Barlogie, Bart

8592 Background: Accrual to NCI clinical trials(CT)is often slower than planned at times mandating premature closure resulting in loss of valuable resources and delay of scientific progress. Methods: The NCI-MYSC AWG identified 10 potential BtA. SWOG, ECOG and Alliance investigators were queried and agreed that these barriers impede accrual (results stratified for academic and community sites). The MYSC AWG developed in collaboration with NCI and FDA strategies to overcome these barriers. Results: Strategies listed for the 3 most often cited BtA: 1. Reimbursement for CT related expenses:increase awareness of improved reimbursement for phase II CT; tailor reimbursement according to CT complexity; request funds from industry and other sources ( http://biqsfp.cancer.gov ) for qualifying ancillary CT components. 2. Spectrum of available treatment options influences CT participation: educate patients and providers about the significance of a new CT using social media, presentations at national meetings and by adding educational material to CT protocol; encourage opinion leaders and advocacy groups not to promote a new therapy as “standard” in the absence of phase III data. 3. Requirement of CT specific therapy at NCI designated sites only: “MYSC AWG Drug Administration Table” describes NCI/FDA approved rules for CT specific drug administration; CT protocol will outline which standard treatment components of a CT can be administered at any site as long as protocol specific guidelines are followed and conduct is supervised by enrolling investigator. Examples of additional strategies to overcome identified BtA: determine feasibility, indication and insurance coverage of CT specific tests during protocol development; discourage narrow eligibility criteria; avoid competing CT; allow up to 1 cycle of commercially available therapy prior to enrollment; CIRB support for phase II CT. Conclusions: The MYSC Accrual Working Group developed in collaboration with NCI and FDA strategies to overcome barriers to myeloma clinical trial accrual. These strategies may be applicable to NCI-sponsored clinical trials evaluating interventions in other diseases.

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Race/ethnicity is associated with disparate incidence and outcomes in MM, as seen in population-based studies. Their effect on outcomes has not been reported in prospective studies. Obesity is the most consistently associated modifiable risk factor for MM and is influenced by race/ethnicity but its association with outcomes has not been explored. We analyzed patient-level data from published ECOG-ACRIN/SWOG clinical trials in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients (pts) to explore the interplay of race/ethnicity, obesity and outcomes. Methods: Pooled data from 9 ECOG-ACRIN/SWOG clinical trials (E1A06, E4A03, E1A00, E2A02, E5A93, E9486, S0204, S0232, S9321) in NDMM (1988-2011) were analyzed. Pts were divided by race: White (W), African-American (AA), other (O); race/ethnicity: Hispanic (H), non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic AA (NHAA), non-Hispanic other (NHO); and body mass index (BMI): <25, 25-29.9, ≥30. Associations between these and baseline pt/disease characteristics were assessed using chi-square (categorical) and Wilcoxon rank sum (continuous) tests. Survival distributions were estimated with Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios in univariate and multivariate models. Time to event data was censored at 6 yrs. Results: Pt distribution by race, race/ethnicity and BMI is shown in Table 1. Race: AA were younger than W (median 59 vs 62 yr), had significantly more females (48% vs 40%; p=0.001) and had a smaller proportion of pts ≥70 yr (18% vs 26%; p<0.001). Median BMI was highest in AA (27.2) and lowest in O (24) (p=0.001) but not significantly different categorically between W and AA only (p=0.908). AA had significantly more pts with hemoglobin (Hb) ≤10 g/dL than W (55% vs 36%; p<0.001). Median creatinine (Cr) was 1.3 mg/dL in O and 1.1 mg/dL in W (p=0.03). There were no differences by race for ECOG performance status (PS), MM stage, lytic lesions, paraprotein subtype, serum calcium (Ca) or β2-microglobulin (β2M). Enrollment to clinical trials over years was significantly different by race (p=0.009). The only study design showing different enrollment by race was with/out stem cell transplant (SCT) (p=0.03; 37% of AA vs 31% of W got SCT trials). Race/Ethnicity: NHO were the youngest (median 58 yr) and NHW the oldest (median 62 yr) subgroup (p<0.001). NHAA had the highest proportion of pts with BMI ≥30 (16%) and NHO the lowest (7%) (p=0.018). H had the smallest proportion of females (33%) while NHO had the largest (54%) (p=0.002). H had the highest number of pts ≥70 yr (28%) and NHAA the smallest (18%) (p=0.003). Anemia rates were significantly different (p<0.001) with Hb ≤10 g/dL in 36% NHW vs 56% in NHAA. No significant differences were seen for PS, MM stage, lytic lesions, paraprotein subtype or other lab parameters. H and NHAA were enrolled in larger numbers in 1992-2011 rather than prior or later years (p<0.001). Among the subgroups, H had largest proportion of patients (75%) on trials without novel agent vs 61.5% for NHW (p=0.047). NHAA had the highest proportion of patients on trials with SCT (38%) while NHO had the smallest (27.3%) (p=0.034). BMI: By gender, 30% of males and 39% of females having BMI <25 (p<0.001). BMI <25 had the highest proportion of pts with ISS stage III (31%) vs 21.5% for ≥30 (p=0.001). A similar trend was seen for DS stage (p=0.005). 64% of ≥30 pts had Hb >10 while 51% of <25 did (p=0.003). There was significant difference in continuous Cr distribution by BMI (p=0.004). Efficacy analysis did not show any significant difference in response rate by race (p=0.132), race/ethnicity (p=0.286) or BMI (p=0.896). In univariate/multivariate analysis, significantly worse overall survival (OS) was seen in males, age ≥70 yr, ECOG PS >0, ISS and DS stage III, presence of lytic lesions, Cr ≥2 mg/dL, Ca >12 mg/dL, Hb ≤10 g/dL. No significant difference was seen in OS or progression free survival by race, race/ethnicity or BMI (Figure 1). Conclusions: Significant differences exist in demographic and clinical characteristics of NDMM pts by race/ethnicity. Median OS was significantly associated with these characteristics but not with race/ethnicity itself. Observed racial/ethnic disparity in outcomes for MM pts may be overcome by access to comparable therapeutic options as seen in clinical trials. Obesity, while associated with MM incidence, does not seem to influence outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Stewart:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Hussein:Celgene: Employment. Zonder:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria. Barlogie:Mount Sinai Hospital: Employment.

Abstract Background: SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) using a pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02. The stratification factors were International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II or III) and intent to transplant (yes or no), among a total of 6 strata. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary end points. Results of the primary analysis of this trial were published in Lancet (2016, Volume 389, Issue 10068, 519 - 527). Methods: This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 patients to VRd. Rd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. VRd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-14 and dexamethasone 20/mg/day on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV push on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received aspirin 325 mg/day and VRd patients received VZV prophylaxis per institutional standard. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients until progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Results: Between 2008 and 2012, 525 patients from 48 institutions were randomized. Patient data have been rigorously updated for this analysis based upon a May 15, 2018 datalock. The median follow up is now 84 months (7 years). The median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003 (see Figure 1). The median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114 (see Figure 2). The impact of age was assessed in several ways including using 3 cutoffs (<65 years; 65-75 years; >75 years) and multivariate cox proportional hazards regression analyses adjusted for age. As in prior analyses, both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Depth of response was assessed incorporating new serial data and additional bone marrow results. The CR plus VGPR was 74.9% for VRd versus CR plus VGPR of 53.7% for Rd (P-value 0.006 for response differences using a stratified Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel analysis). The median duration of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance was 17.4 months. The number of second cancers was 19/235 (8%) with VRd and 16/225 (7%) with Rd. Conclusion: The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy in previously untreated myeloma results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS with follow up of 7 years. VRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age. Disclosures Durie: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Abidi:Millenium Takeda: Research Funding. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Reu:Bristol Myers Squibb: Employment; Millenium Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Barlogie:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3165 Background: Accrual to large oncology group studies in the United States is often slower than planned, especially in less common malignancies such as Multiple Myeloma (MM). To improve the treatment of patients with MM, it is essential that we address the barriers to accrual (BtA) to national clinical trials. The NCI Myeloma Steering Committee (MYSC) formed the Accrual Working Group (AWG), charged to analyze this problem. Methods: The members of the MYSC have developed a list of 10 potential BtA to NCI MM-CT under the leadership of the AWG at meetings conducted in person and by monthly telephone conference. This list was distributed via Survey Monkey among investigators and research staff of the SWOG, ECOG/ACRIN and Alliance research bases for the purpose of ranking the perceived importance of the 10 selected BtA. Responses based on a 0–5 Likert Scale were analyzed as continuous and categorical. For the latter, responses were grouped: Impedes Accrual – No (0,1), Yes (2–5); Significantly Impedes Accrual – No (0–3), Yes (4,5). Results: 246 survey responses were received. 50 participants who indicated that they had never attempted to or actually never enrolled a patient into a MM-CT were excluded. Of 196 responders, 61% had enrolled at least 5 patients, 43% practiced in academic centers (A) and 57% in community centers (C). 26% identified themselves as research staff, 74% as primarily physician investigators including Principal Investigators (12%). 78% have current access to NCI MM-CT. 46% identified their research base affiliation with SWOG, 20% with ECOG/ACRIN, 17% with Alliance, 17% as CTSU, NRG and other. The majority of survey responders confirmed agreement in the perception that all 10 identified BtA impede accrual, ranging from 60–84% depending on the specific barrier identified, while significant impediment to accrual ascribed to these BtA ranged from 22–47%. The perceived barriers most often cited as impeding accrual were (1) spectrum of available treatment options, (2) level of reimbursement for clinical trial related expenses and (3) patient‘s need for prompt treatment intervention (84%, 80%, 76% respectively). The first two barriers along with the requirement that patients receive their treatment exclusively at the NCI designated treatment site were rated most often as significantly impeding accrual (37%, 47%, 34% respectively). The first two were also identified most often as perceived BtA independent of practice setting (A, C), type of research engagement (physician investigator, research staff) and level of experience with MM-CT. Interestingly, the perception that patients must receive their treatment at the NCI designated treatment site and competing industry sponsored clinical trials were substantially more often cited as impeding accrual in academic centers compared to community centers and by physician investigators compared to research staff. The complexity of required diagnostic work up and the complexity of the treatment protocol and follow up testing were substantially more often cited as BtA in the community setting and by research staff compared to their peers in the academic setting and by physician investigators. The NCI MYSC AWG has proposed specific solutions to potentially lower perceived BtA. These include guidelines to allow protocol specific administration of commercially available agents by the patient‘s local oncologist, a simplified diagnostic work up and treatment plan and eligibility inclusion of patients who have received up to one cycle of specified urgent therapy prior to enrollment in MM-CT. Conclusions: We have queried experienced clinical investigators and research staff on 10 potential MM-CT specific BtA and found substantial consensus among responding participants in this survey. There are apparent differences in perceived BtA between the respondents from academic and community centers as well as between research staff and physician investigators. These data suggest that a structured approach to identification of BtA to clinical trials is feasible and creates opportunities to overcome them. This may have application to clinical trials across other diseases and may also lead to improvements in accrual. Disclosures: Barlogie: Celgene, IMF, MMRF, Millennium, Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene, IMF, Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene, Novartis, NCI, Millennium, Onyx, Icon: Research Funding; GEP: Patents & Royalties.

Abstract ECOG, CALGB and SWOG (coordinating group) enrolled 899 patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive VAD x 4 (813 were considered eligible), followed by randomization to PBSC-supported MEL-TBI (n=261) versus VBMCP (n=255), using CTX 4.5g/m2 + G-CSF for PBSC mobilization in all patients. Responders to VBMCP or MEL-TBI were randomized to IFN (n=121) or no maintenance (n=121). With a median follow-up of alive patients of 60 mos, median EFS and OS from 1st randomization were 25 and 62 mos for MEL-TBI and 21 and 53 mos for VBMCP (p=.14 for EFS, p=.87 for OS). EFS and OS from IFN randomization were also identical at 23/59 mos for IFN versus 18/74 mos for observation (p=.2/.6). 87 VBMCP failures received salvage autotransplants, with a post-relapse median survival of 24 mos which was similar to the 27 mos observed among the remaining 83 VBMCP failures managed with standard salvage therapies. When examined in the context of 2 other randomized trials (IFM 90, MRC VII), OS from baseline of S932, limited to patients <60 yr (as in IFM 90 + MRC VII), is intermediate between the high dose arms of IFM 90/MRC VII and the standard dose arms of these two trials (randomization at baseline) (Figure 1). OS from the time of randomization to high or standard dose therapy on S9321 (again restricted to age <60 yr) was similar to OS timed from transplant for the high dose arms of IFM 90 and MRC VII. (Figure 2). Figure Figure The comparable outcome after high- versus standard-dose therapies on S9321, interpreted in the context of 2 other published randomized clinical trials, may relate to (1) higher dose intensity with VBMCP than with other standard regimens or (2) a detrimental effect of TBI in S9321. We conclude that with the current follow-up MEL-TBI is no better than VAD/VBMCP with the option of salvage transplant and that IFN maintenance is of no benefit in this maintenance setting. Data from this trial will be provided to MRC to be included in their on-going meta-analyses of high-dose therapies and IFN maintenance.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, has compared Rd with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd). The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) using a pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02. The stratification factors are International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II or III) and intent to transplant (yes or no), a total of 6 strata. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety are secondary end points. Methods: This analysis includes 474 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 232 patients were randomized to Rd and 242 patients to VRd. Rd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. VRd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-14 and dexamethasone 20/mg/day on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV push on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received aspirin 325 mg/day and VRd patients received HSV prophylaxis per institutional standard. Induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients until progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Initial analyses utilized the pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test. Results: Data are presented for VRd followed by Rd throughout. Between 2008 and 2012, 525 patients from 48 institutions were randomized. Fifty-one patients, 29 randomized to Rd and 22 randomized to RVd, were ineligible for the following reasons: missing, insufficient or early or late baseline labs (40); not meeting requirements of measurable disease (6); inadequate marrow function (1); inadequate creatinine clearance (1); prior malignancy (1); prior therapy (1); and more than 2 weeks of prior steroid therapy (1). The pre-specified significance level of 0.02 was reached in the log rank testing. The stratified hazard ratio (HR) was 0.742 (96% Wald confidence interval: 0.579, 0.951), and the one-sided stratified log rank p-value for PFS (VRd vs. Rd) was 0.0066. The OS was improved for VRd vs. Rd with HR = 0.666; two-sided log-rank p-value = 0.0114. The PFS and OS survival charts are displayed below. Median PFS was 43 months (VRd) versus 31 months (Rd). Median OS was not reached (VRd) versus 63 months (Rd). Patient characteristics were well-matched between VRd and Rd with the exception of fewer women (37% vs. 47%: P = 0.033) and fewer older patients (≥ 65 years 38% vs. 48%: P = 0.042) receiving VRd. With univariate Cox regression analysis correlates of better PFS/OS were: use of VRd (HR 0.72/0.65; P = 0.006); hemogoblin ≥10 g/dl (HR 1.17/1.43; P = 0.2/0.026) and lower ISS disease stage (HR 1.35/1.98; P = 0.014/< 0.001). The ORR for VRd was 71.07% versus 63.79% for Rd. The adverse events by CTC category and toxicity category were fairly well balanced. The most common hematologic adverse events (≥ Grade 3 and at least possibly attributable to therapy) were low hemoglobin (RVd=13%; Rd=16%), leukopenia (RVd=14%; Rd=16%), lymphopenia (RVd=23%; Rd=18%), neutropenia (RVd=19%; Rd=21%), and thrombocytopenia (RVd=18%; Rd=14%). The most common non-hematologic adverse events (≥ Grade 3 and at least possibly attributable to therapy) were: fatigue (RVd=16%; Rd=14%), sensory neuropathy (RVd=23%; Rd=3%), hyperglycemia (RVd=7%; Rd=11%), thrombosis/embolism (RVd=8%; Rd=9%), hypokalemia (RVd=9%; Rd=6%), muscle weakness (RVd=7%; Rd=4%), diarrhea (RVd=8%; Rd=2%), and dehydration (RVd=8%; Rd=2%). As expected ≥ Grade 3 neuropathy was more frequent with VRd (24% vs. 5%: P < 0.0001). Sixteen patients experienced a second primary malignancy, 7 (3%) on VRd and 9 (4%) on Rd. Conclusion: The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy in previously untreated myeloma results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS. VRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile despite increased neurotoxicity and represents a potential new standard of care. Support: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180821, CA180820; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., The Takeda Oncology Company, for provision of study drug. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Durie: Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Abidi:Millennium: Research Funding. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Reu:Takeda/Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:BioTheryX, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acetylon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barlogie:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: Travel Stipend; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: Travel Stipend; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: Travel Stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: Travel Stipend; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: Travel Stipend.

