Abdulazeez, Mays F

Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 mAb, used frequently in combination with lenalidomide and pomalidomide. No studies compared daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) to daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (DPd) in lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma. We identified 504 consecutive multiple myeloma patients who received daratumumab at Mayo Clinic between January 2015 and April 2019. We excluded patients who received daratumumab in the first line, received more than four lines of therapy prior to daratumumab use, did not receive lenalidomide prior to daratumumab, or had an unknown status of lenalidomide exposure, and patients who received daratumumab combinations other than DRd or DPd. We examined the impact of using DRd compared to DPd on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Out of 504 patients, 162 received DRd or DPd and were included; 67 were lenalidomide-exposed and 95 were lenalidomide-refractory. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) patients. In lenalidomide-exposed multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 34.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 22.8–44.6] for DRd compared to 25.2 months (95% CI, 4.9–35.3) for DPd, P = 0.2. In lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, there was no difference in median PFS; 18.6 months (95% CI, 13–32) for DRd compared to 9 months (95% CI, 5.2–14.6) for DPd, P = 0.09. No difference in median OS was observed in DRd compared to DPd. Our study shows combining daratumumab with lenalidomide in patients with prior lenalidomide use is a viable and effective treatment option.

Objective Outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved necessitating focus on survivorship. Methods We undertook a web-based survey in collaboration with International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) to explore patient awareness and psycho-physical impacts of MM. The survey was viewed on the IMF website by 1,324 individuals from 32 countries. Results The survey responses were available from 959 individuals, with 62% who completed the survey. Treating doctors were the most frequent source of MM-related information. Only 56% patients admitted full compliance with treatment. Treatment side effects bothered 86% responders, including >50% admitting to pain, peripheral neuropathy and asthenia. Majority (57%) reported some degree of depression, 82% had discontent with their quality of life and only 35% reported being satisfied with their coping mechanisms. Patients ≥65 years of age reported more peripheral neuropathy (p = 0.007) and difficulty with ability to work (p = 0.015). Conclusions We report the prevalence of psychologic, social and physical domains as well as patient-physician relationship dynamics. This knowledge can help improve MM survivorship.Introduction

Background: Clinical trials are critical to drug development and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines which are essential to providing crucial and often life-saving treatment to cancer patients. Clinical trial participation is very poor in the United States overall, with a dismal representation of racial minorities. While this has been a focus of several efforts focused on education, targeted enrollment etc., there is a lack of understanding of the patient's knowledge and preferences, and how that may be shaping their decision to consider participation in clinical trials. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 15-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the cancer patient's knowledge about their disease and clinical trials, as well as factors that may shape their understanding of, or may be barriers to their participation in clinical trials was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies at the Mayo Clinic in Florida. Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority respondents were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 203 cancer patients. Of these, 3 patients did not report race and ethnicity and so responses from 200 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the respondents, 73% (n=146) were white and 27% (n=54) were minorities. Whites were older than minorities, although not statistically significant (median 67 vs. 61.5 yrs, p=0.06). Minority patients had lower education level with 41% having ≤high school education as compared to 16% whites (p<0.001). Majority of white patients (53%) reported their physicians as the highest ranked source of information for cancer vs. 33% minority patients (p=0.01). Other sources of information explored were internet, nurses, family/friends, books/flyers or other patients. A higher number of white patients reported treatment and its side effects to be the topic of most importance to them at the time of cancer diagnosis as compared to minorities (33% vs. 15%, p=0.01). Similarly, prognosis was more important for a higher number of whites than minorities (21% vs. 15%, p=0.03). Understanding of the diagnosis and financial impact were also explored but not found to have any significant difference. Understanding their treatment and long-term treatment plan was the most frequent knowledge gap reported by whites (81%) vs. minorities (54%, p=0.004). Minorities had several knowledge gap areas (understanding the diagnosis, treatment, side effects, long-term treatment plan, financial impact, survival) more evenly distributed. Regarding clinical trials, minorities were more likely to agree that clinical trials were of benefit for patients (42% vs. 28%, p=0.05) and that in a clinical trial the experimental drug always works better than the one it is being compared to (65% vs. 38%, p<0.001). Minority patients were less likely to agree to