Hegenbart, Ute

Background: Liver involvement in light chain amyloidosis (AL) is seen in up to 20% of patients and is typically encountered as part of multi-organ involvement. Liver involvement is associated with a poor prognosis. The goal of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of the hepatic response criteria, which were published in 2005 and were not broadly assessed for their prognostic value. Patients and methods: Ten centers across the USA and Europe participated in this study.AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, had liver involvement with serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) >1.5 upper reference limit (URL), and achieved hematologic response to therapy were included in this study. Hepatic response was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation and at best response. Based on a receiver operation characteristic analysis, a 50% reduction in AP was set as the optimal cut point for discrimination of 5-year overall survival (OS) in the 12-months response assessment landmark (area under the curve 0.67). Therefore, hepatic response was defined as a reduction in AP >50% from baseline value in addition to AP normalization, regardless of AP percentage reduction. Hepatic progression was defined as >50% increase in serum AP. OS was assessed from therapy initiation until death or last follow-up and was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test used to compare survival between groups. For fixed-time point survival analysis, patients who died before the landmark were excluded. Hepatic response at a fixed time points, when missing, was imputed based on available data from adjacent time points (imputation of hepatic response was performed in 15%, 23%, and 22% of evaluable patients at 6-, 12-, and 24-month landmarks, respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional models were set to determine independent prognostic factors for OS using variables with p-value <0.1 in a univariate analysis. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: One hundred and sixteen patients (n=116) are included. The median age was 60 years, and the median serum AP was X2.6 URL. Concomitant kidney involvement was present in 63.8% of patients, while coexisting heart involvement was seen in 56% of patients. Hematologic VGPR or better was achieved in 69% of patients. AP decrease deepened with time, with a median reduction at 6-, 12-, 24-months and best response being 22%, 34%, 53%, and 56%, respectively. Overall, 65% of patients (n=75) achieved hepatic response, of whom 71 patients based on reduction in AP >50% and 4 patients for reaching AP within normal reference but not meeting >50% reduction in AP (40- 46% reduction in AP). The median time to hepatic response was 13.8 months, longer for patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their primary therapy compared to non-transplant therapies (24 vs 12.6 months, P=0.1). With a median follow-up of 105 months, 42 patients died (36.2% of the study cohort). The 2-, 5- and 10-year OS rates were 83%, 67%, and 61%, respectively. Achievement of hepatic response as early as 12 months and at best response was associated with a longer survival (Figure). Hepatic response was an independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis, after adjusting for other known prognostic factors (age, cardiac stage, hematologic response, and primary therapy). Predictors of hepatic response include higher baseline AP level, lower total bilirubin, hematologic ≥VGPR, and cardiac and renal responses, when applicable. Hepatic progression was borderline associated with inferior OS (5-year OS 47% vs 70% among non-progressors, P=0.08). Conclusions: Hepatic response and progression measured by the change in alkaline phosphatase are prognostic in AL amyloidosis. These criteria are independent of other prognostic markers, and thus may have clinical implications for patients' care.

PURPOSE Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P < .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P < .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as &gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria &gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P&lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: 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; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: 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; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: 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. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP &gt;650 pg/mL or BNP &gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P&lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P&lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P&lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (&gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Introduction: Light chain deposition disease (LCDD) is a rare complication of monoclonal gammopathies, defined by non-amyloid linear monoclonal light chain (most commonly kappa) deposits in the kidney and other organs. The rarity of LCDD has hampered clinical studies and staging systems and response criteria are lacking. The International Kidney Myeloma Working Group (IKMG) started a clinical data collection from all participating centers in order to define the natural history of LCDD, and to establish prognostic factors and response criteria in a large, international, unselected patient population. Methods: Eight referral centers have yet participated in the data collection at the data lock of July 31, 2020. Patient inclusion is ongoing and expected accrual is 500 patients. The diagnosis of LCDD had to be biopsy-proven. The patients were diagnosed between 1992 to 2020. Response was assessed 6 months after treatment initiation according to the criteria used in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Renal survival (RS) was defined as time from diagnosis to dialysis or last follow-up. Patients who died without requiring dialysis were censored at the time of death. The analysis of factors predicting RS was performed in patients whose baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was &gt;15 mL/min. The cutoffs of baseline variables, as well as the cutoffs measured at the time of response, best predicting RS or OS at 12 months were identified by means of Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) analyses. All patients gave written informed consent for their clinical data to be used for research purposes. Results: Overall, 359 patients have been included in this first analysis. Sixteen (4%) subjects had concomitant cast nephropathy. The main clinical characteristics are reported in the Table. Median overall survival (OS) was 13 years and RS was 12 years (Figure1 A and 1B) and median survival of living patients is 4.5 years. At univariate analysis the only baseline variables predicting RS were proteinuria [best cutoff 2.5 g/24h, HR 2.25 (95%CI 1.13-4.60), P=0.02], and eGFR [best cutoff &gt;30 mL/min, HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.26-0.96) P=0.037], but at multivariate analysis only proteinuria predicted RS [HR 2.17 (95% CI 1.08, 4.33), P=0.027]. At univariate analysis, a higher bone marrow plasma cell infiltrate (best cutoff ≥20%) at diagnosis was associated with a significantly lower OS [HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.23-3.13) P=0.004], as was having end stage renal disease (ESRD) defined as an eGFR &lt;15 mL/min [HR 1.81 (95%CI 1.11-2.92) P=0.015]. We then tested the ability of the hematologic response criteria for AL amyloidosis to discriminate groups with different survival after treatment in a 6 months landmark analysis. Our choice of adopting the amyloidosis response criteria was corroborated by the results of the ROC analysis showing that the difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) cutoff (40 mg/L) used in AL amyloidosis to define very good partial response (VGPR) had 87% sensitivity and 65% specificity in identifying patients who needed dialysis within 12 months. Partial response (PR, 19% requiring dialysis at 3 years) was not associated with a RS benefit over no-response (29% requiring dialysis at 3 years, P=0.511). However, VGPR conferred a significant RS advantage (10% requiring dialysis at 3 years) over PR (P=0.002). No significant difference in RS was seen between complete response (CR, 0% requiring dialysis at 3 years) and VGPR (P=0.178). Thus, achieving VGPR or CR by amyloidosis response criteria [post-treatment dFLC&lt;40 mg/L (VGPR by AL criteria), with or without negative serum and urine immunofixation and normal FLC-ratio (CR by AL criteria)] was adopted as a provisional criterion for hematologic response in LCDD (Figure 1D). LCDD response was also associated with prolonged OS (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Almost one-third of patients with LCDD are diagnosed when they already have ESRD resulting in shorter OS. The degree of proteinuria and of bone marrow plasma cell infiltration predict RS and OS, respectively. Achievement of post treatment dFLC &lt;40 mg/L or negative serum and urine immunofixation at 6 months is proposed as a provisional criterion for hematologic response, being able to predict both improved RS and OS. Planned expanded recruitment might allow a validation analysis of the results, the analysis of organ response data and the evaluation of different time-points for response assessment. Disclosures Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Speaker honoraria; Pfizer: Other: Speaker honoraria. Kastritis:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schönland:Janssen, Prothena, Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding. Bridoux:Baxter: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Tuchman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Caelum: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jimenez-Zepeda:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Palladini:Jannsen Cilag: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Wechalekar:Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum: Other: Advisory; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel.

SummaryThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is primarily manifested as a respiratory tract infection, but may affect and cause complications in multiple organ systems (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidneys, haematopoietic and immune systems), while no proven specific therapy exists. The challenges associated with COVID‐19 are even greater for patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare multisystemic disease affecting the heart, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal and nervous system. Patients with AL amyloidosis may need to receive chemotherapy, which probably increases infection risk. Management of COVID‐19 may be particularly challenging in patients with AL amyloidosis, who often present with cardiac dysfunction, nephrotic syndrome, neuropathy, low blood pressure and gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, patients with AL amyloidosis may be more susceptible to toxicities of drugs used to manage COVID‐19. Access to health care may be difficult or limited, diagnosis of AL amyloidosis may be delayed with detrimental consequences and treatment administration may need modification. Both patients and treating physicians need to adapt in a new reality.

Abstract Abstract 1364 In light chain (AL) amyloidosis, as well as in multiple myeloma, response to treatment is increasingly being used as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. In 2005 a consensus statement of the International Society of Amyloidosis (ISA) established the criteria for hematologic and organ response. Since then, several studies emphasized the prognostic relevance of the measurement of the amyloidogenic precursor, the circulating free light chain (FLC). Moreover, it was reported that patients who with treatment achieved decreases in the cardiac biomarker N terminal natriuretic peptide type B (NT-proBNP) had longer survival, although echocardiographic criteria of response were not attained. The ISA Consensus Panel reconvened in 2010 to update hematologic and organ response criteria. The panel felt that any new criteria should be validated in a large patient population. Thus, we systematically gathered from 7 referral centers in Europe and in the United States a cohort of 649 patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who had been evaluated for hematologic and organ responses at diagnosis and 6 months after treatment initiation, excluding patients who died earlier. At diagnosis, 430 patients (66%) had heart involvement, 377 (58%) had NT-proBNP ≥650 ng/L, 455 (70%) had renal involvement (95, 15%, with glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min) and 100 (15%) had liver involvement. Two-hundred eighty-nine patients (44%) were treated with melphalan and dexamethasone, 118 (18%) received thalidomide based therapy, 73 (11%) underwent autologous stem cell transplant, 35 (5%) were treated with regimens including lenalidomide, 20 (3%) received bortezomib-based therapy, and the rest received other alkylating agents, nucleoside analogues or dexamethasone. The median follow-up of living patients was 24 months, and 233 patients (34%) died. The ability of response criteria to identify patients who died was compared by evaluating the areas under Receiver Operator Characteristic curves based on death at 1 year, and by calculating the Harrell C statistic and the Royston explained variation. Survival was calculated from the time of evaluation of response. We maintained the category of complete response (CR: negative serum and urine immunofixation, normal FLC kappa/lambda ratio and normal marrow studies) and examined candidate criteria for partial (PR) and very good partial responses (VGPR), based on percentage changes or absolute values achieved after treatment of involved (amyloidogenic) FLC (iFLC), and alternatively on the difference between iFLC and uninvolved FLC (dFLC). With respect to cardiac response and progression, NT-proBNP-based criteria were defined as a decrease or an increase of both >30% and >300 ng/L, and a threshold of evaluability based on NT-proBNP baseline level >650 ng/L was chosen. The most powerful criteria for PR were those based on dFLC percent decrease, and a 50% cutoff was preferred because of easier clinical use. Among candidate criteria for VGPR, the best were based on iFLC absolute value achieved after therapy, but the performance of those based on dFLC absolute value was only slightly lower. Therefore, a definition of VGPR based on dFLC (<40 mg/L) was adopted for the sake of harmonization with the dFLC-based definition of PR. The adopted hematologic response criteria and their prognostic significance are reported in Table 1. These criteria identified 4 groups with significantly different survivals (Figure 1). Also the proposed criteria of NT-proBNP response and progression were significantly associated with survival (Figure 2). Our 2010 revised consensus criteria for hematologic response include maintenance of the definition of CR, and with use of dFLC re-casting the definition of PR and introducing a VGPR category, and for cardiac response and progression introducing the use of changes in NT-proBNP levels. In a further analysis we will address the definition of measurable dFLC at baseline and evaluate the applicability of the response criteria to earlier evaluation of response. The revised criteria improve the framework for clinical research in AL. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib for systemic AL amyloidosis. Dispenzieri:The Binding Site: Honoraria. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Merlini:Millennium: Honoraria; Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria.