Mark, Tomer M

PURPOSE At the primary analysis of CASTOR (median follow-up, 7.4 months), daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (D-Vd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report updated efficacy and safety results at the final analysis for overall survival (OS). METHODS CASTOR was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study during which eligible patients with ≥ 1 line of prior therapy were randomly assigned to Vd (up to eight cycles) with or without daratumumab (until disease progression). After positive primary analysis and protocol amendment, patients receiving Vd were offered daratumumab monotherapy after disease progression. RESULTS At a median (range) follow-up of 72.6 months (0.0-79.8), significant OS benefit was observed with D-Vd (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92; P = .0075). Median OS was 49.6 months with D-Vd versus 38.5 months with Vd. Prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated an OS advantage with D-Vd versus Vd for most subgroups, including patients age ≥ 65 years and patients with one or two prior lines of therapy, International Staging System stage III disease, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, and prior bortezomib treatment. The most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events with D-Vd versus Vd were thrombocytopenia (46.1% v 32.9%), anemia (16.0% v 16.0%), neutropenia (13.6% v 4.6%), lymphopenia (10.3% v 2.5%), and pneumonia (10.7% v 10.1%). CONCLUSION D-Vd significantly prolonged OS in patients with RRMM, with the greatest OS benefit observed in patients with one prior line of therapy. To our knowledge, our results, together with the OS benefit observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in the phase III POLLUX study, demonstrate for the first time an OS benefit with daratumumab-containing regimens in RRMM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02136134 [CASTOR]).

e21006 Background: Induction with novel biological agents has significantly improved progression free survival (PFS) of MM pts. However, role and timing of ASCT is unclear and there remains a need for a practical means to predict post-ASCT outcome. Our goal was to determine the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT (PET) after induction therapy (IT) in comparison with other prognostic factors and International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria. Methods: Prospective, multicenter study of 113 newly diagnosed MM pts undergoing IT+ASCT. IT was not controlled and consisted of 2 or 3 novel agent combinations. The tested variables to predict PFS are shown in table. Two PET scoring systems were used: Score1, positive>marrow uptake; Score2, positive>liver uptake. ROC analysis determined the SUV cut-off. Results: With a median follow-up of 29.5 mo 56 (49.6%) pts relapsed (median PFS: 24.3 mo). Results are displayed in table. Post-IT, when a "+" PET (Score2) was associated with less than a VGPR response, relapses occurred in 83% of pts vs. in only 30% when PET was "-" and pts were in CR or VGPR. Multivariate analysis revealed only ISS to be an independent predictor of PFS (p=0.014). Conclusions: Post-IT a "-" PET associated with CR+VGPR suggests a durable response. Qualitative PET evaluation using a more liberal threshold (liver) to define positivity can be used to accurately assess response in MM. These data failed to prove the post-IT IMWG and PET response to be independent prognosticators while ISS was a superior predictor. This may be attributed to inadequate sample size, nonuniform pre- and post-ASCT treatments, varying follow-up times. Further analyses with stratifying various prognostic indicators and therapy schemes in a larger population are underway to determine a definitive role for PET as a predictor of post-ASCT outcome. [Table: see text]

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.

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

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image

572 Background: Single-center observational studies have established the use of single or tandem SCT to salvage relapsed GCT but randomized trials are lacking. We analyzed outcomes and prognostic factors in 2,395 male SCT recipients for relapsed GCT between 1990 and 2015. Methods: Recipients of single or tandem SCT reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research were identified. Outcomes were compared by SCT year: 1990-94 (N = 288), 1995-99 (N = 351), 2000-04 (N = 376), 2005-09 (N = 509) and 2010-15 (N = 871). A recent subset (n = 267, 2000-2015) with detailed disease- and transplant-related data was further analyzed with a multivariate (MVA) Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median age at SCT was 31 (11-76) years and 49% received SCT within 12 months of diagnosis consistent with early relapse/primary refractory GCT. 26% had primary extragonadal GCT; 1,167 (49%) had intent to tandem transplant (TT). The median follow up was 51 (3-313) months. Day 100 non-relapse mortality was statistically similar at 8% in 1990-94 (vs. 4% in 2010-15) but 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) improved from 24 (18-31)% in 1990-94 to 47 (43-50)% in 2010-15 (p < 0.0001) and 3-year survival (OS) from 35 (29-40)% to 54 (50-57)% in 2010-15 (p < 0.0001). Compared with single SCT, TT recipients were younger 31 (16-62) vs 34 (13-76), with lower Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Comorbidity Index, more likely to undergo SCT after 1 line of chemotherapy (28% vs 9%), and within 1 year of diagnosis (51% vs 38%). TT was preferred over single SCT over time (48% of SCT were TT in 2000-04 vs. 81% in 2010-15). In MVA, non-seminoma histology, residual tumor at SCT, receipt of > 1 line of pre-SCT chemotherapy and single SCT (vs. TT), were associated with worse PFS and OS. Year of SCT was not significant when adjusted for these covariates. Conclusions: In this large longitudinal cohort, improvements in PFS and OS were observed in recent years. SCT earlier in disease course and tandem SCT were associated with superior outcomes. These data involving a large cohort reported from 225 centers confirm specialized centers’ date in a real-world setting.

LBA4 Background: Daratumumab (D), a human anti-CD38 IgGκ mAb, induces deep and durable responses with a favorable safety profile in RRMM pts. We report a pre-specified interim analysis of the first randomized controlled study of D (CASTOR; NCT02136134). Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of bortezomib (V)/dexamethasone (d) (V: 1.3 mg/m2sc on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; d: 20 mg po on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) ± D (16 mg/kg iv qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Primary endpoint was PFS. Results: 498 pts (DVd, 251; Vd, 247) were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-10). 66% received prior V; 76% received prior IMiD; 48% received prior PI and IMiD; 33% were IMiD-refractory; 32% were refractory to last line of prior therapy. With median follow-up of 7.4 months, D significantly improved median PFS (61% reduction in risk of progression) and TTP for DVd vs Vd (Table). D significantly increased ORR (83% vs 63%, P <0.0001), and doubled rates of ≥VGPR (59% vs 29%, P <0.0001), and ≥CR (19% vs 9%, P= 0.0012) for DVd vs Vd, respectively; median duration of response was NR vs 7.9 months, respectively. Most common (>25%) AEs (DVd/Vd) were thrombocytopenia (59%/44%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (47%/ 38%), diarrhea (32%/22%) and anemia (26%/31%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (>10%) were thrombocytopenia (45%/33%), anemia (14%/16%), neutropenia (13%/4%). 7%/9% of pts discontinued due to a TEAE. D-associated infusion-related reactions (45% of pts) mostly occurred during the first infusion; most were grade 1/2 (grade 3/4, 9%/0%). Conclusions: D significantly improved PFS, TTP, and ORR in combination with Vd vs Vd alone. DVd doubled both VGPR and sCR/CR rates vs Vd alone. Safety of DVd is consistent with the known safety profile of D and Vd. The addition of D to Vd should be considered a new standard of care for RRMM pts currently receiving Vd alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUNDRace/ethnicity remains an important barrier in clinical care. The authors investigated differences in the receipt of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and outcomes based on race/ethnicity in the United States.METHODSThe Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database was used to identify 28,450 patients who underwent AHCT for MM from 2008 through 2014. By using data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registries, the incidence of MM was calculated, and a stem cell transplantation utilization rate (STUR) was derived. Post‐AHCT outcomes were analyzed among patients ages 18 to 75 years who underwent melphalan‐conditioned peripheral cell grafts (N = 24,102).RESULTSThe STUR increased across all groups from 2008 to 2014. The increase was substantially lower among Hispanics (range, 8.6%‐16.9%) and non‐Hispanic blacks (range, 12.2%‐20.5%) compared with non‐Hispanic whites (range, 22.6%‐37.8%). There were 18,046 non‐Hispanic whites, 4123 non‐Hispanic blacks, and 1933 Hispanic patients. The Hispanic group was younger (P < .001). Fewer patients older than 60 years underwent transplantation among Hispanics (39%) and non‐Hispanic blacks (42%) compared with non‐Hispanic whites (56%). A Karnofsky score <90% and a hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index score >3 were more common in non‐Hispanic blacks compared with Hispanic and non‐Hispanic whites (P < .001). More Hispanics (57%) versus non‐Hispanic blacks (54%) and non‐Hispanic whites (52%; P < .001) had stage III disease. More Hispanics (48%) versus non‐Hispanic blacks (45%) and non‐Hispanic whites (44%) had a very good partial response or better before transplantation (P = .005). Race/ethnicity did not impact post‐AHCT outcomes.CONCLUSIONSAlthough the STUR increased, it remained low and was significantly lower among Hispanics followed by non‐Hispanic blacks compared with non‐Hispanic whites. Race/ethnicity did not impact transplantation outcomes. Efforts to increase the rates of transplantation for eligible patients who have MM, with an emphasis on groups that underuse transplantation, are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:3141–9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Purpose Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, or autotransplantation, is effective in light-chain amyloidosis (AL), but it is associated with a high risk of early mortality (EM). In a multicenter randomized comparison against oral chemotherapy, autotransplantation was associated with 24% EM. We analyzed trends in outcomes after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for AL in North America. Patients and Methods Between 1995 and 2012, 1,536 patients with AL who underwent autotransplantation at 134 centers were identified in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. EM and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in three time cohorts: 1995 to 2000 (n = 140), 2001 to 2006 (n = 596), and 2007 to 2012 (n = 800). Hematologic and renal responses and factors associated with EM, relapse and/or progression, progression-free survival and OS were analyzed in more recent subgroups from 2001 to 2006 (n = 197) and from 2007 to 2012 (n = 157). Results Mortality at 30 and 100 days progressively declined over successive time periods from 11% and 20%, respectively, in 1995 to 2000 to 5% and 11%, respectively, in 2001 to 2006, and to 3% and 5%, respectively, in 2007 to 2012. Correspondingly, 5-year OS improved from 55% in 1995 to 2000 to 61% in 2001 to 2006 and to 77% in 2007 to 2012. Hematologic response to transplantation improved in the latest cohort. Renal response rate was 32%. Centers performing more than four AL transplantations per year had superior survival outcomes. In the multivariable analysis, cardiac AL was associated with high EM and inferior progression-free survival and OS. Autotransplantation in 2007 to 2012 and use of higher dosages of melphalan were associated with a lowered relapse risk. A Karnofsky score less than 80 and creatinine levels 2 mg/m2 or greater were associated with worsened OS. Conclusion Post-transplantation survival in AL has improved, with a dramatic reduction in early post-transplantation mortality and excellent 5-year survival. The risk-benefit ratio for autotransplantation has changed, and randomized comparison with nontransplantation approaches is again warranted.