Ailawadhi, Sikander

Abstract Background: Outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved, leading to higher prevalence of this disease. Increasing efforts have been made by various agencies to educate patients (pts), manage quality of life (QoL) and survivorship. A global impact of these efforts including pt awareness, disease knowledge and participation in their care, as well as the physical and emotional impact of MM and its treatments (Rx) has not been assessed. We undertook an international, pt-reported survey to investigate these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 61-question patient-reported questionnaire (MM-Q), addressing global aspects of MM pts care (components in Figure 1) was used. MM-Q was administered in collaboration with the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF). To limit responses by MM pt only, “SmartPatient” MM community members and IMF Support Group Leader list were invited to complete the survey. Some of the questions were mandatory, and those with missing responses were withdrawn from the final analysis of that pts MM-Q. Categorical and continuous variables were compared among groups using the Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively using SAS software (v9.3) with a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Results: Survey responses are available from 894/1240 (72%) individuals thus far. Average survey completion time was 16 minutes. Data from 746 MM-Q was included in this analysis with 466 (62.5%) complete responses. Pts from United States (US) represented 85.7% of the responders (majority from New York State). Ethnicity (n=590) was reported as non-Latino by 97%, race (n=580) was reported as White by 95%, family history of MM was reported by 19 pts and 81 reported prior history of a primary malignancy (most common, 37% non-melanoma skin cancer). Living situation questions (n=538) revealed majority were in a household of 2 (62%), were unemployed/on public assistance (53.5%), travelled alone to medical appointments (74%), with travel times varying from <30 min (55%) to >1 hr (17%). Majority (83%) had no prior knowledge of MM, 63% were patient support group members, and 92% did MM-related research on internet. With respect to MM Rx (n=524), 70% had been on Rx within 3 months and 12% reported non-compliance. Prior Rx included thalidomide (30%), lenalidomide (66%), pomalidomide (11.5%), bortezomib (63.5%), carfilzomib (11%), steroids (100%), and clinical trial participation in 25% pts. Side effects from Rx/QoL in prior 3 months (n=403) are summarized in figure 2. Pts satisfaction with Rx/treating staff (n=378) revealed majority felt their Rx to be effective (92%), right for them (87%) and side effects were as expected (84%). In general, pts acknowledged positive attributes of the Rx staff (worked towards same goal; 91%, participated in decisions; 81%, honesty 89%, confidence; 92%), and their doctor's explanations regarding Rx (benefits; 84%, side effects; 74%, test results; 83%), with the exception of emotional effects of Rx (48%). 94% pts rated their care as good/excellent and 95% were willing to participate in a follow-up survey. Stratification of statistically significant responses by geographical categories, age and time since diagnosis are shown in table 1 and analysis by occupation and educational status is ongoing. Conclusions: We conducted a large patient-reported survey to understand the current state of awareness among MM pts and a global impact of the diagnosis and its Rx on them. We showed that majority of pts who accessed the survey responded (72%), which may be a product of literacy, education and access to technology. Majority of the pts were White and non-Latino, highlighting the possible role of access and awareness in ethnic minorities. We report the large prevalence of psychophysical burden of MM and its Rx in MM pts. In general, MM pts had a high rate of satisfaction related to the Rx and their healthcare providers, but the frequency of discussion regarding emotional effects of Rx between doctors and pts was conspicuously low (48%) and the more recently diagnosed pts were less likely to be satisfied with their treating staff. We also demonstrated significant behavioral pattern differences in geographical, age and time-since-diagnosis subgroups, some of which may be sociocultural, while others may be a result of more patient awareness and understanding of the disease. This knowledge will be very helpful in devising MM survivorship strategies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 601 Background: Despite therapeutic advances and availability of novel agents, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable malignant disorder and strategies to improve survival are being actively sought. One such approach is the use of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (Revlimid®; R), which has shown PFS benefit, without conclusive evidence of OS benefit except in a selected population (CALGB100104). Shrinking resources with rising healthcare costs warrant careful assessment of the financial impact of expensive anticancer therapeutics in context with the true benefit to patients. Methods: This analysis was not supported or solicited by any pharmaceutical industry. For our pharmacoeconomic study we selected the MM-015 trial; a large (n=459) double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study that investigated the efficacy of continuous R maintenance after initial therapy with melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide (MPR) in a uniform cohort of patients (≥65 years, newly diagnosed MM, transplant ineligible). The three study arms were MP, MPR and MPR followed by R maintenance (MPR-R). The cost-effectiveness model included medical costs (drugs, office visits, laboratory tests) and costs of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) for an individual patient. Drug costs were calculated from the average wholesale price, using average US adult weight of 80kg. Office visit and laboratory test costs were obtained using Medicare reimbursement fees. Costs of AEs were obtained from peer-reviewed publications. Incidence of AEs was obtained from the published MM-015 trial. Costs were valued in 2011 US dollars. Cost calculations included: (1) computing distribution of the numbers of induction and maintenance courses completed by patients treated with each of these regimens; (2) computing the per-course probabilities of the occurrence of individual AEs during induction and maintenance for each of these toxicities; (3) combining these data with the treatment costs