participating in clinical trials just based on their doctor's recommendation and judgement (83% vs. 93%, p=0.03). A higher number of minority patients felt that pharmaceutical companies have a big influence on the result of a clinical trial (83% vs. 65%, p=0.01). Fear of not benefiting from clinical trials was the reason for not participating among a higher number of whites (36% vs. 19%, p=0.02) while minorities more frequently reported fear of being a guinea pig (22% vs. 14%) and fear of financial burden (17% vs. 8%) although these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Racial disparities exist at various aspects of cancer-related knowledge resources, gaps and needs. Minorities have more widespread knowledge gaps and depend on more resources for cancer-related knowledge, which may affect their clinical trial participation and preferences. There appears to be mistrust and misinformation guiding minority patient's understanding, leading to more widespread fears of clinical trials. Knowledge gaps and misinformation needs to be addressed in order to achieve higher participation in clinical trials in general, and among minority patients in particular. Disclosures Manochakian: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Introduction: Daratumumab (D) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, used frequently in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide (Len) and pomalidomide (Pom). There are no studies comparing DRd to DPd in Len-exposed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We present the Mayo Clinic experience of DPd and DRd utilization and outcomes. Methods: We identified consecutive MM pts who received D, between 1/2015 and 4/2019 at Mayo Clinic. We included pts who were exposed (at least one full cycle, 21/28 days) or refractory (progression on full dose or maintenance Len during treatment or within 60 days of stopping Len) to Len prior to D and received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy. Only Pts who received DRd and DPd were included. Results: Out of 411 evaluable pts 162 met the inclusion criteria; 67 were Len exposed, but not refractory and 95 were Len refractory. Pts' characteristics are shown in Table 1. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) pts. Majority of pts (105; 65%) received DPd or DRd in the 2nd or 3rd line and 104 pts (64%) are still alive. In Len refractory pts, the median time from last dose of Len to D initiation was 1 mths (interquartile range 0-6.5). Seventy pts (43%) had high-risk cytogenetics (HR). Only 11 pts (7%) underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplant after DPd or DRd regimen. There was no significant difference between pts who received DRd and DPd in terms of age (>65 years), gender, race, proportion exposed or refractory to Bortezomib, number of prior lines of treatment (>2), or HR status (p>0.05 for all). Pts who received DPd were 4 times more likely to be Len refractory compared to pts who received DRd, p=0.0008. Median follow up time for the whole cohort from initial diagnosis was 92 mths (CI 95%; 79.5-107), while from D start date was 30 mths (CI 95%; 27-34). Median PFS for the whole cohort was 21 mths (CI 95%; 15-25) and median OS was 138 mths (CI 95%; 111-193). In Len exposed but not refractory pts, n=67, the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% in the DRd group compared to 68% in the DPd group, p=0.2. There was no difference in median PFS; 25.5 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 25 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=0.37. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 138-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 70-NR), respectively, p=0.06. In the 48 Len exposed but refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 39 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 21 mths (CI 95%; 3-NR) for DPd, p=0.11. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; NR-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 36-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In Len refractory pts only, n=95, the ORR was 84% in the DRd group compared to 58% in the DPd group, p=0.009. There was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 9 mths (CI 95%; 5-15) for DPd, p=0.18. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 78-NR) and 106 mths (CI 95%; 66-183), respectively, p=0.5. In the 57 Len refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 13 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=08. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 69-NR) and 105 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR), respectively, p=0.35. In the 16 Len exposed but not refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, the median PFS was better in the DRd group; 24.4 mths (CI 95%; 12-NR) compared to 3.3 mths (CI 95%; 1.9-27.5) for DPd, p=0.0093. However, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 51-NR) and NR mths (CI 95%; 18-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In the 29 Len refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no statistically significant difference in median PFS; 18 mths (CI 95%; 6-43) for DRd compared to 6 mths (CI 95%; 4-13) for DPd, p=0.22.Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR) and 53 mths (CI 95%; 26-105), respectively, p=0.2. Conclusions: D+IMiD regimens after prior Len exposure/refractoriness are commonly used in real-world, despite the lack of data from prospective clinical trials. Combining D with IMiDs in Len exposed or refractory pts is efficacious, whether the IMiD is Len or Pom. Our study shows that regardless of prior Len use, DRd is at least equivalent to DPd. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these observations. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding.

