Jacobus, Susanna

7540 Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI) with lenalidomide (R) and dex (d) has been a common initial therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM). We designed a randomized phase 3 trial to examine if carfilzomib (K), a next generation PI, improved progression free survival (PFS) compared with bortezomib (V) when either is combined with Rd for initial treatment of NDMM. Initial analysis at a median follow up of 15.3 months (mos) showed comparable PFS for both triplets. We present the long-term results of the trial with ~70 months median follow up. Methods: Patients (Pts) with NDMM, were randomized 1:1 to receive VRd or KRd for 36 weeks followed by a 2 nd randomization (1:1) to indefinite versus 2 yrs of R maintenance. Pts without del17p, t(14;16), t(14;20), plasma cell leukemia or high-risk GEP70 profile, were enrolled. VRd arm included V 1.3 mg/m 2 on days(d) 1, 4, 8, and 11 (d1, 8 for cycles 9-12), R 25 mg d1-14, and d 20 mg d1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 3-week (wk) cycle for 12 cycles, while pts in the KRd arm received K 36 mg/m 2 d1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 with R 25 mg daily on d1-21 and d 40 mg wkly, in 4 wk cycles for 9 cycles. Maintenance used 15 mg R d1-21 q4 wks. Results: The study accrued 1087 pts (VRd=542, KRd=545). Median age was 65y; baseline characteristics including intent to transplant were similar across the arms. Median induction duration (mos; IQR) was 7.2 (3.4-8.9) and 8.4 (5.1-9.1) for VRd and KRd, respectively; 59.8% in VRd and 45.3% in KRd did not proceed to Step 2. Median PFS (mos) was VRd=41.9 and KRd=44.6; HR = 0.89 (0.76-1.04). Toxicity data, PFS sensitivity analyses and OS probabilities are as in the table. Conclusions: In this randomized trial, with median follow up of nearly 6 years, KRd and VRd had comparable PFS and OS in an intent to treat analysis. While similar numbers proceeded to SCT in the 2 arms, more did so during induction in the VRd arm while more patients in the KRd arm went to SCT later. VRd remains a standard triplet induction regimen in standard and intermediate risk NDMM, and a suitable backbone for 4 drug combinations. Clinical trial information: NCT01863550 . N (%) VRd(n=527) KRd(n=526) SCT anytime 186 (34.3) 183 (33.6) SCT without Step 2 registration 146 112 Median Time to SCT (mos; range) 7.7 (3.5-83.9) 10.6 (3.7-70.6) Grade 3-4 Treatment-Related Toxicity 315 (59.8) 344 (65.4) Grade 5 Treatment-Related Toxicity 2 (0.4) 9 (1.7) Grade 5 All Events 11 (2.1) 20 (3.8) Survival outcomes HR Median (95% CI) Median (95% CI) PFS Primary: PD or death within 3 months of last evaluation as events 0.89(0.76-1.04) 41.9(35.7, 50.3) 44.6(38.2, 51.9) PFS Sensitivity: All deaths as events, 0.87(0.75-1.02) 39.5(34.9, 46.0) 42.8(37.4, 49.7) PFS Sensitivity: Censor at alternate Rx 0.83(0.69-0.99) 35.0(31.3, 42.6) 38.7(34.7, 49.0) PFS Sensitivity: Event at alternate Rx 0.84(0.73-0.97) 18.0(14.2, 23.0) 24.4(20.9, 27.9) Overall survival 0.92(0.75-1.12) 119(100, NE) 118(103-NE)

LBA3 Background: Bortezomib (btz) combined with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) (VRd) is a standard initial therapy for NDMM. Carfilzomib (cfz), a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with len-dex (KRd) has shown higher efficacy in phase II trials. This randomized phase III trial was designed to examine if KRd improves progression free survival (PFS) compared to VRd in NDMM (current results), and whether indefinite maintenance with len improves OS compared with two-year maintenance (to be analyzed once data matures). Methods: Patients (Pts) with NDMM, were randomized to receive VRd or KRd in a 1:1 fashion for 36 weeks followed by a second randomization (1:1) to indefinite versus two years of len maintenance. Pts without del17p, t (14;16), t(14;20), plasma cell leukemia or high-risk GEP70 profile, were enrolled. VRd arm included btz 1.3 mg/m2 on days(d) 1, 4, 8, and 11 (d 1, 8 for cycles 9-12), len 25 mg d 1-14, and dex 40 mg d 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 3-week (wk) cycle for 12 cycles, while pts in the KRd arm received cfz 36 mg/m2 d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 with len 25 mg daily on d 1-21 and dex 40 mg wkly, in 4 wk cycles for 9 cycles. Maintenance included len 15mg d 1-21 every 4 wks. The study was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 with 80% power at 1-sided 2.5% alpha and 399 PFS events (progression or death regardless of intervening therapy). Results: The study accrued 1087 pts (VRd=542, KRd=545). The median age was 65y. Treatment, efficacy, and toxicity data are in the table. At the second of 3 planned interim analyses, with PFS HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3, p=0.74), futility was met. Median PFS was VRd=34.4m and KRd=34.6m; no differences were seen based on age (<65 or ≥65), presence or absence of t(4;14) or ISS stage. The three-year OS (95% CI) was similar: VRd 84% (80 to 88) and KRd 86% (82 to 89). Conclusions: In this randomized phase 3 trial, KRd did not improve PFS compared with VRd in NDMM. A significantly higher rate of cardio-pulmonary and renal toxicity was observed with KRd, while neuropathy rates were higher with VRd. VRd remains the standard triplet induction regimen in standard and intermediate risk NDMM, and a suitable backbone for 4 drug combinations. Clinical trial information: NCT01863550 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide has shown efficacy in patients with relapsed myeloma in phase II and III clinical trials, and is currently being investigated as initial therapy for the disease. We report results of a phase III trial comparing lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (Dex) versus lenalidomide plus low-dose Dex as first line therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in both arms received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO on days 1–21 every 28 days. In addition, patients in the high-dose Dex arm (Arm A) received Dex 40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days, while pts in the low-dose Dex arm (Arm B) received Dex 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was best response at 4 months on intent to treat basis. At 4 months pts could go off study for stem cell transplant or elect to continue therapy until progression. Response was defined as a decrease in serum and urine monoclonal (M) protein by 50% or higher. If the serum M protein was unmeasurable, a 90% or higher decrease in urine M protein was required. Responses need to be confirmed at least 4 weeks apart. Patients with disease progression or not responding to lenalidomide within 4 months switched to thalidomide with the same dose of dexamethasone they were receiving (Arms C and D, respectively). An independent Data Monitoring Committee approved release of these results. Results: 445 pts were enrolled: 223 randomized to Arm A and 222 to Arm B. Median age was 65 yrs. Serious adverse event data based on expedited reporting (AdEERS) is available on all pts (see table). Common adverse events of Grade 3 or higher were thromboembolism (18.4% in arm A vs 5.4% in Arm B), infection/pneumonia (18.8% vs 9.0%) and hyperglycemia (5.8% vs 1.8%). Incidence of any grade 4 or higher toxicity was 22.0% in Arm A vs 12.6% in Arm B. Response data is being analyzed. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus two different schedules of Dex was investigated in this phase III trial. Preliminary results suggest that toxicity rates are higher in the high-dose Dex arm. The differences in the response rates between the two arms will dictate future trials and clinical practice. Major Toxicties (AdEERS) Toxicity Arm A (n=223) Arm B (n=222) Cardiac ischemia (Grade &gt;=3) 2.7% 0.5% Hyperglycemia (Grade &gt;=3) 5.8% 1.8% Infection/Pneumonitis (Grade &gt;=3) 18.8% 9.0% Neuropathy (Grade &gt;=3) 0.9% 0.9% Thromboembolism (Grade &gt;=3) 18.4% 5.4% Any non-Hem toxicity (Grade &gt;=3) 53.4% 36.0% Any toxicity (Grade &gt;=4) 22.0% 12.6% Death (Grade 5) 4.5% 1.4%

Abstract While there are certain common clinical features in myeloma, the disease shows significant heterogeneity with regard to disease progression, and responses to therapy, affecting both survival and toxicities. Heritable variations in a wide variety of genes and pathways affecting cellular functions and drug responses likely impact patient outcomes. In the Bank On A Cure (BOAC) program we have developed a custom chip that assesses 3,404 SNPs representing variations in cellular functions and pathways that may be involved in myeloma progression and response. The chip has gone through rigorous quality controls checks for high call rates, accuracy, and reproducibility that will be presented. Using the BOAC chip, we have conducted studies to look for SNPs that may identify biologic variations that are associated with good or poor response across a variety of treatments. In this study we looked for SNPs that may distinguish short term and long term survivors in two phase III clinical trials: ECOG E9486 and intergroup trial S9321. E9487 patients were treated with VBMCP followed by randomization to no further treatment, IFN-alpha, or cylcophosphamide; and, although there was variation in survival, no significant differences in survival were noted among the 3 arms of the trial. Patients included in this SNP study from S9321 received VAD induction followed by randomization to VBMCP or high dose melphalan + TBI. SNP profiles were obtained for patients with less than 1 year EFS (n=20 in E9487; n=50 in S9321) and patients showing greater than 3 years EFS (n=32 in E9486; n=41 in S9321). Statistical approaches were performed to identify single and groups of SNPs that best discriminated the survival groups. Previous studies have suggested genetic variations in drug metabolism genes, p-glycoprotein transport, and DNA repair genes may influence survival outcomes. Our results show significant survival associations of genetic variations in genes within these functional categories (eg. GST, XRCC, ABCB, and CYP genes). Although genetic variations were found that were uniquely associated with each clinical trial, several of these genetic variations show survival associations that increase in significance when the two trials were examined as a conglomerate data set. Grouping genetic variations through common pathway approaches using gene set enrichment analysis, as well as clustering or partitioning algorithms, further improve the value of the SNPs as potential prognostic markers of survival outcomes. These results and statistical approaches will be presented, and represent steps toward identifying patient variations in biologic mechanisms important in predicting therapeutic outcomes.

Abstract Title: Primary Therapy with Bortezomib—The Role of Induction, Maintenance, and Re-Induction in Patients with High Risk Myeloma. Update of Results from E2A02. Angela Dispenzieri, MD1, Susanna Jacobus, PhD2, David Vesole, MD3 and Philip R. Greipp, MD1. 1Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States, 55905 and 2Biostatistics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Boston, MA, United States, 02115. 3Saint Vincent’s Hospital, New York, NY 10010 Background: Single agent bortezomib as upfront therapy in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) results in response rates of 38% and the drug has been touted to be especially effective in patients with high risk disease. We sought to explore response rate, the role of maintenance and reinduction in a cohort of patients with high-risk MM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk myeloma (beta-2 microglobulin [B2M] &gt;= 5.5., plasma cell labeling index [PCLI] &gt;= 1, or deletion 13q) and adequate organ and functional status were eligible. Patients were treated with bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 day 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days for 8 cycles as induction. After induction, patients were scheduled to receive bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 every other week indefinitely. Elective peripheral stem cell mobilization (growth factor alone) was allowed after 4 cycles of bortezomib. Patients relapsing on maintenance schedule had full induction schedule resumed. Responses as defined by the EBMT criteria were determined after each cycle and needed to be confirmed after at least 6 weeks. Results: Between March 15, 2004 and March 10, 2005, 44 patients enrolled on study. Among the 42 eligible treated patients, median age was 63; 51% were male. All patients had high risk disease: deletion 13q (6/41); PCLI &gt;=1% (17/33); t(4:14) (4/27) and B2M &gt;= 5.5 (34/43). Nineteen patients completed induction, i.e. 8 cycles of bortezomib. The most common causes for discontinuing therapy were: progressive disease (n=17), AE (n=7), alternate therapy (n=4), death (n=1), and other (n=11). Forty-eight percent of patients achieved a partial response (PR) or better with induction (0 complete responses, 2 very good PR, 17 PR, 3 minimal responses, 5 no response, 9 progressive disease, and 6 inevaluable or missing). Response rates across risk groups did not differ with a PR or better for patients with deletion 13q (2/6); PCLI &gt;=1% (8/17); t(4:14) (2/4) and B2M &gt;= 5.5 (15/33). One patient’s response was upgraded to CR during maintenance. The rate of painful peripheral neuropathy during all courses of therapy was: grade 1, n=25; grade 2, n=2; and grade 3, n=2. With a median follow-up of 41.6 months (95%CI 36.6–43), 43% of patients have died. Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure), and the 1- and 2-year OS rates were 88.1% (95%CI 73.7–94.9%) and 76.2% (95%CI 60.3–86.4%) respectively. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 16.3 months (95%CI 6.2–26.6) and the 1- and 2-PFS were 76.7% (95%CI 58.8–87.6%) and 38.3% (95%CI 20.6–55.9%), respectively. Fifteen patients went on to maintenance. The distribution by risk group for patients entering maintenance was not different across groups: deletion 13q, 3/6; high PCLI, 6/17; high B2M, 11/33; t(4;14), 1/4; and p53, 0/2. For those entering maintenance, the median PFS was 19.8 months (Figure), and the 1 year PFS rate was 75% (95%CI 40.8–91.2%). Of the 7 patients progressing on maintenance who received reinduction with bortezomib, no patient responded. Only 2 remain on therapy. Figure Figure Conclusions: In high risk patients, upfront bortezomib results in response rates comparable to those reported for unselected cohorts of newly diagnosed myeloma patients. For patients responding to therapy, maintenance therapy is feasible. Reinduction was unsuccessful in high risk patients failing maintenance.

Abstract Background: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are a common complication of therapy with the lenalidomide plus dexamethasone regimen. The incidence of VTE with RD is approximately 20%, and can be lowered with the use of effective thromboprophylaxis, avoidance of erythropoietin, and the use of lower doses of dexamethasone. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of VTE on overall survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma by studying events occurring in ECOG E4A03 phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The trial initially did not mandate routine thromboprophylaxis, but recommended that such treatment be considered. After the first 264 patients were enrolled the trial was amended to require mandatory thromboprophylaxis of aspirin for all patients, with a recommendation to use stronger thromboprophylaxis with either warfarin (target INR 2–3) or low molecular weight heparin among patients in the RD arm. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 30 months. Overall VTE including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 18.5% of patients; 25.6% in Arm A and 11.4% in Arm B. Rates for the first 4 cycles of treatment were 20.2% in Arm A and 8.2% in Arm B, P&lt;0.01. Rates did not change substantially before and after the prophylaxis amendment. A partial response (PR) or higher was seen in 82.1% of pts who experienced VTE compared with 74.6% of pts who did not experience VTE, P=0.19. Overall VGPR rates also were not inferior. Pts who had VTE, however, had significantly higher other grade 3–5 toxicities such as hyperglycemia (14.6% vs 7.5%, P=0.051), cardiac ischemia (4.9% vs 0.8%, P=0.002), non-neuropathic weakness (13.4% vs 6.4%, P=0.039), infection/pneumonia (17.1% vs 11.1%, P=0.138) and fatigue (18.3% vs 10.5%, P=0.060). In a Cox PH model, VTE status as a time-varying covariate was marginally significant: HR 1.54 95%CI (0.96–2.47), P=0.074, suggesting patients that develop VTE have a higher hazard of death. Conclusions: The occurrence of VTE may adversely affect the survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma receiving Rev-Dex. VTE was associated with a higher frequency of other serious adverse events. Prevention of VTE events is a priority. Besides lowering the dose of dexamethasone, studies investigating optimum thromboprophylaxis are needed.

TPS8052 Background: The most common translocation in multiple myeloma (MM) is t(11;14)(q13;q32), present in approximately 20% of cases. MM cells with t(11;14) usually have a favorable high BCL-2 level and inferior outcomes compared to standard risk MM. Venetoclax (VEN) is a potent, selective, orally available small-molecule BCL-2 inhibitor that induces cell death in MM cell lines and primary samples. VEN has single agent activity in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) with an acceptable safety profile, especially in t(11;14) MM; however, non- t(11;14) MM patients may benefit from single agent VEN and VEN incorporated in multi-agent RRMM regimens. Dexamethasone (d) promotes Bcl-2 dependence in MM resulting in sensitivity to VEN and this combination with bortezomib (Vd-VEN) has an acceptable safety profile with high response rates in heavily pre-treated MM. Combination therapy with daratumumab and bortezomib (DVd) has become a standard of care in RRMM. Our hypotheses are that the addition of VEN will improve upon this standard and be most effective in the t(11;14) positive subset. Methods: Eligibility criteria include RRMM with measurable disease, not bortezomib refractory, platelet count > 100K. t(11;14) is an integral biomarker with status (positive or negative) established at registration. After a Ph1 study to determine the recommended phase 2 VEN dose, patients are randomized to DVd +/- VEN [stratified by prior lines of therapy and R-ISS]. The primary Ph2 objectives are to compare 8-cycle minimal residual disease (MRD) negative rate and to inform the role of t(11;14) as a biomarker. The Ph2 design proposed by Freidlin et al. follows a decision algorithm as outlined in the table below. Simulations were run to establish an optimal sample size given various parameters including biomarker prevalence and power to make appropriate decisions for a Ph3 design. Target Ph2 accrual is 240 patients with a 1/3 positive:2/3 negative t(11;14) split. Clinical trial information: NCT03701321. [Table: see text]

8001 Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor to myeloma, wherein current standard of care is observation (obs). Data from a randomized Spanish trial (Mateos et al, NEJM 2015) suggest that lenalidomide(len)/dexamethasone improves time to developing myeloma (TTP) and overall survival (OS) for patients (pts) with high risk (HR) SMM over obs. However, pts were not screened with advanced imaging techniques, used a HR definition that is not routinely available, and combination therapy limited the ability to isolate the effect of len, and thus has not become standard of care. Methods: E3A06 is a randomized phase III intergroup trial, testing the effect of single agent len compared with obs for pts with intermediate or high risk SMM. In an initial phase II run in all pts received len to demonstrate safety. Eligibility required ≥10% PCs and abnormal serum FLC ratio (<0.26 or >1.65). The primary endpoint was progression PFS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the one-sided stratified log-rank test. Results: PII enrolled 44 pts and PIII randomized 182 pts to either len (n=90) or obs (n=92) [stratified on time since SMM diagnosis ≤1y vs >1y]. Baseline characteristics were similar between the arms. 80% (PII) and 51% (PIII) are off len, primarily due to adverse events (AE) or pt withdrawal. Among the len treated pts, G3/4 non-hematologic AE occurred in 28% of PIII pts with fatigue being most common (n=5). G4 hematologic AE rate was 5.7%, primarily neutropenia (n=4). 3-year cumulative incidence of invasive SPMs was 5.2% (len) and 3.5% (obs). Overall response rate was 47.7% for the phase II study, and in phase III, 48.9% for the len arm, and 0% for the obs arm. Median follow up was 71 months (PII), and 28 months (PIII). 3-year PFS was 87% for the PII cohort. One, 2 and 3-year PFS was 98%, 93%, and 91% for len, and 89%, 76%, and 66% for the obs arm (HR 0.28, p=0.0005) favoring the len arm. No difference in QOL score was noted between arms. Conclusions: Overall, this trial represents the largest randomized trial in SMM to date. In conjunction with the Spanish data, this trial may support a change in clinical practice. Clinical trial information: NCT01169337. [Table: see text]

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