Krishnan, Amrita

Abstract Abstract 2877 FLC assay measures circulating unbound k and l light chains and is of diagnostic and prognostic value in plasma cell disorders. Normalization of FLC ratio is considered a higher level of complete response (CR) in MM but this has not been well validated prospectively. HLC is a novel antibody based assay that targets the unique junctional epitopes between the heavy chain and light chain constant regions of intact immunoglobulin (Ig) molecules. It separately measures in pairs the light chain types of each immunoglobulin class generating ratios of monoclonal Ig/background polyclonal Ig concentrations (i.e IgGκ/IgGλ, IgAκ/IgAλ and IgMκ/IgMλ); potentially simplifying assessment of monoclonal protein response. To assess the prognostic impact of these assays and to correlate them with electrophoretic/immunofixation (SPE/IFE) assessment, we analyzed 497 stored serum samples from patients enrolled in the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0102 clinical trial, sponsored by the NHLBI and NCI, of tandem autologous (autoHCT) vs. tandem autoHCT- allogeneic (alloHCT). Samples were collected prior to the first autoHCT and analyzed for FLC (Freelite™) and HLC (Hevylite™) at The Binding Site, UK. Corresponding disease status determination was centrally performed by an expert data review committee using uniform response criteria and correlated with FLC and HLC results. HLC remission was defined as normalization of composite heavy and light chain ratios across all 3 measured heavy/light chain pairs or the normalization of clonal isotype with normal ratios of uninvolved pairs. The demographics of 497 patients with HLC/FLC samples at baseline were concordant with the main study and showed similar patient proportions from the 2 study arms. Of the 211 pts with baseline SPE response better than or equal to a very good partial response (>VGPR), 188 also had an HLC remission (Sensitivity=89%). Comparison of the HLC remission with the >VGPR disease state also identified a specificity of 52%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 58% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 87%. Similarly, all 56 patients in complete remission (CR) by SPE/IFE were in HLC remission. Compared with conventional CR assessment, sensitivity of HLC remission was 100%, specificity 39%, PPV and NPV values of 17% and 100% respectively. FLC remission correlated with >VGPR disease state had a sensitivity of 47%, specificity of 81% and a PPV and NPV of 64% and 67% respectively. Multivariate models for post transplant progression free survival (PFS) indicated that baseline disease response (>VGPR vs. partial remission (PR) or<PR) was associated with longer PFS. Adjusted models including baseline response, myeloma stage and study arm were used to compare the predictive utility of HLC and FLC assays. There was a lower risk of treatment failure (HR 0.74, p=0.02) and superior PFS for patients who achieved an HLC remission. When stratified by baseline disease response states, there was no additional prognostic impact for HLC remissions on PFS. Normalization of FLC ratio among patients with >VGPR disease state did not impact PFS (HR 0.96, p=0.83). Abnormal HLC after induction therapy has a high negative predictive value (100%) for identifying patients not achieving CR by uniform response criteria and is also associated with shorter PFS after transplant. FLC ratio normalization had no impact suggesting that stringent CR criteria may need further validation. Disclosures: Krishnan: Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau. Alvi:the binding site: Employment. Harding:The Binding Site Group Ltd: Employment. Maloney:Cellgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract Background: Combination regimens incorporating bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc), lenalidomide (REVLIMID®, Rev), dexamethasone (Dex) and cyclophosphamide (Cy) (Vc–Dex, Rev–Dex, Vc–Dex–Rev [VDR], and Vc–Dex–Cy [VDC]), have all shown substantial activity in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). A combination of all four agents (VDCR) may result in even greater activity. This randomized multi-center 3-arm phase I/II EVOLUTION study is investigating the efficacy and safety of VDR, VDC, and VDCR as initial therapy in previously untreated MM patients (pts). We now report safety and efficacy results from the phase l dose-escalation portion of the study, which sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the VDCR regimen. These results represent the first clinical data with this novel 4-drug combination that includes bortezomib, lenalidomide, an alkylator, and a corticosteroid. Methods: Pts received Vc 1.3 mg/m2 IV (d 1, 4, 8, 11), Dex 40 mg PO (d 1, 8, 15), Rev 15 mg PO (d 1–14), plus Cy 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mg/m2 PO (d 1, 8) for up to eight 21-d cycles, followed by Vc 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 42-d maintenance cycles. Pts received prophylactic antibiotics, acyclovir, transfusion support and concomitant anticoagulants as required. Eligible pts wishing to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2, and discontinue therapy for ASCT any time after cycle 4. The MTD was defined as the highest dose of Cy in combination with VDR resulting in ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 6 pts. A DLT was defined as: platelet count <25,000/mm3 lasting >7 days or any platelet count <10,000/mm3; grade 4 neutropenia lasting >7 days; any ≥grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity considered to be related to Cy except for inadequately treated nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, or any toxicity resulting in a >2 week treatment delay. Results: Twenty-six pts were enrolled; 1 pt was not dosed due to a heart problem and was excluded (dose level 4) and 4 pts were not evaluable for DLT. In the 25 treated pts, median age was 61 years (range 49–79); 52% were male; 48% had ISS Stage lI and 4% Stage III disease, and 44% had KPS ≤80%. At data cut-off, 11 pts remain on treatment and 9 have undergone successful ASCT. To date, median treatment duration is 4 cycles (range 2–11). Two pts experienced DLT: 1 grade 4 febrile neutropenia at dose level 4 (Cy 400 mg/m2), and 1 grade 3 herpes zoster virus reactivation despite antiviral prophylaxis at dose level 5 (Cy 500 mg/m2). The recommended phase II dose of Cy in the VDCR regimen was the highest planned dose of 500 mg/m2. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were constipation (64%), fatigue (60%), and nausea (52%). Hematologic toxicities were acceptable, with grade 3 neutropenia in 16% of patients, grade 4 in 4%, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 4%. Peripheral neuropathy (56%), included 8% grade 3 but no grade 4; no deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism events were reported. Overall rate of serious AEs was 40%; the only SAE reported in >1 pt was febrile neutropenia (2 pts). Best responses to date by International Uniform Response Criteria are shown in the table. Preliminary response rates are: 100% ≥PR, 68% ≥VGPR, 32% CR/nCR, 28% CR/stringent CR and 20% sCR. Ten pts have undergone stem cell mobilization with median CD34+ yield of 4.95×106/kg. Conclusions: VDCR was well tolerated and hematologic toxicities were manageable. The current study shows that the VDCR regimen is feasible and highly active in newly diagnosed myeloma and merits further testing in clinical trials. Enrollment to the 3 arms (VDR, VDC and VDCR) of the phase ll portion of the study and testing for minimal residual disease by flow cytometry are ongoing. Best unconfirmed response to date with VDCR Dose level 1 2 3 4 5 Cyclophosphamide dose, mg/m2 100 200 300 400 500 Enrolled 3 4 4 8 7 Treated 3 4 4 7 7 Still on treatment – 1 1 2 7 Best unconfirmed response to date CR (sCR) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 1 (1) VGPR (nCR) 1 – 3 (1) 4 2 PR – 3 – 1 4

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Abstract 2965 Background: Alkylating agents have been the mainstay of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy for decades and despite introduction of several new therapies, it continues to play a significant role in its management as part of various drug combinations. While melphalan has been the most commonly used alkylator in MM, recent studies have suggested significant activity for bendamustine, a bifunctional alkylator. The combination of lenalidomide and melphalan has been associated with high response rates in relapse and newly diagnosed MM. Based on these promising results we designed a trial to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose of lenalidomide and bendamustine when used in combination as well as the efficacy of the combination in relapsed disease. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM and measurable disease were enrolled on this phase 1/2 trial provided they had not more than 4 prior lines of therapy for MM, had adequate performance status and organ and hematological function. Patients refractory to lenalidomide were allowed to enroll. The primary objectives were to (i) to determine the MTD of bendamustine and lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in subjects with relapsed MM (phase 1) and (ii) to evaluate the confirmed response rate of bendamustine in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (phase 2). Bendamustine (B) was administered on days 1 and 2 of a 28-day cycle at doses of 50–100 mg/m2. Lenalidomide (R) was given days 1–21 at doses of 15–25 mg daily. Dexamethasone (D) was administered at 40 mg weekly. Dose escalation was done using a 3+3 design and MTD was defined as one dose level below that resulted in >=2 DLTS among 6 patients. The primary end point for this trial was the proportion of patients with confirmed hematologic response (sCR, CR, VGPR, or PR) over the first 6 cycles of treatment. Results: A total of 72 patients were accrued to this study from March 2010 to May 2012: 21 patients in phase 1 and 51 in phase 2. The 6 patients from the MTD dose level of phase 1 were also included in phase 2. The median age of all 72 patients was 62.1 (range, 40–86) and 57% were male. Majority (75%) of patients had previously been exposed to lenalidomide and 69% had prior exposure to bortezomib. Median # of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1–5) and 74% of patients had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Patients have received a median of 4 cycles (range, 1–25), with 27 patients still continuing on active treatment. Disease progression led to study discontinuation in 22 (49%) and adverse events were the reason for discontinuation in 14 (31%). In phase I, two DLTs (Grade (Gr) 2 neuropathy and Gr 4 neutropenia) were seen at the highest dose level (100 mg/m2 B, 25 mg R), and the MTD was determined as 75 mg/m2 of B given days 1 and 2 and 25 mg of R days 1–21, along with D 40 mg weekly. Overall patients, 12/21 (57%) had a PR or better. In phase 2, 17 (40%) confirmed responses (>=PR) were seen among the 43 patients evaluable for response (received at least 6 cycles of treatment or have gone off study prior to 6 cycles); including 9 (21%) VGPR and 8 (19%) PR. An additional 5 patients had a minor response. Over all dose levels, a gr 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study was seen in 75% of patients. The most common toxicities were all hematological (thrombocytopenia and leukopenia), and most common non-hematological toxicity was infection. Prolonged time to recovery of blood counts was seen in a few patients, but majority of patients were able to tolerate the regimen with adequate dose reductions. Conclusion: The recommended dose of the combination for further studies is bendamustine at 75 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–21 and dexamethasone days 1, 8, 15, 22; with cycles repeated every 28 days. The regimen is well tolerated with hematological toxicity being the most common and manageable with dose reductions. The regimen is effective with high response rates and durable responses seen. Updated results with response rates and time to event analyses will be available for the entire cohort at the time of meeting. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Krishnan:celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Novartis: Expert Testimony, Expert Testimony Other. Vij:Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and a steroid are used to treat newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Although ixazomib (Ix), an oral PI with single agent activity, can be combined with lenalidomide (LEN), patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM are often LEN-refractory. Pomalidomide (POM) has single agent activity in LEN-refractory disease, and both POM and Ix also show activity in poor cytogenetic risk pts. Methods: Primary objectives: 1) determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Ix in combination with standard dose POM and dexamethasone (DEX), and 2) evaluate the anti-tumor activity of the triplet. The treatment regimen included two dose levels (3 mg and 4 mg) of Ix on days 1, 8, 15; POM 4 mg days 1-21; and DEX 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22, of a 28 day cycle. Eligibility: R/R MM after >1 prior therapy, LEN-refractory, and ≤ grade(gr) 1 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Design: Phase I study utilizing a standard 3+3 design; dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) defined during cycle 1. Results: 32 pts treated, 31 evaluable for toxicity and response. Pts received a median 4 cycles (range 1-13); median follow-up is 5.5 months (range 1.8-21.1). Six pts treated on DL1, 25 treated on DL2, the MTD/Phase II dose (P2D). Median age: 62 years (range 38-84); median time from diagnosis: 3.7 years (range 1.0-8.9); median number prior therapies: 3 (range 1-5); prior transplant: n = 23 (74%); double (LEN/Bortezomib[BOR]) or triple (LEN/BOR/Carfilzomib[CFZ]) refractory: 19 (61%). Phase I: DL1 expanded to n=6 after 1/3 pts experienced DLT (gr3 lung infection); no further DLT seen on DL 1 or 2. Adverse events (AEs) related to POM and/or Ix: ANC decrease Gr1/2 n=11 (35%), Gr3/4 n=10 (32%), platelet decrease Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), lymphocyte decrease Gr1/2 n=8 (26%), Gr3/4 n=11 (35%), PN Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), no Gr3/4. Response: Phase I and II, n=31 pts treated. ORR: 45% (6 VGPR, 8 PR); Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR): 81% (6 VGPR, 8 PR, 3 MR, 8 SD). In the pts with high risk cytogenetics (7[23%] 1q, 3[10%] 17p, 2[6%] t(4;14)) an ORR of 58% (3 VGPR, 4 PR) was seen, and the CBR was 83%. In the double or triple refractory pts, an ORR of 26% and CBR of 79% (1 VGPR, 4 PR, 3 MR, 7 SD) were observed. Conclusions: Ix/POM/DEX is a well-tolerated oral combination therapy, and responses were seen even at DL1 and in high risk patients, including those with poor-risk cytogenetics or advanced refractory disease. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Nathwani:Carevive Systems, Inc.: Research Funding. Forman:Mustang Therpapeutics: Other: Construct licensed by City of Hope. Berdeja:Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Bluebird, BMS, Calithera, Celgene, Constellation, Curis, Epizyme, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kesios, Novartis, Onyx, Takeda, Tragara: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 4217 Background: AHCT improves survival (OS) in newly diagnosed MM patients (pts) in large randomized trials. These trials have limited eligibility to younger, healthier pts. Selection of older pts and those with co-morbid illness for AHCT is problematic. HCT-CI, originally developed as predictor of post-allogeneic transplant outcomes, maybe valuable in stratifying risk of transplant related mortality (TRM) risk and OS in the AHCT setting. We investigated the relative impact of HCT CI along with other patient and MM related variables on outcomes after AHCT in a large cohort of transplant recipients. Methods: Outcomes of 1156 MM pts receiving AHCT after high dose Melphalan (MEL) between 2007 and 2010 reported to the CIBMTR (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research) were analyzed. HCTCI scores and individual comorbidities were prospectively reported at time of AHCT. Median follow up of survivors was 26 month. The impact of HCTCI and other potential prognostic factors including Karnofsky performance status (KPS) on OS were studied in multivariate Cox regression models. Results: HCTCI score was 0, 1, 2, 3, >3 in 42%, 18%, 13%, 13% and 14% respectively. Most common co-morbidities included pulmonary, diabetes, obesity, psychiatric, cardiac, renal and prior solid tumor. Using consolidated HCTCI scores, patients were stratified initially into 3 risk groups – HCTCI 0 (42%) vs. HCTCI 1–2 (32%) vs. HCTCI >2 (26%). Males and Caucasians were more likely to have greater HCTCI score. Higher HCTCI was associated with lower KPS <90 (33% in HCTCI 0 cohort vs. 50% in HCTCI >2). HCTCI score >2 was associated with MEL dose reduction to 140 mg/m2 (22% vs. 10% in score 0 cohort). Cytogenetic risk and MM related factors were not correlated with HCTCI. TRM at 12 month was 2%, 2%, and 3% for 3 risk groups. With extremely few TRM events, multivariate analysis did not suggest an impact of HCTCI. OS was 95%, 92%, 92% at 1 year and 87%, 81%, 80% at 2 year, respectively. OS was inferior for HCTCI >2 cohort (RR of death 1.48, p=0.02) and HCTCI cohort 1–2 (RR 1.37, p=0.04) compared with HCTCI 0 cohort. There was no significant difference in OS between HCTCI >2 vs. HCTCI 1–2 (p=0.64). Therefore the latter 2 groups were combined as the HCTCI >0 cohort [N=667] and compared with HCTCI=0 [N=489] in multivariate models. HCTCI >0 predicted inferior OS (RR of death= 1.41, p=0.01). Other significant predictors of inferior survival were KPS <90 (RR of death 1.61, p<0.01), IgA subtype (RR 1.64, p<0.01), >1 pretransplant regimen (RR 1.47, p<0.01), resistant MM at AHCT (RR 1.78, p<0.01). Major cause of death in both groups was progressive MM. Conclusion: In clinical practice, higher HCTCI score was associated with MEL dose reduction. Mortality after AHCT is predominantly related to MM progression/relapse with low incidence of TRM. Higher HCTCI scores were independently associated with inferior OS. KPS remains an important tool for risk stratification. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 591 Background: Survival of patients with MM has improved over the past two decades, in part due to the use of AHCT. Increasingly, second primary malignancies (SPMs) are observed in MM survivors. Determining the baseline incidence and risk factors associated with SPMs after AHCT is important to assess risk and to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of newer therapies. Methods: We analyzed the incidence of SPMs in 3784 MM patients receiving (“upfront”) AHCT for MM within 18 months of diagnosis between 1990 and 2010 and reported to the CIBMTR. Cumulative incidence rates of SPMs were estimated taking into account the competing risk of death. For each transplant recipient, the number of person-years at risk was calculated from the date of transplantation until date of last contact, death, or diagnosis of SPM, whichever occurred first. Incidence rates for all invasive cancers in the general population were obtained from the SEER database. Age-, sex-, and race- specific incidence rates for overall SPMs and particular anatomical sites were applied to the appropriate person-years at risk to compute the expected numbers of cancers. Observed–to –expected (O/E) ratios were calculated, and Poisson distribution 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Poisson regression model was used to analyze risk factors for overall SPMs and AML/MDS. Results: Pre-transplant therapy included novel agents in 56% including thalidomide (35%), lenalidomide (9%), bortezomib (16%) or their combinations (11%). Majority (80%) received high dose melphalan conditioning. Post-transplant maintenance therapy included thalidomide (16%), lenalidomide (8%), bortezomib (9%) and interferon (6%). Median follow-up of survivors was 52 months (range 3 to 192 months).With 12707 person years of follow up, 153 new malignancies were reported with a crude rate of 1.2 SPM per 100 person years of follow up. Observed/Expected [O/E] ratio for all SPMs was 0.99 (99% CI, 0.80–1.22). Cumulative incidence of SPM overall was 2.48% (95% CI, 1.96–3.05) at 3 years and 6.0% (95% CI, 4.96–7.10) at 7 years [Figure 1]. Individual SPMs observed significantly more frequently than expected are summarized in Table 1. The cumulative incidence of MDS/AML was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.28–0.78) at 3 years and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.85– 1.9%) at 7 years. Majority had MM progression prior to diagnosis of SPM (65 of 102 patients overall and 15 of 23 patients for MDS/AML). In multivariate analysis, significant risk factors for development of SPMs included: obesity [Hazard ratio = HR 1.89(95%CI, 1.21–2.93), p=0.0047 for BMI>30 vs. BMI<25], older age: [HR10.53 (95%CI, 1.46–75.82), p=0.0195] for 60–69 year olds and HR14.4 (95%CI, 1.89–109.75), p=0.01 for 70+ year olds compared to the 18–39 year old group. Specific conditioning regimens did not correlate with the risk of SPM. The low number of MDS/AML (33 events out of 3784 cases) limited the power of multivariate analysis. Increasing age was significantly associated with development of MDS (HR10.77, (95%CI,92.09–55.51), p=0.004 for 70+ year old vs. 40–49 year olds). Conclusion: In this large cohort of AHCT recipients for MM, the incidence of MDS/AML, melanoma and other skin cancers was significantly higher compared to age and sex matched general population. However the overall risk of SPM was similar to that expected for age and sex matched population. It was also similar to the placebo arms of recent reports by McCarthy Pl et al and Attal M et al (N Engl J Med. 10; 366(19):1770–91). Lenalidomide (8%) or thalidomide maintenance (16%) used in a small subset of patients with comparatively short follow up, was not associated with risk of SPM in the analysis of the overall cohort. Disclosures: Gale: Celgene: Employment. Brandenburg:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, BMS, Onyx, Merck all Consultancy. Krishnan:Celgene and Millennium: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dispenzieri:Celgene and Millennium: Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 596 Background Large population-based studies have demonstrated a significant improvement in survival (OS) for patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) over time since the mid-1990s. The improvement has mostly affected younger patients suggesting a beneficial impact of AHCT. The availability of novel drugs within the last decade and their impact on the utilization and outcomes of AHCT recipients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 20,278 patients undergoing AHCT within 12 months of diagnosis in USA