Parmar, Harsh

Introduction: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM)remains incurable with current therapies. Treatment options for patients beyond initial therapy are limited, underscoring the need for new agents with novel mechanisms of action. Iopofosine I 131 is a novel radiopharmaceutical composed of a lipid raft-targeting phospholipid ether covalently bound to 131I, a beta-emitting radioisotope. Herein, we report the results of the CLOVER-WaM study [NCT02952508] in patients with previously treated WM. Methods: Eligible WM patients had received >2 prior therapies and had symptomatic disease requiring therapy according to consensus recommendations for WM. Treatment consisted of 2 cycles of iopofosine I 131 administered at 15 mCi/m2 on days 1 and 15 of each 57-day cycle. Dose reduction to 10 mCi/m2 was allowed in the second cycle in patients with incomplete hematologic recovery or if the expected total dose exceeded 132 mCi. Supportive care with growth factors and transfusions was permitted per treating physician discretion. The primary endpoint was major response rate (MRR, defined as partial response or better) as determined by the modified VIth International Workshop on Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Response Criteria. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), treatment-free survival (TFS), duration of response (DOR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, defined as stable disease or better). Efficacy endpoints were assessed in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as all patients who received ≥60 mCi total administered dose of iopofosine I 131. MRR was analyzed with a 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) using the Clopper-Pearson interval method. In this population, MRR >20% was considered statistically significant. Time-dependent efficacy endpoints were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Safety was evaluated using CTCAE v4.03 in patients who received >1 dose of iopofosine I 131. The data cut-off for this analysis was May 31, 2024. Results: In 65 patients enrolled (safety population), the median age was 70 (range, 50-88) years; 48 (73.8%) were male, and 17 (26.2%) were female. Sixty-one (93.8%) were White, 1 (1.5%) was Black/African American, and 3 (4.6%) were other or unknown. Fifty-five patients met mITT criteria and were evaluable for efficacy. The median number of prior therapies was 4 (range, 2-15). Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) exposure was noted in 39 (71%) patients, of whom 31 (56%) were BTKi-refractory. Sixteen (29%) patients had MYD88-wild type, and 5 (9%) had CXCR4-mutated disease. The MRR was 56.4% (95% CI, 42.3-69.7). ORR was 80%; among MYD88-wild type patients, ORR was 81%, and among post-BTKi patients, ORR was 72%. CBR was 98%. The median DOR and TFS were not reached at a median follow-up of 8.8 months, with an estimated 72% of responding patients remaining progression-free at 18 months. In the safety population, any-grade adverse events, regardless of causality, were reported in 57 (87%) patients. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in >10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (80%), neutropenia (69.2%), anemia (44.6%), lymphopenia (13.8%), infections (12.3%), and febrile neutropenia (10.8%). Adverse event-related death occurred in 1 patient due to bacterial sepsis. Conclusion: Iopofosine I 131 demonstrated durable efficacy in previously treated WM patients, with no current standard of care therapy. The treatment was well-tolerated with a manageable toxicity profile across broad biologic and clinical subgroups, irrespective of risk stratification. Based on the results of this trial, iopofosine I 131 shows promise as a novel treatment for WM patients.

Abstract The immediate postautologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) period in multiple myeloma represents a unique opportunity for long-term disease control because many patients have eradicated most of their disease but also a challenge because it is characterized by the increase of immune subsets detrimental to tumor immunosurveillance. The impact of the tumor immune microenvironment (iTME) in post-ASCT outcomes is not known. In this study, we included 58 patients undergoing upfront ASCT and evaluated their cellular and humoral iTME with cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF) and luminex, respectively, at day +60 to 100 post-ASCT. We identified 2 cellular iTME patterns. Group 1 was enriched in T-cell subsets at the opposite ends of the spectrum of T-cell differentiation compared with the rest of the patients, that is, cells already terminally differentiated (immune senescent or exhausted) and naive T cells. This group had worse hematologic responses post-ASCT, inferior survival, and shorter time to hematologic progression independent of established risk factors. No differences in the humoral iTME were noted between the 2 groups. In addition, no differences in the cellular/humoral iTME were noted according to high-risk fluorescence in situ hybridization status, early or late relapse. Finally, males had higher levels of natural killer cells negative for CD16, a key receptor mediating antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity, a major mechanism of antitumor efficacy by therapeutic antibodies such as elotuzumab. Our findings suggest that T-cell iTME dysfunction post-ASCT, some of which could be reversible (exhaustion), correlates with worse outcomes. These results could be used to guide rational selection of post-ASCT maintenance/consolidation approaches in these patients.

Introduction: Cardiac involvement is one of the main predictors for survival in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Biomarkers such as Troponin T and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are used routinely for detecting cardiac involvement. In addition echocardiogram (ECHO) is used to determine septal and left ventricular wall thickness and strain. Most patients with AL present with preserved ejection fraction (EF) however, the outcomes of AL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with decreased EF are not very well described. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. All patients had an ECHO done before ASCT and the EF was documented. In our practice, the threshold for performing ASCT is an EF >40%. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who had an EF <55% compared to patients with an EF ≥55%. The baseline characteristics were compared between patients with high and low EF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse, or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC) ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and EF <55% vs. ≥55%. Results: We identified 716 patients and 69 (10%) had an EF<55%, with most (n=63, 91%)having cardiac involvement . Compared to patients with EF ≥55%, patients with EF <55% were more likely to have Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 (58% vs. 22%, P<0.0001) and more likely to have thicker interventricular septum (median 14 vs. 12 mm, P<0.0001). The day 100 transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher in patients with EF <55% compared to EF ≥55% (19% vs. 6%, P=0.0006). In patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4, the day 100 TRM was higher in patients with an EF<55% compared to EF ≥55% (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with EF <55% compared to patients with EF ≥55% (Figure 1 A,B). Evaluating PFS and OS according to EF specifically in Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 patients is displayed in Figure 1 (C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4, P=0.006), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.5,P=0.0005), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.7, P=0.01), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.7, P=0.01), and EF <55% vs. ≥55% (HR: 1.5, P=0.02). For OS, age >65 vs. ≤65 years (HR:1.4, P=0.04), Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 1.96, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.5, P<0.0001), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.8, P=0.03), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.5, P<0.0001), and EF <55% vs. ≥55%(HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: Having an EF <55% is associated with a higher day 100 TRM and is an independent predictor for PFS and OS in patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing ASCT. Disclosures Sidiqi: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

Introduction: The bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) clone burden is typically low in light chain (AL) amyloidosis and some patients do not have a detectable serum monoclonal spike (M-spike). Increased BMPC% and serum free light chain (FLC) are associated with poorer outcomes. However, the outcomes of patients with AL amyloidosis based on the presence or an absence of a measurable serum M-spike before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been explored. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. The serum M-spike was recorded before ASCT and patients were divided according to the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Results: Seven-hundred and sixteen patients were identified and 521 (73%) had a measurable serum M-spike. Patients who had a measurable serum M-spike were more likely to have BMPC≥ 10% than patients without a measurable serum M-spike (46% vs. 34%, P=0.002) and they were more likely to have a difference in FLC ≥18 mg/dl (47% vs. 29%, P=0.0001). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients who had a measurable serum M-spike compared to patients without a measurable serum M-spike (Figure 1 A,B). The shorter survival was irrespective of the administration of induction therapy before ASCT. We also evaluated the difference in survival in patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 based on the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. The PFS and OS were also significantly different in these patients (Figure 1 C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.5, P=0.003), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.4,P=0.004), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.6, P=0.001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.8, P=0.03), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR: 1.82, P<0.0001). For OS, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 2, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.4, P<0.0001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.6, P=0.002), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: The presence of a measurable serum M-spike before ASCT is a negative independent predictor for PFS and OS in AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Disclosures Sidiqi: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other.

Introduction: In general, the use of an immunomodulator (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of MM is associated with better outcomes. The management of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging due to difficulty in managing their co-morbidities and inability to tolerate treatment side effects. We evaluated therapies and outcomes of elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with MM who were >75 years old treated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2004 to January 2018. We included patients who were treated on clinical trials as well as off-trials. Patients were classified as receiving treatment with IMiD+PI+dex, alkylator+PI+steroid, IMiD+dex, PI+dex, alkylator+IMid+steroid, and other (alkylator with steroid or steroid only). Treatment response was documented as well as the progression-free (PFS), defined as the time from therapy initiation to disease relapse or death from any cause and overall survival (OS), defined as the time from start of treatment to death from any cause. A multivariate analysis for factors affecting OS was done including the following variables: being on a triplet combination (alkylator+PI+steroid, IMid+PI+dex, or alkylator +IMiD+steroid), revised international staging system (R-ISS)(stage 3 vs. 1-2), bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC%)(>60% vs. ≤60%), and receiving treatment during or after 2010 vs. before 2010. Analysis was done for patients treated off-trials, as well as, including trial patients. Results: We identified 394 patients with MM who were >75 years old and 246 (62%) were male. For non-trial patients (n=350), IMiD+dex (32%) was the most commonly used regimen followed by alkylator with steroid or steroid only (20%), alkylator+PI+steroid (18%), and IMid+PI+dex (13%). The remaining patients were treated with PI+dex (12%) and alkylator +IMiD+steroid (5%). Forty-four patients (11%) were treated in clinical trials with alkylator+IMid+steroid (47%), IMiD+dex (25%), IMiD+PI+dex (14%), and alkylator+PI+steroid (14%). The median follow up was 45.9 months with an interquartile range of 28.2 to 75.6 months. Overall, achieving very good partial response or complete response was more likely in patients who were treated with an IMid+PI+dex (58%) or alkylator+PI+steroid (47%), compared to in other therapies (5-30%)(P<0.0001). The PFS and OS for non-trial patients are displayed in Figure 1 (A,B) and for all, including trial patients in (C,D). Overall, the median OS was significantly longer in patients who were treated with a triplet in non-trial as well as all patients. In a multivariate for OS including non-trial patients, predictors for better OS included receiving a triplet (HR: 0.63, P=0.02) and not having an R-ISS stage 3 (HR: 0.39, P=0.001). This was also found when including trial patients (using a triplet, HR: 0.65, P=0.01 and not having an R-ISS stage 3, HR: 0.35, P=0.0002). Conclusion: In MM patients >75 years old, being able to receive triplet therapy is associated with better survival. This study provides better understanding of the natural history of MM outside of trials in the elderly age group. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Abbvie: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee. Kumar:Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy.

