Back to Authors

Lentzsch, Suzanne

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1708-7344

Mayo Clinic

Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center

Citations 37

A Phase 1 First in Human (FIH) Study of AMG 701, an Anti-B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) Half-Life Extended (HLE) BiTE® (bispecific T-cell engager) Molecule, in Relapsed/Refractory (RR) Multiple Myeloma (MM)
Spencer, Andrew , Kapoor, Prashant , Larsen, Jeremy T. , Iida, Shinsuke , Vij, Ravi , Lesley, Robin, Yang, Zhao , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Harrison, Simon J , Minnema, Monique C , Lee, Hans C. , Madduri, Deepu , Ailawadhi, Sikander , Kaufman, Jonathan L. , Raab, Marc S. , Hari, Parameswaran , Davies, Faith E. , Upreti, Vijay V , Sharma, Anjali , Minella, Alex C.

Blood | November 4, 2020 | Volume: 136 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 28-29

10.1182/blood-2020-134063 Get It

Aims: To evaluate AMG 701, a BiTE® molecule binding BCMA on MM cells and CD3 on T cells, in RR MM (Amgen, NCT03287908); primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability and estimate a biologically active dose; secondary objectives were to characterize pharmacokinetics (PK), anti-myeloma activity per IMWG criteria, and response duration. Methods: Patients with MM RR or intolerant to ≥3 lines [proteasome inhibitor (PI), IMiD, anti-CD38 Ab as available] received AMG 701 IV infusions weekly in 4-week cycles until disease progression (PD). A 0.8-mg step dose was added prior to target doses ≥1.2 mg to prevent severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Target dose was achieved by day 8 or sooner with earlier escalation. Exclusion criteria included: solely extramedullary disease; prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) in the past 6 months; prior autologous SCT in the past 90 days; CNS involvement; prior anti-BCMA therapy. The first 3 cohorts (dose 5-45 μg) had 1 patient each, the next cohorts (0.14-1.2 mg) had 3-4 patients each, and subsequent cohorts (1.6-12 mg) were to have 3-10 patients each. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was measured by next-generation sequencing (NGS, ≤10-5 per IMWG) or flow cytometry (≤3×10-5). Results: As of July 2, 2020, 75 patients received AMG 701. Patients had a median age of 63 years, a median time since diagnosis of 5.9 years, and a median (range) of 6 (1-25) prior lines of therapy; 27% of patients had extramedullary disease, 83% prior SCT, and 93% prior anti-CD38 Ab; 68% were triple refractory to a PI, an IMiD, and an anti-CD38 Ab. Median (Q1, Q3) treatment duration was 6.1 (3.1, 15.3) weeks and median follow-up on treatment was 1.7 (1.0, 3.7) months. Patients discontinued drug for PD (n=47), AEs (adverse events, n=4, 3 CRS, 1 CMV / PCP pneumonia), withdrew consent (4), other therapy (1), investigator discretion (1), and CNS disease (1); 17 patients remain on AMG 701. The most common hematological AEs were anemia (43%), neutropenia (23%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). The most common non-hematological AEs were CRS (61%), diarrhea (31%), fatigue (25%), and fever (25%). CRS was mostly grade 1 (n=19) or 2 (n=21) per Lee Blood 2014 criteria. All grade 3 CRS (n=5, 7%) were assessed as dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs); all were reversible with corticosteroids and tocilizumab, with median duration of 2 days. CRS grade 3 drivers included transient LFT increases in 3 patients and hypoxia in 2 patients. Other DLTs were 1 case each of transient grade 3 atrial fibrillation, transient grade 3 acidosis, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Serious AEs (n=29, 39%) included infections (13), CRS (7), and asymptomatic pancreatic enzyme rise (2, no imaging changes, 1 treatment related). There were 4 deaths from AEs, none related to AMG 701 (2 cases of sepsis, 1 of retroperitoneal bleeding, and 1 of subdural hematoma). Reversible treatment-related neurotoxicity was seen in 6 patients, with median duration of 1 day, all grade 1-2, and associated with CRS in 4 patients. The response rate was 36% (16/45) at doses of 3-12 mg; at ≤1.6 mg (n=27), there was 1 response at 0.8 mg in a patient with low baseline soluble BCMA (sBCMA). With earlier dose escalation with 9 mg, the response rate was 83% (5/6, 3 PRs, 2 VGPRs), with 4/5 responders being triple refractory and 1 DLT of grade 3 CRS in this group. Across the study, responses included 4 stringent CRs (3 MRD-negative, 1 not yet tested), 1 MRD-negative CR, 6 VGPRs, and 6 PRs (Table). Median (Q1, Q3) time to response was 1.0 (1.0, 1.9) month, time to best response was 2.8 (1.0, 3.7) months, and response duration was 3.8 (1.9, 7.4) months, with maximum duration of 23 months; responses were ongoing at last assessment in 14/17 patients (Figure). MRD was tested in 4 patients (3 sCR, 1 CR) and all were negative (3 by NGS, 1 by flow); MRD negativity was ongoing at last observations up to 20 months later. AMG 701 exhibited a favorable PK profile in its target patient population of RR MM, with AMG 701 exposures increasing in a dose-related manner. Patient baseline sBCMA levels were identified as a determinant of AMG 701 free drug exposures; at higher doses, encouraging preliminary responses were seen even at the higher end of baseline sBCMA values. Summary: In this FIH study with ongoing dose escalation, AMG 701, an anti-BCMA BiTE® molecule, demonstrated a manageable safety profile, encouraging activity, and a favorable PK profile in patients with heavily pre-treated RR MM, supporting further evaluation of AMG 701. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Haemalogix: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Minnema:Amgen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Lee:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Spencer:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; HaemaLogiX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Madduri:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Kinevant: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Legend: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding. Kaufman:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tecnopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi/Genyzme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Raab:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Heidelberg Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Iida:AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Davies:Celgene/BMS: 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lesley:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Upreti:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sharma:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Minella:Amgen Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Beam Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lentzsch:Mesoblast: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Janssen: Consultancy; Caelum Biosciences: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta: Current equity holder in private company; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Celularity: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: AMG 701, a half-life extended BiTE® (bispecific T-cell engager) molecule is an investigational agent for multiple myeloma.
Proteomic Analysis Identifies Differences in Multiple Myeloma (MM) Cells Sensitive and Resistant to AKT Inhibition.
Huston, Alissa , Leontovich, Alexey A. , Timm, Michael, Alsayed, Yazan, Singha, Ujjal K. , Francis, Lanie, Lu, Ganwei, Anderson, Judy M., Lentzsch, Suzanne , Anderson, Judy, Ghobrial, Irene M.

