Kastritis, Efstathios

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 >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 >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, >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<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 >650 pg/mL or BNP >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, >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 <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<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<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<0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (>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.

Abstract Introduction Systemic immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits, most commonly in the heart and kidneys. Management of the disease relies primarily on off-label use of multiple myeloma therapies. No treatments are approved for AL amyloidosis in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the phase 3, open-label TOURMALINE-AL1 trial (NCT01659658), patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral ixazomib plus dexamethasone (Id) or physician's choice (CH) in 28-day cycles, and followed until progression or unacceptable toxicity. An interim analysis demonstrated that Id was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint of hematologic response rate was not met, time-to-event efficacy analyses consistently favored Id. We report an analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms from TOURMALINE-AL1; such data for AL amyloidosis in general have been limited. Methods Four PRO instruments were used to collect data to support PRO-related secondary endpoints during the treatment period: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG-Ntx), an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ), the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L), and the Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) were collected at screening, day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment (EOT), and the 36-item Short Form General Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) was collected at screening, day 1 of every third cycle, and EOT. Analysis of PRO data included descriptive summaries of means and change from baseline and a linear mixed model (LMM) for repeated measures for patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with a baseline and at least one postbaseline PRO-specific assessment. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Data cutoff date was 20 February 2019. Results The ITT population included 168 patients (Id: n=85; CH: n=83), who completed up to 58 cycles (Id) and up to 43 cycles (CH); median treatment duration was 11.7 vs 5.0 months, respectively. PRO compliance in the treatment period was high for all instruments (Figure). Baseline HRQOL as measured by the SF-36v2 and EQ VAS was similar between treatment arms. During the treatment period, SF-36v2 Mental and Physical Component Summary (MCS and PCS) scores remained stable relative to baseline and were similar between arms; the 8 subscale scores were also generally maintained over time, and mostly similar between arms. Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQoL) for Id compared with CH at several cycles in the SF-36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p<0.05) (Figure); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring CH. Symptom burden as measured by the FACT/GOG-Ntx and ASQ was low at baseline, leaving little room for improvement. FACT/GOG-Ntx scores were generally maintained over time. In the treatment period, there were small but significant differences in LS mean changes from baseline favoring Id over CH at multiple cycles for 7 of the 11 individual items and the neurotoxicity and sensory summary scores; there were small but significant differences favoring CH over Id for 1 individual item (trouble hearing) at a few later cycles. The ASQ total score trended downward slightly (lower burden) during treatment after the first few cycles in both arms. There were significant differences per the LMM favoring Id over CH at cycles 7 and 21 (p<0.05). In both arms, EQ VAS scores trended upward (better HRQoL) during treatment and then declined slightly at EOT. (LMM analyses were not conducted for EQ-5D.) At EOT, a slight deterioration from baseline was observed in actual scores for SF-36v2 domains and summary scales, FACT/GOG-Ntx neurotoxicity and sensory subscales, and ASQ items and total score for both Id and CH. Conclusions Relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis patients treated with Id experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with CH. These data suggest that treatment with Id, although with a substantially longer treatment duration, did not have a negative impact on HRQOL in patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis, a population with currently no approved treatment options. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Caelum: 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; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Kim: Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Fiona: Pfizer: Research Funding. Suzuki: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Comenzo: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding; Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cherepanov: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hayden: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Faller: Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co.: Current Employment; Viracta Therapeutics, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Briacell, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Kastritis: Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer: Honoraria.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Central nervous system (CNS) relapse is a challenging situation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). High CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), activated B-cell (ABC) subtype and MYD88 L265P mutation, features often found in transformed Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), are associated with a higher risk for developing CNS relapse. This study was aimed to describe CNS involvement in a large cohort of transformed WM. METHODS This international multicenter retrospective study included patients with a diagnosis of WM and a concurrent or sequential histological diagnosis of DLBCL. CNS disease was diagnosed by detection of DLBCL cells in the cerebrospinal fluid and/or by brain biopsy. Patients with CNS involvement by lymphoplasmacytic cells (Bing-Neel syndrome) were excluded. Of 254 identified patients with a diagnosis of histological transformation (HT) between 1988 and 2020, 19 were excluded due to lack of data on extranodal involvement. The first part of the analysis focused on baseline CNS involvement. Clinicobiological characteristics were compared between groups using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests or Mann Whitney tests as appropriate. We analyzed CNS recurrence in the second part of the study. Forty-eight additional patients were excluded due to baseline CNS involvement (n = 25), absence of treatment at HT (n = 14) and lack of details on follow-up (n = 9). Cumulative incidence of CNS relapse was analyzed using competing-risk models that accounted for other events like systemic relapse or death from any cause, reporting sub-hazard ratio (SHR). RESULTS Baseline CNS involvement was present in 25 patients (11%) with transformed WM, including 10 (4%) with parenchymal disease, 10 with leptomeningeal, 4 (2%) with both, and 1 with unspecified CNS involvement. Characteristics associated with baseline CNS involvement were performance status 2-4 (P=0.03) and ≥2 extranodal sites (P=0.02). Median survival after HT was 1 year [0.7-2.5], comparable to the one of patients without CNS disease (1.8 year [1.2-2.6], P=0.74). We observed no difference in survival based on isolated CNS involvement (n = 10) compared to CNS and systemic involvement (n = 15) (P=0.94). Twenty-three CNS relapses occurred (12%). The 2-year and 3-year rates of CNS relapse were 9% (95% CI, 6-14) and 11% (95% CI, 7-16) (Figure 1). The median time to relapse in the CNS was 11 months (95% CI, 7-25). Thirteen CNS recurrences (57%) occurred during the first year of follow-up. Seventy percent were isolated CNS relapses. The location was leptomeningeal in 43% of cases, parenchymal in 35%, both in 17%, and unspecified in 4%. According to CNS-IPI risk groups (data available for 20 patients), 9 patients (45%) belonged to the high-risk group, 10 (50%) to the intermediate-risk group and 1 (5%) to the low-risk group. Prior to CNS relapse, 87% of patients had received rituximab, and 39% had received CNS prophylaxis (30% intrathecal chemotherapy, 4% high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), and 4% both). After CNS recurrence, 96% of patients received salvage treatment: combination of HD-MTX and HD-cytarabine (48%), HD-MTX alone (30%), or HD-cytarabine alone (9%). Four patients underwent consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation. The median survival after CNS relapse was 5.6 months. Factors associated with 3-year cumulative incidence of CNS recurrence in univariate analysis were involvement of kidney/adrenal glands (HR, 4.4; P=0.01) and MYD88 L265P mutation (P=0.01) (Figure 2A and B). Of note, among 74 patients (over 187, 40%) with data available for MYD88 mutation status, 11 CNS relapses occurred in patients with MYD88 L265P mutation (n = 54, 20%) whereas no relapse were observed in MYD88 WT cohort (n = 20). A trend toward higher risk of CNS relapse for ≥2 extranodal sites (HR, 2.3, 95% CI 0.98-5.3; P=0.06) was observed. Cumulative incidence according to CNS-IPI risk groups (0% in the low-risk, 9% in the intermediate-risk and 14% in the high-risk group) was not statistically significant (P=0.47). CONCLUSION CNS involvement occurs frequently in transformed WM. Rate of CNS relapse seems similar to DLBCL patients belonged to the CNS-IPI high-risk group. Special attention should be paid to patients with kidney/adrenal involvement and MYD88 L265P mutation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vos: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Treon: X4: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Self: Patents & Royalties: Holder of multiple patents related to testing and treatment of MYD88 and CXCR4 mutated B-cell malignancies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Castillo: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) commonly encompasses combination of drugs within the three drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators and (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies, both for newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. With increasing appreciation of disease heterogeneity based on underlying genetic abnormality, and demonstration of efficacy of venetoclax in patients with t(11;14) MM, the outcomes with commonly used MM regimens among the different cytogenetic subgroups are of great interest. Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, is being studied in t(11;14) positive MM patients who have received at least two prior lines of treatment (NCT03539744; CANOVA). However, outcomes in previously treated t(11;14) MM patients using standard of care approaches in the real-world setting is limited. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving pomalidomide + dexamethasone (PomDex) in ≥3 rd line were selected, similar to those being enrolled in the ongoing CANOVA trial. Patients were also required to have prior exposure to lenalidomide and a PI without a history of transplant within 16 weeks prior to PomDex initiation. Patients enrolled in a clinical trial were excluded. Overall best response, time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed after initiation of PomDex. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Fifty-two patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 63 years, 60% were male. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines at start of PomDex, at a median of 4.3 years from diagnosis; 52% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 34% of patients with PomDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 6.1 months and median OS was 19.2 months. Conclusion: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone in the ongoing CANOVA study as well as combinations using the pomalidomide backbone. Disclosures Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; 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. Gonzalez De La Calle: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Mangiacavalli: GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kastritis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Esteves: AbbVie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Delforge: 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. Yee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Manthena: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services .

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 >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 >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 <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<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 <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.

Background: The extent of cardiac involvement has a major impact on clinical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Here, we present the hematologic responses, major organ deterioration progression-free survival (MOD-PFS) and event-free survival (MOD-EFS), and organ responses by cardiac stage in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis treated with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (VCd) with or without daratumumab subcutaneous (DARA SC) in the ANDROMEDA trial (NCT03201965). Methods: Key eligibility criteria included newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA (based on the European Modification of the Mayo staging system), eGFR ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive DARA-VCd or VCd alone. All patients received bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 SC weekly), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 oral [PO] or intravenous [IV] weekly [500 mg maximum]), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg PO or IV weekly) for six 28-day cycles. DARA SC (1800 mg, co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered by injection weekly in Cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks in Cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 24 cycles. Disease evaluations occurred every 4 weeks (Cycles 1-6) and every 8 weeks (after Cycle 7) until major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, death, end of study, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic complete response (CR) rate. Secondary endpoints included MOD-PFS, MOD-EFS, organ response rate, time to hematologic response, survival, and safety. Analyses of hematologic CR and MOD-PFS were performed on the intent-to-treat analysis set; cardiac response analyses were based on patients who were evaluable for cardiac response, defined as patients with baseline NT-ProNBP value ≥650 ng/L or baseline NYHA class 3 or 4 and received at least 1 administration of study treatment. Patients without a baseline assessment or post-baseline assessment were censored at randomization for the MOD-PFS analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize overall CR rate and organ response rate. Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive DARA-VCd (n=195) or VCd alone (n=193). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups. The median age was 64 years and the proportions of patients with cardiac stage I, II, and III were 23%, 40%, and 37%, respectively. The median duration of treatment was 9.6 months for DARA-VCd and 5.3 months for VCd. Median follow-up was 11.4 months (range, 0.03-21.3+). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced across cardiac stages, except increasing cardiac stage was associated with older age (≥65 years), worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, more advanced renal failure (CrCl ≤30), and functionally worse heart failure (NYHA IIIA). Hematologic CR rates were higher in the DARA-VCd group than in the VCd group in patients with cardiac stages I, II, and III at baseline (Table). Cardiac and renal response rates at 6 months were also higher in the DARA-VCd group regardless of cardiac stage at baseline (Table). The hazard ratios (HRs) for MOD-PFS were 0.33, 0.55 and 0.66 for cardiac stages I, II and III, respectively, favoring DARA-VCd. Corresponding HRs for MOD-EFS were 0.24, 0.39, and 0.48, respectively. Rates of any grade adverse events (AEs) were similar in patients with and without cardiac involvement at baseline. Across both treatment arms, rates of serious treatment-emergent AEs were higher in patients with cardiac involvement at baseline than in those without. Conclusions: The benefit of DARA-VCd was retained over VCd alone across cardiac stages for hematologic CR, MOD-PFS, MOD-EFS, and organ responses. Disclosures Minnema: Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Comenzo:Unum: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Caleum: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kastritis:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wechalekar:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory; Caelum: Other: Advisory. Witteles:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maurer:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding; Akcea: Research Funding. Tran:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin:Janssen: Current Employment. Vasey:Janssen Research & Development: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jaccard:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Janssen., Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: A.J. has served in a consulting or advisory role for Janssen and has received honoraria from, received research funding from, and had travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid for or reimbursed by Celgene., Research Funding.

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.

8546 Background: The PI bortezomib is commonly used in first-line therapy of AL, but new therapies are needed that are tolerable in the context of multi-organ dysfunction and that, in RRAL, offer improved outcomes following prior bortezomib. Ixazomib is an oral PI, and in TOURMALINE-AL1, the first phase 3 trial conducted in RRAL, while the first primary endpoint of hematologic overall response rate (ORR) was not met, all clinically relevant time-to-event endpoint data favored Ixa-Dex vs PC (Dispenzieri et al, ASH 2019). Methods: RRAL pts with 1–2 prior therapies were randomized (1:1) to Ixa-Dex (n = 85) or PC (n = 83; Dex plus lenalidomide [n = 47], melphalan [n = 24], cyclophosphamide [n = 10], or thalidomide [n = 2]), stratified by cardiac stage, relapsed vs refractory disease, and prior PI exposure. The primary endpoints were hematologic ORR and 2-yr rate of vital organ deterioration or death. We report subgroup analyses of ORR and outcomes by prior PI exposure. Results: Of the 168 pts enrolled, 90 were PI-naïve and 78 PI-exposed (46 and 39 in the Ixa-Dex arm; 44 and 39 in the PC arm) per stratification; 28 and 27 pts in the Ixa-Dex and PC arms had received bortezomib in their last prior line. Hematologic ORR was 63% vs 50% for Ixa-Dex vs PC (odds ratio [OR] 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–3.96) in PI-naïve pts, and 41% vs 51% (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.27–1.62) in PI-exposed pts. For time-to-event outcomes (Table), hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.46–0.85 in favor of Ixa-Dex vs PC in both PI-naïve and PI-exposed pts. Conclusions: Hematologic ORR was higher with Ixa-Dex vs PC in PI-naïve pts but lower in PI-exposed pts (although not statistically significant), and long-term clinically relevant outcomes favored Ixa-Dex in both groups. Based on HRs, the magnitude of benefit appeared similar or greater in PI-naïve vs PI-exposed pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01659658 . [Table: see text]