Mateos, María‐Victoria

Abstract Combination of carfilzomib with dexamethasone (Kd) is approved for use in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with carfilzomib administered twice weekly at 56 mg/m 2 (Kd56 BIW) or once weekly at 70 mg/m 2 (Kd70 QW). Post hoc cross‐trial comparisons were performed to compare efficacy and safety profiles of Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW dosing schedules using data from three trials of patients with RRMM: A.R.R.O.W., CHAMPION‐1, and ENDEAVOR. To select for comparable patient populations, side‐by‐side efficacy and safety comparisons were performed in subgroups of patients with 2‐3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to bortezomib. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7‐77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI, 65.9‐78.2) for Kd56 BIW. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI, 8.4‐14.3) for Kd70 QW and 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.2—not evaluable) for Kd56 BIW. Frequency of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 67.6% for Kd70 QW and 85.3% for Kd56 BIW. Regression analyses (adjusting for prognostic factors) of all patients in the trials who received Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW estimated a PFS hazard ratio of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.69‐1.19; P = .47) and an ORR odds ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.74‐1.69; P = .61). These results suggest that Kd70 QW has a comparable efficacy profile compared with Kd56 BIW and represents a convenient and well‐tolerated treatment for patients with RRMM.

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 the chromosome 14, and amplifications or deletions of chromosomes 1, 13, and 17. t(11;14), occurring in 15% of patients with myeloma, had been considered a standard risk abnormality, but recent data suggest inferior outcome. This is important as new therapeutic options such as the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax has been shown to be particularly effective in t(11;14) patients. Methods: This was a multicenter study to identify the outcomes of patients with t(11;14), using a retrospectively assembled cohort. Patients with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 with t(11;14) identified on FISH performed within six months of diagnosis, and with treatment details available and if alive, a minimum of 12 months of follow up, were enrolled. Results: The current analysis includes 1216 patients; median age of 62.56 years; 58.7% male. The median follow-up from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 51.9 months; 69.1% of the patients were alive at the last follow up. ISS stage distribution included: Stage I (35.7%), Stage II (34.0%) and Stage III (15.1%), data was missing for the rest. The distribution of concurrent FISH abnormalities included: trisomies (3.5%), del 13q (13.3%), 1q amp (8.8%), and del 17p or monosomy 17 (5.8%). Initial regimen included: 27.2% had an immunomodulatory (IMiD), 45.9% had a proteasome inhibitor (PI), 17.7% had both, and 9.0% had no novel agent. The drug classes by line of therapy are shown in Table 1. An early stem cell transplant (defined as within 12 months of start of first line treatment) was used in 49.4% of patients. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) after starting initial treatment was 26.6 (95% CI: 23.9 to 29.2) months. The median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 95.1 (95% CI: 85.9 to 105.9) months; 4-year estimates for those diagnosed from January 2005 to December 2009, and from January 2010 to December 2014 were 77.5% and 78.6%, respectively. The median OS for those with any one high risk FISH lesion (del 17p/ 1q amp) was 67.5 (55.2, 97.1) versus 101.7 (89.7, 107.3) months. Patients with early SCT (within 12 months of diagnosis) had better OS: 108.3 (103.8, 133.0) vs. 69.8 (61.5, 80.3) months. Conclusion: Patients with t(11;14) without high risk FISH abnormalities have an excellent survival. Patients receiving a PI + IMiD combination and those receiving autologous SCT as part of initial therapy had best survival. Though numbers are limited, patients in the later lines receiving newer drugs such as venetoclax and daratumumab had high response rates and durable responses. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Bittrich:Celgene: Other: Travel Funding, Research Funding; Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Europe: Other: N/A; SANOFI Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, N/A, Research Funding; University Hospital Wuerzburg: Employment; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Funding; AMGEN: Other: Travel Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Funding; Wilhelm Sander Foundation: Research Funding; German Research Foundation (DFG): Other: N/A; University of Würzburg: Other: N/A. Goldschmidt:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Stiftung: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Reece:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; PharmaMar: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mangiacavalli:celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen cilag: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Kastritis:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy. Raje:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Rosta:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Haltner:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Cameron:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment, Equity Ownership. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Introduction : Daratumumab (DARA) is a human CD38 antibody approved in combination with standard-of-care (SoC) regimens in pts with NDMM who are TIE. DARA-based treatments showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with TIE NDMM in ongoing phase 3 studies ALCYONE (DARA + bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP] vs VMP) and MAIA (DARA + lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd] vs Rd continuous). An NMA allows estimation of the relative efficacy of regimens not compared in head-to-head trials. A previous NMA examined D-VMP and D-Rd vs comparators (Facon T et al., EHA 2019), excluding the SWOG S0777 study (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [VRd]; Durie BG, et al. Lancet 2017) as it enrolled both transplant-eligible (TE) and TIE pts, and data for pts who are TIE only (~50% [aged ≥65 y and frail]) were unavailable. In this NMA, D-Rd and D-VMP had the highest probabilities of being more effective than reference treatment Rd continuous in terms of PFS. Recently, VRd received EMA approval for treatment of TIE NDMM based on SWOG S0777, but results specific to TIE pts are still unavailable. Recent NMAs of TIE pts (Blommestein HM et al., Haematologica, 2019; Weisel et al., EHA 2019; Cao Y et al., Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2019) have included data from the the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of SWOG S0777, though its inclusion violates the similarity assumption. Here, we present a sensitivity analysis of the previously-conducted NMA including all pts who received VRd in SWOG S0777 for a comprehensive view of the comparative effectiveness of DARA-based treatments in TIE NDMM. Methods: VRd was included as part of a sensitivity analysis of the previous NMA based on the ITT population, reporting PFS and overall survival (OS). The Guyot method was used to estimate OS hazard ratios (HRs) for pts aged ≥65 y (proxy for TIE) from SWOG S0777 (Durie BG et al., ASH 2018). Median follow-up in ALCYONE and MAIA was 27.8 months and 28.0 months, respectively. Based on a systematic literature review conducted through January 2019, both PFS and OS were extracted and synthesized in Bayesian NMAs. Choice of fixed- or random-effects (FE or RE) model was based on lowest deviance information criterion (DIC) and/or presence of heterogeneity in the network. Rd continuous was selected as reference, as it was commonly included in guidelines across regions. For PFS and OS, HR <1 indicates the comparison is not in favor of Rd continuous. In addition to the previous NMA, we also report an NMA sensitivity analysis including only comparators approved by the EMA that are relevant for the European, Middle East and/or Africa (EMEA) region (EMEA NMA). Results: Global NMA: RE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.42-1.30), which was similar to SWOG S0777 (0.71; [96% Wald confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.91]) and higher than HRs for D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.97) and D-VMP (0.58; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.62; Table). For OS, the SWOG S0777 HR estimated by Guyot algorithm for pts aged ≥65 y was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.56-1.16). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.51-1.26), which was similar to SWOG S0777 and higher than D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.18). EMEA NMA: FE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% CrI, 0.60-0.92), which was higher than HRs of D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71) and D-VMP (0.64; 95% CrI, 0.41-1.02). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.55-1.17), which was higher than for D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.09). These results are consistent with the Global NMA, but differ slightly as the EMEA NMA has fewer evidence-loops (only EMEA SoC regimens were included). Conclusions: This study demonstrated favorable efficacy outcomes for DARA-based regimens vs other relevant frontline options, such as VRd, for pts with NDMM who are TIE. Limitations of the sensitivity analysis include lack of comparative trial data and demographic differences between pts from SWOG S0777 and trials of frontline MM treatments for pts who are TIE included in our network. The majority of SWOG S0777 pts are TE (<65 y), who often have better prognoses than TIE pts (≥65 y), and thus violates the similarity assumption of NMAs. However, DARA-based regimens still showed a comparative clinical advantage. Disclosures Facon: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mateos:Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Accommodations; Janssen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Heeg:Ingress-Health: Employment. Van Beekhuizen:Ingress-health: Consultancy. Pisini:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nair:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lam:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Slavcev:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study (NCT02412878) has shown a favorable benefit-risk profile of once-weekly carfilzomib (K) at 70 mg/m2 over twice-weekly K at 27mg/m2 plus dexamethasone (d) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (Moreau. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:953-964). Once-weekly significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with twice-weekly (median 11.2 vs 7.6 months [mos]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.88; P=0.0014). Herein, we present a subgroup analysis of once-weekly vs twice-weekly Kd by previous therapy in pts with RRMM. Methods: 478 pts with RRMM, previously treated with 2 or 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent were randomized 1:1 to receive either once-weekly (n=240) or twice-weekly (n=238) Kd. The once-weekly group received K (30-min intravenous infusion [IV]) on days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 on D1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice-weekly group received K (10-min IV) on D1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 (20 mg/m2 on D1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All pts received d at 40 mg/m2 on D1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and 22 (cycle 1-9 only). Treatment was given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptably toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The study secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. PFS, ORR, and safety outcomes by prior lines of therapy are shown in the Table; PFS curves by prior lines are shown in the Figure. With a median follow-up time of 12.6 mos in the once-weekly group and 12.0 mos in the twice-week group, PFS for pts with 2 prior lines (N=241) was 12.1 mos vs 7.6 mos (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.86). Median PFS for pts with 3 prior lines (N=237) was 8.9 mos for once-weekly vs 7.9 mos for twice-weekly (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.15). ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.9% vs 40.8% (OR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.47, 4.14) in pts with 2 prior lines and 62.9% vs 40.7% (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.46, 4.17) in pts with 3 prior lines. In the 2 prior lines group, 9.5% vs 3.2% of pts had a complete response or better with once- vs twice-weekly Kd respectively. Complete responses or better in pts with 3 prior lines were obtained in 4.8% of pts receiving once-weekly and no pts with twice-weekly Kd. In A.R.R.O.W., 401 (83.9%) pts had prior lenalidomide (LEN) exposure. Median PFS for once- vs twice-weekly was 11.1 mos vs 7.4 mos (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94) for LEN exposed pts and NE (not estimable) vs 9.4 mos (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.21) for pts without prior LEN exposure. ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.3% vs 39.2% (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.72, 3.84) in pts with prior LEN exposure, and 66.7% vs 47.7% (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: (0.86, 5.58) in pts without prior LEN exposure. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59.1% vs 65.0% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, and 75.6% vs 58.0% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts with 3 prior lines of therapy. The incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs of interest by prior lines can be found in the Table. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 69.3% vs 60.2% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with prior LEN, and 57.6% vs 68.2% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts without prior LEN. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd resulted in a favorable benefit-risk profile regardless of the number of prior lines. Although the median PFS was prolonged in both groups, pts with 2 prior lines achieved a greater benefit, underlining the need for using once-weekly Kd early to optimize outcomes for pts with RRMM. Safety profiles were consistent with previous findings and reports. Importantly, low incidences of heart failure were reported across all subgroups and no additional toxicities were found. As described for other K-based regimens, efficacy of K can be further enhanced by being used in earlier lines of therapy for pts with RRMM. This subgroup analysis further confirmed the positive results from A.R.R.O.W. of using once-weekly Kd at 70 mg/m2 regardless of prior therapies and should be considered an additional option to treat pts with RRMM. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy. Lazzaro:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Cavo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Iskander:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zahlten-Kumeli:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mateos:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Single-agent carfilzomib has shown encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who harbor high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (Jakubowiak et al, Leukemia 2013;27:2351-56). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391; N=792 patients) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (Stewart et al, N Engl J Med 2015;372:142-52). We present a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of KRd vs Rd in the ASPIRE study according to baseline cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Adults with RMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy) were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to KRd or Rd. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the KRd arm received carfilzomib as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose, 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose, 27 mg/m2 thereafter) during cycles 1-12; carfilzomib was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13-18 and was discontinued after 18 cycles. All patients received lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety. Cytogenetic risk status was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. The high-risk group consisted of patients with the genetic subtype t(4;14) or t(14;16) or with deletion 17p in ≥60% of plasma cells, according to central review of bone marrow samples obtained at study entry. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with known baseline cytogenetics. The cutoff value of 60% for the proportion of plasma cells with deletion 17p was used on the basis of recommendations from the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2 (Munshi et al. Blood 2011;117:4696-700). Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized to KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). In patients with known baseline cytogenetics, baseline cytogenetic risk status was similar between the treatment arms (high-risk: KRd, 24.6%; Rd, 23.4%; standard-risk: KRd, 75.4%; Rd, 76.6%). Efficacy outcomes by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Median PFS in the high-risk group (n=100) was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5-24.2) for KRd vs 13.9 months (95% CI: 9.5-16.7) for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.639; 95% CI: 0.369-1.106). Median PFS in the standard-risk group (n=317) was 29.6 months (95% CI: 24.1-not estimable) for KRd vs 19.5 months (95% CI: 14.8-26.0) for Rd (HR: 0.657; 95% CI: 0.480-0.901). ORRs were 79.2% (KRd) vs 59.6% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 91.2% (KRd) vs 73.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 29.2% (KRd) and 5.8% (Rd) of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or better, including 16.7% (KRd) and 3.8% (Rd) with a stringent complete response (sCR). In the standard-risk group, 38.1% (KRd) and 6.5% (Rd) of patients achieved ≥CR, including 15.0% (KRd) and 3.5% (Rd) with an sCR. Median DOR in the high-risk group was 22.2 months for KRd vs 14.9 months for Rd. Median DOR in the standard-risk group was 30.4 months for KRd vs 20.4 months for Rd. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events was 89.1% (KRd) vs 78.4% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 85.6% (KRd) vs 84.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest (dyspnea, hypertension, acute renal failure, cardiac failure, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral neuropathy) by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of nearly 2 years, which was a 9-month improvement relative to that in patients treated with Rd. Treatment with KRd also led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics; similar reductions in the risk of progression or death with Kd vs Vd were observed in both cytogenetics risk groups. Treatment with KRd also led to higher response rates, greater response depth, and a longer DOR compared with Rd in patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMM, irrespective of baseline cytogenetic risk status, and improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Fonseca: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acetylon: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Tonda:Onyx: Employment. Obreja:Amgen Inc: Employment. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The first step to the cure of Multiple myeloma (MM) is achieving a clinical complete response (CR). However, a majority of patients relapse in part due to the persistence of low levels of pathological plasma cells after treatment (minimal residual disease (MRD)). In previous work, we have shown that Next generation sequencing (NGS) of immunoglobulin (IG) rearranged genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM, and also it is a good predictor of patient prognosis. However, this technology is a proprietary multiplex PCR, uses a reference plasmid, it is performed at the centralized laboratories, and it is not broadly available. AIMS: To present a new in-house simplified method for quantification of IG gene clonal rearrangements by NGS. To test the suitability of the method for MRD detection in MM patients compared with 8-color high sensitivity Flow Cytometry (8c-MFC) data on a prospective way. To determine its capability as a predictor of patient prognosis. METHOD: We use deep sequencing to prospectively analyzed DNA from bone marrow samples of 58 patients (58 diagnostic samples and 80 follow-up samples) of patients included the GEM10 clinical trial. The method employs the primers developed by BIOMED-2 for IGH and IGK, and a set of specific mathematical and bioinformatics tools. First, we identified the clonal rearrangement(s) (clonotype) in the diagnostic sample by fragment analysis and NGS. Second, we searched the NGS sequences from follow-up samples to detect and quantitate (MRD) the presence of the clonotype identified in the diagnostic sample. Overall Survival (OS) and Progression free Survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The survival curves generated were compared with the log-rank test for trend. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the method is 10-5 for 150.000 cells. Reproducibility is >90%. The Spearman correlation coefficient between NGS and 8c-MFC data for diagnosis and follow-up samples was R=0.6903, p<0.0001. When we applied the criteria of 10-5 for NGS, discordant results were as follow: 121 cases were positive by both methods, 2 cases were positive (>10-5) by 8c-MFC but negative (<10-5) by NGS; 7 samples were negative (<10-5) by 8c-MFC but positive (>10-5) by NGS; and 7 cases were negative by both methods. Next we analyzed de correlation of OS and PFS with MRD levels determined by NGS and by 8c-MFC. For NGS data, median PFS (FigA) was 34 months for patients with values of MRD>10-5 vs not reached for patients with values of MRD<10-5 (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Also, for 8c-MFC data, the patients with values of MRD<10-5 had longer PFS than those with values of MRD>10-5 (34 months versus 47; HR = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Median OS (FigB) was also significantly longer in MRD<10-5 (NGS) patients (not yet reached), compared to MRD>10-5 (NGS) patients (41 months, HR = 3.6, P =0.0495). For 8c-MFC we did not get a significant association (41 vs 50 months, HR=1.979, p=0.228). It should be noted that this comparison was made with the standard 8c-MFC and it is probable that the sensitivity will be inferior to that of the Next generation flow. There were no significant differences in terms of PFS between the data obtained by our in-house method, 8c-FCM and previous data obtained with LymphoSight technology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirms that analysis of MRD levels determined by deep sequencing is capable of predict survival outcomes in myeloma patients. NGS sequencing of Ig genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM. This approach is a methodological and economical alternative to MFC and other methods for MRD follow-up. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Paiva: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BD Bioscience: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; EngMab AG: Research Funding. Ocio:Pharmamar: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jassen: Honoraria. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. San Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revealed new insight into the complexity of clonal and subclonal architecture of multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of targeted studies allows the detection of mutations with very low allele frequencies at affordable price. However, there is few information about the prognostic impact of this mutational profile in series of homogeneously treated MM patients. In this study, we analyzed the most frequently mutated genes in MM from patients included in a randomized clinical trial applying the highest read depth to date. We performed a correlation study between our results and cytogenetics aberrations and clinical outcomes. We used Ampliseq Library Kit 2.0 to target 77 genes (M3Pv2.0 panel) related to critical pathophysiological pathways, associated to drug resistance or targetable with molecular drugs in MM. We sequenced DNA (15ng) from CD138+ purified plasma cells from 80 MM patients at diagnosis included in GEM2010MAS65 clinical trial. We sequenced at an average read depth of 1500X and using Ion Proton sequencer (Thermo Fisher, USA, PaloAlto, CA). We used Ion Reporter software applying in-house modifications in call variants process. We also sequenced DNA from CD138 negative population in 30% of patients in order to filter out potential artifacts and stablish conditions for excluding germline variants. We first fitted a cox-proportional hazard model to predict survival and a second approach using a penalized regression LASSO. We identified 137 gene mutations in the 80 patients analyzed, 54 mutations were predicted pathogenic by Shif and Poliphen and 65 have been described in COSMIC database. 85% of patients harbored at least 1 mutation. The most frequently mutated genes were KRAS (16%), DIS3 (15%), NRAS (13%), BRAF (6%), and TP53 (5%), accounting for the 54% of the total number of mutations. The most frequently mutated pathways were RAS and NFKB in 34% and 28% of patients respectively. Mutational allele frequency for KRAS, BRAF and TP53 was, in all cases, lower than 50% while DIS3 showed mutations in a broad range (from 2 to 85%). Only one patient presented one mutation in NRAS at 73 % of allele frequency. For patients with more than one mutation, two different scenarios have been found. Some patients showed several genes mutated in a similar allele frequency values. On the contrary, a complex subclonal structure was confirmed in 3 patients, with mutations at very different clonal frequency. CD138 negative fraction was sequenced to confirm that these mutations were exclusive of plasma cells. The first of them had two mutations in DIS3 at 8 and 53% of allele frequency, second in KRAS and DIS3 at 13 and 63% respectively and the third in NRAS and IFNGR2 at 5 and 37% respectively. We found no differences in the survival based on pathway, mutational allele frequency or number of mutations. We also investigated pairwise associations between events and we not found significant correlations (Figure 1). Cox-proportional hazard model only showed a negative impact in survival of patients with TP53 mutations. This ultra-deep targeted sequencing strategy is able to detect mutations in most of patients, at very low allele frequency and using a minimal amount of DNA. Despite of its huge capacity to detect mutations, we have not identified new prognostic factors in MM patients treated with highly efficient therapies. However, this study again confirms the complexity of the genomic landscape of MM and the great heterogeneity between patients. The role of theses mutations at relapse as well as in the subsequent treatment effectiveness remains unknown and should be preferably investigated in larger cohorts of homogeneously treated MM patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Martínez-López: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:celgene: Consultancy.

Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy that occurs among older adults and accounts for 15% of all hematologic malignancies in the United States. Thirty-five percent of patients are diagnosed at age 75 or older. Novel therapeutics and routine use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have led to substantial improvements in patient survival, although improvements have been more impressive among patients younger than age 65. Finding the balance between under- and overtreating elderly patients is one of the biggest challenges specific to them as a subgroup of patients with MM. Decision making about which therapies and their dose intensity and duration should be influenced by a patient’s functional status, personal preferences, disease characteristics, and ability to tolerate therapy. ASCT should be considered for all patients younger than age 80, assuming that they are not frail. The attainment of a stringent complete response and minimal residual disease negativity is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival. Again, consideration of quality of life for these patients is paramount. Although there is a growing list of tools to sort through these issues, a fully integrated approach has not yet been finely tuned, leaving additional work to be done for the treatment of elderly patients with MM.