Zhong, Xiaobo

Abstract Outcomes are poor in triple-class–exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P < .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

Introduction Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) have a higher risk of progression/death following an inadequate response to frontline ASCT (van de Velde Eur J Haematol 2017). Therapies (Tx) with novel mechanisms of action may further improve response outcomes. Ide-cel previously demonstrated frequent, deep, and durable responses in KarMMa (Munshi N Engl J Med 2021) and significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) versus standard regimens in KarMMa-3 (Rodríguez-Otero N Engl J Med 2023) in pts with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory MM. KarMMa-2 (NCT03601078) is a multicohort, phase 2, multicenter trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of ide-cel in pts with MM; cohort 2c included pts with NDMM who had an inadequate response to frontline Tx with ASCT. In cohort 2c, with a median follow-up of 27.9 months, ide-cel demonstrated deep and durable responses; complete response (CR) rate was 74.2% (ORR, 87.1%), with a 24-month PFS rate of 83.1% (Dhodapkar Blood 2022). Here, we report results with an additional 11.5 months of median follow-up for updated efficacy and safety data, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in cohort 2c. Methods Eligible pts had NDMM, received ≥ 3 cycles of induction Tx (including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and dexamethasone), had < very good partial response (VGPR) 70-110 days after ASCT (single/tandem), and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Pts received a single infusion of ide-cel (dose range: 150-450 × 10 6 CAR+ T cells) after lymphodepletion and could receive maintenance Tx post-infusion at investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint CR rate and secondary endpoints ORR, duration of response (DOR), PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes on HRQoL, assessed via European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma Module 20 Questionnaire (QLQ-MY20), are reported. The exploratory endpoint of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (sensitivity, 10 -5) is also reported. Results At data cutoff (May 3, 2023), with a median follow-up of 39.4 (range, 31.6-44.7) months, all 31 pts who were infused with ide-cel were alive; 28 (90.3%) remained in follow-up, with 3 (9.7%) having discontinued due to disease progression. The ORR and CR rates were 87.1% and 77.4%, respectively ( Table); best overall response in 1 pt improved from VGPR to stringent CR. The median DOR was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR-NR), neither was median PFS (95% CI, 38.0-NR) or median OS (95% CI, NR-NR); the 36-month event-free rates were 80.9%, 76.8%, and 100.0%, respectively. In pts who did not receive lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance, 9 (29.0%) had disease progression; of the 8 pts who received LEN maintenance post ide-cel infusion, none experienced disease progression. At 36 months, MRD negativity was confirmed in 9/14 (64.3%) evaluable pts; all 9 achieved ≥ CR. In this extended follow-up, safety results were generally consistent with the previous data cutoff. All pts experienced ≥ 1 any-grade adverse event (AE), most commonly hematologic, including neutropenia (80.6%), anemia (38.7%), leukopenia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (29.0%); infection and infestation AEs occurred in 74.2% of pts. No grade 5 AEs were reported. Incidence of any-grade cytokine release syndrome (58.1%; no grade ≥ 3) was unchanged and there were no additional reports of parkinsonism since the previous report. Overall, HRQoL improved ( Figure) and MM disease symptoms were stable over time based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20, respectively, following ide-cel treatment; by month 3, > 75% of pts had improved or stable global health status/QoL. Conclusions Ide-cel continued to demonstrate deep, durable responses in pts with an inadequate response to frontline ASCT, no new safety signals were observed with extended follow-up, and no deaths were reported. No pts who received LEN maintenance post ide-cel experienced disease progression. Ide-cel treatment resulted in stable or improved HRQoL. Overall, ide-cel continued to demonstrate a favorable clinical benefit-risk profile in NDMM after ASCT. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Abstract Abstract 824 There is no standard therapy for MM relapsing after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). A second AHCT can result in additional progression-free survival (PFS). Nonmyeloablative/reduced intensity conditioning (NST/RIC) allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) has the advantages of a tumor-free graft and the potential of a graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect. Few studies have compared second AHCT vs. NST/RIC AlloHCT. We compared the outcome of second AHCT or NST/RIC AlloHCTafter relapse from prior AHCT in patients with MM reported to the CIBMTR from 1995–2008. Recipients of planned tandem transplants, AlloHCT for graft failure or second malignancies and myeloablative alloHCT were excluded. 137 patients underwent second AHCT and 152 underwent NST/RIC AlloHCT (32 HLA-identical sibling and 120 unrelated donor). The table below illustrates clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. AlloHCT recipients were significantly younger (median 53 years [yrs] of age vs. 56 yrs in the AHCT cohort (p < 0.001). The groups were similar in Karnofsky performance score (KPS) and gender. Conditioning regimens differed between groups. In the AHCT cohort, 85% were melphalan based. In the NST/RIC alloHCT cohort, 38% received melphalan + other drugs and 24% received total body irradiation +/− other drugs but no melphalan (p <0.001). Time from 1st to 2nd transplant was significantly shorter for the AlloHCT cohort (30 vs. 23 months, p = 0.014). Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVH) was 35% at 60 days while chronic GVHD was 44% at 36 months.Patient CharacteristicsAutologousAllogeneicP-valueNumber of patients137152Age at 2nd transplant, median (range), years56 (28–65)53 (32–65)0.001*Gender Male84 (61)90 (59)0.720Karnofsky Score pre-transplant ≥90%68 (50)76 (50)0.884Time from 1st to 2nd transplant, months, median (range)30 (6–122)23 (6–78)0.014* 6–24 months44 (32)78 (51)0.001* >24 months93 (68)74 (49)OutcomesTreatment-related Mortality (TRM)12 months2 (1–5)13 (8–19)<0.001*60 months4 (2–8)15 (10–21)<0.001*Relapse/Progression12 months51 (43–58)72 (64–79)<0.001*36 months82 (76–88)80 (73–86)0.655Progression-free survival12 months47 (40–54)15 (10–21)<0.001*36 months13 (9–19)6 (3–10)0.038*Overall Survival (OS)12 months83 (77–89)51 (42–58)<0.001*36 months46 (37–54)20 (14–27)<0.001*60 months29 (21–38)9 (5–15)<0.001**Significant difference The most common cause of death in both cohorts was progression of MM. On multivariate analysis risk of death was higher for alloHCT (HR 2.38, p < 0.001), KPS < 90 (HR 1.96, p < 0.001), and year of transplant (2004 or earlier, HR 1.77, p = < 0.001). AlloHCT was associated with significantly higher risk of TRM (HR 7.14, p < 0.001). Durie-Salmon Stage III was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 2.70, 95% CI: 1.93–3.80, P<0.001) and treatment failure in the alloHCT group (HR 3.05, 95% CI: 2.20–4.22, p < 0.001). We conclude that patients with MM who underwent NST/RIC alloHCT after AHCT failure experienced higher TRM and lower probability of survival compared with those who received second AHCT. Because genetic risk data were not available for these patients, we cannot exclude the possibility that the alloHCT population was a higher risk population. Despite this limitation, our data demonstrate that the value of alloHCT after relapse from prior AHCT is limited. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 504 Background: There is limited data on the outcomes of AHCT for MM as a salvage approach following relapse after an initial (upfront) AHCT. We analyzed the outcomes of second salvage AHCT for relapsed MM. Methods: From the CIBMTR database we identified 187 patients (63% male) who had second AHCT (AHCT2) as salvage for MM relapsing after a prior AHCT (AHCT1). Planned tandem AHCT and AHCT2 within 6 months after AHCT1 were excluded. Cumulative incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and the probabilities of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and multivariate analysis performed using proportional hazards models. Results: Median age at transplant was 57 (range 28–72) and 59 years (range 28–74) respectively at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Median follow up after AHCT2 was 47 months (range: 3–97). The proportion of IgG, IgA and free light chain subtypes was 48, 20 and 18% respectively. Durie Salmon stage at diagnosis was stage I (6%), II (21%), III (59%) respectively. Seven and 13% had serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Conditioning regimen was single agent melphalan was in 78% and 84% for AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. At the time of AHCT2, majority (60%) were chemotherapy resistant compared with 80% patients with sensitive disease prior to AHCT1. Median time from AHCT1 to relapse was 18 months, with 32% relapsing within the first year, 29% in the second year, 19% in the third year and 19% beyond the third year after AHCT1. There was heterogeneity in the time to AHCT2 after relapse although 67% had AHCT2 within a year after relapse (median 7 months). Median between AHCT1 and AHCT2 was 32 months with the majority (69%) beyond 24 months. After AHCT2, day 28 engraftment rates of neutrophils and platelets were 96% (95% CI: 93–98) and 88% (95% CI: 83–92). Complete remission (CR) rates after AHCT1 were 43% whereas it was only 25% following AHCT2. After AHCT2, cumulative incidence of relapse at 1, 3 and 5 years was 51, 82, and 91% respectively. After AHCT2, one year NRM was 2%. PFS was 47%, 13% and 5% and OS was 83%, 46% and 29% at 1, 3 and 5 years respectively. In multivariate analysis, those relapsing within 36 months of AHCT1 had a higher risk of relapse (HR 1.58, p = 0.036) and higher risk of treatment failure and inferior PFS (HR1.52, p= 0.04). Mortality was higher for those relapsing early after AHCT1 (<36 months, HR 1.91, p = 0.02). OS was superior and mortality lower for AHCT2 performed after 2004-08 (HR 0.61, p=0.02). Conclusion: AHCT2 can be safely performed in relapsed MM with the best outcomes observed in later relapses (>36 months from AHCT1). OS has improved since 2004, but NRM, relapse and PFS after AHCT2 were not impacted by year of AHCT2. Thus the improved OS likely reflects greater availability of novel agents for post AHCT progression. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 4217 Background: AHCT improves survival (OS) in newly diagnosed MM patients (pts) in large randomized trials. These trials have limited eligibility to younger, healthier pts. Selection of older pts and those with co-morbid illness for AHCT is problematic. HCT-CI, originally developed as predictor of post-allogeneic transplant outcomes, maybe valuable in stratifying risk of transplant related mortality (TRM) risk and OS in the AHCT setting. We investigated the relative impact of HCT CI along with other patient and MM related variables on outcomes after AHCT in a large cohort of transplant recipients. Methods: Outcomes of 1156 MM pts receiving AHCT after high dose Melphalan (MEL) between 2007 and 2010 reported to the CIBMTR (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research) were analyzed. HCTCI scores and individual comorbidities were prospectively reported at time of AHCT. Median follow up of survivors was 26 month. The impact of HCTCI and other potential prognostic factors including Karnofsky performance status (KPS) on OS were studied in multivariate Cox regression models. Results: HCTCI score was 0, 1, 2, 3, >3 in 42%, 18%, 13%, 13% and 14% respectively. Most common co-morbidities included pulmonary, diabetes, obesity, psychiatric, cardiac, renal and prior solid tumor. Using consolidated HCTCI scores, patients were stratified initially into 3 risk groups – HCTCI 0 (42%) vs. HCTCI 1–2 (32%) vs. HCTCI >2 (26%). Males and Caucasians were more likely to have greater HCTCI score. Higher HCTCI was associated with lower KPS <90 (33% in HCTCI 0 cohort vs. 50% in HCTCI >2). HCTCI score >2 was associated with MEL dose reduction to 140 mg/m2 (22% vs. 10% in score 0 cohort). Cytogenetic risk and MM related factors were not correlated with HCTCI. TRM at 12 month was 2%, 2%, and 3% for 3 risk groups. With