e20515 Background: IgA monoclonal proteins (MCPs), unlike IgG MCPs, often migrate in the beta region on serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) which can lead to underestimation of their size due to the co-migration with physiologic proteins. In IgA multiple myeloma (MM), the utility of quantitative IgA levels in assessing disease response in comparison to SPEP is not well studied. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 304 IgA MM patients, diagnosed between 2004 and 2018, with available serial MCP and quantitative IgA levels. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to estimate the median progression free survival (mPFS) using the IMWG criteria and our study definition of IgA progression (2 consecutive IgA values that are > 25% above the nadir IgA value and above upper limit of normal (ULN) of 356 mg/dL, and a detectable IgA MCP on serum immunofixation). The mPFS was defined as the time from treatment initiation until disease progression or death. Results: IgA MCP migrated in the beta region in 134 (44%) patients, and in the gamma region in 150 (56%) patients. At diagnosis the median MCP was 3 (IQR 1.9-4) g/dL and the median IgA was 3240 (IQR 2008-4420) mg/dL. The median time from treatment initiation to MCP nadir was 80 (IQR 42-144) days and median time to IgA nadir was 154 (IQR 90-238) days. At MCP nadir 40% of patients had an IgA above the ULN. All complete responders (n = 104) had normal IgA levels, with a median IgA of 54 (IQR 27-88) g/dL. A ≥90% decrease in IgA between treatment initiation and IgA nadir, compared to a < 90% decrease, was associated with a longer mPFS (34 vs. 20 months, p = 0.006) and overall survival (97 vs. 33 months, p = 0.003). Patients with serial MCP and IgA levels available prior to progression (n = 195) were used to compare the mPFS using the IMWG and IgA progression criteria. The mPFS using the IgA criteria was 32 (95% CI 29-39) months, versus 39 (95% CI 33-45) months using IMWG criteria. Overall, 92 (47%) patients progressed by both IMWG and IgA criteria. At the time of progression using the IgA criteria compared to at IMWG progression, the median hemoglobin was higher (13.3 vs. 11.6 g/dL, respectively, p < 0.001) and fewer patients had new symptomatic bone lesions (2% vs. 33%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In IgA MM patients, monitoring quantitative IgA levels predicts disease response and allows for earlier detection of disease progression, prior to the development of end organ damage.

8549 Background: Proteinuria evaluation is essential for diagnosing and monitoring of renal involvement in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. A 24 hour protein collection (24h UP) is the gold standard for proteinuria assessment however it is cumbersome and can be inaccurate. A spot urine albumin to creatinine ratio (uACR) has been proposed as a convenient method to estimate 24hUP. We aimed to validate the correlation between uACR and 24hUP in a large cohort of patients. Methods: We retrospectively studied systemic AL amyloidosis patients evaluated between 2010 and 2019 at Mayo Clinic, with a uACR and 24hUP collected less than 7 days apart. Linear regression analysis was used to construct a prediction model for 24hUP with uACR as the primary predictor. Possible confounders (age, gender, body mass index, morning versus afternoon spot urine collection, estimated glomerular filtration rate) for the primary relationship between uACR and 24h UP were evaluated in the model. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify the best uACR cutoff to predict significant proteinuria (defined as a 24hUP > 500mg). Results: We included 665 patients, with a median age of 66 years (IQR 59-72). The spot urine was collected in the morning (before 1200 hours) in 382 (57%) patients, and in the afternoon in 283 (43%) patients. The median 24hUP was 321 (IQR 129-2512.5) mg, median uACR was 107 (IQR 13.5-1845) mg/g, and median serum creatinine was 1.2 (IQR 1-1.8) mg/dL. The uACR correlated well with 24h UP (Pearson’s r= 0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.85). Linear regression showed that E (24h UPi) = 362 + 1.05(uACRi), and this model was statistically and clinically significant (p < 0.001 and R2 of 0.68, respectively). Age, gender, body mass index, eGFR, and time of day of spot urine collection did not confound the primary relationship between uACR and 24hUP, and no collinearity was observed. A uACR cutoff of > 280 mg/g was the best predictor of a 24hUP > 500 mg (area under the ROC curve 0.98, sensitivity 92%, specificity 97%). For simplicity, we assessed the predictive value of uACR > 300 mg/g for 24h UP > 500 mg. Among patients with 24huACR > 300 mg/g 264 (96%) had a 24hUP > 500 mg, and 31 (7%) of patients with uACR < 300 mg/g had a 24h UP > 500 mg (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In systemic AL amyloid patients, we showed that uACR on a random urine sample correlated well with 24h UP, and can be used to estimate proteinuria with a linear regression model. Based on these findings, and the convenience of uACR testing for patients, we propose that uACR should be used to monitor renal response to AL amyloidosis therapy.