Reece, Donna

Abstract Background: Obesity is increasing in prevalence worldwide and has potential implications on chemotherapy dosing and selection of patients for therapy. Auto HCT improves outcomes for patients with MM, but optimal chemotherapy dosing for obese patients is poorly defined. Methods: We identified 1087 patients reported to the CIBMTR between 1995 and 2003 who underwent auto HCT for MM as part of initial therapy, defined as within 18 months of diagnosis, and received high-dose melphalan conditioning, with or without total body irradiation (TBI). We categorized patients by body mass index (BMI) as normal (18.5– 24.9), overweight (25–29.9), obese (30–34.9), or severely obese (≥35). Underweight patients (BMI <18.5, N=9) were excluded from analysis. We analyzed overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from date of transplant, using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test for univariate analyses and using Cox proportional hazards models for multivariate analyses. Results: Cases were reported from 114 centers in 10 countries. There were 292 patients of normal weight (27%); 472 were overweight (43%), 198 were obese (18%), and 125 severely obese (11%). Median follow-up of survivors was 63, 61, 60 and 59 months, respectively. Significant baseline differences among BMI groups indicate that obese patients selected for transplant were younger (median age 58, 58, 56, and 55 years, respectively, p=0.005) and had less severe disease at diagnosis, with lower bone marrow plasmacytosis and less frequent renal failure, hypercalcemia, and severe anemia. Obese patients received higher total melphalan doses but lower doses per square meter of body surface area (calculated based on actual body weight). Univariate analyses show no significant effect of BMI category on either OS or PFS. However, among patients who received TBI as part of conditioning, multivariable analyses show a significant effect of BMI on PFS (p-value for interaction 0.006). In this subgroup, a higher BMI was associated with longer PFS (p=0.006, Figure 1). Among patients who received melphalan alone, no effect of BMI was apparent (Figure 2). The difference in PFS for patients receiving melphalan/TBI was due to a decreased risk of relapse among obese patients. Pairwise comparisons of conditioning regimen (TBI vs. no TBI) within BMI categories showed significant reduction in risk of treatment failure for obese (HR=0.54, p=0.04) and severely obese (HR=0.32, p=0.001) patients who received TBI. No differences in OS were apparent in multivariate analyses. Relative risks (RR) for PFS from a multivariable model adjusting for possible confounders are shown below: TBI No TBI n RR (95% CI) P n RR (95% CI) P Normal 44 1.00 Poverall=0.006 248 1.00 Poverall=0.18 Overweight 62 0.92 (0.60–1.40) 0.69 405 0.90 (0.75–1.08) 0.24 Obese 21 0.49 (0.27–0.90) 0.021 177 0.85 (0.68–1.07) 0.16 Severely obese 22 0.39 (0.20–0.76) 0.005 100 1.12 (0.86–1.45) 0.42 Conclusion: Obesity, when measured by BMI, has no statistically significant effect on OS among patients with myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan. Among patients receiving melphalan with TBI, a higher BMI is associated with improved PFS. The reason for the restriction of this effect to TBI-containing conditioning regimens requires further investigation. The current common strategy of reducing melphalan doses (i.e. calculating based on ideal or adjusted body weight) does not appear to impair outcomes for obese patients. Obesity should not exclude patients from consideration of autologous transplantation. Figure Figure

Abstract Multiple Myeloma (MM) is the most common indication for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto HCT). However, little information is available regarding the outcome of patients (pts) with the rarer immunoglobulin subtypes IgD and IgM, which represent 2% and 0.5%, respectively, of all MM cases. In addition, IgD MM has been reported previously to have a poorer prognosis, at least after conventional therapy. The CIBMTR conducted a retrospective analysis of MM pts transplanted between 1995–2005 to describe the characteristics and results of auto HCT in IgD (n=36) and IgM (n=11) among 3578 MM patients with auto HCT during this period. Median follow-up of survivors was 41 (range 2–130) months for pts with IgD and 58 (range 5–101) months for those with IgM MM. Among pts with IgD subtype, median age was 52 years (yrs), 67% were male, 36% had a creatinine >2 mg/L, 61% had Durie-Salmon stage III disease at diagnosis and 33% had Kappa Serum Light chain; the corresponding values for IgM pts were 58 yrs, 36%, 73% and 55% respectively. Prior to auto HCT, 75% of IgD pts were chemosensitive and 25% had received >2 lines of chemotherapy, while all IgM pts were chemosensitive and none had received more than 2 lines of prior therapy. Median time from diagnosis to auto HCT was 9 months in both subtypes. The most common conditioning regimen was singleagent melphalan, and all but 1 pt with IgD disease were grafted with blood stem cells. The small sample size precluded multivariate analysis for potential prognostic factors for outcome. Below table summarizes the post-auto HCT results in these pts contrasted with a reference pool of IgG and IgA MM receiving auto HCT in the same time period. Outcomes, probability (95% CI) IgD IgM IgG/IgA (n=36) (n=11) (n=1475) 100-day mortality, % 0 9 ( 0 – 32) 7 (5 – 8) Non MM deaths, % @ 1 yr 0 9 (0 – 32) 5 (4 – 7) @ 3 yrs 3 (0 – 13) 21 (2 – 51) 16 (14 – 18) Relapse/ Progression, % @ 1 yr 21 (9 – 37) 20 (2 – 49) 18 (16 – 20) @ 3 yrs 59 (41 – 76) 32 (8 – 64) 36 (34 – 39) Progression-free survival, % @ 1 yr 79 (63 – 91) 71 (41 – 93) 77 (74 – 79) @ 3 yrs 38 (21 – 56) 47 (17 – 78) 47 (44 – 50) Overall survival, % @ 1 yr 87 (74 – 97) 91 (68 – 100) 79 (77 – 85) @ 3 yrs 69 (51 – 84) 68 (36 – 93) 53 (50 – 57) No striking differences are apparent in the post auto HCT outcomes of patients with IgD and IgM MM. These results are also consistent with published outcomes of pts with IgD/ IgM MM (Wechaleker et al Ann Hematol. 2005 Feb; 84(2):115–7; Maisner et al Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008 Jan; 41(1):51–4).

Abstract Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract Introduction Multiple Myeloma is not a single disease. There is increasing support for risk classification in combination with treatment decision making because of its impact on clinical outcomes. Here we demonstrate additional evidence of the prognostic value of SKY92, an established genetic marker of high risk Multiple Myeloma in a multicenter collection of samples with undisclosed treatments. Materials Methods A public GEP dataset (MMRC, MMGI portal) contained 114 cases of untreated Multiple Myeloma and was used for SKY92 high risk OS prediction (Kuiper et al. Leukemia 2012). In collaboration with MMRC, OS (with a minimum of at least 2 year follow-up) was collected for 91 of 114 cases for the purpose of this analysis. Briefly, CD138-positive plasma cells had been purified prior to total RNA extraction and subsequent gene expression profiling on Affymetrix U133Plus2.0 GeneChips. The 91 cases represented 9 different clinical sites and their CEL files were normalized as a single batch against a reference cohort of 329 cases after which the SKY92 risk scores were determined as either standard risk or high risk. Results SKY92 resulted in 19 high risk (20.9%) versus 72 standard risk (79.1%) cases in the unselected 91 case-cohort. Comparisons with other high risk GEP signatures will be performed. The OS analysis (Figure 1) shows that the HR cases have significantly shorter survival (Hazard Ratio 11, p = 7 x 10-5). Table 1 shows that high risk patients had more elevated B2M (26.3% vs 13.9%), more low albumin (26.3% vs 16.7%) and more high creatinine (26.3% vs 11.0%). There was no difference between high and standard groups in diagnosis dates (not shown). Cause of the 16 (84.2%) deaths among the high risk cases, and 21 (29.1%) deaths among the standard risk cases indicates that high risk contains less disease progression deaths (57.1% vs 31.3%), and more unknown deaths (56.3% vs 23.8%). Conclusions The SKY92 classifier identified 19 of 91 cases (21%) as high risk, recapitulating the percentage of high risk in previously studied cohorts (Kuiper et al. 2012). Moreover the hazard ratio of 11 when events up to 24 months or 8.18 when all events are considered, emphasizes the unmet medical need of high risk cases identified with SKY92 as 69% of all deaths within 2 years (9/13 death events) were in this category. Acknowledgments This research was performed within the framework of CTMM, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, project BioCHIP grant 03O-102. Rafael Fonseca is a Clinical Investigator of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Fund. This work is supported by grants R01 CA83724, ECOG CA 21115T, Predolin Foundation, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center and the Mayo Foundation. Disclosures: van Beers: Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Van Vliet:Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Anderson:celgene: Consultancy; onyx: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; sanofi aventis: Consultancy; oncopep: Equity Ownership; acetylon: Equity Ownership. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:BMS: 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, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Celgene: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cephalon: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Millennium: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Onyx: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Reece:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Cylene: Research Funding; Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 616 Background: We have shown the three drug combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD) to be highly active therapy in newly diagnosed myeloma while allowing stem cell harvest and transplantation (Reeder et al. Leukemia 2009; 23:1337-1341). However, twice weekly bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone have been shown to cause significant toxicities. In a prospective Phase II we modified CyBorD by using bortezomib once weekly and reducing the dexamethasone to “low dose dex” after the first two cycles in an attempt to reduce toxicity (cohort 2). We report the efficacy and toxicity of this modified regimen and compare the results to standard CyBorD (cohort 