extremely few TRM events, multivariate analysis did not suggest an impact of HCTCI. OS was 95%, 92%, 92% at 1 year and 87%, 81%, 80% at 2 year, respectively. OS was inferior for HCTCI >2 cohort (RR of death 1.48, p=0.02) and HCTCI cohort 1–2 (RR 1.37, p=0.04) compared with HCTCI 0 cohort. There was no significant difference in OS between HCTCI >2 vs. HCTCI 1–2 (p=0.64). Therefore the latter 2 groups were combined as the HCTCI >0 cohort [N=667] and compared with HCTCI=0 [N=489] in multivariate models. HCTCI >0 predicted inferior OS (RR of death= 1.41, p=0.01). Other significant predictors of inferior survival were KPS <90 (RR of death 1.61, p<0.01), IgA subtype (RR 1.64, p<0.01), >1 pretransplant regimen (RR 1.47, p<0.01), resistant MM at AHCT (RR 1.78, p<0.01). Major cause of death in both groups was progressive MM. Conclusion: In clinical practice, higher HCTCI score was associated with MEL dose reduction. Mortality after AHCT is predominantly related to MM progression/relapse with low incidence of TRM. Higher HCTCI scores were independently associated with inferior OS. KPS remains an important tool for risk stratification. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 597 Back-ground: Planned upfront AHCT after initial induction improves both overall and progression free survival (OS and PFS) for patients with MM in randomized trials. However, it is unclear whether patients with less than partial response after a finite period of initial therapy should receive AHCT immediately or undergo salvage therapy to improve the level of response pre-AHCT. Methods: We addressed this question by querying the CIBMTR (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research) database. Between 1995 and 2010, 575 patients received upfront AHCT (within 12 mo of diagnosis) for MM after failing to achieve partial or complete response (PR/CR) to initial induction therapy. The 2326 patients who achieved CR/PR pre- AHCT had superior survival and were excluded (Fig 1). The study groups included: the 324 who received additional salvage chemotherapy after non-response to first line therapy (SALVAGE) and then proceeded to AHCT; and 251 who had no additional salvage chemotherapy but proceeded to AHCT immediately (NOSALVAGE). Outcomes of non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, PFS, and OS were compared measuring overall survival from diagnosis. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard models incorporated the following variables: age, gender, Karnofsky performance score, immunoglobulin isotype, stage, serum creatinine at diagnosis, disease status pre-AHCT, conditioning regimen, time from diagnosis to transplant, type of transplant (single/tandem), novel agents (thalidomide/bortezomib/lenalidomide), time-period of transplant and number of lines of pre-transplant therapy (= or &gt; 1 line) on outcomes. Results: Study cohorts were well balanced with respect to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status, immunoglobulin isotype, disease stage. More pts in NOSALVAGE received VAD (60% vs. 47%, p=0.002) for first line therapy and had a base-line creatinine &gt; 1.5mg/dl (27% vs. 17%, p=0.008). In the SALVAGE cohort, 245 (75%) received one, 65 (20%) two and 14 (4%) three salvage regimens. 197/245(61%), 47/65(59%), 2/14 (14%) were sensitive to 1st, 2nd and 3rd line salvage therapies prior to transplant resulting in 55% in SALVAGE achieving CR/PR pre-AHCT. In NOSALVAGE, 93% were in a minimal response or stable disease state and 7% with progressive disease. In SALVAGE, 55% received AHCT after 2004 compared with 38% in NOSALVAGE likely reflecting additional agents available for salvage. The majority of patients in either cohort (&gt;90%) received Melphalan based AHCT and a minority (&lt;20%) planned tandem AHCT. In the SALVAGE cohort, 44% had AHCT &lt;8 months after diagnosis as compared to 74% in NOSALVAGE (P&lt;0.001). Median follow-up for survivors was 61 mo and 68 mo, respectively. Six year NRM (p=1.0), relapse (p=0.2), PFS (p=0.2) or OS (p=0.5) were no different between the two cohorts). On multivariate analysis, a higher creatinine at diagnosis (&gt; 1.5 vs &lt; 1.5) predicted for higher NRM (p=0.008) and inferior OS (p=0.003), and the use of novel agents predicted for lower risk of NRM (HR = 0.37, P=0.04). Since more time elapsed between diagnosis and transplant among patients who received additional salvage chemotherapy, a left-truncated multivariate analysis was performed to reduce this potential waiting time bias. This multivariate analysis produced similar outcomes for TRM, relapse, treatment failure and OS irrespective of whether or not salvage regimens were used (Fig 2). Conclusions: In the setting of upfront AHCT, no additional benefit could be demonstrated for salvage regimens to upgrade response prior to AHCT. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 591 Background: Survival of patients with MM has improved over the past two decades, in part due to the use of AHCT. Increasingly, second primary malignancies (SPMs) are observed in MM survivors. Determining the baseline incidence and risk factors associated with SPMs after AHCT is important to assess risk and to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of newer therapies. Methods: We analyzed the incidence of SPMs in 3784 MM patients receiving (“upfront”) AHCT for MM within 18 months of diagnosis between 1990 and 2010 and reported to the CIBMTR. Cumulative incidence rates of SPMs were estimated taking into account the competing risk of death. For each transplant recipient, the number of person-years at risk was calculated from the date of transplantation until date of last contact, death, or diagnosis of SPM, whichever occurred first. Incidence rates for all invasive cancers in the general population were obtained from the SEER database. Age-, sex-, and race- specific incidence rates for overall SPMs and particular anatomical sites were applied to the appropriate person-years at risk to compute the expected numbers of cancers. Observed–to –expected (O/E) ratios were calculated, and Poisson distribution 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Poisson regression model was used to analyze risk factors for overall SPMs and AML/MDS. Results: Pre-transplant therapy included novel agents in 56% including thalidomide (35%), lenalidomide (9%), bortezomib (16%) or their combinations (11%). Majority (80%) received high dose melphalan conditioning. Post-transplant maintenance therapy included thalidomide (16%), lenalidomide (8%), bortezomib (9%) and interferon (6%). Median follow-up of survivors was 52 months (range 3 to 192 months).With 12707 person years of follow up, 153 new malignancies were reported with a crude rate of 1.2 SPM per 100 person years of follow up. Observed/Expected [O/E] ratio for all SPMs was 0.99 (99% CI, 0.80–1.22). Cumulative incidence of SPM overall was 2.48% (95% CI, 1.96–3.05) at 3 years and 6.0% (95% CI, 4.96–7.10) at 7 years [Figure 1]. Individual SPMs observed significantly more frequently than expected are summarized in Table 1. The cumulative incidence of MDS/AML was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.28–0.78) at 3 years and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.85– 1.9%) at 7 years. Majority had MM progression prior to diagnosis of SPM (65 of 102 patients overall and 15 of 23 patients for MDS/AML). In multivariate analysis, significant risk factors for development of SPMs included: obesity [Hazard ratio = HR 1.89(95%CI, 1.21–2.93), p=0.0047 for BMI>30 vs. BMI<25], older age: [HR10.53 (95%CI, 1.46–75.82), p=0.0195] for 60–69 year olds and HR14.4 (95%CI, 1.89–109.75), p=0.01 for 70+ year olds compared to the 18–39 year old group. Specific conditioning regimens did not correlate with the risk of SPM. The low number of MDS/AML (33 events out of 3784 cases) limited the power of multivariate analysis. Increasing age was significantly associated with development of MDS (HR10.77, (95%CI,92.09–55.51), p=0.004 for 70+ year old vs. 40–49 year olds). Conclusion: In this large cohort of AHCT recipients for MM, the incidence of MDS/AML, melanoma and other skin cancers was significantly higher compared to age and sex matched general population. However the overall risk of SPM was similar to that expected for age and sex matched population. It was also similar to the placebo arms of recent reports by McCarthy Pl et al and Attal M et al (N Engl J Med. 10; 366(19):1770–91). Lenalidomide (8%) or thalidomide maintenance (16%) used in a small subset of patients with comparatively short follow up, was not associated with risk of SPM in the analysis of the overall cohort. Disclosures: Gale: Celgene: Employment. Brandenburg:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, BMS, Onyx, Merck all Consultancy. Krishnan:Celgene and Millennium: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dispenzieri:Celgene and Millennium: Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 596 Background Large population-based studies have demonstrated a significant improvement in survival (OS) for patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) over time since the mid-1990s. The improvement has mostly affected younger patients suggesting a beneficial impact of AHCT. The availability of novel drugs within the last decade and their impact on the utilization and outcomes of AHCT recipients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 20,278 patients undergoing AHCT within 12 months of diagnosis in USA and Canada and reported to CIBMTR in the periods of 1995–1999 (n=2226), 2000–2004 (n=6408) and 2005–2010 (n=11644) including a subgroup of 4373 individuals with detailed patient, disease and treatment information. We subsequently compared survival and analyzed patient, disease and treatment characteristics across the three periods with the time period serving as a surrogate for pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents. Results Across the 3 time periods, there was a marked increase in the number of upfront transplants across all age groups (Figure 1a). Patients receiving upfront HSCT in the more recent period were older, less likely to have stage 3 MM at diagnosis and more likely to have received thalidomide (<1 % vs. 22% vs. 52%), lenalidomide (0% vs. <1% vs. 21%) or bortezomib (0% vs. 2% vs. 35%) and have chemosensitive disease at the time of AHCT. The proportion of African-American patients remained low and stable across the three periods (14 vs. 13 vs. 15%). Over the 3 periods, there was a decrease in chemotherapy based stem cell mobilization and increase of single agent G-CSF based mobilization (24% vs. 24% vs. 41%). The use of single agent Melphalan conditioning increased from 54% in 1995–1999 to nearly 100% in the latest period concomitant with near disappearance of total body irradiation-based and multi-drug conditioning regimens. Compared with 1995–99 cohort, survival was superior in the 2000–04 and 2005–09 cohorts at 24 (72% vs. 79% vs. 84%, P<0.001), 48 (54% vs. 60% vs. 64%, P<0.001) and 60 months (47% vs. 52% vs. 55%, P<0.001) (Figure 1b). In multivariate analysis, we found that transplant in the 2000–04 period (HR=0.77, 95% C.I. 0.67–0.89) or in the 2005–10 period (HR=0.68, 95% C.I. 0.59–0.79) along with Karnofsky performance score of 80–100 (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.51–0.70) and chemosensitivity (HR= 0.76, 95% C.I. 0.66–0.87) were associated with lower risk of death. Factors associated with higher risk of death were age 50–65 (HR=1.29 95% 1.13–1.47), age 65–80 (HR=1.45, 1.23–1.72), Durie-Salmon or ISS stage III at diagnosis (HR 1.56, 95% C.I. 1.39–1.76) and more than one prior line of therapy (HR=1.15, 95% C.I. 1.03–1.28). In comparison to patients transplanted in 1995–99, post relapse survival was superior for patients transplanted in 2000–04 and 2005–10 at 24 months (58% vs. 65% vs. 72%, P=0.005 and <0.001 respectively) and 48 months (33% vs. 39% vs. 40%, P=0.023 and 0.033 respectively). The use of maintenance therapy has changed with 27% in 1995–99 receiving planned interferon vs. 23% in 2005–09 receiving planned thalidomide, lenalidomide or bortezomib maintenance. Conclusions Utilization of upfront AHCT is increasing in the USA, particularly in older patients. Improvement in survival for MM patients seen in population studies results not only from greater utilization of AHCT but also from the improvement in outcomes after AHCT and a significant recent improvement in post-relapse survival. Pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents likely contributes to survival. AHCT and novel agents are complementary and should be combined for the optimal management of newly diagnosed MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.