Lin, Yi

Abstract The utility of systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after treatment has not been explored. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used systems are of prognostic value at 3 and 6 months of starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration from diagnosis impacts survival. This is a retrospective study including Mayo Clinic patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2019; 536 and 204 patients had restaging data for at least 1 system at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 3 months, median overall survival (OSs) were 11.8, 10.8, 4.6, and 1.1 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, median OSs were 11.8, 9.0, 5.2, and 0.8 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 6 months, median OSs were not reached (NR), NR, 5.4, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, OSs were NR, NR, 4.6, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Worsening stage at 3 or 6 months was associated with worse survival than retaining baseline stage. In conclusion, the current staging systems can be used for restaging at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Migration to higher stage predicts poor prognosis.

Background: Infection during the period of neutropenia following chemotherapy represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy.(Freifeld, et al, 2011, Baden LR, et al, 2012) Several guidelines recommend granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) to reduce the duration and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and abate infection risk.(Lyman, et al 2018, Aapro, et al, 2011, Smith, et al, 2015). Optimal GCSF administration following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy remains undefined and requires characterization. Methods: The Mayo Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective, single-center study. Electronic medical records for patients prescribed axicabtagene ciloleucel were reviewed until disease relapse, death, or a maximum of 60 days after infusion. Baseline characteristics and laboratory values were abstracted prior to lymphodepleting chemotherapy. GCSF support was originally prescribed when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) declined below 500 cells/mm3 and discontinued when the ANC exceeded 1000 cells/mm3 (neutropenia) for 2 consecutive days. A practice change was made where GCSF was recommended only in those with febrile neutropenia and an increased concern for infection. The primary endpoint was the difference in the total days of neutropenia for patients receiving and not receiving GCSF. Secondary outcomes compared total days of severe neutropenia, number of neutropenia episodes, infection rates by GCSF use, and outcomes by protocol change. Neutropenia and severe neutropenia were defined as an ANC below 500 cells/mm3 and 100 cells/mm3, respectively. Updated data with more patients will be presented at the conference. Results: The 60 included patients had a median age of 59 (IQR: 44, 63) years, 38 (63%) were male and 53 (88%) were Caucasian. Significantly fewer patients were prescribed GCSF according to infection-related concerns compared to ANC-based indication, 18% vs. 94%, p<0.001. Because only 3 subjects received GCSF based on infection-related concerns, results based on GCSF use versus no use is shown here. GCSF was prescribed to 35 (58%) patients for a median of 8 (IQR: 6, 12) doses with a median cumulative dosage of 3840 mcg (IQR 2100-5400) and median time to first dose of 3 days (IQR: 1, 4) post CAR T-cell infusion. Table 1 displays additional baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters according to GCSF support utilization. GCSF prescribed: Table 2 displays outcomes by GCSF use. Total days of neutropenia were similar between groups (13 vs. 16, p=0.52) with a trend towards significantly fewer days of severe neutropenia when prescribed GCSF (6 vs. 9, p=0.129). Patients prescribed GCSF were more likely to experience multiple episodes of neutropenia (83% vs. 43% p=0.002) with a significantly greater median number of episodes (3 vs. 1, p=0.002) when compared to those not prescribed GCSF. GCSF use significantly decreased the median days of the first neutropenia episode (6 vs. 12, p=0.001). There was a trend for decreased median days of severe neutropenia in the first episode with GCSF (5.0 vs. 8.0, p=0.236). Figure 1 displays a trend towards a lower overall risk of infection (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.16-1.87, p=0.34) and lower risk of bacterial infection (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.31, p=0.15); however, these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients prescribed GCSF according to ANC-based indication were significantly more likely to experience multiple neutropenia episodes; however, duration of first neutropenic episode and days of severe neutropenia during the first neutropenic episode were significantly reduced. Interestingly, the total days of neutropenia and severe neutropenia were similar between groups. It is possible that using the parameter of ANC more than 1000 cells/mm3 for 2 consecutive days is not the optimal criteria for stopping GCSF. Risk of overall and bacterial infection was lower with ANC-based initiation of GCSF, although non-significant likely due to small sample size. The potential benefit for using CSF and the optimal timing after CAR T-cell infusion requires further, rigorous, prospective investigation. Disclosures Ansell: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Lin:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: The phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study (NCT03548207) is evaluating ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; JNJ-68284528; LCAR-B38M CAR-T cells), a chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy with 2 B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a known side effect of CAR-T therapy, can be mild to life-threatening and requires careful monitoring and management. Here, we analyzed CRS and cytokine profiles in CARTITUDE-1. Methods: Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had a diagnosis of MM per International Myeloma Working Group criteria, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, received ≥3 prior regimens or were double-refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, and received an anti-CD38 antibody. Bridging therapy was permitted after apheresis. At 5-7 days prior to cilta-cel infusion, lymphodepletion was performed with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 3 days. Cilta-cel was administered as a single infusion at a target dose of 0.75×106 (range: 0.5-1.0×106) CAR+ viable T cells/kg. CRS was graded using Lee et al (Blood 2014) in the phase 1b portion and American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) in the phase 2 portion. In this combined analysis, Lee et al criteria were mapped to ASTCT criteria for patients in the phase 1b portion. Serum samples for cytokine profiling were collected prior to lymphodepletion, prior to cilta-cel infusion and 2 hours post-infusion on Day 1, at regular time points until Day 100, and if CRS was suspected or reported. Results: A total of 97 patients with R/R MM were treated with cilta-cel; median follow-up for this analysis was 8.8 months (range: 1.5-20.4). CRS was reported in 92 (94.8%) patients. A total of 48 (49.5%) patients had grade 1 CRS, 38 (39.2%) had grade 2, 4 (4.1%) had grade 3, and 1 had grade 5 (1.0%); maximum toxicity grade according to the ASTCT consensus grading system could not be derived for 1 patient with CRS in the phase 1b portion. Median time to CRS onset from cilta-cel infusion was 7.0 days (range: 1-12). Median duration of CRS was 4.0 days (range: 1-27, excluding n=1 with 97 days). Supportive measures to treat CRS or CRS symptoms were administered to 87 (89.7%) patients, most commonly tocilizumab (69.1%), acetaminophen (68.0%), corticosteroids (20.6%), and anakinra (18.6%). CRS resolved in 91 (98.9%) patients; the patient with grade 5 CRS/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis died on Day 99 subsequent to sequelae of grade 4 CRS. Across all patients, levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and interferon-γ peaked at Days 7-14 post-cilta-cel infusion. Conclusions: CRS after cilta-cel treatment was low grade and manageable in most patients with R/R MM. The low rate of grade ≥3 CRS, median time to CRS onset of 7.0 days, and median duration of 4.0 days suggests outpatient dosing of cilta-cel may be feasible; this approach is being explored in the phase 2 CARTITUDE-2 study (NCT04133636). Disclosures Lin: Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Research Funding; AMGEN: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy. Cohen:Novartis: Other: Patents/Intellectual property licensed, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Celgene: Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Madduri:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kinevant: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau. Stewart:Janssen, BMS, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK: Honoraria; Tempus, Inc., Genomics England LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Singh:Janssen: Current Employment. Zudaire:Janssen: Current Employment. Yeh:Janssen: Current Employment. Allred:Janssen: Current Employment. Olyslager:Janssen: Current Employment. Banerjee:Janssen: Current Employment. Goldberg:Johnson & Johnson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Schecter:Janssen: Current Employment. Jackson:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Consultancy; Janssen: Current Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Geng:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Wu:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Carrasco:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Akram:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Hossain:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Wang:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Berdeja:CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kesios: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Lilly: Research Funding. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease that may be evaluated by a broad array of imaging and laboratory techniques to measure disease activity and predict prognosis. FDG PET/CT has been shown to be predictive of patient outcomes throughout the disease course, with several studies demonstrating that PET/CT is an independent prognostic factor for progression free survival and overall survival (OS). We sought to corroborate these findings by specifically examining the prognostic impact of PET/CT in the post-transplant setting. We retrospectively analyzed PET/CT in MM patients after consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and correlated these findings with time to progression (TTP) and OS to assess the impact of day 100 PET/CT findings as an independent prognostic factor. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 231 myeloma patients who underwent ASCT between 2003-2016 and had a FDG PET/CT exam available for analysis at an average of day 104 post-transplant. We recorded the findings on PET/CT prior to transplant, where available. PET/CT without evidence of active/residual disease (PET-) was defined per IMWG guidelines (disappearance of every area of increased tracer uptake found on preceding PET/CT, or uptake < mediastinal blood pool, or decrease < surrounding normal tissue). PET/CT indicating active disease (PET+) was defined as any abnormal uptake or incompletely resolved uptake from previous exam. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to estimate median TTP and OS and the 2-sided log-rank test to compare groups. TTP and OS were calculated from the date of ASCT to the date of confirmed disease progression or death, respectively. Outcomes were then compared among patients with a PET/CT versus those without a PET/CT post-ASCT to assess for the presence of selection bias. A proportional hazards fit model was used for multivariate analysis. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort was 49 months (range: 43-58 mo), median TTP was 18.5 months (95% CI; 15.4-21.8), and median OS was 61.5 months (95% CI; 49-75). Among the entire cohort (n=231), 150 (65%) patients had a positive PET/CT exam at day 100 post-ASCT while 81 (35%) had a negative PET exam. There were 195 (84%) patients with a PET/CT exam prior to ASCT available for comparison, of which 161 (85%) were PET+ and 29 (15%) were PET-. Median time between PET/CT exams was 4.1 months (range 1.4-55). Median TTP among PET+ patients near day 100 was 12.4 months vs. 24 months PET- patients (p<.0001, Fig 1, panel A). Median OS in the PET+ group was 46 months compared to 99 months in the PET- group (p<.0001, Fig 1, panel B). Among patients with a prior PET/CT (195, 84%), median TTP was longer in patients with both exams negative compared to those who were day 100 PET- and previously PET+ (42.6 mo vs. 21.1 mo respectively; p<.0001). TTP was shorter in those who were day 100 PET+ and previously PET- compared to those with persistently PET+ on both exams (4.5 vs. 12.3 mo; p<.0001, Figure 2). Since PET/CT was not routinely ordered post ASCT, we also compared the outcomes between patients getting a PET/CT (n=231) and remaining patients undergoing ASCT (n=1764). Among patients with a day 100 PET/CT vs. those without a PET/CT exam, there was a slightly longer median TTP and OS in the group who did not have a post-ASCT PET/CT. Hazard ratios (HR) after adjusting for disease response (CR at day 100 vs. non-CR) were as follows: TTP PET+ HR 1.76 (1.2-2.4; p=0.003), OS PET+ HR 1.8 (1.2-2.6; p=.0016). Conclusions: MM is a heterogeneous disease that relies on different assessments for determining response, activity, and prognosis. Among these, PET/CT has shown promise in predicting prognosis, independent of disease state and conventional prognostic factors. Our study confirms these findings, demonstrating that an abnormal PET/CT near day 100 post-transplant is predictive of shorter TTP and OS. This prognostic significance remained even after adjusting for disease response (CR vs. non-CR), which could be explained by the sometimes patchy distribution of myeloma in the bone marrow, and identification of extramedullary disease by PET/CT. Taken together, these results demonstrate a possible role for incorporating PET/CT in the post-transplant setting as an independent prognostic variable in stratifying disease risk. Disclosures Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; i3Health: Consultancy; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: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; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; 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; Cellectar: Other; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: The absence of residual monoclonal protein in the serum and urine by IFE using specific antibodies to individual heavy and light chains has been an important part of response assessment and is required for categorizing patients as in complete response. MASS FIX has been shown to be more sensitive in picking up small amounts of monoclonal protein and represents an advancement in the field. Ongoing studies are examining the clinical significance of this increased sensitivity. We designed the following study using clinically obtained test results to examine this question. Patients and methods: The clinical laboratory at Mayo Clinic changed the process from IFE to MASS FIX in July 2018. We identified patients who had sequential testing before and after this date and collected test results from the last IFE prior to the date of transition and the first MASS FIX after the date of transition. Patients were grouped based on the paired results and outcomes compared between groups. Time to next therapy (TTNT) was defined as the time from the first MASS FIX date to the start of next therapy. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and these curves were compared using log rank test. Results: Overall, 739 patients with MM, who had a MASS FIX within 12 months of the IFE were studied; 380 (51%) patients had a negative IFE prior to implementation of MASS FIX. These patients had a MASS FIX test performed at a median of 3.7 (0.03-12) months from the last available IFE. The gap between IFE and MASS FIX was <6 months and < 3 months in 71% and 54% of the patients. Among the patients with a negative IFE, 130 (34%) tested positive on the subsequent MASS FIX. Limiting the analysis to those with a MASS FIX within 6 and 3 months yielded 32% in each group that turned positive from previous negative IFE. The median TTNT from the MASS FIX date was significantly shorter for those who became positive on MASSFIX; median was not reached for either group (P=0.002) (Figure). We then limited the analysis to those patients with a gap of <6 months and <3 months between the tests. The results were consistent: P= 0.012 for those with a gap of < 6 months and P=0.01 for those with a gap < 3 months. Conclusion: The results suggest that the additional sensitivity offered by MASS FIX have clinical significance in patients with MM, given that patients with residual disease identified by MASS FIX have an earlier relapse. The data supports the use of the more sensitive MASS FIX in the laboratory compared to the conventional IFE approaches. The study has the disadvantage that the samples were not tested simultaneously and some of the samples turning positive may reflect an early evidence of relapse, but the relative consistency of the finding irrespective of the gap between the tests argues against that. Ongoing studies are examining MASS FIX on the samples that were called to be negative by IFE initially. Figure Disclosures Murray: The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Gertz:Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; 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; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Background: Newly diagnosed patients with AL Amyloidosis are a heterogeneous population, ranging from incidentally found nephrotic syndrome to delayed advanced cardiac disease. For the purposes of trials, patients with the highest-risk disease are often excluded from trial participation. An NT-proBNP of 8500 or higher is the criterion most often used for exclusion from clinical trials due to high rates of early death. It is well documented that overall survival is improving over time, in part due to earlier diagnosis and in part due to more effective therapies. It is our aim to describe outcomes of patients with very high (NT-proBNP >=8500) and advanced stage amyloidosis excluding very high (VH) NT-proBNP. Methods: To address this need, we examined the outcomes of AL patients diagnosed between 1/2012 and 7/2020 and seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis. Of the 1290 patients, 291 were seen beyond the 90 day threshold and were thus excluded. Another 170 patients were excluded due to missing biomarkers to calculate stage, leaving 829 patients for our analysis. Thresholds for troponins and BNPs were used according to Muchtar Blood 133(7):2019 to correct for assay used. The vast majority of patients had troponin T measured, and for them the 0.025 mcg/L and the 0.035 mcg/L cut-points were used for the 2012 and 2004 staging systems. A minority of patients did not have troponin T, but rather high sensitivity troponin T (n=129) or troponin I (n=23). For patients with high sensitivity troponin T, cut-points of 41 and 50 ng/L were used, respectively, for the 2012 and 2004 systems, and for patients with troponin I only, a cut-point of 0.1 mcg/L was used for both systems. In the 3 patients with no NT-proBNP but with BNP, 400 and 81 ng/L were used respectively for the 2012 and 2004 systems; otherwise, the 1800 ng/L and 332 ng/L cut-offs were used. A BNP of > 700 ng/L was considered equivalent to NT-proBNP greater than or equal to 8500 ng/L. For the 2012 system, the dFLC of 18 mg/dL was used as a cut-off. Survival estimates were done using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival were by determined by Log-Rank. Results: The median age of patients was 65 (range 29, 89), and 65% were male. 148 (17%) of these newly diagnosed patients had a VH (>=8500) NT-proBNP. Patients with VH NT-proBNP were older (67 versus 64 years, p=0.004). Only 4% of the VH NT-proBNP patients received an ASCT in contrast to 34% without VH NT-proBNP. With a median follow-up of 30 months for surviving patients, median OS for VH NT-proBNP patients was 3.3 months in contrast to patients without VH NT-proBNP at 68.4 months (Figure). Breakdown of early death for patients with VH NT-proBNP by stage is shown in Table. Of Mayo 2012 patients staged I, II, III, and IV, the percent of patients with VH NT-proBNP was 0, 3, 20, and 45%. In contrast, for the European modification of the Mayo 2004 system, the percent with VH NT-proBNP by stage was 0, 6, 0, 100 for stages I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Among the VH NT-proBNP patients, there was stage discrimination using the Mayo 2012 system (6-month death rates were 17, 45, and 66% for patients with stages II, III, and IV, respectively, p=0.02). In contrast, using the Mayo 2004 system in the patients with VH NT-proBNP, 6-month death rates were 45 and 60% for stage II and IIIb patients, respectively (p= 0.12). Among patients without VH NT-proBNP, rates of death in the first year were 21% including stage I patients whose death rates were well under 10%. Patients without VH NT-proBNP but Mayo 2012 Stage III and IV had 1-year mortalities of 28 and 43% respectively. Using the modified Mayo 2004 system, excluding the VH NT-proBNP 1-year mortality was 19 and 37% for patients with stage II and IIIa, respectively. Discussion: Establishing expected outcomes for the sickest AL amyloidosis patients is a means by which trials can be designed for these patients with an unmet need. Patients with VH NT-proBNP should be considered for specially designed trials, and patients without VH NT-proBNP and advanced stage should be included in trials for newly diagnosed patients regardless of stage as long as there is appropriate stratification. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Gertz:Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy.

Background: Anti CD-19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is approved to treat relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive NHL after 2 or more lines of therapy. Randomized clinical trials are ongoing comparing CAR-T and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in second line. In standard of care practice, patients refractory to second line chemotherapy are sometimes treated with third line chemotherapy and taken to ASCT if disease is chemo-sensitive. Current study aims to evaluate the impact of prior lines of therapy on the efficacy of CAR-T and ASCT. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received ASCT and/or axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for R/R aggressive NHL from June 2016 - January 2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester was performed. The lymphoma types included in the study were DLBCL, transformed lymphoma (TFL), high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). Response to all lymphoma-directed therapy was evaluated using 2014 Lugano criteria. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to death, and progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to disease progression, or next treatment. Categorical data was analyzed as Chi-square or fishers exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Analysis was performed in R3.6.3. Results: A total of 105 patients underwent ASCT and 53 patients underwent CAR-T therapy in the study period with at least 6 months follow-up. Of the 105 ASCT patients, 87 received ASCT after 2 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(2), and 18 received ASCT after 3 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(3). Twenty six of the ASCT [n=19, ASCT(2) and n=7, ASCT(3)] patients received CART in subsequent therapy. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups except ASCT(3) had higher percent of refractory disease after first line (table 1). With a median follow up of 17.4 months, the PFS was significantly longer for the ASCT(2) group with a trend toward longer OS (Figure 1; PFS @ 1 year: ASCT(2) 67%, 95%CI 58-79%; ASCT(3) 27%, 95%CI 27-74%; p = 0.036). Among the CAR-T recipients, only 18 (33%) patients received CAR-T in the earliest possible indication, CAR-T(2): after 2 lines of chemotherapy (n=12) and/or after ASCT(2) (n=6), table 1. Compared to patients who received CAR-T in later lines (CAR-T 3+), OS was significantly longer for patients who received CAR-T(2), with a trend toward longer PFS (Figure 1; OS @ 1 year: CAR-T (2) 82%, 95%CI 65-100%; CAR-T later lines 62%, 95%CI 47-82%; p = 0.05). Additionally, 12 (23%) of patients received CAR-T immediately after ASCT (9 after ASCT(2), 3 after ASCT(3)). Baseline demographics in these 12 patients, CAR-T(ASCT), were comparable to the others who had chemoimmunotherapy as the last salvage therapy prior to CAR-T [CAR-T(chemo)], except a smaller proportion received bridging therapy (33% vs. 73%, p = 0.01). The CAR-T (ASCT) group had significantly prolonged PFS (median PFS - not reached [95%CI 3-not reached (NR)] vs. 3 months [95% CI 3-4 months]), and OS (median OS - NR, [95%CI 10.34-NR] vs. 15.1 months, [95%CI 11.9 - NR], p = 0.03). Updated analysis will be presented at the meeting with longer follow up (Figure 1). Conclusion: CAR-T use at the earliest current approved indication may confer survival advantage. Referral for earlier use of CAR-T remains low at only one third of our CAR-T practice volume. CAR-T use for relapse immediately after ASCT appear to have longer PFS and OS than after other systemic salvage therapy, although contributing parameters such as the need for bridging therapy requires further study. While patients who are chemo-refractory to second line chemotherapy may demonstrate chemo sensitivity with third line chemotherapy, PFS is shorter for ASCT(3). Comparison between ASCT(3) and CAR-T (2, chemorefractory) require larger cohorts with longer follow-up. Disclosures Bennani: Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

AbstractThree sets of criteria (International Society of Amyloidosis [ISA], Palladini and Kastritis) were independently developed for staging, progression and response criteria to predict renal survival in patients with AL amyloidosis. We evaluated these criteria using a cohort of 495 newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients with renal involvement using time to event competing risk analysis at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Only Palladini and Kastritis had a staging system and both predicted a higher risk of end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the stage III vs stage I patients but only the Palladini model was predictive for stage II patients. At 3 months, risk of ESRD was significantly higher for Palladini and ISA renal progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5–5.3, p = .001] and 2.5 [CI: 1.4–4.6, p = .004, respectively]), but renal response was not significantly protective; conversely, the risk of ESRD was not significantly higher for the Kastritis renal progression, but was significantly protective for the Kastritis renal responders (HR 0.38 [95% CI: 0.17–0.84], p = .017). Both progression and response with ISA, Palladini and Kastritis criteria were predictive of ESRD at 6 months and 12 months. While the Palladini staging criteria at baseline, and the ISA and Palladini criteria for progression at 3 months performed better than the Kastritis criteria at baseline and 3 months post‐treatment, the Kastritis criteria performed better for response 3 months after treatment. All three sets of criteria performed well at and after 6 months post‐treatment. These differences are important when choosing endpoints for clinical trials.