1). Patients and methods: 63 untreated symptomatic patients were enrolled on this Phase II trial (33 on cohort 1 and 30 on cohort 2). All are evaluable for response and toxicity. Treatment on cohort 2 consisted of oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and IV bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg by mouth days 1-4, 9-12, 17-20 in cycles 1 and 2, then 40 mg po days 1, 8, 15, 22 in cycles 3 and beyond. Cohort 1 used standard dosing of bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone throughout. Each cycle was 28 days. Acyclovir and a quinolone antibiotic prophylaxis were routinely used. Patients were evaluated for response and toxicity every cycle and were offered stem cell harvest and transplant after the 4th cycle but could continue up to 12 cycles maximum. Results: The median age for all 63 patients was 61 (36-74) years and 48% were female. Durie-Salmon stages were 47% II and 50% III and ISS stages I 43%, II 36%, and III 21%. Twenty-four percent of patients were genetic high risk (t(4;14) or deletion 17). Cohorts I and II were matched for age, gender and ECOG PS. ISS stages were higher in cohort 1 than cohort 2 (II/III 67% vs. 44%). The intent to treat (ITT) ORR (≥PR) for all 63 patients (cohorts 1 and 2) is 90% with 60% ≥VGPR. For cohort 2 (modified CyBorD) the ITT overall response (≥PR) was 93% (CR: 5, nCR: 7, VGPR: 6, PR: 10) with 60% ≥VGPR and 40% ≥ nCR. Those completing all 4 cycles of therapy had 92% ORR (24/26) and 65% (17/26) ≥VGPR. A comparison of response rates in cohorts 1 and 2 is shown in table 1. These high and comparable response rates were associated with fewer grade 3+ adverse events (AE's) than in cohort 1 (37% vs. 48%) and no grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN). The median follow-up for all 63 patients is 12.4 (2.8-29.2) months and 95% of patients are alive with 87% free from progression. Conclusions: Modified CyBorD with weekly bortezomib and reduced dexamethasone retains the high activity seen in standard CyBorD, but is less toxic and more convenient. Interestingly, this modified regimen allowed higher overall doses of bortezomib (5.2 vs. 6.0 mg/m2 per cycle) yet overall neuropathy rates were similar. This combination of a weekly alkylating agent with bortezomib and dexamethasone is well tolerated and produces high response rates in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Disclosures: Reeder: Millennium (MPI): Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Reece:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Hentz:Millennium (MPI): Research Funding. Fonseca:Otsuka: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy. Bergsagel:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Stewart:Proteolix: Honoraria; Millennium (MPI): Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3861 Poster Board III-797 Previous studies have reported that multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with t(4;14) identified by FISH who are treated with a single ASCT as part of first-line therapy have worse outcomes than those lacking this adverse cytogenetic marker; two trials have described a median progression-free survival (PFS) of only 8-9 months and median overall survival (OS) of 18 mos in this setting (Chang H, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005; 36: 793; Gertz M, et al. Blood 2005; 106: 2837). Since the novel agent bortezomib appears to have efficacy in patients with t(4;14), we designed a phase II protocol in which pts receive induction with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, bortezomib and dexamethasone (DBD) x 4 cycles, followed by post-induction therapy with oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1,8 15, 22 with bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 days 1,8,15 and prednisone 100 mg q 2 days of a 28-day cycle (CyBor-P) x 8 additional cycles. Maintenance therapy with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg/month was then administered until progression. Although elective stem cell collection was recommended after induction, routine ASCT was not performed in the absence of disease progression. Between February 2008-August 2009, 153 newly diagnosed MM pts were screened for t(4;14) in 7 Canadian centers, and 14 (9%) were found to be positive by FISH. Four did not meet the critieria for symptomatic MM, 2 had received ≥ 2 mos of prior therapy while 8 were entered onto study. One of these was later determined to have a variant abnormality of chromosome 4 but not t(4;14) and underwent ASCT after induction; this pt is included in the safety analysis only. The median age was 56 (49-69) and 43% were male. The median percent nuclei positive for t(4;14) was 30% (10-41%), serum β2-microglobulin 394 nmol/L (190-1695) and albumin 34 g/L (28-39); one pt had ISS stage 1,3 had stage 2 and 3 had stage 3 MM. Immunoglobulin subtype included IgGκ in 2 and IgAκ in 2 and IgAλ in 3. All pts have completed DBD induction, with the best response in the 7 evaluable pts consisting of PR in 2 and VGPR in 5; one in PR progressed quickly after induction and has achieved nCR after D-PACE followed by ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance. Four are receiving post-induction therapy with CyBor-P currently, with VGPR in 3 and PR in 1. No SAEs or grade3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia has occurred; other toxicities were mild, with grade 2 skin toxicity noted in 37.5% and grade 2 neurotoxicity observed in 7.4%. All pts are alive at a median follow-up (F/U) of 8 mos (2-11), and 6 (86%) are free of progression. We conclude: 1) the incidence of t(4;14) in newly diagnosed MM pts appears to be lower than the 15% anticipated; 2) 28% of newly diagnosed pts with this entity have asymptomatic MM; 3) preliminarily, DBD induction has resulted in ≥ PR in all pts although 1 progressed quickly; 4) this bortezomib-based regimen is very well-tolerated; 5) longer F/U is required to determine the PFS and OS with this approach. Disclosures: Reece: Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Use of bortezomib as part of initial therapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and dexamethasone. Piza Rodriguez:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Belch:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shustik:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Bahlis:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. White:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Stewart:Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy. Trudel:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Introduction Gene Expression Profiling studies have resulted in signatures capable of providing robust prognosis for Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients, such as the EMC92 [SKY92, Kuiper et al. Leukemia 2012]. Recently, data from 4720 MM patients from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4, UAMS-TT2, UAMS-TT3, MRC-IX, APEX and IFM trials were employed to assessed the majority of currently identified prognostic markers and their combinations (GEP, FISH, and biochemistry data, [Kuiper et al ASH 2014]). The "SKY92 + ISS" was identified and validated as the statistically most optimal (i.e. most significant and robust) prognostic marker combination for MM patients. The combination of the EMC92 (=SKY92) and ISS prognostic features proves to be a very powerful, unprecedented and straightforward prognostic system. It identifies four prognostic risk classes: low risk (ISS I-SKY92 standard risk (SR)), intermediate-low (ISS II-SKY92 SR), intermediate-high (ISS III-SKY92 SR) and high risk (ISS I-III, SKY92 high risk). Previously, the SKY92 has been validated on the 91 MM cases in the MMGI cohort [Van Beers et al. ASH 2013]. Here we present an extension of that validation with the SKY92 + ISS combination on the 78 MM cases for whom both GEP and ISS is available, by both assessing as the "4 risk group" model defined above, but also a "3 risk group" model (the two intermediate groups combined) as this may be more relevant and useful for clinical application. Materials and Methods A public untreated MM dataset (Multiple Myeloma Genomics Initiative, MMGI) had n=78 cases for which OS, GEP, and ISS were available for analysis. The prognostic markers SKY92 and ISS were applied as proposed [Kuiper et al ASH 2014] to classify cases into the risk categories. Results The risks for the 4 group classification model are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, and the 3 risk group model is shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. In the 4 group model, the intermediate-low group (SKY92 standard + ISS II) was a small and not significantly different (p=0.79) from the low risk. The intermediate-high group (SKY92 standard + ISS III) was also a small group, with significantly worse outcome compared with the low risk group (p=0.012). Although stratification into four groups was statistically superior in the training and validation data [Kuiper et al ASH 2014] the interpretability benefits from aggregation of the middle two groups [Fig 1 right]. Table 1. Classification results for the four risk groups (Fig 1 left) Risk group n % Median OS HR vs low risk SKY92 High Risk regardless of ISS 19 24 28.4 m 10.8 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-III 10 13 63.0 m 4.1 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-II 16 21 NR (0.8) SKY92 standard risk + ISS-I (low risk) 33 42 NR NA NR= Not Reached at 96 months, HR= hazard ratio Table 2. Classification results for the three risk groups (Fig 1 right) Risk group n % Median OS HR vs low risk SKY92 High Risk regardless of ISS 19 24 28.4 m 10.1 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-II/III 26 34 78.5 m (1.8) SKY92 standard risk + ISS-I 33 42 NR NA NR= Not Reached at 96 months, HR= hazard ratio, () not significant Conclusions By applying the SKY92 + ISS risk stratification model in an independent validation cohort of newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma patients, besides a high risk group of 19 patients (24%), a group of 33 patients (42%) with superior prognosis could be predicted (SKY92 standard risk and ISS I) that translated into 62% OS at 96 months. The 19 high risk (SKY92 high risk) cases had very poor prognosis (median survival of 28 months). The combination of SKY92 Standard Risk and ISS II and III seems useful for definition of "intermediate risk" although sample size currently is insufficient for significance compared to low risk. The intention is to also perform this validation on the relapsed samples from the MMGI cohort, once OS data has been collected. This validated risk model could play a role in the design of future treatment strategies for high and low risk MM patients. Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves on the 78 MMGI cases, split into four (left) or three (right) risk groups based on the combination of SKY92 + ISS. Hazard Ratios (HR) are from a Cox proportional Hazards model comparing a particular group to the low risk group. Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves on the 78 MMGI cases, split into four (left) or three (right) risk groups based on the combination of SKY92 + ISS. Hazard Ratios (HR) are from a Cox proportional Hazards model comparing a particular group to the low risk group. Disclosures van Beers: SkylineDx: Employment. van Vliet:SkylineDx: Employment. de Best:SkylineDx: Employment. Chari:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotest: Other: Institutional Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Research Funding, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagganath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: 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, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria. Lebovic:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reece:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Richardson:Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: 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. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Stewart:SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: 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, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3055 Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) and dexamethasone is an effective regimen for relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with an overall response rate of 60% and median time to progression of 13.4 months (Dimopoulos ME, et al. Leukemia 2009; 23: 2147-52). We combined lenalidomide with the alkylating agent combination of cyclophosphamide and prednisone—an older regimen with minimal cumulative myelosuppression and good activity as second or third line therapy (Trieu Y, et al, Mayo Clin Proc 2005; 80: 1582). The CPR regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide (CY) on days 1, 8, and 15, lenalidomide on days 1–21 and prednisone 100 mg q 2 days in a 28-day cycle. ASA 81 mg/day was given as DVT prophylaxis. Three dose levels were evaluated using a 3 × 3 dose escalation design. Thirty-two pts were entered between 11/2007-06/2009; median age was 64 (42-80) yrs, 60% were male, and immunoglobulin isotype was IgG in 19 (62%), IgA in 8 (25%) and light chain in 4 (13%) pts. Median β2-microglobulin level was 257 (92-767) nm/L, albumin 39 (34-48) g/L, creatinine 83 (50-126) μmol/L, platelet count 355 (75-479) × 109/L and ANC 2.5 (1.1-6.1) × 109/L. The median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-5). Prior therapy included: ASCT (single in 91%; double in 19%), thalidomide (28%) and bortezomib (50%). FISH cytogenetics were available in 13 pts; 1 had del 13q but none had t(4;14) or del p53. Table 1 summarizes protocol treatment delivered. Table 1. Dose level N Cyclophosphamide dose (mg/m2) Lenalidomide dose (mg) Prednisone dose (mg) Median # cycles given 1 3 150 15 100 12 (12–34+) 2 3 150 25 100 10 (9–23) 3 26 300 25 100 17 (5–28+) 1–3 (All) 32 150–300 15–25 100 19 (5–34+) Dose limiting toxicity was not observed during cycle 1 at any dose level. Grade 3–4 toxicities during the trial included: thrombocytopenia in 7 (22%) and neutropenia in 9 (29%), managed with dose reduction and/or growth factors; five episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred, all at dose level 3. In cohort 3, other grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities included 1 episode each of abdominal pain/bacteremia, hypokalemia, fatigue, sick sinus syndrome, cardiac amyloidosis, perforated diverticulum and 2 episodes of DVT. Two heavily pretreated pts developed 2° MDS, including 1 previously treated for lymphoma, 43 and 190 mos after the diagnosis of MM. The best response using modified EBMT criteria was documented at a median of 7 (1-26) cycles and included the following: dose level 1 (1 CR, 2 PR); dose level 2 (1 VGPR, 2 PR); dose level 3 (4 CR, 14 VGPR, 11 PR, 1 MR and 1 stable disease). At a median F/U of 16 (5-34) months, 13 pts remain on study and 18 have progressed at a median of 10 (2-23) mos; 1 was lost to F/U and 9 have died of progressive MM. The 1-year actuarial OS and PFS rates are 93% (95% CI 76–98%) and 78% (95% CI 60–89%), respectively. We conclude: 1) the combination of full doses of the agents in CPR can be given in a 28 day cycle with an acceptable safety profile; 2) the objective response rate (CR + PR + MR) in all 32 pts to date is 94%; 3) the 1-year OS of 93% and PFS of 78% compare favorably with other 3-drug combinations in rel/ref MM pts; 4) further evaluation of this regimen in newly diagnosed pts would be of interest. Disclosures: Reece: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Combination of lenalidomide and cyclophosphamide and prednisone in relapsed and refractory myeloma patients. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria.