White, Darrell

7546 Background: MRD assessment informs relapse risk in MM but is typically bone marrow-based and invasive. We therefore compared two minimally invasive MRD assays: BM-informed cfDNA whole-genome sequencing (cfWGS) and plasma proteomic MRD (EasyM). Methods: 71 longitudinal plasma samples (22 diagnosis, 49 follow-up) from 22 newly diagnosed MM patients across 8 Canadian sites (TFRIM4) had paired cfWGS and EasyM (Rapid Novor Inc). cfWGS MRD used patient-specific mutation lists from diagnostic BM WGS (Abelman et al., medRxiv 2025). EasyM used mass spectrometry to quantify residual M-protein from baseline. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Among 22 MM patients (8 male, 14 female; median age at diagnosis 62 years), 8 progressed at a median follow-up of 52.6 months (range: 10-79 months). At 1-year maintenance (n = 18 available), cfWGS MRD+ (6/18) predicted inferior PFS (HR 20.12, 95% CI 2.23-181.60, p = 0.007). EasyM any-detect positivity was frequent (16/18, reflecting delayed clearance) and not prognostic (p = 0.99), with poor agreement vs cfWGS (44.4%, κ = 0.118). An exploratory EasyM clearance threshold of 0.93% (hypothesis-generating) classified 5/18 patients as MRD+ and stratified PFS (HR 8.78, 95% CI 1.55-49.82, p = 0.004), improving agreement with cfWGS (17/18, 94.4%, κ = 0.870). Progression clustered in cfWGS+/EasyM-high patients (EasyM >0.93%; 4/5; median 11.9 months post-collection [1.9–22.8]) and occurred once in cfWGS−/EasyM-low patients (1/12, 27.6 months). The only discordant case (cfWGS+/EasyM−) progressed 8.7 months after collection. Higher quantitative MRD burden was associated with inferior PFS (cfWGS: HR 2.92 per 1 SD, 95% CI 1.29-6.59, p = 0.01; EasyM: HR 5.48 per 1 SD, 95% CI 0.79-37.90, p = 0.085). At ~100 days post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; n = 16 available), EasyM was uniformly MRD+ (16/16) while cfWGS was MRD+ in 7/16 patients. Applying an EasyM clearance threshold (2.13%; 9 cleared vs 7 residual) improved agreement with cfWGS (14/16; 87.5%; κ = 0.746). Of two discordant cases, one cfWGS+/EasyM-cleared patient relapsed 38.6 months post-collection and one cfWGS−/EasyM-residual patient remained progression-free at last follow-up. At post-ASCT, both assays showed consistent but underpowered associations with PFS (cfWGS HR 6.32, 95% CI 0.70–56.76, p = 0.100; EasyM-clearance HR 2.36, 95% CI 0.39–14.18, p = 0.335). Across all post-treatment samples (n = 49), continuous cfWGS burden correlated with EasyM residual M-protein (rho = 0.535, p < 0.001). Conclusions: BM-informed cfWGS MRD strongly stratified PFS, whereas EasyM required a clearance definition due to near-universal early positivity. Concordant plasma burdens support complementary MRD information. Future work will validate these findings in larger cohorts and quantify the incremental value of combined cfWGS and proteomic MRD for early relapse prediction.

Abstract Introduction: Early relapse limits durable remissions in multiple myeloma (MM). Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragment patterns capture tumor burden and nucleosome positioning. We tested whether a fragmentomics signature trained at MRD time points stratifies progression-free survival (PFS) when applied to pretreatment plasma. Methods: We performed 30-40× whole-genome sequencing of plasma cfDNA from 43 newly diagnosed MM patients, with 65 additional MRD timepoint samples from 41 of those patients (post-ASCT n=30; 1-year maintenance n=30; other maintenance n=5) across eight Canadian sites (TFRIM4 and IMMAGINE studies) and one U.S. site (Mayo SPORE). MRD testing used multiparameter flow cytometry for all follow-up samples (n=65) and clonoSEQ in a subset (n=31). Logistic and elastic-net models were trained at MRD timepoints on fragmentomics features (short-fragment burden; a combined model integrating fragment-length distributions with inferred nucleosome positioning at MM-specific chromatin accessibility regions [Ordoñez et al., Genome Res. 2020]). A decision threshold was fixed by the Youden index during training and applied unchanged to diagnosis samples. PFS was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox models. Results: After a median follow-up of 49.1 months, 16 of 43 patients (37%) progressed. Using the prespecified locked threshold, patients classified as MRD+ by the proportion-of-short-fragments model had significantly shorter PFS than MRD- patients (HR = 5.12; 95% CI 1.16-22.57; log-rank p = 0.016), with median PFS of 49.2 months for MRD+ cases versus not reached for the MRD- group. Fixed-horizon PFS favored MRD- samples at 24/36/48 months (100/94/87% vs 85/81/53% for MRD+). A combined model integrating weighted fragment lengths with inferred nucleosome positioning also separated outcomes (log-rank p=0.054); the Cox HR was not estimable because no MRD- patients relapsed. At 24, 36, and 48 months, baseline MRD positivity by the short-fragment model identified 100%, 83%, and 86% of patients who relapsed within those intervals (specificity 44%, 43%, and 52%), while the combined model detected all early relapses across the same horizons (specificity 15-21%), indicating consistently high sensitivity but modest specificity for predicting early progression. Conclusions: A cfDNA fragmentomics signature trained at MRD time points stratified PFS when applied to diagnostic plasma, identifying patients at risk of early relapse. Short-fragment burden was most discriminative, and a combined model with nucleosome positioning recapitulated it with higher sensitivity, albeit lower specificity. These data support cfDNA fragmentomics as a practical liquid-biopsy risk biomarker in MM and suggest higher signals may proxy aggressive disease with greater tumor shedding and chromatin disorganization. Future work will validate findings in larger cohorts and integrate cytogenetic and immune features. Citation Format: Dor David Abelman, Jenna Eagles, Aimee Wong, Saumil Shah, Jeffrey Bruce, Stephanie Pedersen, David S. Scott, Cecilia Bonolo de Campos, Signy Chow, Darrell White, Irwindeed Sandhu, Kevin Song, Esteban Braggio, Shaji Kunnathu Kumar, Alli Murugesan, Tony Reiman, A. Keith Stewart, Suzanne Trudel, Trevor J. Pugh. Baseline cfDNA fragmentomics identifies multiple myeloma patients at risk of early progression [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2597.

Abstract Introduction: Monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) is critical in multiple myeloma (MM) to predict outcomes and guide therapy. Traditional bone marrow (BM) aspirates for MRD detection are invasive and limited by sample quality. We therefore explored cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentation as a less invasive alternative for MRD detection. Methods: We performed 30-40X whole-genome sequencing (WGS) on peripheral blood cfDNA from 45 MM patients, collecting baseline (n = 45) and follow-up samples (n = 98) from eight Canadian sites (M4 and IMMAGINE studies) and one U.S. site (SPORE study), plus 25 healthy controls. Samples were collected post-induction therapy (n = 13), 100 days post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ACST, n = 36), and during maintenance therapy (n = 49). Multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) MRD testing was conducted on 77 samples. We evaluated insert size metrics and MM-specific chromatin accessibility (from Ordoñez et al., 2020) using Griffin (described in Doebley et al., 2022). Results: Baseline samples had a higher proportion of short fragments (20-150 bp) than follow-up samples (p = 0.0037) and healthy controls (p = 0.019). A fragment score (FS) based on weighted fragment distribution (per Vessies et al., 2022) was highest at baseline (mean = -0.384), followed by MRD-positive (mean = -0.495) and MRD-negative (mean = -0.550) samples. MRD-negative FS was lower than baseline samples (p &lt; 0.001) but higher than healthy controls (mean = -0.639; p = 0.016). Baseline samples had lower coverage at MM-specific chromatin regions than MRD timepoints (p &lt; 0.05; baseline mean = 0.982; MRD-positive = 0.989; MRD-negative = 0.994; healthy = 0.993), suggesting higher transcriptional activity pre-treatment. MRD-negative samples had higher coverage than MRD-positive cases (p &lt; 0.01). Using logistic regression, we assessed the predictive performance of FS and coverage at MM-specific sites. FS alone achieved an AUC of 0.632 (sensitivity [SN] 39.4%, specificity [SP] 92.1%, accuracy [AC] 67.6%). Coverage yielded an AUC of 0.681 (SN 75.8%, SP 60.5%, AC 67.6%). Combining FS and coverage at MM sites improved performance (AUC = 0.734; SN 48.5%, SP 92.1%, AC 71.8%). We next evaluated whether adjusting the BM tumor cell percentage cutoff by MFC could improve performance. At 0.017% (1 in 5, 789 cells) for MRD positivity, the combined model’s accuracy reached 83% with an AUC of 0.757 (SN 17%, SP 97%). Conclusions: cfDNA fragmentomic analysis achieved high specificity (92-97%) in detecting MRD, providing a less invasive alternative to facilitate serial monitoring. While sensitivity remains an area for improvement, the high specificity of cfDNA makes it valuable for confirming MRD negativity and reducing invasive procedures. Future efforts aim to enhance sensitivity by integrating additional fragmentomic features. Citation Format: Dor D. Abelman, Jenna Eagles, Aimee Wong, Saumil Shah, Stephanie Pedersen, Stephenie Prokopec, David S. Scott, Sarah Bridges, Darrell White, Irwindeep Sandhu, Kevin Song, Esteban Braggio, Alli Murugesan, Anthony Reiman, Suzanne Trudel, Trevor J. Pugh. Tumor-independent monitoring of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma using cfDNA fragmentomics [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3250.

