janssen R&D, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. de Boer:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoehn:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lin:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: D-RVd is being investigated in transplant-eligible NDMM

Description: Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease in need of new therapies with unique targets. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), an essential enzyme in the B-cell receptor signaling pathway. While BTK is essential for the development and function of B cells and is down-regulated in plasma cells, the expression of BTK in malignant plasma cells is increased 4-fold and comparable to BTK expression levels in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In addition, pre-clinical models show that BTK inhibition with ibrutinib led to direct inhibition of both osteoclast bone resorption and the release of osteoclast-derived tumor growth factors (Tai et al, Blood 2012). Taken together these data suggest that ibrutinib may have a role in the treatment of MM. Methods: This open label phase 2 dose escalation study was designed to enroll patients in 4 cohorts (Figure) to evaluate efficacy (≥MR) and secondary endpoints of safety, PK, ORR and DOR. Patients must have had documented non-responsive/progressive disease at the time of study entry following at least 2 prior lines of therapy including at least one immunomodulatory agent. Efficacy and safety were assessed at 4 weeks intervals using the IMWG response criteria for efficacy assessments (Rajkumar et al, Blood 2011), while safety was assessed according to CTCAE v4.0 criteria. Results: As of 15 May 2014 and a median follow up of 15.2 months, 69 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 43-81) were dosed, of which 20% had either a del 17p or p53 deletion. The number of median prior therapies was 4 (range, 2-14), 41% had ≥ 5 prior therapies and 80% had undergone autologous stem cell transplant. Sixty-two percent of patients were refractory to their last line of therapy and of the 65 patients that had received prior therapy with both an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor, 44% were refractory to both. Anti-tumor activity was noted across all cohorts. The highest activity with a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 25% including 1 PR, 4 MR and 5 sustained (〉4 cycles) SD was observed in Cohort 4. (Table) This led to expansion of Cohort 4 per protocol design. In Cohorts 1 and 3, 14 patients had dex added following PD, resulting in 1 PR and 9 SD. Overall, 57% experienced a Grade 3 or higher adverse event. The most commonly reported non-hematologic toxicities (any grade) were diarrhea (51%), fatigue (41%), nausea (35%), dizziness (25%), and muscle spasms (23%). The majority were Grade 1 and 2. Myelosuppression had a reported overall incidence of any grade anemia (29%), thrombocytopenia (23%), and neutropenia (7%) with 16%, 9% and 4% being Grade 3, respectively. There were no clinically meaningful differences among dose levels. Twenty-three patients experienced a SAE for a total of 47 reported events with 16 assessed as possibly/definitely related to ibrutinib per investigator. At least one dose modification occurred in 22% of patients, with 6 discontinuing due to an adverse event. At the time of the data cut-off 7 patients remain on study treatment. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was PD in 47% of patients, with additional patients discontinuing due to investigator discretion (18%), patient decision (7%) and non-compliance (3%). Conclusions: In this heavily pre-treated patient population ibrutinib, as a single agent and in combination with dex, demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity. There was a trend toward improved efficacy (≥MR) in Cohort 4 and treatment was well tolerated with manageable toxicities. Ongoing correlative studies are being conducted to determine changes in cytokines, chemokines and indices of bone metabolism and to determine the effect of dex, a known CYP3A4/5 inducer, on the pharmacokinetic profile of ibrutinib. In addition, ibrutinib is currently being evaluated in combination with carfilzomib in an ongoing Phase1/2b study. (NCT01962792) Figure 1 Figure 1. Table Confirmed Response by Assigned Treatment Cohort Response, n (%) 1 (n=13) 2 (n=18) 3 (n=18) 4 (n=20) PR 1 1 - 1 MR 1 - - 4 SD ≥ 4 cycles 2 4 6 5 SD 〈 4 cycles 5 6 4 1 PD 4 5 7 5 Not evaluable - 2 1 4 Not evaluable – no post-baseline assessments Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Off Label Use: Discussion of efficacy and safety data with ibrutinib as single-agent and in combination with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated in a phase 2 clinical trial. Huff:Celgene, Millenium: Consultancy. Bensinger:Pharmacyclics, Novartis, Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Acetylon: Consultancy, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene, Millennium, Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Celgene, BMS, Jansen, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Lebovic:Onyx, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:Celgene, Millenium, Onyx, : Speakers Bureau. Elias:Pharmacyclics, Inc.: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics, Inc.: Employment. Fardis:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Graef:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bilotti:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson&Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) induces 2 closely associated immune responses: graft-versus-tumor (GVT) activity and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We have previously shown that pretransplant immunization of allogeneic BMT donors with a recipient-derived tumor cell vaccine increases both GVT activity and lethal GVHD because of the priming of donor T cells against putative minor histocompatibility antigens (mHAgs) on the tumor vaccine cells. The work reported here tested the hypothesis that tumor cell vaccination after BMT would produce an increase in GVT activity without exacerbating GVHD. C3H.SW donor bone marrow and splenocytes were transplanted into major histocompatibility complex-matched, mHAg-mismatched C57BL/6 recipients. One month after BMT, recipients were immunized against either a C57BL/6 myeloid leukemia (C1498) or fibrosarcoma (205). Immunized recipients had a significant increase in survival and protection against tumor growth in both tumor models, and significant tumor protection was seen even in recipients with preexisting micrometastatic cancer before immunization. Alloreactivity appeared to contribute to the in vitro anti-tumor cytolytic activity, but in vivo immunity was tumor specific, and no exacerbation of GVHD was observed. Although the immunodominant mHAg B6dom1 was shown to be expressed by all B6 tumors tested and was largely responsible for the alloreactivity resulting from tumor immunization of donors, the in vitro alloreactivity of immune recipients was more restricted and was not mediated by recognition of B6dom1. In conclusion, post-transplant tumor immunization of allogeneic BMT recipients against either a leukemia or a solid tumor can increase GVT activity and survival without exacerbating GVHD.

Description: 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.