and Canada and reported to CIBMTR in the periods of 1995–1999 (n=2226), 2000–2004 (n=6408) and 2005–2010 (n=11644) including a subgroup of 4373 individuals with detailed patient, disease and treatment information. We subsequently compared survival and analyzed patient, disease and treatment characteristics across the three periods with the time period serving as a surrogate for pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents. Results Across the 3 time periods, there was a marked increase in the number of upfront transplants across all age groups (Figure 1a). Patients receiving upfront HSCT in the more recent period were older, less likely to have stage 3 MM at diagnosis and more likely to have received thalidomide (<1 % vs. 22% vs. 52%), lenalidomide (0% vs. <1% vs. 21%) or bortezomib (0% vs. 2% vs. 35%) and have chemosensitive disease at the time of AHCT. The proportion of African-American patients remained low and stable across the three periods (14 vs. 13 vs. 15%). Over the 3 periods, there was a decrease in chemotherapy based stem cell mobilization and increase of single agent G-CSF based mobilization (24% vs. 24% vs. 41%). The use of single agent Melphalan conditioning increased from 54% in 1995–1999 to nearly 100% in the latest period concomitant with near disappearance of total body irradiation-based and multi-drug conditioning regimens. Compared with 1995–99 cohort, survival was superior in the 2000–04 and 2005–09 cohorts at 24 (72% vs. 79% vs. 84%, P<0.001), 48 (54% vs. 60% vs. 64%, P<0.001) and 60 months (47% vs. 52% vs. 55%, P<0.001) (Figure 1b). In multivariate analysis, we found that transplant in the 2000–04 period (HR=0.77, 95% C.I. 0.67–0.89) or in the 2005–10 period (HR=0.68, 95% C.I. 0.59–0.79) along with Karnofsky performance score of 80–100 (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.51–0.70) and chemosensitivity (HR= 0.76, 95% C.I. 0.66–0.87) were associated with lower risk of death. Factors associated with higher risk of death were age 50–65 (HR=1.29 95% 1.13–1.47), age 65–80 (HR=1.45, 1.23–1.72), Durie-Salmon or ISS stage III at diagnosis (HR 1.56, 95% C.I. 1.39–1.76) and more than one prior line of therapy (HR=1.15, 95% C.I. 1.03–1.28). In comparison to patients transplanted in 1995–99, post relapse survival was superior for patients transplanted in 2000–04 and 2005–10 at 24 months (58% vs. 65% vs. 72%, P=0.005 and <0.001 respectively) and 48 months (33% vs. 39% vs. 40%, P=0.023 and 0.033 respectively). The use of maintenance therapy has changed with 27% in 1995–99 receiving planned interferon vs. 23% in 2005–09 receiving planned thalidomide, lenalidomide or bortezomib maintenance. Conclusions Utilization of upfront AHCT is increasing in the USA, particularly in older patients. Improvement in survival for MM patients seen in population studies results not only from greater utilization of AHCT but also from the improvement in outcomes after AHCT and a significant recent improvement in post-relapse survival. Pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents likely contributes to survival. AHCT and novel agents are complementary and should be combined for the optimal management of newly diagnosed MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

High levels of circulating miR-16 in the serum of multiple myeloma (MM) patients are independently associated with longer survival. Although the tumor suppressor function of intracellular miR-16 in MM plasma cells (PCs) has been elucidated, its extracellular role in maintaining a nonsupportive cancer microenvironment has not been fully explored. Here, we show that miR-16 is abundantly released by MM cells through extracellular vesicles (EVs) and that differences in its intracellular expression as associated with chromosome 13 deletion (Del13) are correlated to extracellular miR-16 levels. We also demonstrate that EVs isolated from MM patients and from the conditioned media of MM-PCs carrying Del13 more strongly differentiate circulating monocytes to M2-tumor supportive macrophages (TAMs), compared with MM-PCs without this chromosomal aberration. Mechanistically, our data show that miR-16 directly targets the IKKα/β complex of the NF-κB canonical pathway, which is critical not only in supporting MM cell growth, but also in polarizing macrophages toward an M2 phenotype. By using a miR–15a-16-1–KO mouse model, we found that loss of the miR-16 cluster supports polarization to M2 macrophages. Finally, we demonstrate the therapeutic benefit of miR-16 overexpression in potentiating the anti-MM activity by a proteasome inhibitor in the presence of MM-resident bone marrow TAM.