Blood | April 19, 2020 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 3402-3402

10.1182/blood.v106.11.3402.3402 Get It

Abstract Prior studies have demonstrated that MM cells with PTEN mutation and high AKT activity are more sensitive to inhibitors of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. However, the molecular mechanisms that regulate the differential response to these agents are not well characterized. The objective of this study was to determine proteins that are different between MM cell lines with higher AKT activity (OPM2) and lower AKT activity (MM.1S) in response to the AKT inhibitor, perifosine. Methods: MM cell lines (MM.1S and OPM2) were treated with serial concentration of perifosine (KRX-0401, Keryx, NY, NY, provided by the NCI). Proteomic analysis using the nanoscale BD Clontech antibody-based protein microarray technique was performed using cells treated with perifosine (10uM for 16 hrs) or vehicle (sterile water) as control. Apoptosis was determined using Annexin V/PI FACS analysis at 24 and 48 hrs. The treatment time and concentration were chosen so that it did not induce more than 25% apoptosis to ensure adequate analysis of changes in signaling pathways. The antibody microarray is a technique that detects differences in protein abundance between the treated and control sample with each experiment by hybridizing fluorescently labeled (Cy3 and Cy5) protein mixtures onto slides spotted with 512 human monoclonal antibodies. Two microarray slides were used for each experiment. The slides were scanned using the Axon GenePix 4000B scanner. Two ratios were generated from the spot images for each protein target. The mean of the ratios of Cy5/Cy3 of both slides were analyzed using Clontech software and used to calculate an Internally Normalized Ratio (INR = (Ratio1/Ratio2, ratios 1 and 2 correspond to slides 1 and 2) for each spot on the array. The INR values were input into GeneSpring 6.0 software (Silicon Genetics, CA). The data was normalized to the mean INR of the two cell lines. Proteins whose expression level changed relative to control greater than 1.3 fold were determined. Unsupervised clustering demonstrated a different protein signature between MM.1S and OPM2 in response to perifosine. There were 144 proteins differentially expressed by 1.3 fold between MM.1S and OPM2. Proteins that were downregulated in OPM2 as compared to MM.1S included those in the PI3K pathway and cell cycle regulation such as PTEN, p70S6Kinase, the AKT substrate GSK-3, eEF-2 kinase, eIF-4g, Ku-80, cyclin A, E2F-2, CDK2, CDK7, and c-myc; proteins involved in apoptosis such as p21WAF, caspase 4 and 8, FADD, and PARP; kinases such as PKAc, PKA RI, ERK2, and JNK1; and other proteins regulating apoptosis and proliferation including p53, the NF-kB inhibitor IkB, and the heat shock protein HSP70. The nanoscale protein array is a useful and rapid technique that may be used to identify differences between resistant and sensitive cells to novel therapeutic agents. We identified proteins that are differentially expressed between MM cells sensitive and relatively resistant to the AKT inhibitor perifosine. Further analysis of the role of these proteins in the mechanism of resistance/sensitivity to perifosine is being performed. Future use of inhibitors of NF-kB (bortezomib) or heat shock protein inhibitors in conjunction with perifosine may overcome resistance induced by these proteins in MM cells with low AKT activity. Supported in part by an ASH scholar award and an MMRF grant.
Proteomic Analysis of Post Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorders (PTLD) Using Nanoscale Protein Microarray Techniques.
Alsayed, Yazan, Leontovich, Alexey A. , Timm, Michael, Melhem, Mona F., Nalesnik, Michael A., George, Diane, Singha, Ujjal K. , Huston, Alissa , Francis, Lanie, Lentzsch, Suzanne , Roodman, G. David, Herberman, Ronald B., Ghobrial, Irene M.

Blood | April 19, 2020 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 286-286

10.1182/blood.v106.11.286.286 Get It

Abstract The objective of this study was to determine the molecular alterations that occur at the protein level in patients with PTLD in order to identify novel targets of therapy, determine new markers of prognosis, and begin to delineate the pathogenesis of PTLD. Six tumor samples were obtained after informed consent from adult patients with PTLD post solid organ transplant. Four benign lymph nodes were obtained from age-matched controls. Three of the samples and their two controls were obtained from frozen tissue and the other three with two matching controls were obtained form paraffin embedded tissue. Immunohistochemistry using anti-CD19+ antibodies was performed and laser microdissection or slide scraping was used to obtain the tissue. Deparaffinization was performed using xylene and ethanol serial dilutions. Protein quantification was performed and 1ug of protein was obtained for each sample and its control. The nanoscale protein micorarray technique (BD Clontech, CA) was used to measure changes in the patterns of protein expression between PTLD samples and control lymphocytes. This is a new technique that detects differences in protein abundance between the disease and control samples by hybridizing fluorescently labeled (Cy3 and Cy5) protein mixtures onto slides spotted with 512 human monoclonal antibodies. It requires minute amounts of proteins. Two microarray slides were used for each experiment and a control experiment of control versus control was performed for normalization of the data. The slides were scanned using the Axon GenePix 4000B scanner. Two ratios were generated from the spot images for each protein target. The mean of the ratios of Cy5/Cy3 of both slides were analyzed using Clontech software and used to calculate an Internally Normalized Ratio (INR = Ratio1/Ratio2) for each spot on the array. The INR values were input into GeneSpring 6.0 software (Silicon Genetics, Redwood City CA). The data were normalized to the mean INR of the control samples. Proteins whose expression fold change relative to control was greater than 1.3 fold were determined. All cases represented monomorphic PTLD. Five were confirmed EBV positive (EBNA positive). The tissues were obtained from multiple organs including liver, gastric, cerebral, renal and lymph nodes. There were 22 proteins upregulated in the frozen sections as compared to the control and 157 proteins upregulated by 1.3 fold in the paraffin embedded sections as compared to control. Most of these proteins were common between the paraffin embedded and frozen sections. Proteins that were dysregulated included: proteins in the PI3K pathway and cell cycle regulation such as p70S6K, VHR, the AKT substrate GSK-3, cyclin C, MCM6, eIF-4E, CDK1, CDK7, eE-F-2 kinase; kinases such as JNKK1, PKC-lambda, RhoA kinase ROKalpha, ERK1, PKAc, PKArIIa and PKCbeta; apoptosis related proteins such as caspase 8, NF-kB, and MDM2; TGF signaling protein p300, and the heat shock protein HSP90. These results provide insight into pathways that are dysregulated in PTLD and can be targeted in future clinical trials with specific inhibitors such as PI3K, PKC, NF-kB or HSP90 inhibitors.
The Effect of Rapamycin, 17-AAG and the Combination on the Bone Marrow Microenvironment in Multiple Myeloma (MM).
Francis, Lanie, Anderson, Judy M., Timm, Michael, Kurihara, Noriyoshi , Singha, Ujjal K. , Alsayed, Yazan, Huston, Alissa , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Roodman, G. David, Anderson, Judy, Ghobrial, Irene M.