BackgroundFactors associated with receiving initial care for thyroid cancer (TC) at academic centers (ACs) versus nonacademic centers (NACs) and their impact on patient outcomes have not been reported.MethodsThe National Cancer Database with TC cases from 2004 to 2013 was evaluated for association of type of center for initial care with socioeconomic factors and disease and treatment characteristics, as well as overall survival (OS; all‐cause mortality).ResultsThe patients with TC (n = 200,824) included were predominantly women (74%), non‐Hispanic Whites (85%), and from metro areas (84%). Sixty percent received initial care at a NAC. There were no significant differences between treatment groups by age or gender. Among those treated at an AC, a higher proportion belonged to racial/ethnic minorities (16.5%) versus at a NAC (11.6%). Hormone therapy was used more in an AC versus a NAC (60% vs 47%). Patients with all TC pathologies combined had a lower likelihood of death when they received initial care at an AC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.948; P = .0006). Among individual pathologic subtypes, a lower likelihood of death was noted when initial care was received at an AC for follicular (HR, 0.828, P = .0010) and Hurthle cell cancers (HR, 792; P = .0008), as well as stage II papillary thyroid cancer (HR, 0.828; P = .0026), but not for other histopathologic subtypes.ConclusionsInitial care at an AC was associated with lower likelihood of death for patients with TC, especially for those with follicular or Hurthle cell subtypes. Optimal resource use with consideration of patients' socioeconomic and demographic factors is imperative to ensure the most appropriate management of patients with TC in various treatment settings.

Background: HIT has the potential to improve the health of individuals and the performance of providers, yielding improved quality, cost savings, and greater engagement by patients. Minorities face a variety of financial and nonfinancial barriers to obtaining appropriate and timely health care. Studying the behavior of minority patients will help understand the specific challenges to HIT adoption and engagement in patients and their caregivers. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 21-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the responder's attitudes, understanding and needs of the electronic medical record (EMR) was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies and their caregivers at two campuses of Mayo Clinic in Florida (San Pablo and inner-city; Riverside). Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority responders as well as minority responders from the two campuses were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 1004 patients and caregivers. Average time taken to complete the survey was approximately 11 minutes. Of the responders, 716 (71%) were whites and 271 (27%) were minorities, with race-ethnicity not reported by 17 (2%). Among minorities, 30% (n=80) were seen at San Pablo and 64% (n=173) at the Riverside campus, with 6% at a multiple myeloma patient-caregiver symposium. Whites were older (median age 66 vs. 62 years, p<0.001) and had higher education (undergraduate or higher 60% vs. 52%, p=0.023) as compared to minorities. Minority survey responders had lesser access to a computer (84% vs. 92%, p<0.001) or a smartphone (85% vs. 89%, p=0.08). (Figure 1a) Exploring HIT awareness showed that only 51% of minorities were registered to use the EMR as compared to 72% whites (p<0.001) and a lesser number of minorities even knew that they could access their medical records electronically (81% vs. 92%, p<0.001). even among those registered to use the EMR, 13% minorities reported never using the EMR as compared to 4% whites (p<0.001). Encouragingly, a higher willingness to learn about and use the EMR was noted among minorities who were more interested in knowing how to access the EMR (43% vs. 36%, p=0.04), would increase the use of EMR if someone explained how to use it (17% vs. 10%, p=0.002), and if someone explained about test results (14% vs. 6%, p<0.001). (Figure 1b) Comparing minorities among the two campuses, those from the San Pablo campus were older (67.5 yrs. vs. 57 yrs., P<0.001), had higher level of education (undergraduate or higher in 66% vs. 47%, p=0.005) and a higher number had access to a computer (94% vs. 78%, P=0.001) as compared to those from the inner-city Riverside. (Figure 2a) Minorities from the Riverside campus were less likely to be aware of the current HIT EMR (75% vs. 93%, p<0.001), were significantly less likely to have registered for the patient EMR portal (38% vs. 76%, p<0.001) and never used the EMR even if registered for it (22% vs. 7%, p=0.01) as against those