and costs of individual AEs to compute cumulative cost of treatment through 40 maintenance cycles and cumulative cost of treatment per progression-free survivor. Summary measures computed for each treatment: (1) average cumulative cost per patient (ACCP) treated; (2) average cumulative cost per progression free survivor (ACCPFS), representing the average cumulated cost/patient who is progression free at that time. The distribution of courses received was obtained from the MM-015 publication. Data on subsequent therapy at the time of disease progression was not available. Results: Median follow up reported in the published study was 30 months. Median PFS was 13 months (MP), 14 months (MPR) and 31 months (MPR-R) in the three arms. Table 1 summarizes the calculated ACCP and the ACCPFS of each regimen for induction and maintenance treatment. MPR-R was the most expensive of the three arms in terms of total cumulative costs, with an ACCP of $231,314, compared to $166,211 for MPR and $17,972 for MP. However, taking the efficacy of each regimen into account (ACCPFS), MPR greatly exceeds both MPR-R and MP ($1,540,139 vs. $516,322 vs. $309,346), while the difference between MPR-R and MP was less distinct. Figure 1 illustrates the exponential increase in ACCPFS of MPR, compared to MPR-R and MP. Conclusions: From a cost-effectiveness perspective, if MPR is used as the induction regimen, maintenance with R should be strongly considered, as MPR without maintenance does not confer any significant benefit over MP, while incurring a much higher cost. However, the overall cost of MPR-R is substantial with no reported OS benefit at present. In the absence of clear survival benefit the financial burden of prolonged treatment becomes an important factor to consider prior to adopting this therapeutic strategy in MM. As part of a global strategy for addressing healthcare costs, it is important to consider this in appropriate medical decision making for patients, and to include cost-effectiveness analyses as a part of large prospective clinical trial efforts. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 728 Background: LM, an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), is designed to specifically kill CD56+ cancer cells and contains a potent maytansinoid cytotoxic agent (DM1) attached to a CD56-targeting antibody. MM shows CD56 expression in >70% of cases. LM has demonstrated single agent clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) MM patients. Preclinical studies showed enhanced anti-MM activity when LM was combined with Len/Dex. To further study the safety and efficacy of LM in combination with Len/Dex, a phase I study was conducted in rel/ref patients. This abstract reports updated results on the safety and efficacy of LM/Len/Dex and preliminary results on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity studies. Methods: Primary study objectives were to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), anti-MM activity and PK of LM in combination with standard oral (PO) doses of Len (25 mg po, daily on days 1–21) and Dex (40 mg po on D 1, 8, 15, and 22) in CD56+ rel/ref MM patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy. LM was given intravenously (IV) on D 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day cycle. Dose escalation was conducted in new cohorts of patients to define the MTD, which was then further evaluated in a dose-expansion cohort. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using CTCAEv3 criteria, and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) determination was based on the occurrence of AEs that were probably or definitely attributed to the study regimen. Efficacy was assessed using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Enrollment has completed and 16 patients remain on study. Results: Forty-four patients were enrolled, 41 are currently evaluable for safety and 32 are evaluable for efficacy. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1–11), 62% of patients had prior Len exposure and 33% were Len refractory. LM doses of 75 (N = 11), 90 (N=4), and 112 (N =6) mg/m2 were evaluated in the dose-escalation phase. The most common AE was peripheral neuropathy (PN), which occurred more frequently at higher LM doses (55% at 75 mg/m2 and 100% at 90 and 112 mg/m2); Grade 3 PN was seen only in patients treated at 90 mg/m2 or above. PN emerged, in most cases, in cycles >3 and was manageable with LM dose modification. During dose escalation, 1 patient experienced Grade 4 neutropenia and hyperuricemia. The 75 mg/m2 LM dose was considered the MTD based on overall tolerability and the lower incidence of PN observed, and was further tested to determine its suitability as the RP2D in the dose expansion portion of the study (N=23 patients, 19 patients available for safety evaluation). Grade 1–2 PN occurred in 8 patients (42%) and grade 3 PN was observed only in 1 pt in the dose-expansion cohort. Two patients developed grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). Other grade 3 AEs reported in 1 patient each (5%) in the dose-expansion cohort consisted of neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, hemolytic anemia, and LDH increase. Efficacy was observed across all dose levels and the overall response rate (ORR) was 59%, including 1 patient each with stringent complete response (sCR) and complete response (CR), 8 patients with very good partial remission (VGPR), and 9 patients with partial remission (PR). No immunogenicity against the antibody (HAHA) or DM1 component (HADA) of LM was detected. PK results from 18 patients treated at 75 mg/m2 indicate LM Cmax and exposure in this combination regimen is consistent with LM monotherapy. Conclusions: Based on all available safety data, 75 mg/m2 was considered the RP2D. LM at 75mg/m2 in combination with Len and Dex has shown objective evidence of clinical activity with an acceptable safety profile. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lorvotusumab mertansine is not FDA approved for treatment of multiple myeloma alone or in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as is investigated in this trial. Running:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment. Murphy:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment. Guild:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment. Carrigan:ImmunoGen, Inc: Employment. Ladd:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment. Wolf:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. O'Leary:ImmunoGen, Inc.: Employment. Ailawadhi:Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau.

