Coltoff, Alexander

Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with TP53 mutation (m) has poor outcomes even in the contemporary era with median overall survival (OS) of 6-9 months. The only factor that has been shown to improve outcomes is allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) (Badar et al AJH 2022; Leukemia 2023). However, the role of allo-HCT for TP53-m AML continues to be a matter of debate given high rates of relapse after allo-HCT particularly in TP53-m AML with complex cytogenetics (CG). We used the COMMAND consortium database to investigate the factors that influenced physician's decision for allo-HCT in TP53-m AML. Method We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 7 U.S. academic centers under COMMAND consortium. We reviewed electronic medical records of 369 TP53-m AML patients to analyze reasons for not pursuing allo-HCT including refractory disease, donor availability, advanced age/co-morbidities, physician perspective on ineffectiveness of allo-HCT in improving outcome and patient's decision. Diagnostic criteria for TP53 allelic state were according to the International Consensus Classification (ICC) (Blood 2022; 140:1200). Next-generation sequencing and cytogenetic studies were performed according to institutional standard protocols. Results The median age at diagnosis was 68 years, with 222 (60.5%) patients being male. The majority of patients were diagnosed with de novo AML 179 (48.8%), followed by secondary AML (sAML) in 103 (28%) patients, and therapy-related (t)AML in 85 (23.2%) patients. Ninety-four percent of evaluable patients had complex cytogenetics (CG) and 192 (52%) had multi-hit TP53-m. One-hundred forty-seven (42%) patients received intensive chemotherapy (CPX 351 [66 (44%)], 7+3 [78 (53%)]), while 205 (58%) patients received low-intensity regimens including hypomethylating agents (HMA) plus venetoclax (137 [66%]) and HMA +/- investigational agents (68 [33%]). The rate of complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) was 34.4% and overall response rate (CR/CRi + partial remission [PR] + morphologic leukemia free state [MLFS]) was 52%. Forty-seven (13%) patients received allo-HCT in CR1 and 17 (5%) patients received allo-HCT in CR2. Of the 294 patients for whom data on allo-HCT decision-making was available, the most common reason for not proceeding to allo-HCT was refractory disease in 126 (43%) patients. Other significant reasons included advanced age/comorbidities (n=78 [30.6%]), physician recommendation (n=7 [2%]), patient's decision (n=24 [9.4%]), and patient relocation or changing healthcare providers (n= 9 [3.5%]). Two (0.4%) patients had no suitable donor available for allo-HCT. Amongst the 7 patients for whom allo-HCT was not pursued due to physician's decision, the median age of the patients was 69 years (R, 59-70), 3 (25%) patients had sAML, and all of them had multi-hit TP53-m associated with complex CG. Six out of seven (86%) patients received HMA plus venetoclax and 1 (14%) patient received HMA-based induction. Six patients achieved CR/CRi after induction and 1 patient had partial remission. The median survival of these patients was 11 months (R, 10.7-11.3), eventually all patients died from progressive AML. Conclusion Our survey suggests that the primary reason for not proceeding with allo-HCT was refractory disease, underlying the difficulty in achieving the disease control needed for allo-HCT. There is an urgent need for better frontline therapies tailored specifically for TP53-m AML, along with refined patient selection criteria to better identify candidates who would benefit most from allo-HCT to potentially improve their long-term outcomes.

Introduction: MPAL is a rare and heterogenous subtype of acute leukemia characterized by a single blast population with phenotypic expression of both myeloid and lymphoid lineages (biphenotypic) or multiple co-existing lineages of blasts that satisfy criteria for both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). MPAL presents both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge given its rarity and resistance to traditional therapies. Data suggest ALL-directed or hybrid therapies are most effective at inducing durable remissions as a bridge to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (Allo-SCT; Lazzarotto 2023, Rasekh 2021); however, many are single-institution with limited sample sizes. Methods: A retrospective analysis at 7 US academic centers was performed. Adult patients (pts) with a confirmed diagnosis of MPAL between 2003-2023 were included. Comparisons of categorical and continuous variables utilized the Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum or Kruskal-Wallis test as appropriate. Time-to-event outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Results: A total of 79 pts with MPAL were included in this study. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (range, 18-89); 52% were ≥ 60 years. Majority of pts were male (60%), non-Hispanic white (64%), and had an ECOG ≤ 1 (83%). Of the 50 pts with baseline CSF analysis, 5 (10%) had CNS disease. Phenotypically, the predominant blast population was biphenotypic in 68%, myeloid in 17%, and lymphoid in 15% of cases. KMT2A-rearrangement and BCR::ABL1 translocation constituted 4% and 14% of cases, respectively, and 30% of pts had complex cytogenetics. Most common mutations at baseline included RUNX1 (33%), DNMT3A (30%), FLT3-ITD (26%), TET2 (19%), WT1 (19%), NRAS (18%), TP53 (17%), and ASXL1 (14%) mutations. Of the 79 pts, 61 (77%) received intensive chemotherapy (IC), 12 (15%) received HMA-based regimens, 4 (5%) received other non-intensive regimens, and 2 (3%) transitioned to hospice prior to therapy. Among those receiving IC, 37 (61%) received ALL-directed therapies, 16 (26%) AML-directed, and 8 (13%) received hybrid regimens which included FLAG-VIPR (6/8), 7+3+vincristine (1/8), and cladrabine/low-dose cytarabine/vincristine/dexamethasone (1/8). Therapies were phenotype-discordant in 4/61 pts receiving IC; 3 myeloblast-predominant MPAL pts received ALL-directed therapy and one lymphoid-predominant pt received AML-directed therapy. Among 54 pts with predominant biphenotypic blasts, 52% received ALL-directed regimens. Of the 11 pts with BCR::ABL1 translocation, 8 (73%) received dasatinib, 2 (18%) ponatinib, and 1 (9%) received both. Only 30% of pts with FLT3-ITD mutated MPAL (5/17) received a FLT3 inhibitor. Overall, 56% of pts achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi), with a median duration of response of 16.7 months (IQR: 8.1-46.1). The rates of CR/CRi were 39%, 56%, and 75% for myeloid, biphenotypic, and lymphoid MPAL, respectively. All pts with CNS disease (5/5) cleared after induction. Thirty-seven percent of pts proceeded with Allo-SCT in first remission (23% of myeloid pts, 58% lymphoid, 35% biphenotypic). Thirty-two percent of responders (CR/CRi; 14/44) relapsed with a median time to relapse of 9.4 months (range, 0.5-42). Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 51 months (95% CI: 15-89). The 2-year OS rate was higher in pts with lymphoid-predominant phenotype (83%) compared to biphenotypic (55%) or myeloid-predominant phenotype (38%; p=0.16). Median OS was significantly longer in transplant versus non-SCT recipients (121 vs 14 months) with a 1-year OS rate of 97% vs. 59% (p<0.0001), respectively. Among pts who achieved CR/CRi, median OS significantly longer in transplant versus non-SCT recipients (121 vs 55 months, p=0.031), with a 2-year OS rate of 91% vs 75%. Conclusions In this large multi-center study, there were differences in survival based on predominant blast phenotype, with improved OS in lymphoid-predominant MPAL. Although most pts with biphenotypic-predominant MPAL received ALL-directed regimens, OS was worse in this subtype compared to lymphoid-predominant MPAL. There was significantly improved OS among Allo-SCT recipients underscoring the importance of Allo-SCT in this subtype of acute leukemia. Additional studies are needed to understand this rare and heterogenous disease.

Introduction: TP53 mutations are found in 18% of adult patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemias (ALL), and portends poor prognosis (Saygin, Blood Cancer Discov 2024). TP53 mutations are often associated with low hypodiploidy and Li Fraumeni syndrome (germline) in children. However, we and others have shown that TP53-mutant (TP53-m) ALL arises from pre-existing TP53-m clonal hematopoiesis in adults as opposed to germline origin. The impact of co-occurring mutations, TP53 allelic frequency (AF) and different types of treatment on outcomes of TP53-m ALL are not fully characterized. We set out to investigate the clinical and molecular predictors of outcomes in adults with TP53-mutant ALL. Methods: We retrospectively studied 107 patients with TP53-m ALL treated at seven different academic centers in North America. Genetic profiling of pre-treatment bone marrow samples was performed with a comprehensive panel covering 147 myeloid and lymphoid genes. We also performed RNA-sequencing to identify fusions that define ALL subtypes. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array was used to define low hypodiploidy. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range, 10-80), 42% were female, 70% White. 89% of pts had B-ALL while 11% had T-lineage ALL. 24% of pts were classified to have therapy-related ALL based on their history of exposure to genotoxic therapy for another cancer. 45% of pts had hypodiploid karyotype, 79% of whom were low-hypodiploid. 7% had hyperdiploid karyotype and 5% had BCR::ABL1. 11 pts had two different TP53 variants. 90% of TP53 variants involved the DNA binding domain. Most frequently observed co-occurring mutations involved CDKN2A (20%), NOTCH1 (12%) and RB1 (10%) genes. 71% of pts were treated with standard cytotoxic chemotherapy, while the remaining pts received newer antibody-based therapies (i.e., inotuzumab, blinatumomab) or venetoclax in first-line setting. 11% of pts received allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) in first complete remission (CR1) while 3% received HCT after relapse (CR2 or CR3). When patients with vs without low hypodiploidy were compared, we did not observe a significant difference in overall survival (OS) as outcomes were poor in both groups (median, 17 vs 19 months, p= 0.89). However, pts who had TP53 AF >0.5 had significantly worse OS when compared to pts with TP53 VAF <0.5 (13 vs 25 months, p= 0.03). Conclusions: TP53-m ALL is a very high-risk disease subtype and its dismal outcome is independent from presence of co-existing low hypodiploidy. Loss of heterozygosity, characterized by TP53 AF >0.5 is associated with even worse survival. New therapies are urgently needed to improve outcomes in this subset.

Background: Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is one of the most treatable leukemias in the current era, with cure rates upwards of 90%. Early mortality due to coagulopathies often seen at diagnosis is a major driver of adverse outcomes. Prompt initiation of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) is crucial for suspected APL, as it is known to reverse these coagulopathies. Chemotherapy-free protocols consisting of arsenic trioxide (ATO) and ATRA have become the standard of care for low-risk APL with high cure rates and reduced hematologic toxicities. For high-risk disease, there are multiple treatment options that have not been compared. Since APL is rare, there is a lack of real-world data for this disease. This retrospective review aimed to assess the outcomes of APL patients (pts) across multiple institutions and to examine the most common induction regimens, characteristics linked to early (30-day) mortality, and supportive care strategies. Methods: This retrospective study involved 9 institutions in the US and was conducted through the Consortium on Myeloid Malignancies and Neoplastic Diseases (COMMAND). Data included pts admitted from 8/5/2006 through 2/3/2024 with a confirmed diagnosis of APL. Each institution received a data-collection form and contributed data on APL pts from presentation to last follow-up. Key data categories included patient demographics, presenting laboratory and molecular data, treatment regimen, supportive care, and patient outcomes. Results: Data for 412 pts were identified with a median age of 51 (range 17-90) and 49% were female. Cardiovascular comorbidities were present in 44% of pts and 16% had a known pulmonary comorbidity. At presentation 109 (27%) had high risk-disease, defined as a white blood cell count (WBC) greater than 10 x 109/L. A FLT3 mutation was seen in 50% of tested pts, WT1 (22%), KRAS (3.6%), and NRAS (6.5%). The median WBC at presentation was 2 x 109/L (range: 0-166 x 109/L) and the median platelet count was 27 x 109/L (range: 2.0-315 109/L). Twenty-six percent presented with grade 2+ thrombosis, bleeding, or both. A higher percentage of pts with high-risk vs. low-risk disease presented with grade 2+ thrombosis, bleeding, or both (43% vs. 20%), DIC (60% vs. 36%), and mutated FLT3 (81% vs. 37%). The majority of pts received a chemotherapy-free induction regimen consisting of ATRA plus ATO. It was determined that 36 (8.7%) pts received induction with intermittent ATO plus ATRA (Burnett AK, Lancet Oncol 2015), 276 (67%) received daily ATO plus ATRA (Ravandi F, J Clin Oncol 2009 and Lo Coco, NEJM 2013), and 70 (17%) received a regimen inclusive of an anthracycline plus ATRA. Eleven pts did not start an induction regimen other than single-agent ATRA due to early death, while 19 had their regimen classified as “other” because they did not follow a conventional induction path. In total, 295/358 (82%) received ATRA within 24 hours of admission. At least 1 dose of gemtuzumab ozogamicin was given to 58 (14%) pts, of which 35 (60%) were considered high risk. The incidence of differentiation syndrome (DS) was 37% (n=154). Among the 243 pts who received steroid prophylaxis, 30% developed DS, compared to 52% of those who did not receive prophylaxis. Among the 360 pts with at least 1 available PCR result after starting induction, 94% achieved PCR-negativity. The 30-day mortality rate was 6.6%. On univariate analysis, presenting variables associated with a higher 30-day mortality include older age, diabetes, cardiovascular comorbidities, thrombosis or bleeding, DIC, eGFR < 60, elevated total bilirubin and D-dimer levels, and high-risk disease. The median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was not reached, and the 5- and 10-year OS was 88% (95% CI: 84-91%) and 79% (95% CI: 72-87%) respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.4 - 5.1%), with no additional relapses observed. The incidence of CNS relapse at 3 years was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3% - 2.8%), with 2 of the 4 pts classified as high-risk. Conclusion: This is the largest real-world evidence data collection in the US evaluating the outcome of pts with APL in the current era, inclusive of ATO as front-line induction. Outcomes for this disease remain extremely positive, with low 30-day mortality rates noted in this study along with durable OS rates and low incidence of relapse. Additional information on outcomes, safety, and supportive care will be presented at the meeting.

Introduction: The development of increasingly sensitive tests for the detection of measurable residual disease (MRD), such as multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays, has changed clinical practice in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). IGH V(D)J-based NGS MRD is the most sensitive assay to predict relapse in patients (pts) with B-ALL (Short, Blood Adv 2022). However, data regarding the use of T-cell receptor (TR) NGS MRD in T-ALL are limited and recent reports from pediatric cohorts suggest that persistent TR MRD may not predict relapse in T-ALL (Roy, ASH 2023, abstract 2976). With limited options for the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-ALL, accurate prediction of high relapse risk may provide an opportunity for early intervention. In this study, we evaluated the prognostic utility of TRB/TRG NGS MRD and its correlation with MFC MRD in adult patients with T-ALL. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the MRD data and clinical outcomes of precursor T (pre-T) and early T precursor (ETP) ALL patients treated at four academic centers in the US. MRD was evaluated using MFC in CLIA-certified labs at individual sites with a sensitivity of 10-4, and the clonoSEQ (Adaptive Technologies, lnc) NGS assay, with a sensitivity of 10-6. Pts were included if they had a trackable TR clone and NGS MRD remission assessment in at least one time point. The correlation between the percentage of MRD by MFC vs NGS was calculated with the Pearson correlation coefficient, using every available MRD assessment for T-ALL pts in complete remission. Relapse-free survival was stratified based on NGS MRD level at the time of post-induction and post-consolidation assays, and comparisons were made with the log-rank test. The positive predictive value (PPV) for relapse of NGS MRD was calculated for pts with MRD > 10-6 at the post-induction and post-consolidation period. Results: A total of 19 pts who met our inclusion criteria, with a median age of 30 years (range, 18-65). 9 pts (47%) had ETP-ALL, 10 pts had pre-T ALL. Pts had a trackable TRB/TRG clone in 76% of cases, with 66% having a trackable TRG clone and 38% having a trackable TRB clone. 10 pts (53%) were treated with a modified AALL0434 regimen as first line therapy, 6 pts (32%) were treated with CALGB10403, 1 pt (5%) was treated with hyperCVAD, 1 pt (5%) was treated with a BFM regimen, and 1 pt (5%) was treated with CALGB9511. Out of 11 T-ALL pts with MRD data available post-induction, 6 pts (55%) had detectable MRD by NGS and no detectable MRD by MFC. Out of 13 pts with available post-consolidation MRD data, 2 pts (15%) had undetectable MRD by both NGS and MFC and 9 pts (69%) had detectable MRD by NGS only. There were no pts with detectable MRD by MFC and undetectable MRD by NGS at either timepoint. A total of 64 MRD data points from 19 pts were available to evaluate MRD correlation by MFC vs NGS, for which the Pearson correlation coefficient showed a statistically significant linear correlation (p < 0.01). At post-induction, 9 pts had NGS MRD > 10-4 and 2 pts had NGS MRD < 10-4. With a median follow-up time of 19.8 months, pts with NGS MRD > 10-4 had a median RFS of 19.8 months and pts with NGS MRD < 10-4 had a median RFS of 14.8 months. The log-rank test comparing RFS between these two groups was not statistically significant (p= 0.18). Persistent NGS MRD at post-induction had a PPV for relapse of only 18%. At post-consolidation, 7 pts had NGS MRD > 10-4, 4 pts had NGS MRD < 10-4, and 2 pts had undetectable MRD by NGS. With a median follow-up time of 17.3 months, pts with NGS MRD > 10-4 had a median RFS of 15.3 months and pts with NGS MRD < 10-4 or undetectable had a median RFS of 20.6 months. The log-rank test comparing RFS between these two groups was not statistically significant (p= 0.6). Persistent NGS MRD at post-consolidation had a PPV for relapse of only 27%. Conclusion: Despite statistically significant linear correlation between MFC and NGS MRD testing, there were no RFS differences between pts with NGS MRD > 10-4 vs NGS MRD < 10-4. All patients had persistent NGS MRD post-induction, which is markedly lower than the reported 20-25% NGS undetectable MRD rate in B-ALL post-induction. Persistent NGS MRD has low PPV for relapse in T-ALL, which limits its utility in clinical decision making for this population.

ImportanceKidney light chain (AL) amyloidosis is associated with a risk of progression to kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and death. Several studies have shown that a greater reduction in proteinuria following successful anticlonal therapy is associated with improved outcomes.ObjectiveTo validate graded kidney response criteria and their association with kidney and overall survival (OS).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, multicenter cohort was conducted at 10 referral centers for amyloidosis from 2010 to 2015 and included patients with kidney AL amyloidosis that was evaluable for kidney response and who achieved at least hematologic partial response within 12 months of diagnosis. The median follow-up was 69 (54-88) months. Data analysis was conducted in 2023.ExposureFour kidney response categories based on the reduction in pretreatment 24-hour urine protein (24-hour UP) levels: complete response (kidCR, 24-hour UP ≤200 mg), very good partial response (kidVGPR, >60% reduction in 24-hour UP), partial response (kidPR, 31%-60% reduction), and no response (kidNR, ≤30% reduction). Kidney response was assessed at landmark points (6, 12, and 24 months) and best kidney response.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.ResultsSeven-hundred and thirty-two patients (335 women [45.8%]) were included, with a median (IQR) age of 63 (55-69) years. The median (IQR) baseline 24-hour proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 5.3 (2.8-8.5) g per 24 hours and 72 (48-92) mL/min/1.73m2, respectively. In a competing-risk analysis, the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of progression to KRT decreased with deeper kidney responses as early as 6 months from therapy initiation (11%, 12%, 2.1%, and 0% for kidNR, kidPR, kidVGPR, and kidCR, respectively; P = .002) and were maintained at 12 months and 24 months and best kidney response. Patients able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR by 24 months and at best response had significantly better OS compared with kidPR/kidNR. Kidney progression, defined as a 25% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, was associated with cumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that graded kidney response criteria offers clinically and prognostically meaningful information for treating patients with kidney AL amyloidosis. The response criteria potentially inform kidney survival based on the depth of reduction in 24-hour proteinuria levels and demonstrate an OS advantage for those able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR compared with kidPR/kidNR. Taken together, achievement of at least kidVGPR by 12 months is needed to ultimately improve kidney and patient survival.

PURPOSE Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P < .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P < .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as &gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria &gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P&lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP &gt;650 pg/mL or BNP &gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P&lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P&lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P&lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (&gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.