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Abstract Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged &gt;75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and &gt;4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and &gt;6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (&gt;4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: 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; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, 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. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Abstract Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P &lt; .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P &lt; .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

AbstractThe phase 3 FIRST trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an immune‐stimulatory agent, lenalidomide, in combination with low‐dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) vs melphalan +prednisone + thalidomide (MPT) in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Rd continuous similarly extended PFS vs fixed‐duration Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18). Outcomes in the Canadian/US subgroup (104 patients per arm) are reported in this analysis. Rd continuous demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS vs MPT (median, 29.3 vs 20.2 months; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49‐0.97]; p = 0.03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median, 21.9 months). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 months with Rd continuous vs MPT (p = 0.15346) and 59.5 months with Rd18. The overall response rate was higher with Rd continuous and Rd18 (78.8% and 79.8%) vs MPT (65.4%). In the 49.0%, 52.9%, and 29.8% of patients with at least very good partial response in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively, the median PFS was 56.0, 30.9, and 40.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐emergent adverse events were neutropenia (28.4%, 30.1%, and 52.0%), anemia (23.5%, 21.4%, and 23.5%), and infections (37.3%, 30.1%, and 24.5%) with Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT, respectively. These results were consistent with those in the intent‐to‐treat population, confirming the benefit of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canadian/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM.

Abstract Introduction: The NCIC CTG previously reported the results of a dose-finding trial testing the combination of Melphalan (M) and Lenalidomide (L) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem cell transplantation because of older age and/or comorbidity (White, Blood2007; 110: 63a). Using a 28-day schedule, M (dose indicated as mg/m2/day given on days 1–4) and L (dose indicated in mg/day given on days 1–21) was associated with excess toxicity with the regimens M9L10, M4L15 and M6L10. We concluded that phase II testing of M5L10 was warranted and now report the results of this testing. Methods: Previously untreated symptomatic and consenting patients with tissue-confirmed plasmacytosis and a measurable M-protein were eligible provided that they had acceptable hematologic and biochemical laboratory parameters and no precluding comorbidities. Planned treatment consisted of M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21, given every 28 days for 12 cycles. As our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M occurring within the first 3 treatment cycles. Responses to treatment were classified using 1998 EBMT criteria and assessed after 2 and 6 cycles of therapy. Results: The intended sample size was 41 patients; 35 patients (1 ineligible) were enrolled before the study was closed due to observing a frequency of DLTs that surpassed predefined boundaries. Of the 34 eligible patients, median age was 73.4 yrs and ISS was stage I = 13, stage II = 11 and stage III = 10. Prior to study closure, 27 patients were evaluable for DLT; 7 (26%) did not experience a DLT. Among the remaining 20 (74%) patients, non-hematologic (N=2) and hematologic (N=18) DLTs requiring dose attenuations were seen within the first 3 treatment cycles; the H-DLTs included severe or prolonged neutropenia (N=11), thrombocytopenia (N=2) or both (N=5). One fatal serious adverse event was observed, this was due to a stroke. The other non-hematologic DLT was a cranial nerve III palsy which subsequently resolved. Responses after 2 cycles were evaluable in 21 patients and included partial response (PR) = 11, minimal response = 6, no change = 2 and progressive disease (PD) = 2. For those patients without PD after 2 cycles, responses after 6 cycles were evaluable in 8 and included PR = 6, stable response = 1 and PD = 1. Conclusion: Although M + L is an active combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. Without the routine use of GCSF, the doses used in the MY.11 study were not tolerable. Inability to use planned doses may have compromised the efficacy of the combination.

Abstract Introduction. The NCIC CTG is conducting phase II testing to establish the tolerability and estimate the efficacy of combining lenalidomide (L) + melphalan (M) over multiple cycles for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. We report the data from the preliminary safety phase of this trial. Methods. The MY.11 trial was initially designed as a randomized phase II test of M 9 mg/m2 given on days 1–4 (M9) plus either L 10 mg (L10) or 20 mg given on days 1–21 of a 28 day cycle. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included, but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted; our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF. A dose attenuation schedule was developed for neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia that was severe and occurred during the administration of L or was persistent and caused a delay in the next treatment cycle. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M. Prior to the randomized phase of the trial, a safety run-in phase testing M9+L10 in 6 patients was planned; closure of this arm was to occur if, during the first 3 treatment cycles, there were ≥ 3 H-DLTs or any non-hematologic serious adverse event (SAE) judged to be treatment related. Four of the planned 6 patients were entered; during their first 3 treatment cycles, each experienced a H-DLT and one died from sepsis. The study was therefore amended with the intent to conduct a randomized phase II test of M 4 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 15 mg days 1–21 (M4L15) and M 6 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 10 mg days 1–21 (M6L10). Prior to the randomized phase of testing, each regimen was tested in non-randomized safety run-ins that included 6 patients per arm. The same parameters as above for study arm closure were applied. If the M6L10 arm was closed, the trial would proceed to test M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21 (M5L10). Results. Six patients were enrolled to M4L15: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 4 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia and one other patient experienced an SAE related to hallucinations and multiple constitutional complaints. This arm was therefore closed to accrual. Six patients were enrolled to M6L10: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 3 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia. One of these patients was hospitalized with pulmonary edema and another with febrile neutropenia. This arm was therefore closed and the MY.11 trial amended to proceed as a single-arm phase II testing M5L10. Conclusion. Although M + L holds promise as an effective combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. The efficacy of the combination when given at tolerable doses remains to be established.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.