Mateos, María‐Victoria

Abstract We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10−5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P < .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P < .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172.

Abstract In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10−5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Abstract Frailty is most prevalent among elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients, and frail patients have a higher risk of poor outcomes due to reduced performance status or comorbidities. This post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and safety of carfilzomib combinations in frail patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM from the phase 3 ASPIRE (carfilzomib [27 mg/m2]-lenalidomide-dexamethasone [KRd27] vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone [Rd]), ENDEAVOR (carfilzomib [56 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd56] vs bortezomib-dexamethasone [Vd]), and ARROW (once-weekly carfilzomib [70 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd70] vs carfilzomib [27 mg/m2]-dexamethasone [Kd27]) studies. A frailty algorithm incorporating age, Charlson comorbidity index, and performance status classified patients as fit, intermediate, or frail. Results are presented for frail patients (ASPIRE, n = 196; ENDEAVOR, n = 330; ARROW, n = 141). In ASPIRE, median progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval) was 24.1 (KRd27) vs 15.9 months (Rd) (0.78; 0.54-1.12); median overall survival (OS) was 36.4 vs 26.2 months (0.79; 0.57-1.08). In ENDEAVOR, median PFS was 18.7 (Kd56) vs 6.6 months (Vd) (0.50; 0.36-0.68); median OS was 33.6 vs 21.8 months (0.75; 0.56-1.00). In ARROW, median PFS was 10.3 (once-weekly Kd70) vs 6.6 months (twice-weekly Kd27) (0.76; 0.49-1.16). In all 3 studies, rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with those observed in the primary studies. The ASPIRE, ENDEAVOR, and ARROW primary analyses demonstrated favorable benefit-risk profiles with carfilzomib-containing regimens compared with controls. Across clinically relevant subgroups, including those by frailty status, consistent efficacy and safety were observed with KRd27, Kd56, and weekly Kd70, and treatment with these regimens should not be restricted by frailty status.

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.

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action, and has been approved across lines of therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care (SoC) regimens, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP), in the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE clinical studies reduced the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44%, nearly doubled the rate of complete response (CR) or better, and induced a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold) vs SoC alone in pts with TIE NDMM. In both MAIA and ALCYONE, MRD negativity was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), irrespective of trial treatments. MRD negativity provides an index of deep clinical response and may be a more robust evaluation of disease control if sustained over time. Here, we evaluate MRD negativity, including sustained MRD negativity, in pts with TIE NDMM from MAIA and ALCYONE and its association with PFS with longer follow-up. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation due to age (≥65 years) or unacceptable coexisting conditions in MAIA and ALCYONE were randomized (1:1) to SoC ± DARA. Pts in MAIA received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter). ALCYONE pts received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (V: 1.3 mg/m2 SC twice weekly during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycle 1 and QW during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycles 2-9; M: 9 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9; and P: 60 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycle 1, Q3W for Cycles 2-9, and Q4W for Cycles 10+). Study treatments continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. MRD was assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE in all pts who achieved a CR or stringent CR. For ≥CR pts, additional MRD assessments occurred at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after the first dose in ALCYONE and at 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 months in MAIA. MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing using the clonoSEQ® assay (v.2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold. Sustained MRD negativity was defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity confirmed ≥6 or ≥12 months apart with no MRD positive test in between and was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: A total of 737 (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) pts in MAIA and 706 (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) pts in ALCYONE were randomized; median duration of follow-up was 36.4 months in MAIA and 40.1 months in ALCYONE. In both studies, DARA-based therapy improved MRD negativity vs SoC in the ITT population (D-Rd, 28.8% vs Rd, 9.2%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 28.3% vs VMP, 7.0%, P<0.0001). MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs MRD-positive pts in the ITT population, regardless of treatment arm. In a pooled analysis of pts from DARA (D-Rd/D-VMP) and SoC (Rd/VMP) treatment groups, MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs pts who were MRD positive, irrespective of treatment arm. In general, baseline characteristics were comparable among pts in DARA and control treatment groups with sustained MRD negativity. A higher proportion of pts in the ITT populations of MAIA (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) achieved sustained MRD negativity with DARA-based therapy vs SoC for ≥6-months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%, P<0.0001) and ≥12-months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; P<0.0001; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%, P<0.0001). PFS was prolonged in pts with sustained MRD negativity for ≥6-months and ≥12-months vs pts without sustained MRD negativity in the pooled ITT populations, regardless of treatment arm (Figure). Conclusions: DARA-based combination regimens induce higher rates of MRD-negativity and sustained MRD negativity in pts with TIE NDMM, which are associated with deep responses and improved PFS. Disclosures San-Miguel: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen;: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mateos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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; Sanofi: 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; Takeda: 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; GSK: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDOMundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Touzeau:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sanofi: Honoraria. Cavo:BMS: 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, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: 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, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Ukropec:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramaswami:Janssen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pei:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Janssen: Current Employment. Krevvata:Janssen: Current Employment. DeAngelis:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Heuck:Christoph Heuck: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Current Employment. Kudva:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: non-paid consultancy. Kobos:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qi:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson and Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bahlis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria.

TPS8554 Background: BCL-2 is an anti-apoptotic protein important for myeloma cell survival. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor, that has shown promise in clinical studies as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in patients with t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Kumar et al. Blood. 2017; Costa et al. ASH 2018. Abstr. #303; Harrison et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #142; Bahlis et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #925; Kaufman et al. ASH 2019. Abstr. #926). Notably, t(11;14)-positive MM is more dependent on BCL-2 for cell survival, which, together with these clinical data, suggests that Ven combined with dexamethasone (Dex) may provide greater clinical benefit versus standard therapies, like pomalidomide (Pom), in this biomarker-defined patient population. This ongoing Phase 3 study (CANOVA; NCT03539744) aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VenDex vs PomDex in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) must have t(11;14)-positive RRMM per central lab, an ECOG performance status ≤2, received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, previously received a proteasome inhibitor, and must be refractory to lenalidomide and last line of therapy. Patients cannot have history of treatment with Ven, Pom, or other BCL-2 inhibitors. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to Ven (800 mg orally, once-daily) or Pom (4 mg orally, once-daily on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles). Patients in both groups will receive 40 mg Dex (20 mg for patients ≥75 years) once weekly. Treatment will continue until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. Patients will be stratified based on age at randomization ( < 65 vs ≥65 years), prior lines of therapy (2 to 3 vs ≥4), and International Staging System stage at screening (I vs II vs III). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee (IRC) assessment based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. The final PFS analysis will be performed when approximately 147 PFS events per IRC are observed. Secondary endpoints are response rate, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, duration of response, times to response and progression, minimal residual disease negativity rate, safety, and Ven pharmacokinetics. Approximately 244 patients will be enrolled; as of January 21, 2020, 28 patients have been randomized (from 19 sites in 12 countries) and enrollment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03539744 .

e19505 Background: CFZ combined with dexamethasone is approved to treat pts with RRMM, with CFZ given once-weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW) or twice-weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW). No randomized trials have directly compared Kd70 QW with Kd56 BIW. We performed a post hoc comparison between pts who received Kd56 BIW in the ENDEAVOR trial and pts who received Kd70 QW in the A.R.R.O.W. or CHAMPION-1 trials. Methods: Data were analyzed from 3 trials of CFZ in RRMM: A.R.R.O.W. (240 pts in Kd70 QW arm; 2–3 prior therapies and refractory to most recent therapy), CHAMPION-1 (104 pts received Kd70 QW; 1–3 prior therapies), and ENDEAVOR (464 pts in Kd56 BIW arm; 1–3 prior therapies). Pts who received Kd70 QW in A.R.R.O.W. and CHAMPION-1 were pooled and compared with pts who received Kd56 BIW in ENDEAVOR. As study populations slightly varied among the 3 trials, an analysis of safety and efficacy was performed in a subgroup of pts who received 2–3 prior therapy lines and were not refractory to bortezomib (BTZ). Also, we performed regression analyses (controlling for age, ISS stage, BTZ and lenalidomide refractory status, and number of prior regimens) among all pts in the trials who received Kd70 QW or Kd56 BIW. Results: Among BTZ non-refractory pts with 2–3 lines of prior therapy, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.4–14.3) for Kd70 QW (n = 146) and 14.5 months (95% CI 10.2–NE) for Kd56 BIW (n = 217), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% CI 61.7–77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI 65.9–78.2) for Kd56 BIW. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 67.6% and 85.3%; among adverse events of interest, the grade ≥3 rate was 1.4% and 5.1% for cardiac failure, 3.4% and 6.0% for renal failure, and 5.5% and 15.7% for hypertension. Kd70 QW represents a convenient and well-tolerated treatment modality for pts with RRMM. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for PFS (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.69–1.19), and in a logistic regression model the odds ratio for ORR (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.74–1.69). Conclusions: This post hoc analysis suggests that once-weekly Kd70 has a comparable benefit-risk profile to twice-weekly Kd56. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878, NCT01677858, NCT01568866.

8027 Background: A.R.R.O.W. demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with once-weekly K (70 mg/m2)-dexamethasone (Kd70) vs twice-weekly K (27 mg/m2)-dexamethasone (Kd27) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) pts, regardless of age. Weekly Kd70 is US-approved for relapsed or refractory MM (1–3 prior therapy lines). For a comprehensive fitness measure, frailty scales were developed incorporating age, comorbidities, and functional status. (Palumbo Blood 2015; Facon Blood 2015). Here we assessed post hoc pt outcomes by frailty status. Methods: PFS and safety were assessed by treatment arm and a frailty algorithm incorporating age, medical history–derived Charlson Comorbidity Index, and ECOG performance status; pts with frailty scores of 0, 1, or ≥2 were classified as fit, intermediate (int), or frail, respectively. PFS was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Safety was assessed in pts who received ≥1 treatment dose. Results: Pt distribution by frailty status was generally balanced between arms (Table). Once-weekly Kd70 vs twice-weekly Kd27 resulted in median PFS for fit, int, and frail pts of 15.7 vs 5.7 (mos; HR 0.53 [95% CI, 0.33–0.86]), 11.1 vs 7.7 mos (HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.55–1.19]), and 10.3 vs 6.6 mos (HR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.49–1.16]), respectively. Rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest were similar between treatment arms across frailty subgroups (Table). In the once-weekly Kd70 subgroups, there was no grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy (PN); grade ≥3 cardiac failure rates were ≤4%. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd70 resulted in PFS benefits vs twice-weekly Kd27 with a favorable benefit/risk profile regardless of frailty score as defined. These results support weekly Kd70 as a treatment option for both fit and frail RRMM pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878. [Table: see text]

8015 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with varying survival outcomes depending on the presence of certain genetic abnormalities. Common abnormalities include trisomies, translocations involving chromosome 14, and amplifications or deletions of chromosomes 1, 13, and 17. t(11;14), occurring in approx. 15% of patients (pts) with MM, is considered a standard risk abnormality, but recent data suggest that the prognosis may be inferior to what had been expected. This is of particular relevance as new therapeutic options such as the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax has been shown to be effective in t(11;14) pts. Methods: This was a multicenter study designed and conducted by the IMWG, to identify the outcomes of pts with t(11;14) using a retrospective cohort of pts. Pts with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 with t(11;14) identified on FISH performed within six months (mos) of diagnosis, and with treatment details available and if alive, a minimum of 12 mos of follow up, were enrolled. Results: The current analysis includes 848 pts with a median age of 64.4 years; 60.0% are male. The median follow-up from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 45.7 mos; 84.7% of the pts were alive at the last follow up. ISS stage distribution included: Stage 1 (35.3%), Stage II (38.9%) and stage III (25.8%). The distribution of FISH abnormalities included: del 13q (14.5%), 1q amp (12.1%), del 17p or monosomy 17 (6.1%). Pts received initial therapy with different regimens: IMiD-24.3%, PI-41.0%, both-20.8% and 13.8% had no novel agent. The drug classes by line of therapy are shown in table. An early stem cell transplant (SCT) was used in 40.8% of pts. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) after initial treatment was 15.0 (95% CI: 12.2 to 17.7) mos. The median overall survival from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 82.5 (95% CI: 73.5 to 95.8) mos. Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the outcomes of a large group of myeloma pts with t(11;14) abnormality. Pts receiving a combination if a PI and an IMiD appear to have the best survival outcomes and thse receiving an early SCT appear to have excellent survival with median OS approaching 10 years. Additional pts are being accrued to this study and additional analysis examining the variables affecting response duration and survival will be presented. [Table: see text]

8000 Background: The diagnostic criteria for MM were revised in 2014, recategorizing ultra-high risk (i.e., 80% at two years) as active myeloma requiring therapy. The removal of patients at the highest risk of progression from the smoldering group requires reassessment of current risk stratification models. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study of SMM patients to develop a risk stratification model. Patients diagnosed with SMM on/after January 1, 2004 were included if they had no disease progression within 6 months, had baseline data from diagnosis (+/- 3 months), had a follow up of ≥1 year, and did not participate in a therapeutic trial of SMM. Various clinical and laboratory factors were explored to identify factors that predicted progression at 2 years. Univariate Cox regressions were run for each factor. For factors with p-values ≤ 0.25, optimal cut points were identified using Youden’s index. Binary factors were used in stepwise regression to fit multivariable Cox model and significant risk factors were determined (F-test). Results: Overall, 2004 patients were included (ages 26-93, 51% female). Factors independently associated with progression (optimal cutoffs) included: Serum M protein (2 g/dL), involved to uninvolved serum-free light chain ratio (20), and marrow plasma cell % (20%). Patients were stratified using the risk factors: Low- (0 factors), Intermediate- (1), and High-Risk (≥2). Previously used high risk markers such as Bence Jones proteinuria (≥500 mg/24 hours) and severe immunoparesis (50% decrease in uninvolved immunoglobulin levels) were both significant in univariate analysis, but were eliminated on step wise selection. Compared to the low risk group, intermediate- and high-risk groups had significantly higher rate of progression (Table). Within the high-risk group, having all 3 risk factors (n=61) versus 2 did not add to the model, with insufficient separation between 2 and 3 factors. Conclusions: We have developed a risk stratification model for SMM that incorporates revised cutoffs for previously used parameters (20/2/20) that can be universally applied. Additonal analysis are being conducted to develop models that utilize common cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as those without FLC given lack of availability of all tests across the world. [Table: see text]