from the San Pablo campus. Minorities at the Riverside campus had a higher interest in knowing how to access the EMR (47% vs. 33%, p=0.03). Linguistic barriers were more striking in the inner-city Riverside campus where a higher proportion of minority survey responders noted that it would help if the EMR was in their primary language (66% vs. 48%, p=0.006). (Figure 2b) Conclusions: Minorities continue to struggle with suboptimal utilization of healthcare system including that of HIT. There are barriers related to access, awareness, language and understanding of HIT that prevent the integration and participation of racial-ethnic minorities in the healthcare system to a full extent. It is important to qualify the minorities better, since there exist HIT utilization disparities even within the minorities from different areas representing socioeconomic and demographic differences. Efforts need to be made at several levels to help the minorities overcome educational, access and linguistic barriers so that they can benefit from advancements in the healthcare system. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Manochakian:Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding.

Background: Survival of patients with MM has improved significantly over recent years due to therapeutic advancements. Population-level data has shown that a substantial proportion of MM patients may die early after their diagnosis and real-world evidence regarding early mortality (≤6 months after MM diagnosis) has been conflicting. We evaluated the trends, causes and predictors of early mortality among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the real world. Methods: We used Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, to identify all adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who were diagnosed of MM from 1975 to 2015. Data on age, gender, geographical regions, year of diagnosis, survival time, vital status at 6 months after diagnosis and cause of death (COD) were extracted. Ages were categorized as quartiles while period of diagnosis for multivariate analysis were categorized by running a joinpoint analysis separately for the all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality. To look at trends in early mortality, we estimated proportion of deaths for each year and plotted it as a scatterplot against the year of diagnosis and fitted it in the join point regression model by applying the NCI's Join point Regression Program, Version 4.5.0.1. By this method we identified the year(s) when a trend change was produced, calculated the annual percentage change (APC) in rates between trend-change points, and the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in the whole period studied. To correct for known errors with COD attribution, we applied a special COD variable which has been recently developed by the SEER program to indicate if the death was due to the primary cancer diagnosis or other causes. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze the predictors of all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality within 6 months by fitting into logistic regression model. Results: Of 90,975 NDMM patients, early mortality due to any cause was noted in 18,810 (20.7%). For the whole cohort, median age was 68 years, majority of the patients were males (53.1%), of non-Hispanic white (NHW) race/ethnicity (65.5%) and were diagnosed in SEER registries in the western region (53.9%). An overall survival (OS) of ≤6 months was seen for approximately 22% of NHW but 18% of non-Hispanic blacks (NHB) and Hispanics. OS of ≤6 months was seen in 10% of patients in the first quartile of age (<60 years) as compared to 36% of patients in the 4th quartile (≥78 years). By geographical regions, 23.3% of MM patients in the Midwest had ≤6-month OS as compared to only 18.4% in the Northeast. The most common early mortality COD was MM in 74.7% of the patients, followed by cardiovascular (11.9%), other (8.8%) and infectious causes (3.1%). The overall pattern of COD at 6 months was similar to COD at any time in the whole cohort. Joinpoint regression analysis of trends data resulted in 1 joinpoint for all-cause 6-month mortality while 2 joinpoints were noticed for myeloma-specific mortality (Figure 1). A steep decline in mortality was noticed in the more recent time periods for both, all-cause (2006-2015) and myeloma-specific (2003-2015) mortality rates with an AAPC of 3.93 (95%CI p<0.001) for all-cause and 3.95 (95%CI p<0.001) for myeloma-specific mortality. Prior to 2006, the decrease in all-cause mortality was only modest whereas decrease in myeloma-specific mortality witnessed a sharp decline from 1975-1987 as well. On MVA, advanced age (p<0.001), NHW race/ethnicity and