Gay, Francesca

Abstract Introduction: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate approved in the United States (US) and Europe as a monotherapy for triple-class refractory adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis of DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) data examined relationships between corneal exam findings (superficial punctate keratopathy and/or microcyst like epithelial changes), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and direct patient-reported ocular symptoms per the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. This approach could provide insight into the relationship between corneal exam findings, BCVA, and ocular symptoms and their impact on quality of life to help determine if BCVA decline and symptoms could guide dosing. Currently, in the US, eye exams with eye-care professionals (ECPs) are required for each belamaf treatment, which can add to patients' therapy-related burden. Identifying a surrogate marker for results from corneal exam findings would help providers determine if dosing adjustments are necessary. Methods: Eye exams (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment using the Snellen chart) were performed on all patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) by ECPs at baseline (BL) and before each dose, administered q3w. Corneal exam findings (keratopathy) and BCVA were assessed per protocol-defined criteria, and grade (GR) assessment was based on the worst finding in the worse eye. BCVA and keratopathy grading were relative to BL. Patient-reported ocular symptoms and vision-related functioning, as per the OSDI, were used to evaluate the impact of treatment-related ocular toxicity. The OSDI is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that assesses eye symptoms and effects on vision-related function in the past week and was performed in all patients before each belamaf dose. Items 1-5 address the frequency of eye-related symptoms (eg, painful or sore eyes, blurred vision) while items 6-9 address the frequency of functional limitations (eg, driving at night or reading). OSDI was considered positive, clinically meaningful, and potentially associated with treatment when at least one question 1-5 (ie, sensitivity to light, gritty or painful eyes, blurred or poor vision) was reported as experienced "all of the time" and at least one question 6-9 (ie, driving at night, reading, working with PC, or watching TV) was reported as experienced "most of the time." Results: Overall, GR 3-4 (severe) keratopathy was observed only 5% of the time in patients who did not report frequent ocular symptoms as measured by the OSDI questionnaire (no items 1-9 ≥ "most of the time"). A further breakdown of the questions revealed that, in patients who reported no items 1-5 "all of the time" AND no items 6-9 ≥ "most of the time" (OSDI negative), GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed only 6% of the time (Table). When considering individual OSDI items, in patients who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any of the OSDI eye-related symptoms or functional limitations, GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed ~3%-7% of the time while GR 0-2 (mild) keratopathy was observed ~23%-34% of the time. Similar results were observed in patients with BCVA ≤20/30 at BL who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any eye-related adverse events (AEs) or functional limitations (GR 3-4 keratopathy: ~2%-6% of the time; GR 0-2 keratopathy: ~19%-28% of the time); patients with worse visual acuity at BL (BCVA >20/30) who reported "no deterioration" for items 1-9 had lower incidence of GR 3-4 and GR 0-2 keratopathy (~0%-1% and ~3%-8%, respectively). Conclusions: The results from this hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis suggest that hematologists/oncologists may be able to use clinical indicators/tools (eg, ocular symptoms, the OSDI tool) as potential surrogate markers for eye exam results to help determine whether dosing changes are needed. This approach will be explored in trials with other belamaf dose regimens that are currently under evaluation. If the results are validated, it may be possible for hematologists/oncologists to manage belamaf dose modifications, due to ocular AEs, without a confirmatory eye exam by the ECP, reducing the patient burden. Funding Source: GSK (205678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Badros: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Rodríguez-Otero: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: 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; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and other expenses. Cohen: BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Other: Personal fees and other association with, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and other association with; Janssen: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Manier: Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Voorhees: Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin: Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Chari: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weisel: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Farooq: Five Prime Therapeutics/Amgen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Jeng: OysterPoint: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eyegate: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chng: Abbvie: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Aslan: Research Funding. Lee: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Berdeja: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; SecuraBio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Jadhav: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tosolini: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Eliason: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Palumbo: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Lonial: Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trudel: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen Canada: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Terpos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

AbstractThe development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

8509 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor. In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to bortezomib (B) + dexamethasone (d) significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pbo) and showed significant efficacy in patients (pts) with either t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data from the prespecified second interim overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study (NCT02755597), pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo in combination with B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included overall response and overall survival (OS). Results: 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. Pt characteristics were well balanced among arms. In the Ven arm, median age was 66, 17% had high-risk cytogenetics, 11% had t(11;14), and 34% had BCL2high gene expression. As of 13 Sept 2019, 59 pts were still on study, 45 (23%) Ven vs 14 (14%) Pbo. At a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there were 64 (33%) deaths in the Ven arm vs 24 (25%) in Pbo. At the initial data cutoff (26 Nov 2018), PFS HR was 0.63 (0.44,0.90) and OS HR was 2.03 (1.04,3.95). Table shows updated PFS and OS. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with Ven were diarrhea (59%), nausea (37%), and constipation (35%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (Ven/Pbo) were neutropenia (21%/8%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), anemia (16%/15%), diarrhea (15%/12%), and pneumonia (18%/13%). Serious AEs occurred in 54% Ven and 52% Pbo pts. 24% discontinued Ven due to AEs vs 12% Pbo. There were 14 treatment-emergent deaths in the Ven arm and 1 in Pbo. Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd significantly improves PFS but resulted in increased mortality vs Pbo in the total population. Greatest PFS improvement with Ven was observed in pts with t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression, where Ven shows a favorable benefit-risk profile. The study continues for final OS analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]

Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma (MM) cells and has shown synergistic activity with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Ven ± d had encouraging clinical efficacy in both t(11;14) MM and in pts irrespective of genetic background when administered with B, with a tolerable safety profile in Phase 1 studies. Here, we provide updated efficacy and safety of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM, including subgroup analyses, in the BELLINI study. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1 - 3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. Cycles 1-8 were 21-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4, 8, 11 + d 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12. Cycles 9+ were 35-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 + d 20 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (IRC). Results: A total of 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Median age was 66 (range, 36 - 87); 53% had ISS II/III disease; 54% received 2 or 3 prior lines of therapy; 59% had prior stem cell transplant; 70% had prior PI, 68% had prior immunomodulatory drug, 41% had both. Among pts with evaluable results, 18% had high-risk cytogenetics, 13% had MM positive for t(11;14), and 79% had high levels of BCL-2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). In the primary endpoint analysis per IRC, the median PFS was 22.4 months (m) in Ven vs 11.5 m in Pbo (HR=0.630, p=0.01), with a median follow-up of 18.7 m (as of 26 Nov 2018). As of updated analysis based on a data cut-off of 18 March 2019, the median PFS (per investigator [INV]) was 22.9 m in Ven vs 11.4 m in Pbo (HR=0.587, p=0.001; Table 1), with a median follow-up of 22.7 m. Per INV, higher overall response (ORR, 84% vs 70%, p=0.009) and very good partial or better response (≥VGPR, 61% vs 40%, p<0.001; Table 2) rates were observed in Ven vs Pbo. Minimal residual disease negativity rate (by next-generation sequencing) was also higher in the Ven arm vs Pbo (MRD- [10-5], 13% vs 1%). Median duration of response was 23.4 m for Ven and 12.8 m for Pbo. In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but continued to favor Pbo (HR 1.474, 95% CI=0.870-2.498). A total of 70 deaths have been reported, 51 (26%) in the Ven arm and 19 (20%) in the Pbo arm. In the safety population (N=289), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; Ven/Pbo) were diarrhea (59%/48%), nausea (37%/22%), constipation (35%/31%), and fatigue (31%/32%). The most common Grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (18%/8%), pneumonia (17%/12%), anemia (16%/15%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), and diarrhea (15%/12%); 23%/12% discontinued Ven due to a TEAE. The rates of serious AEs (51%/51%) and serious infections (30%/28%) were comparable between arms. There were 69 deaths in the safety population: in the Ven arm, 14 were treatment-emergent (TE; treatment start to 30 days after discontinuation) and 36 were non-TE (>30 days after treatment discontinuation); in the Pbo arm, 1 was TE and 18 were non-TE. In the t(11;14) subgroup, median PFS has not been reached for pts receiving Ven, but was 9.3 m for Pbo (HR=0.095; per INV). In the t(11;14)-negative (neg) subgroup, median PFS was 22.4 m and 10.7 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=0.627; per INV). Median OS has not been reached in either arm for the t(11;14) and t(11;14)-neg subgroups, although the HR favored Ven in t(11;14) pts, and Pbo in t(11;14)-neg pts. Analyses indicate that low BCL-2 expression by IHC and high-risk cytogenetics (defined as t(4;14, t(14;16), or del(17p)) were associated with decreased PFS and OS in the Ven arm (Table 1). In the high-risk cytogenetics pts, median PFS was 11.4 m in both arms (HR=0.99), and median OS has not been reached in either arm but favors Pbo (HR=10.6). In the subgroup with low BCL-2 expression by IHC, median PFS was 11.7 m and 17.0 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=1.42), and median OS was 21.3 m in the Ven arm and not reached in Pbo (HR=4.58). Conclusions: Updated analysis of BELLINI continue to reflect a favorable benefit-risk profile in t(11;14) pts, with meaningful clinical responses and improvement in PFS, as well as a positive trend in OS in this subgroup when treated with Ven + Bd. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala:Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Punnoose:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; Roche: Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Sood:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy has been extensively explored as a strategy for prolonging the duration of disease control and potentially survival following ASCT. To date, only lenalidomide has been approved for this indication. However, lenalidomide maintenance is associated with the development of second primary malignancies and tolerability issues. PIs are a backbone of MM treatment, and bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, yet the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Moreover, the feasibility of bortezomib maintenance in routine clinical practice is limited due to tolerability and the need for regular parenteral administration. There is a need for an oral PI maintenance therapy that can be administered for a prolonged period, improve depth of response without cumulative or late-onset toxicity, and improve convenience for patients. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) compared weekly ixazomib vs placebo maintenance in NDMM patients who had at least a partial response (≥PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) followed by single ASCT. Patients were randomized (3:2) to receive ixazomib or matched placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen (PI without IMiD vs IMiD without PI vs PI+IMiD), pre-induction ISS stage (I vs II or III), and post-ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good partial response [VGPR] vs PR). Patients were ineligible if they had received post-ASCT consolidation or tandem ASCT. The ixazomib dose was 3.0 mg during cycles 1-4, increasing to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC), who were blinded to treatment assignment. The key secondary endpoint was OS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 57 years (range, 24-73), 37% vs 63% had ISS I vs II or III, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without IMiD / IMiD without PI / PI+IMiD induction therapy, 34%/45%/21% had achieved CR / VGPR / PR following induction/ASCT, and 18% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)]. After a median follow-up of 31 months with 54% of PFS events, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). In a landmark analysis from ASCT, PFS was 30.7 vs 24.9 months (HR 0.684; 95% CI: 0.551, 0.848; p<0.001). Median PFS2 and OS have not yet been reached in either arm. Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response compared with placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented MRD positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib compared with placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including ISS III (HR 0.661), PI-exposed (HR 0.750), PI-naïve (HR 0.497), and patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625). Discontinuation due to AEs was low (7% ixazomib vs 5% placebo). With ixazomib vs placebo, 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%) including pneumonia (6% vs 4%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Global Quality of Life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) on ixazomib were similar to placebo. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib maintenance, with deepening of responses and increased conversions to MRD negativity over control, as well as a favorable safety profile, including an absence of risk of second primary malignancies and low rates of peripheral neuropathy, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Takeda Celgene, Amgen, BMS, and Roche: Other: Advisor; Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Beksac:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Maisnar:Celgene: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chng:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Aslan: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Iida:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Toyama Chemical: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Suryanarayan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Department of Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic: Other: Affiliation. Dash:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 3884 Poster Board III-820 Background and Objective Thalidomide/dexamethasone (thal/dex) combination has shown high activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar SV. at al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431-436). In newly diagnosed patients, lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) has demonstrated superiority compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Although both thal/dex and len/dex are active in newly diagnosed MM, no randomized trial has been reported comparing these two regimens, and unfortunately none are ongoing or planned. We compared the efficacy and the toxicity of thal/dex and len/dex as primary therapy in 411 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Patients and methods 411 consecutive patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received induction with thal/dex (n=183) or len/dex (n=288) were retrospectively studied. Thalidomide was given at a dose ranging from 100 mg/day to 400 mg/day continuously; the lenalidomide dose was 25 mg/day, days 1-21 on a 28-day cycle. All patients received dexamethasone, either at high-dose (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20) or at low-dose (40 mg orally day 1, 8, 15, 22); each cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. In addition, a case-matched subgroup analysis that adjusted for age, gender and transplantation status was performed among patients who received high-dose dexamethasone comparing the thal/dex (n=72) and len/dex (n=72) groups. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results On intention-to-treat analysis, of 411 patients, 80.3% versus 61.2% patients, respectively in the len/dex group and in the thal/dex group (p < 0.001), achieved at least a partial response. A significant difference between the 2 groups was found in terms of both very good partial response or better (34.2% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001) and complete response rate (13.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Duration of therapy was significantly longer in len/dex patients as compared to thal/dex patients: 36.7% vs 12.6% of patients who did not stop treatment to receive SCT were still receiving therapy at 1 year (p < 0.001).Time-to-progression was significantly better in the len/dex group than in patients receiving thal/dex (median 27.4 vs 17.2 months, HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.019). Similarly, progression-free-survival was significantly higher in len/dex patients (median 26.7 vs 17.1 months, HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98; p = 0.036). This translated into an increase in overall survival (OS) (median not reached for len/dex group compared to 57.2 months in thal/dex patients, HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.018). Survival advantages were evident in patients presenting with International Staging System Stage (ISS) I/II (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.00; p = 0.052) at diagnosis but not in patients with ISS stage III in subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward better OS in len/dex group compared to thal/dex group both for patients who underwent transplant and for patients who did not. A similar rate of patients experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event (57.5% vs 54.6% in len/dex and thal/dex groups, respectively, p = 0.568). However, the toxicity profile was different in the two groups: major grade 3-4 toxicities of len/dex were hematological, in particular neutropenia (14% with len/dex vs 0.6% with thal/dex, p<0.001) while the most common toxicities in thal/dex were venous thromboembolism (15.3% vs 9.2%, p = 0.058) and peripheral neuropathy (10.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). The data on efficacy and safety shown above were also confirmed in the subgroup case-matched analysis which included only high-dose dexamethasone patients. Conclusions This cohort study shows the superiority of len/dex in terms of response rates and survival, compared to thal/dex. The toxicity profile of the 2 regimens is different and len/dex treatment, although more active, was not associated with increased toxicity (grade 3-4 AEs). These data need to be carefully evaluated and randomized prospective phase III studies are necessary to confirm these results and determine the optimal initial therapy for MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drugs in combination to standard care. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Bergsagel:amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; merck: Research Funding; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1228 Poster Board I-250 Background It is generally believed that a ‘deeper’ response in multiple myeloma is associated with an improved outcome, including time to progression (TTP) as well as overall survival. Before the advent of novel agents such as IMiDs or bortezomib, complete responses (CR) were rare in the absence of stem cell transplantation (ASCT). In that era, the depth of response achieved before ASCT tended to be dwarfed by the impact of the conditioning used for stem cell transplant. Hence, the time to progression in patients achieving CR before ASCT was not different from those who achieved CR after ASCT. With novel agents, CR rates are higher and again raises the question of whether patients who achieve CR before ASCT benefit from consolidation with ASCT. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether CR achieved before ASCT still benefit when consolidated with ASCT Methods After approval from the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic Rochester, the transplant dysproteinemia database was searched for all patients treated with novel agents and patients who achieved CR before or after ASCT were identified. In addition, we identified patients with IMiDs induction therapy and achieved CR but did not proceed with ASCT. Relevant demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics were determined at the time of ASCT. Comparisons between groups were performed with non-parametric tests. Overall survival and TTP were determined from the time of ASCT using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 354 patients who underwent ASCT within a year from diagnosis of multiple myeloma were identified. Of these, 24 achieved CR before proceeding to ASCT while another 100 patients achieved CR after ASCT. There were no differences between the two cohorts with respect to age (58 vs 57.5 yr, p=0.14), gender, number of treatment regimens (1 vs 1, p=0.83), time to ASCT (6.5 vs 6.3 months, p=0.80), b2M (2.41 vs 2.26, p=0.58) and ISS (p=0.23). Patients who achieved CR before ASCT had a lower plasma cell burden (1.0 vs 5.0%, p<0.0001) and lower labeling index (0 vs 0, p=0.0007). Aneuploidy was present in none of the patients with CR before transplant compared to 10% in patients who achieved CR after ASCT (p=0.11). The median TTP for patients with CR before ASCT has not been reached (71% at 70 months) compared to 30 months for patients who achieved CR after ASCT (p=0.07). After a median follow up of 70 months, 21 of 24 patients (88%) with CR before transplant are alive compared to 76 of 100 patients with CR after ASCT (p=0.44). In contrast, for patients who achieved CR with IMiDs but did not proceed with ASCT, 55% have not progressed at 51 months and 71.7% are alive at 51 months (Gay et al ASH, 2009). Conclusion Our results suggest that patients who achieve CR before ASCT benefit from high-dose therapy and experience prolonged TTP without the need for maintenance therapy. ASCT after achieving CR can result in a deeper response with improvement in disease free and overall survival. Disclosures Lacy: celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.