Abstract Introduction Over the last 15 years gene expression profiling (GEP) has been used to define myeloma molecular subgroups and to determine clinical prognosis. Two major molecular subgroup classifications have been used: the UAMS which determines 7 subgroups and the TC classification based on the presence of IgH translocations and expression of D group cyclins. For prognosis, although a number of different GEP signatures have been defined, the widely used GEP70 identifies 15% of patients with high risk (HR) disease who have a median PFS and OS of 1.75 and 2.83 years. An ideal classification system would identify clinically relevant subgroups with distinct etiology and biology using standardized techniques. We have examined a large group of patients characterized at multiple genetic levels to optimize the diagnostic approach of newly diagnosed patients going forward. Materials and methods Study subjects included 1349 cases enrolled in Total Therapy trials (median follow up 7.5 years). Gene expression profiling was used to determine GEP70 risk status, molecular subgroup by UAMS and TC classifications, and to devise a new and extended TC classification (TC10). Interphase FISH associated with IgH translocations and 1q+ and 17p- were used to build GEP proxies. Data from mutational analysis generated by the FoundationOne targeted sequence panel was also incorporated. Results were validated on the UK MRC MyelomaIX and Hovon65/GMMG-4 studies. Results An initial agnostic analysis of GEP data using sparse k-means clustering verified the existence of TC based groups. Six groups were identified that corresponded overwhelmingly with known TC subgroups; CCND1-t(11;14), D1-HRD, D2-HRD, MMSET, MAF/CCND2, and CCND3. Further comparisons between the molecular subgroup and TC classifier revealed that the UAMS 7 subgroups clustered strongly within one predominant TC group: CD-1 and CD-2 to t(11;14), HY to D1, LB and PR to D2, MF to t(14;16) or t(14;20), and MS to t(4;14). As the UAMS molecular subgroups are largely contained within the TC framework, we aimed to extend the TC by developing the TC10. To extend the known TC subgroups, unsupervised clustering was applied to the 3 largest subgroups [t(11;14), D1, and D2] to determine the strongest single divisor within each respective subgroup. The dominant feature within the t(11;14) cases was CD20 expression, while the D1 and D2 subgroups both split according to RRAS2. CD20 is associated with PAX5 and VPREB3 expression, and RRAS2 is associated with decreased PTP4A3 and increased TNFAIP3 and BIRC3 expression. RRAS2 activation within D1 subgroup and CD20 activation within t(11;14) cases corresponds to an increased time to response to induction therapy suggesting they constitute important biological subgroups. The TC10 combines the known etiologic subgroups of the TC with functionally relevant subdivisions to create 10 novel subgroups: t(11;14) CD20+/-, D1: RRAS2+/-, D2: RRAS2+/-, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and t(6;14). Analysis of mutational data revealed that RRAS2 and CD20 activation within the D1, D2, and t(11;14) subgroups reduced the number of mutations in the MAPK pathway. Further mutational analysis revealed that median mutational load was highest in t(14;16) and lowest in D2: RRAS2+ subgroups. The GEP70 score identifies 15% of patients with HR disease and is specific for this purpose. In an analysis of risk assessment methods, we compared GEP detected adverse lesions [t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 17p- and 1q+] with the GEP70 and revealed that GEP70 HR identified samples have lower OS rates than cases with more than one adverse lesion (validated in external sets). GEP70 HR segregates non-uniformly across molecular subgroups as over 40% of all HR cases are found in the TC10 t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) subgroups. GEP70 HR cases also have a higher mutational load than low risk cases. Furthermore, GEP70 HR is uniquely associated with 1q+ and 17p- as cases with at least one of these adverse lesions are 4.9 times as likely to be GEP70 HR as cases with neither. Conclusion GEP profiling has a central role in simplifying and standardizing the molecular subgroup designation and risk stratifying of MM patients. The GEP70 risk score reliably identifies HR cases and outperforms FISH in risk assessment, even in validation data sets. The TC10 provides a classification system that improves upon previous methods by defining both etiological and functionally meaningful subgroups. Disclosures Stein: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Heuck:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Millenium: Other: Advisory Board; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria. Weinhold:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Janssen Cilag: Other: Advisory Board. Chavan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Thanendrarajan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Yaccoby:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Zangari:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. van Rhee:University of Arkansa for Medical Sciences: Employment. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Barlogie:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Morgan:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weismann Institute: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract We have taken a genetic strategy to define the mechanisms underlying the increased risk of VTE in myeloma patient treated with thalidomide using clinical trial data derived from the MRC, ECOG, Little Rock and HOVON trial groups. Baseline VTE rates in the MRC IX study, (CTD vs CVAD; n=748 no prophylactic anticoagulation), were 14%. Rates in both arms were equal but in the thalidomide arm, thrombotic events were all DVT’s or PE’s, whereas in the CVAD arm they split equally between line related and VTE’s. In the other comparison (CTD vs MP; n=542), the VTE rate was 17%, all in the thalidomide arm. Rates were similar or higher (30%) in the other trials depending on the intensity of treatment used. We carried out a nested case control on DNA from MRC IX on 90 VTE (45 thalidomide, 45 non-thalidomide related), matched to 180 controls. SNPlex analysis for 60 SNPs in the coagulation cascade, DNA repair, thalidomide, metabolism and myeloma specific pathways, identified 7 genes which affected risk (NBS1, MTHFR, Ku80, Cyp3A5, LGAL52 and IL12B). This suggests three major pathways contribute to the risk of thalidomide related VTE, metabolism of thalidomide, tumour responsiveness and some pro-thrombotic factors. These factors differ from non-thalidomide related risk where a strong pro-inflammatory response is most relevant. We tested this hypothesis further using an expanded panel of 3,404 SNPs (BOAC panel), using the Megalle system. Statistical analysis of this data defined the top 20 thalidomide and non-thalidomide associated SNPs, which were consistent with the initial hypothesis, the results of which exclude variation in the coagulation cascade as being a significant risk factor. We explored this hypothesis further using pathway-based analysis focussing on the MTHFR, DNA repair and WNT pathways on data from the ECOG, HOVON and Little Rock data sets. The biological relevance of the SNPs and genes identified was validated by correlating the level of expression using the Affymetrix U133 CHIP with genetic variation at the DNA level. To verify the relevance of DNA repair variability to tumour response further, we correlated gene expression profiling with response and again Ku80 was identified as one of a cluster of genes defining increased risk. The data suggests that the risk of thalidomide related VTE relates to rapid tumour lysis combined with a prothrombotic tendency, whereas in line related thrombosis, risk is dependent upon a strong proinflammatory response. We are building this genetic data into a clinical risk model in order to allow us to develop a rationale for intervention strategies.

Abstract Background: p38a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) mediates production of proinflammatory cytokines and other factors including PGE-2 induced RANKL and IL-1 induced IL-6. SCIO-469 inhibits p38a MAPK blocking synthesis of Il-1ß, PGE2, VEGF, MIP-1α and TNFα thus reducing in vitro MM tumor growth and survival, and drug resistance. Objectives: Assess efficacy, safety, tolerability of SCIO-469 as M or MB in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: Pts were treated with SCIO-469 alone (60 mg po tid)and assessed on Days 15, 30, 52 and 73. Bortezomib (1.0–1.3mg/m2 d 1,4,8,11 q21d) was added to M for PD or SD. Pts who had clinical benefit on either M or MB at Day 73 were allowed to continue on extension study for up to a total of 168 d, to further evaluate efficacy and saftey of M or MB. Results: 62 pts were enrolled: 39 M, 23 F, median age was 63 years (range 48–84), D-S stage at Dx: I (6%), II (32), III (60%%); median time from diagnosis to treatment 3.1 years; median # prior Rx = 5; including 29% with > 6; 71% prior transplant. 27 had received prior bortezomib and 17 were considered refractory. All 62 pts received study drug; 34 pts received MB at some time during the treatment period. 5 of the 28 (18%) pts treated with M and 25 of 34 (74%) pts treated with MB continued on the extension study. Median time on study was 77.5 d (range 7–304) for M and 180.5 d (range 34–275) for MB. Best response (EBMT; Blade 1998) to M was stable disease in 24% of pts; the best response to MB was 9/34 PR (26%), 2/34 MR (6%),3/34 SD (9%). Median time to progression (TTP) was 50 days for M compared to 140 days for MB. Safety/Tolerability: Adverse events on M were tabulated separately from those on MB. Neutropenia was minimal, < 3% with either regimen; anemia (47 vs 29%) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 16%) were more prevalent with MB vs M, respectively. Epistaxis, fatigue and diarrhea were seen in > 15% of pts receiving M. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain, fatigue, pyrexia, anorexia, URI, arthralgia, muscle cramp, dizziness, peripheral neuropathy and headache occurred in > 15% pts receiving MB. 10 pts died on study, 9 during primary phase and 1 during extension phase. 3 deaths were the result of sepsis, the remaining 7 were due to progressive disease. Conclusions: SCIO-469, 60 mg tid, as monotherapy or in combination with Bortezomib was well tolerated. Although there were no objective responses in M (compared to 32% (11/34) in MB-including 4 patients who had failed prior bortezomib), 24% had stable disease at the end of monotherapy. Further studies to refine the dose of SCIO-469 as monotherapy and of SCIO-469 in combination with other agents are warranted.