Midwest geographic region (p<0.001) were associated with higher likelihood of mortality while female gender (p<0.001), more recent period of diagnosis (p<0.001), and "other" races (not NHW, NHB or Hispanics) (p<0.001) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Conclusion: Our results show that early mortality due to MM remains high despite therapeutic improvements and there are significant gender, racial and geographic disparities for this phenomenon. However, significant declines in all-cause and MM-specific early mortality in the more recent times are promising. The risk of early mortality is higher among men, older patients, NHW and Midwest region. A focus on interventions to reduce early mortality, including early diagnosis, use of efficacious anti-MM therapy and aggressive supportive care should be directed at groups with high-risk for early mortality from MM. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Millennium: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: MM is associated with significant morbidity even at the time of presentation and there is ample data to support that MM treatment improves overall survival (OS) as well as quality of life (QoL) due to effective symptom control. Patient refusal to recommended cancer treatment is not common in clinical practice but has been reported in certain cancers. There is no data on characteristics of MM patients who refuse treatment despite physician recommendation and outcomes of such patients. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004-2015 to extract data on adult MM patients who refused any systemic therapy as part of their initial care despite physician recommendation. Information on patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, year of diagnosis, income, geographical location, comorbidities, systemic treatment, survival time and vital status was obtained. Average annual percent change (AAPC) and average percent change (APC) were calculated to analyze the trends, and periods with similar APC were compared for statistically significant changes by applying join point regression. Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting refusal to therapy and to assess its impact on OS. Results: Of 75,734 eligible patients who were recommended treatment for MM (chemotherapy and or immunotherapy), 2138 (2.8%) patients did not receive any treatment due to refusal. Significantly higher number of females, patients in older age groups (age groups 60-79 and ³ 80 years), Medicare recipients and with ≥2 comorbidities refused treatment recommendation. On multivariate analysis, advanced age groups 60-79 years (OR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.27-1.31 p<0.001) and ³80 years (OR = 5.02; 95% CI 4.23-5.96, p<0.001), female gender (OR =1.16 ; 95% CI 1.05-1.27, p<0.001), patients with certain primary payor types including Medicaid (OR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.28-1.98, p<0.001), Medicare (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.43-1.87, p<0.001) and uninsured (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.38-2.38, p<0.001), and presence of ³2 comorbidities (OR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.2-1.61, p<0.001) were the independent factors associated with higher likelihood of refusing treatment. Whereas being seen at academic research programs (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8, p<0.001), higher education (OR =0.81 ; 95% CI 0.67-0.98, p=0.03), geographical location (Midwest OR =0.87 ; 95% CI 0.76-0.99, p=0.04), longer distance to facility being at 3rd quartile (10.1-26.2 miles: OR =0.78 ; 95% CI 0.68-0.89, p<0.001) or 4th quartile (>26.2 miles: OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.68, p<0.001) were associated with lower likelihood of refusing treatment. The overall rate of refusing treatment by MM patients was quite stable during 2004-2015 with an AAPC of 1.1 (95% CI -1.1-3.3 p=0.3). However, on fitting scatter plot into Joinpoint regression model, a concerning trend in the more recent years was noted. While the rate of refusing recommended treatment decreased during 2004-2008, a rising trend was observed during the period 2008-2015 with an APC of 3.8 (95% CI 1.3-6.4, p≤0.001) (Fig 1a). Patients who were recommended treatment but refused had significantly worse survival than those who received treatment (median survival 17.7 vs 52.9 months, Cox hazard ratio 1.21; CI 1.17-1.24, p<0.001) (Fig 1b). Conclusions: The percentage of MM patients refusing any systemic treatment as a part of their initial care despite physician recommendation appears to be increasing in recent years and this needs to be systematically addressed. Disparities in refusal to recommended treatment are independently associated with several variables including age, gender, comorbidities, geographical location, facility and insurance type. These need to be addressed urgently since there are several effective and well-tolerated anti-MM treatments which can potentially benefit patients in case the initial socioeconomic, clinical and psychosocial barriers are overcome. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Median age at diagnosis for MM is 69 years with approximately 33% of the newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients aged ≥80 years (elderly). Yet, outcomes data and clinical trial participation in elderly MM patients are limited due to frailty and frequent comorbidities. Moreover, elderly patients are not candidates for stem cell transplant (SCT) and age is an independent poor prognostic marker, leading to disparate outcomes. The present study evaluated trends in outcomes and predictors of survival among elderly NDMM patients in the United States (U.S.). Methods: Using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, we extracted data on age, gender, geographical regions, year of diagnosis, and vital status for elderly patients (age ≥ 80 years) with MM from 1975 to 2016. Relative survival (RS) was estimated as the ratio of observed survival to the survival expected in the general population in the absence of malignancy. This adjusted for the competing causes of mortality prevalent in elderly patients. Mortality rates were age-adjusted. To estimate trends in mortality, we estimated annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) by fitting the data in the join point regression model using the NCI's Join point Regression Program, Version 4.5.0.1. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze the predictors of overall and myeloma-specific mortality among elderly patients fitting into Cox proportion hazard regression model. Results: A total of 17,265 elderly MM patients were eligible for the study. Majority were females (n=9,487, 55%), were non-Hispanic whites (NHW) (n=12,895, 74.7%) and were diagnosed in the Western region of the U.S. (n=8,541, 49.5%). The median age was 84 years (IQR 81-87). The median RS for the whole period (1975-2016) was 19.8 months with 1- and 5- year RS of 60.1% (95%CI: 58.8-61.3) and 20.9% (95%CI: 19.5-22.3) respectively. The median RS increased from 8.45 months in 1975 to 29.86 months in 2013. One and 5- year RS also increased from 42.7% (95%CI: 32.4-52.5) and 12.9% (95%CI: 5.8-22.7) in 1975 to a 1- and 5-year RS of 72.3% (95%CI: 65.4-78.1) and 31.1% (95%CI: 23.4-39.1) in 2013, respectively (Fig.1). However, the age standardized mortality rate for the whole period showed an increasing trend with an AAPC of 2.3 (0.5-4, P<0.001). On fitting joinpoint regression, 2 distinct joinpoints were identified, calendar years 1977 and 1989 (Fig 2). Most of the increase in mortality rate was noted in the period 1975-1989. Since 1989, the mortality rates have shown a decreasing trend which is marginal but statistically significant, with an APC of -0.41 (95%CI: -0.7- -0.1, p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing age (p<0.001) and non-northeast location (p<0.01) were associated with higher overall and MM-specific mortality. Female gender was associated with lower overall mortality (p<0.001) but not myeloma-specific mortality. While "other" race/ethnicity (not NHW, non-Hispanic black; NHB or Hispanic) was associated with lower risk of overall and myeloma-specific mortality, NHB were associated with a lower MM-specific (p<0.001) but not overall mortality. Conclusions: Our results suggest that although RS has improved significantly in the elderly patients, the mortality rates have not changed drastically over the years. Besides, factors like advancement in diagnosis and treatment which have improved RS, early diagnosis (leading to lead time bias) may also be contributing. Furthermore, there are several gender-specific, geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in outcomes of elderly MM patients, which need to be assessed prospectively. Although, a small decline in mortality rates in the more recent time is promising, further studies are warranted on interventions including aggressive supportive care directed at elderly patients with MM, so that MM survivorship can be improved. There should be strong consideration to increaseenrollment of the elderly in prospective clinical trials so that evidence-based guidelines can be developed. Disclosures Manochakian: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chanan-Khan:Merck: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Do not remove- this information is relevant to Abstract ID 125629: TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit..