Lee, Jae Hoon

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.

Abstract Abstract 3980 Background: Nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are over 70 years at the time of diagnosis. While the survival of patients with myeloma has improved in the last decade, several studies have suggested no significant change for the elderly patients. These patients often have other comorbidities and are less likely to tolerate standard treatment approaches. We retrospectively studied the treatment patterns, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients over 75 years of age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 212 patients who were older than 75 years from among 1545 patients seen at the Mayo Clinic within 90 days of diagnosis during 1999 to 2008. We only included 139 patients in whom complete treatment details were available. RESULTS: The median age was 80 years (range: 76–94) with 20 (14%) patients older than 85 years; 79 (57%) were male. Thirty-five patients (25%) had a history or coexistence of one or more malignancies. Chromosome analysis and FISH were performed in 65% and 22% respectively. Abnormal cytogenetics were seen in 30 (33%) of the 90 tested patients. The median survival of the 139 elderly patients was 27 months (95% CI: 20∼35) compared to 62 months (56∼68) for 1,290 patients ≤ 75 years of age seen during the same period. Sixty-nine (50%) patients received one or more novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib) and showed longer median survival (40 months vs 13 months) compared with those not receiving these agents (p=0.0008). Age over 85, initial poor performance score > 1, thrombocytopenia, elevated serum LDH or beta2-microglobulin, response more than stable disease to first therapy resulted in inferior survival. Among them, only performance status had the persistent significance in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Older patients receiving newer therapies appear to have a better outcome, which is still lagging behind the younger patients. A poor performance score at diagnosis predicts for eventual poor outcome. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: The initial therapies for multiple myeloma have changed significantly in the recent years with routine incorporation of combinations containing IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. However, patients with MM invariably relapse after their initial treatment and undergo successive therapies for continued control of their disease. The increasing access to new therapies for treatment of relapsed disease has led to improved survival of patients with MM. Many recent phase 3 trials have studied the impact of new agents on outcome of patients with MM who are relapsing after the initial lines of therapy for relapsed disease. However, the natural history of relapsed myeloma earlier in the course of relapsed disease has not been studied in detail. Patients and methods: We designed a global, multicenter, retrospective study to examine the current treatment approaches for initial relapses in MM and patient outcomes following application of successive treatment regimens. Patients with multiple myeloma who experience a first relapse between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011 were identified at participating sites. Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses up to and including the third relapse will be obtained from the clinical records. The first date of treatment with an anti-myeloma regimen for first disease relapse was termed time zero (T0). Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled; median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range: 35 - 86), 59% were male. Patients were enrolled from North America (33%), Europe (35%) or Asia (32%). The patients were diagnosed between 1997 and 2011 and the median time to T0 from diagnosis was 23.9 months (range: 0.8 - 131.9 months). An IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide), bortezomib or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the initial therapy in 63%, 36% and 51% of patients, respectively; 93 (33%) patients had stem cell transplantation as part of initial treatment. The median follow up from the study entry was 56 months; 117 were alive at the time of data extraction. A second line, third line and fourth line of treatment were recorded in 307, 163 and 84 patients respectively. An IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide), proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib) or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the therapy for first relapse in 50%, 59% and 33% of patients, respectively. The responses to the regimens after T0, the TTNT, PFS and OS to each line of therapy are provided in the Table. Conclusion: The current study provides an assessment of the current treatment approaches used for initial treatment of MM and the salvage treatment options utilized. The study again demonstrates the progressively shorter duration of disease control with each successive treatment regimen, reflecting ongoing development of drug resistance. The overall survival of over 3 years from the time of therapy for first relapse highlights the impact of the newer therapies that have been introduced for this disease. Table. Treatment outcomes after initial relapse Endpoint 2nd line therapyN=307 3rd line therapyN=163 4th line therapyN=84 Partial response or better Median in Months (95% Confidence Interval) Overall Survival 36.1 (30.2, 42.4) 18.4 (14.5, 26.8) 12.6 (10.4, 19.0) Progression-Free Survival 13.4 (11.8, 15.8) 8.3 (6.5, 11.2) 6.4 (5.0, 8.1) Time to Next Treatment 15 (12,17) 9.8 (7.4, 12.0) 6.6 (5.8, 8.7) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lahuerta:Janssen Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Takeda, Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Onyx, Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3989 Background: Treatment patterns of multiple myeloma (MM) vary across the globe, mostly dictated by the availability and patient access to different drug therapies. The outcomes of patients with MM, especially relapsed myeloma can be significantly affected by the availability of newer treatments, as well as potential biological differences related to ethnicity. We have previously shown that the outcome of patients relapsing after therapy with bortezomib (Bz) and one or more of the IMiDs remain poor with the currently available treatments and represent a difficult group of patients to treat. We undertook the current analysis on a set of patients from United States, several European countries and South Korea. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study that enrolled 294 patients with relapsed MM, from 14 sites (122 from Europe, 107 from US, and 65 from Korea). Patients were refractory to Bz, defined as no response to prior Bz-containing regimen or disease progression within 60 days of a Bz-containing regimen. Patients were also relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible, to treatment with an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). Clinical and laboratory data from diagnosis and individual relapses were collected along with details of all MM drug therapies before and after T0. Responses were assessed by IMWG or EBMT criteria. The goal of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients who satisfy the above inclusion criteria, the therapies employed prior to and after T0 and clinical outcome among these patients from different parts of the world. Results: The mean (median, range) time to reaching T0 from diagnosis was 4.5 (4.0, 12.8), 4.2 (3.2, 18.6), and 3.2 (2.8, 9.6) years from diagnosis for patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, P=0.021. The mean (median, range) number of therapies for the three groups were 8 (8, 13), 4 (4, 10), 5 (4, 7), respectively; P<0.001. The response rates (>=PR) to the initial therapy at diagnosis were 56%, 77% and 49% respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts. Overall 220 patients had at least one therapy after T0, and 114 (52%) had a novel agent (Bz, len or thal) containing regimen as their first treatment after T0. Patients in US were more likely to receive additional therapies after the first post-T0 therapy; 62%, 32%, and 12% of patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, began a second post-T0 regimen within 2 years following time zero. The median number of therapies post T0 was 2, 1, and 1 for patients in US, Europe and Korea respectively. The response rates to the first regimen after T0 were 15%, 33% and 19% for the US, European and Korean cohorts, and were similar between those receiving a regimen with one of the novel drugs compared to rest. Patients younger than 60 years and those with prior transplants were more likely to respond to post T0 regimens. The median time to progression or death from T0was similar for the three patient cohorts, 5 months (Figure 1A). The median overall survival (95% CI) from T0 was 13 months (10, 16), 7 (5,9) and 8 (4,9) respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts (Figure 1B). Conventional prognostic factors, especially the ISS stage was predictive of OS post T0. Additionally, presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a shorter overall survival. Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrate significant differences between different parts of the world in terms of the treatment patterns both in the setting of initial therapy as well as treatment of relapsed disease. Patients in the US were more likely to receive multiple regimens both before and after T0. This is likely a reflection of increasing numbers of new drugs that have gone into clinical trials and thus enhancing options. The study further highlights the poor outcome of patients who have relapsed after the new drugs, irrespective of the geographical location. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Millennium: ; Celgene: ; Johnson & Johnson: ; Novartis: ; Bristol Myers Squibb:. Moreau:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory board, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Siegel:Merck: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, 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. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: 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; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 743 Background There has been considerable recent focus upon the molecular classification of myeloma. However, the prognostic impact of molecular changes has mostly been assessed from small and/or incomplete studies from single institutions or groups. There has been no large scale analysis of molecular features linked to ISS stage. Methods In order to clarify the overall impact of molecular changes we undertook a collective analysis of 9,897 patients through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Within this population 2,295 patients had presence of cytogenetic abnormalities (Any CA); 1,713 hypodiploidy; 1,673 hyperdiploidy; 2,309 cytogenetic deletion 13; 3,226 deletion 13 by FISH; 1,573 FISH t(4;14); 1,486 FISH del p17; 1, 683 FISH t(11:14); and 366 FISH t(4;16). Enrolled patients had complete clinical and treatment details available including baseline standard prognostic factors, ISS stage, as well as both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) information. Data came from 14 sites: 3 from the US and the remainder from Europe, Asia, and Latin America as for the ISS staging system analyses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results Each of the known adverse molecular features had a negative impact upon both PFS and OS (p=002 - <0.0001). Among the deleterious FISH abnormalities the t(4;14) abnormality was the most highly correlated with poorer outcomes by PFS: 4 year estimate: 32% vs. 60% (p<0.0001). The t(4;14) abnormality combined with ISS Stage also significantly enhanced predictive capability: ISS Stage I without t(4;14) OS 81% @ 4 years; ISS Stage III with t(4;14) OS 22% @ 4 years (P<0.0001) [Figure 1]. The best outcomes were for ISS Stage I in the presence of t(11;14): OS 89% @ 4 years. Absence of any one adverse feature correlated with 80-81% OS @ 4 years for Stage I. Presence of any one adverse feature had a more variable impact and correlated with 22%-40% OS at 4 years for Stage III. In univariate correlations the most predictive correlations with OS were presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy, cytogenetic 13q- with R2 values of 6.9%, 4.5%, 4.1% and 3.8% respectively. In multivariate analyses, ISS stage provided the best predictions: R2 values = 13.3%. The added contributions from molecular features were: t(4;14) 3.8%; cytogenetic 13q- 2.9%; Any CA 2.3%; and 17p- 1.0%. The maximum total R2 for OS was 22%. Conclusions This large multicenter analysis confirms the correlations between abnormal molecular findings and outcomes. Combinations with ISS Stage provide the best predictive capability. Presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy and cytogenetic 13q- contribute to poorer outcomes by ISS stage. The presence of hyperdiploidy and/or t(11;14) contribute to better outcomes. There is thus validation of prior molecular studies related to prognosis utilizing this large IMWG database. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.