Blood | April 19, 2020 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 3476-3476

10.1182/blood.v106.11.3476.3476 Get It

Abstract The bone marrow microenvironment in MM is characterized by the presence of upregulated osteoclast activity (OCL) and increased angiogenesis. We have recently demonstrated that the HSP90 inhibitor 17-AAG (provided by the NCI) and the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin (LC Laboratories, MA) have synergistic inhibitory activity on MM cells. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of rapamycin, 17-AAG and the combination on OCL formation and angiogenesis. Rapamycin (0.01–100nM), 17-AAG (10–1000nM) and the combination was tested using an in vitro human OCL formation assay and a human angiogenesis assay (AngioKit, TCS Cellworks, UK). Nonadherent human marrow mononuclear cells (1 x 105/100 μL) were plated in 96-well plates in the presence or absence of DMSO, rapamycin, 17-AAG or the combination. RANKL (100ng/ml) and MCSF (20ng/ml) were added to all wells except control media and MCSF. After 3 weeks, cells were fixed, and the number of OCL-like multinucleated cells were scored. To test the effect of the agents on early OCL precursors, we added the inhibitory agents on days 1, 7 or 14 of the culture. The AngioKit is comprised of human endothelial cells in a 24 well plate. The endothelial cells proliferate and then migrate through the matrix to form tubular structures and anastomosing tubules by 2 weeks. Two control wells were treated with VEGF (+ve control) and two with suramin (−ve control). The optimized medium and test samples were replaced on days 4, 7, and 9 after initial treatment. On day 11, cultures were fixed and stained with antibodies to CD31 to detect vessel formation. The degree of tubule formation was quantitated using computerized image analysis (Angiosys, TCS Cellworks, UK). Single agent rapamycin (20–100nM) inhibited OCL formation by 35% as compared to control in all tested doses indicating that PI3K/mTOR is an important regulator of OCL formation. The effect was similar on day 7 and day 14 indicating that this pathway is important for early and late OCL formation. 17-AAG 100–600nM significantly inhibited OCL formation with 100nM 17-AAG inducing 12% OCL formation as compared to control, while 300 and 600nM completely abrogated OCLs (0% OCLs). This effect was similar at day 7. However, when 17-AAG was added on day 14, it only induced 50–60% reduction in OCL formation indicating that 17-AAG affects early OCL formation. The combination of the two agents completely inhibited OCL formation on day 1 and 7 and led to a 65% reduction in OCLs when added on day 14 of the culture. Rapamycin showed a marked decrease in angiogenesis (similar to the negative control suramin), even at the lowest level tested of 0.01nM. 17-AAG demonstrated some inhibition of angiogenesis at 10 nM, and completely abrogated angiogenesis at 500–1000nM. In summary, rapamycin and 17-AAG inhibit OCL formation and angiogenesis. The effect of 17-AAG was on early OCL formation while rapamycin was on both early and late OCL. These results are contradictory to previous data indicating that 17-AAG increases OCL activity in MM. Rapamycin had a significant inhibitory effect on angiogenesis even at low doses. These results demonstrate that the use of rapamycin analogues and 17-AAG in clinical trials may have a therapeutic effect, not only on MM cells, but also on the bone marrow microenvironment. Supported in part by an ASH Scholar Award and an MMRF grant.
Proteomic Analysis of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) Using Nanoscale Protein Micorarray Techniques.
Alsayed, Yazan, Timm, Michael, Leontovich, Alexey A. , Singha, Ujjal K. , Francis, Lanie, Huston, Alissa , Lu, Ganwei, Lentzsch, Suzanne , Roodman, G. David, Leleu, Xavier, Santos, Daniel , Ho, Allen W. , Treon, Steven P. , Ghobrial, Irene M.

Blood | April 19, 2020 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 504-504

10.1182/blood.v106.11.504.504 Get It

Abstract The objective of this study was to determine the molecular alterations that occur at the protein level in patients with WM in order to identify novel targets of therapy, determine new markers of prognosis, and begin to delineate the pathogenesis of WM. Five bone marrow samples were obtained after informed consent from patients with symptomatic WM. Two bone marrow samples were obtained from age-matched controls and were pooled. All samples were purified with anti-CD19+ beads with over 90% purity. Protein quantification was performed and 1ug of protein was obtained for each sample and control. The nanoscale protein micorarray technique (BD Clontech, CA) was used to measure changes in the patterns of protein expression between WM samples and control lymphocytes. This is a new technique that detects differences in protein abundance between the tumor and control samples by hybridizing fluorescently labeled (Cy3 and Cy5) protein mixtures onto slides spotted with 512 monoclonal antibodies against human polypeptides. It requires minimal amount of protein. Two microarray slides were used for each experiment and a control experiment of control versus control was performed for normalization of the data. The slides were scanned using the Axon GenePix 4000B scanner. Two ratios were generated from the spot images for each protein target. The mean of the ratios of Cy5/Cy3 of both slides were analyzed using Clontech software and used to calculate an Internally Normalized Ratio (INR = ÷Ratio1/Ratio2, ratios 1 and 2 correspond to slides 1 and 2) for each spot on the array. The INR values were input into GeneSpring 6.0 software (Silicon Genetics, Redwood City CA). The data was normalized to the mean INR of the control samples. Proteins whose expression fold change relative to control was greater than 1.3 fold were determined. All samples were of symptomatic WM. There were 3 females and 2 males. The median age was 61 years (range, 47–83). Four patients were newly diagnosed and one had received prior rituximab, CHOP ad thalidomide therapy. Clustering analysis did not demonstrate a difference between newly diagnosed and treated samples. There were 72 proteins up or downregulated by 1.3 fold in all WM samples as compared to control. These included proteins in the PI3K pathway such as VHR, PTP1B, PI3K (p110alpha) and Rb2. Protein kinases such as PKCi, PKCbeta, PKC gamma, PKC delta, PLCgamma were all upregulated in WM samples. Other proteins included the B-cell specific activator protein PAX-5, the ubiquitin protein UBCH6, the STAT kinase STAT4, the GTPase Rho A-binding kinase ROK alpha, and the apoptosis protein SMAC/DIABLO. We demonstrate that several isoforms of the PKC family of proteins are upregulated in WM. PKC proteins regulate apoptosis, proliferation and migration in many cancer cells. These proteins may be useful targets of therapy in future clinical trials in WM. Other inhibitors that may be useful in WM include ubiqutin/proteosome inhibitors such as bortezomib and PI3K pathway inhibitors such AKT or mTOR inhibitors. Our results also confirm the presence of PAX-5 in WM consistent with previous cytogenetic studies. Supported in part by an ASH scholar award and Research Fund for Waldenstrom.
Low-dose versus High-dose Carfilzomib with Dexamethasone (S1304) in Patients with Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Sexton, Rachael, Lentzsch, Suzanne , Abidi, Muneer H. , Voorhees, Peter M. , Cohen, Adam D. , Rohren, Eric , Heitner, Stephen B. , Kelly, Kevin R. , Mackler, Niklas J., Baer, David, Hoering, Antje , Durie, Brian G.M. , Orlowski, Robert Z. , Abidi, Muneer H , Cohen, Adam D , Heitner, Stephen , Orlowski, Robert Z. , Ailawadhi, Sikander

Clinical Cancer Research | April 16, 2020 | Volume: 26 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 3969-3978

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-1997 Get It

Abstract Purpose: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved tremendously and optimal utilization of available therapies will ensure maximal patient benefits. Patients and Methods: We report the Southwest Oncology Group randomized phase II trial (S1304) comparing twice weekly low-dose (27 mg/m2; arm 1) to high-dose carfilzomib (56 mg/m2; arm 2), both with dexamethasone, administered for 12 cycles (11 months) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with up to six prior lines of therapy (NCT01903811). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and patients on arm 1 could cross-over to arm 2 after progression on treatment. Results: Among 143 enrolled patients, of whom 121 were eligible and analyzable, the overall response rate was 42.8%, with no significant difference between the arms (P = 0.113). Also, neither the median PFS [5 months and 8 months, respectively; HR, 1.061; 80% Wald confidence interval (CI), 0.821–1.370; P = 0.384] nor the median overall survival were significantly different (26 and 22 months, respectively; HR, 1.149, 80% Wald CI, 0.841–.571; P = 0.284). Sixteen patients crossed over to arm 2 with a median PFS benefit of 3 months. Certain adverse events (AE) were more frequent in arm 2, including fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy, but there was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary AEs. Conclusions: This randomized trial did not support a benefit of fixed duration, twice weekly 56 mg/m2 dosing of carfilzomib over the 27 mg/m2 dose for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. However, treatment to progression in earlier patient populations with high-dose carfilzomib using different schedules should still be considered as part of the standard of care.
Changes in Expert Recommendations and Global Practice Patterns from 2012-2015: Results from an Annually Updated Online Decision Aid for Multiple Myeloma (MM)
Quill, Timothy A., Kumar, Shaji , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Roodman, G. David, Brady, Erik D., Mortimer, Jim, Obholz, Kevin L, Lonial, Sagar , Anderson, Kenneth C.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 126 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 2105-2105

10.1182/blood.v126.23.2105.2105 Get It

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines for MM list many alternative therapeutic options with an equivalent category of evidence but lack recommendations on the best approaches for individual patient cases. To provide clinicians with expert guidance on treatment options for defined patient scenarios, we developed and updated an interactive, online decision aid that allows users to enter specific disease and patient characteristics, enter their planned treatment, and then compare their choice of therapy with those of an MM expert panel for that scenario. Here we report data from the most recent version (2015) of this tool, capturing changes in expert recommendations and treatment trends for MM over time and evaluating the impact of this online tool on clinical care. Methods Each of 3 annual updates to the tool were developed with input from a panel of 5 MM experts. The individual experts provided treatment recommendations for multiple patient scenarios across the settings of induction therapy, maintenance therapy, and therapy for relapsed/refractory MM. A series of pull-down menus allowed users to select individual patient and disease characteristics identified by experts as important to consider when making treatment choices. These characteristics included: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (for induction therapy only), results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, risk of renal insufficiency or peripheral neuropathy, previous therapy and depth of response (for maintenance and relapsed/refractory settings), and cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction (for relapsed/refractory setting). Users were then asked to state their intended management approach for that particular patient scenario. Once completed, recommendations for that scenario from each of the experts were displayed, and users were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their treatment choice. Results Expert recommendations spanning the continuum of care were compiled in October 2012, November 2013, and March 2015 for the 3 different MM tool updates. As for earlier versions of the MM tool, each of the experts in the 2015 update provided recommendations for 32 case scenarios for induction therapy, for a total of 160 possible induction recommendations. Comparing overall induction therapy recommendations the use of bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was approximately 40% in both 2013 and 2015, whereas the use of carfilzomib-containing regimens increased from 5% to 17%. None of the experts chose regimens with melphalan as induction therapy in 2015. In the relapsed/refractory setting, the use of newer therapeutic approaches continued to grow especially in the setting of patients who did not respond to induction therapy or relapsed within 6 months. For example, in those with prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, the selection of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone by experts rose from 11% to 38% from 2013 to 2015 with pomalidomide and lenalidomide selected for 20% to 25% of cases in the most recent tool. For prior IMiD and PI, the experts selected a new combination of pomalidomide with a PI (either bortezomib or carfilzomib) and dexamethasone in 55% of the case scenarios in 2015. To date, 170 different clinicians sought guidance on more than 259 patient case scenarios using the 2015 decision support tool. In the subset of cases (n = 104) in which users reported how the tool affected their management of patients with MM, 68% indicated the expert recommendations either confirmed or changed their intended treatment (22% changed; 46% confirmed), whereas 17% indicated that there would be barriers to implementing the expert recommendations, and 5% said they disagreed with the experts' recommendations. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence. Our data show that interactive online therapy decision aids that provide expert recommendations to clinicians for specific case scenarios can aid decision making and capture practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment. Preliminary data suggest that most clinicians using the online decision aid either confirmed or changed their treatment approaches for specific MM patient case scenarios based on expert recommendations. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Axiom: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Mortimer:AstraZeneca: Other: spouse is an employee of and has equity ownership in.
Findings of Whole Body Computed Tomography Compared to Conventional Skeletal Survey in Patients with Monoclonal Plasma Cell Disorders - a Study of the International Myeloma Working Group
Hillengaß, Jens , Delorme, Stefan , Hielscher, Thomas , Engelhart, Jessica, Øestergaard, Brian, Abildgaard, Niels , Plesner, Torben , Withofs, Nadia , Goldschmidt, Hartmut , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Durie, Brian G.M. , Terpos, Evangelos , Terpos, Evangelos , Moulopoulos, Lia Angela , Koutoulidis, Vassilis , Drake, Matthew T. , Rajkumar, S. Vincent , Hinge, Maja , Suehara, Yasuhito , Matsue, Kosei , Caers, Jo , Dimopoulos, Meletios Α.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 4468-4468

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4468.4468 Get It

Abstract Introduction: For decades conventional skeletal survey (CSS) has been the standard imaging technique for the detection of bone impairment caused by Multiple Myeloma (MM). The development of cross-sectional imaging techniques like Whole Body Computed Tomography (WBCT) with or without Positron Emission Tomography (PET/PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) led to the use of these techniques in several centers worldwide and to the implementation of their findings into the revised diagnostic criteria of MM. The aim of the current multicenter study was to compare sensitivity and prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS in patients with monoclonal plasma disorders. Methods: For the current retrospective analysis 308 patients with different stages of monoclonal plasma cell disorders from 8 centers were included. Compact discs with pseudonymized imaging data of WBCT and CSS were sent to the organizing center and uploaded to the picture archiving and communication system. In addition, questionnaires were completed by each center to collect clinical data of the patients. Image analysis was performed in consensus reading by three experienced radiologists (LAM, SD, VK) blinded to the clinical data of the patients. Osteolytic lesions in 19 pre-specified anatomic regions were characterized as "definitely present", "probably present", "probably absent" and "definitely absent". For the analysis only "definitely present" and "probably present" entries were counted as myeloma lesions. To define symptomatic or active versus smoldering myeloma based on the presence of bone lesions, findings of CSS were used to simulate the situation before the introduction of WBCT. For comparison of WBCT and CSS only those anatomic regions having valid measurements from both methods performed within 30 days without treatment in the meantime were considered. WBCT and CSS were tested for differences in detection sensitivity with the exact McNemar test. Results: Of 308 submitted datasets; 160 patients were without prior treatment and 56 of them had smoldering myeloma. Of 160 patients 80 (50%) had no osteolytic lesions on either CSS or WBCT and 33 (20.6%) showed osteolyses on both techniques. In 9 patients (5.6%) osteolyses were found on CSS but not in WBCT while 38 patients (23.8%) were positive on CT alone. Of note is that for some CT-scans, the upper extremities were not evaluable due to positioning during the examination. Odds ratio for osteolyses on WBCT compared to CSS was 4.22 (P < 0.0001). The regions where WBCT was most significantly superior in detecting osteolyses were the iliac bone, thoracic and lumbar spine as well as the ribs. CSS compared to WBCT revealed osteolyses in more patients only in the proximal extremities: for left humerus 10 (6.5%) versus 3 (1.9%), right humerus 12 (7.7%) versus 4 (2.6%), left femur 11 (7.1%) versus 7 (4.5%) and right femur 10 (6.5%) versus 8 (5.2%) respectively. Of 157 evaluable patients 63 (40.1%) showed osteoporosis (defined by radiological criteria) on both techniques while 29 (18.5%) had osteoporosis on WBCT only and 10 (6.4%) on CSS only (OR 2.90, P = 0.003). In the 56 patients with smoldering myeloma, with bone disease being defined according to the findings of CSS 12 (21.4%), were positive for osteolyses on WBCT (P = 0.0005). Conclusion: WBCT shows significantly more sites of bone destruction compared to conventional X-ray imaging particularly in skeletal regions composed primarily of trabecular bone while CSS shows more osteolyses in the appendicular skeleton - in part due to a limited field of view. More than 20% of patients with smoldering myeloma based on CSS have active disease that needs treatment based on WBCT. Therefore, WBCT is the current standard for the detection of osteolytic lesions in myeloma. The prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS findings for survival and correlation with clinical parameters will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Hillengass: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, 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. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Terpos:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.
Areas of Consensus and Differences Among a Panel of Experts on the Optimal Use of Newly Approved Agents to Treat Multiple Myeloma (MM): Results from an Annually Updated Online Decision Support Tool
Quill, Timothy A., Rosenthal, Kristen, Kumar, Shaji , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Roodman, G. David, Obholz, Kevin L, Lonial, Sagar , Anderson, Kenneth C.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 2379-2379

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2379.2379 Get It

Abstract Background In 2015, the FDA approved 5 new agents and/or combination regimens for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. In addition, new clinical data support using new regimens in the first-line setting. This rapid expansion of available treatment options has greatly increased the complexity of treatment decisions for patients in this disease setting. Clinical practice guidelines list multiple preferred treatment options for MM and can be challenging to apply to specific patients with a mixture of presenting features. Since 2013, we have developed and updated an MM online decision support tool designed to provide clinicians with expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the tool over the years has shown that experts rapidly integrate new data and available agents into practice whereas many tool users do not. Here we report data from the most recent version (2016) of this tool, capturing the impact of the rapid expansion of new therapies on expert treatment recommendations. Methods In June 2016, a panel of 5 experts provided treatment recommendations for 688 case scenarios across 3 settings: induction, maintenance, and R/R disease. These distinct scenarios were defined by key patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation, results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, previous therapy and response, and preexisting comorbidities. To use the tool, these patient and disease factors and the intended treatment for that specific patient were entered through drop-down menus to display the expert choices for that case. Users were then asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on planned treatment. Results We compared expert recommendations from the 2 most recent versions of our MM tool, compiled in March 2015 and June 2016, to assess the impact of the new data and FDA approvals on treatment patterns. The experts are generally not recommending these agents as induction or maintenance therapy. Three out of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone as induction therapy for preexisting peripheral neuropathy (PN) and 1 expert recommended ixazomib-based regimens as induction and maintenance therapy for patients with high-risk cytogenetics and both renal insufficiency and PN. The new agents did have a substantial impact on expert recommendation in the R/R setting. In the 2016 tool, the type of previous therapy was the primary factor affecting expert selections, whereas the number of previous lines of therapy (1-3 vs >3) had minimal impact in the R/R setting. For example, in patients refractory to previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, regimens containing either elotuzumab (30%) or daratumumab (25%) were selected frequently by experts with pomalidomide-containing regimens recommended in another 40% of these specific cases. In the 2016 tool, the use of lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone without a newly approved agent was not recommended by any expert in the R/R setting, although it had been recommended by experts in 25% of R/R case scenarios in the 2015 tool. For patient scenarios refractory to previous immunomodulatory drugs and PIs, the experts recommended daratumumab-based regimens in 67.5% of the cases in the 2016 tool whereas the use of carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone fell from 45% in 2015 to 10% of the cases in 2016. None of the experts recommended regimens with panobinostat as their preferred choice in any patient scenario in either 2015 or 2016. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence and FDA approvals. Our data show that newly approved therapies are having a large impact on expert recommendations for specific case scenarios in the relapsed/refractory MM setting. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data that captures practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Kesios: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Acetylon: Other: Scientific Founder; Sonofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Daratumumab, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Based on Prior Treatment Exposure: Updated Efficacy Analysis of Castor
Chanan‐Khan, Asher , Lentzsch, Suzanne , Horvath, Noemi , Capra, Marcelo , Ovilla, Roberto, Jo, Jae‐Cheol , Shin, Ho‐Jin , Qi, Ming , Deraedt, William , Schecter, Jordan M. , Amin, Himal, Qin, Xiang , Casneuf, Tineke, Sasser, A. Kate, Sonneveld, Pieter , Quach, Hang , Chiu, Christopher

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 3313-3313

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3313.3313 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P&lt;0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P&lt;0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P&lt;0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.