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has notably evolved with improved patient outcomes over the past few years. Several new drugs have become available, and large national and international clinical trials have set the stage for evidence-based medicine guidelines for the treatment of patients with MM. Although patient outcomes have undoubtedly improved, data increasingly show that several disparities exist at varying levels of health care and that these disparities make the care of patients heterogenous and potentially result in inferior outcomes. These disparities have been described with regard to patient age, race/ethnicity, rural-urban residence, socioeconomic status, and insurance type, among other factors. Looking at the global picture of MM care, there is substantial variation among different countries, primarily depending on the disparate availability of anti-MM drugs and access to quality health care across the world, limiting the delivery of innovative therapeutic approaches at the individual patient level. The causes of these national and international disparities could be multifactorial, intricate, and difficult to isolate. Yet the ongoing research in this field is encouraging, and there seems to be growing momentum to understand such disparities and their causes. It is hoped that this research will lead to solutions that can be implemented in the near future. This review focuses on certain aspects of disparities in MM care, highlighting disparities among different racial/ethnic subgroups, rural-urban differences in America, and global disparities at an international level.

AbstractPurpose:CD38 has emerged as a high-impact therapeutic target in multiple myeloma, with the approval of daratumumab (anti-CD38 mAb). The clinical importance of CD38 in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been known for over 2 decades, although it's relevance as a therapeutic target in CLL remains understudied.Experimental Design:We investigated the biological effects and antitumor mechanisms engaged by daratumumab in primary CLL cells. Besides its known immune-effector mechanisms (antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, complement-dependent death, and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis), we also measured direct apoptotic effects of daratumumab alone or in combination with ibrutinib. In vivo antileukemic activity was assessed in a partially humanized xenograft model. The influence of CD38 on B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling was measured via immunoblotting of Lyn, Syk, BTK, PLCγ2, ERK1/2, and AKT.Results:In addition to immune-effector mechanisms; daratumumab also induced direct apoptosis of primary CLL cells, which was partially dependent on FcγR cross-linking. For the first time, we demonstrated the influence of CD38 on BCR signaling where interference of CD38 downregulated Syk, BTK, PLCγ2, ERK1/2, and AKT; effects that were further enhanced by addition of ibrutinib. In comparison to single-agent treatment, the combination of ibrutinib and daratumumab resulted in significantly enhanced anti-CLL activity in vitro and significantly decreased tumor growth and prolonged survival in the in vivo CLL xenograft model.Conclusions:Overall, our data demonstrate the antitumor mechanisms of daratumumab in CLL; furthermore, we show how cotargeting BTK and CD38 lead to a robust anti-CLL effect, which has clinical implications.

Obinutuzumab is used for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. So far there are no data of using this for retreatment in patients who have received it previously. We introduced obinutuzumab for the retreatment in a chronic lymphocytic leukemia patient, who had first achieved partial remission with it and eventually relapsed over a course of 2.5 years. After retreatment with single-agent obinutuzumab, the patient achieved a partial remission again within one cycle and continues to maintain the response status. This case is a platform for considering obinutuzumab as a viable option for retreatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients who have received it before, similar to the pattern of use for other anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in this disease, including rituximab.

448 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare, lethal cancer with five-year survival of less than 10%. Although incidence rates have been increasing in the United States, ethnic variations in survival have not been investigated. We examined multi-ethnic variation in overall survival (OS) and CCA-specific survival (CSS) using data from the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program in the four year periods before and after introduction of gemcitabine/cisplatin as treatment for CCA. Methods: The study included data from 9,975 CCA cases reported in SEER between 2006 and 2013. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to examine overall and cholangiocarcinoma-specific survival by ethnicity, age, gender and in the pre- and post- gemcitabine/cisplatin era (2006-2009 vs. 2010-2013). Results: Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics had poorer 3-year OS (HR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.10-1.26) and 3-year CCA-specific survival (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.16-1.35). Similarly, non-Hispanic Blacks had 3-year OS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.12-1.30) and 3-year CCA-specific survival (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.13-1.37). Males and older patients also were found to have shorter survival compared to females and younger patients. Also noted was an increase in CCA incidence rate over time (2006-2013) of 5.93%. Among those < 50 versus ≥50 years old, a 23% higher rate of incidence in those < 50 was noted. Overall survival and CSS were both significantly improved for patients post-advent of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin. Statistically significant improvement in CSS pre- and post-advent of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin was noted in non-hispanic whites (p < 0.001) and Hispanics (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks have worse survival after diagnosis with CCA. Further studies are needed to determine the determinants of poor survival among these groups toward targeted intervention. Significant improvements in OS and CSS have been seen after the advent of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin. The incidence of CCA is rising faster in young persons, under the age of 50, compared with older patients.