Gonsalves, Wilson I.

Abstract Introduction: A recent study revealed an antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of propranolol on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Our previous small matched case-control study showed longer survival in patients with propranolol and other beta-blockers (BB) intake than those without. This larger scale study was conducted to confirm the positive association of BB and MM survival. Methods: We identified 1971 newly diagnosed pts seen at Mayo Clinic between 1995 and 2010. Cardiac medication usage after diagnosis of MM was extracted from patient records and categorized based on BB intake. Cause of death was collected with death due to MM as the primary interest event and death due to cardiac disease or other reasons as competing risk events. The primary outcomes were MM disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Cumulative incidence functions and Kaplan-Meier method were used to estimate the 5-year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of MM death and OS rate, respectively. DSS and OS were compared by Gray's test and log-rank test, respectively. Multivarable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted cause-specific HR (HRCSadj.) and hazard ratio (HRadj.) for DSS and OS, respectively, adjusting for demographics, disease characteristics, diagnosis year, and various chemotherapies. Results: 930 (47.2%) of MM patients had no intake of any cardiac medications; 260 (13.2%) had BB only; 343 (17.4%) used both BB / non-BB cardiac medications; and 438 patients (22.2%) had non-BB cardiac drugs. Five-year CIR of MM death and OS rate were shown in table. Superior MM DSS was observed for BB only users, compared to patients without any cardiac drugs (HRCSadj., .53, 95% confidence interval [CI], .42-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj., .49, 95% CI, .38-.63, padj.<.0001). Patients received both BB and other cardiac drugs also showed superior MM DSS than non-cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj.., .54, 95% CI, .44-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drug users. (HRCSadj., .50, 95% CI, .40-.62, padj.<.0001). MM DSS does not differ between BB users with and without other cardiac drugs (padj.=0.90). Multivariable analysis showed the same pattern for OS. None of the MM therapies impacted the differences in DSS and OS among BB intake groups (interaction padj.>.60). Conclusion: MM patients with BB intake showed reduced risk of death due to MM and overall mortality compared to patients who used non-BB cardiac or never used cardiac drugs. The result warrants further investigation for anti-cancer effect of BB in MM. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD®) that has been approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combinations of IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors offer the potential for deeper and more durable responses due to enhanced efficacy. Preliminary results of a phase 1 study of twice weekly bortezomib with pomalidomide have been reported with promising results (Richardson, ASH 2012). This phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) as well as safety and efficacy of the combination of pomalidomide, once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVD) in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, MM. Patients and methods: We included patients with relapsed MM who had 1-4 prior lines of therapy and were resistant or refractory to lenalidomide. In the phase I portion of the trial, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide 4 mg days 1-21 PO, bortezomib 1.0mg/m2 days 1,8,15, and 22 IV or SQ and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1,8,15, and 22 PO, given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3mg/m2 for dose level 2 and and was adopted for the phase 2 portion. The primary aim of the phase I cohort was to determine the MTD of the combination, and for the phase II cohort was to evaluate the confirmed response rate (PR, VGPR, or CR) in relapsed refractory MM. Response was assessed by the IMWG criteria and toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Results: 50 patients were accrued between March 2012 and July 2014 (dose level (DL)1: 3, DL 2: 6, Phase II: 41). We describe results in 47 patients treated at MTD and phase II. Median age was 66, 51% were female and median time from diagnosis to study was 46 months (15-142). Twenty five percent had mSMART defined high-risk status. Median number of prior regimens was 3. All patients had prior lenalidomide, 68% had stem cell transplant, 17% received thalidomide, 56% had alkylators and 57% had bortezomib. With median follow up of 9 months, 72% remain progression free, 96% are alive and 66% remain on treatment. The most common AEs at least possibly attributable to the combination were anemia, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia; however, the majority of these were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 AEs (regardless of attribution) that occurred in at least 3 patients included neutropenia (29), leukopenia (15), lung infection (6), lymphopenia (8) dyspnea (3) and syncope (3). DVT/PE occurred in one patient. Among the 42 patients who were evaluable, confirmed responses (PR, VGPR, or CR) were seen in 34 (81%) including sCR (3), CR (5), VGPR (8), PR (18). Confirmed responses were seen in 9 of 11( 82%) high risk patients. Median progression free survival was 17.7 months (95%CI: 9.5-NA). Conclusions: PVD is a highly effective combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide with confirmed responses in over 80%. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced the tolerability and convenience of this regimen. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy or DVT. PVD is a highly attractive option in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Lust:Senesco: PI Other. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: While hematologic cancers comprise only 10% of all malignancies, they are divided into >100 distinct World Health Organization subtypes. It is known that higher volume of care is generally associated with better clinical outcomes. However, such a volume-outcome relationship in the medical management of hematologic cancers has not been rigorously explored. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Census of Oncology Practices shows that the majority of hematologist-oncologists in the United States (US) have a combined hematology-oncology practice (J Oncol Pract 2013). In this study, we estimated the annual number of new and established patients with major hematologic cancers seen on average by a hematologist-oncologist in the US. METHODS: We estimated the number of hematologist-oncologists working in the US using the ASCO workforce information system data from 2011. We utilized statistics from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program to determine the incidence and 37-year limited prevalence of hematologic cancers in 2011. We used 'first malignant tumor per site' statistics as the tumor inclusion method. For potentially curable hematologic cancers (acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, Burkitt lymphoma, diffuse large b-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and marginal zone lymphoma), we used the estimated 1-5 year survival rates from SEER and excluded patients who survived >5 years, since relapses are rare afterwards. Because prevalence estimates of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, and certain subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma are unavailable, we were unable to calculate the number of annual established cases. For myeloproliferative neoplasms, we obtained the prevalence estimate from Mehta J, et al (Leuk Lymphoma 2014). We derived the distribution of major non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) Participant User File. RESULTS: The ASCO workforce information reported a total of 13,084 hematologist-oncologists working in the US in 2011. The Table summarizes the average number of specific hematologic cancer cases seen per hematologist-oncologist in 2011. CONCLUSION: Hematologic cancers are relatively rare but complex. In the US, a hematologist-oncologist on average cares for only 1-2 new patients of any subtype of hematologic cancers annually. The number of established patients is correspondingly low. These numbers are expected to vary by practice setting and disease specialization. As the diagnosis and management of hematologic cancers becomes more sophisticated, future research should explore the potential of a volume to clinical outcome relationship for these providers. Table. Hematologic Cancer Average Annual Number of Cases per Hematologist-Oncologist in the US New Cases Established Cases All Cases Acute lymphocytic leukemia 0.4 1.4 1.8 Acute myeloid leukemia 1 1.5 2.5 Chronic lymphocytic leukemia 1.1 10.7 11.8 Chronic myeloid leukemia 0.4 2.7 3.1 Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia 0.1 - - Hodgkin lymphoma 0.7 2.7 3.4 Multiple myeloma 1.6 6.3 7.9 Myelodysplastic syndromes 1.2 - - Myeloproliferative neoplasms 0.6 22.2 22.8 Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 5.1 - - Anaplastic large cell 0.1 - - Burkitt 0.1 0.3 0.4 Diffuse large B-cell 2 6 8 Follicular 1.1 - - Hairy cell leukemia 0.1 - - Lymphoplasmacytic 0.1 - - Mantle-cell 0.3 - - Marginal zone 0.5 2.1 2.6 Peripheral T-cell, not otherwise specified 0.1 - - Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: There has been major improvement in the survival of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) over the past two decades. Such improvement has been attributed to the broader use of hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation and novel drugs that prolong initial remission and more successfully treat relapsed disease. Early mortality (EM), here defined as death in the first year after diagnosis, is uncommon in modern MM trials. The magnitude of EM in unselected patients with MM and its impact on overall outcomes in this disease is unknown Methods: We analyzed EM in MM utilizing data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result Program (SEER-13). Patients diagnosed with MM as first malignant neoplasm between 1993 and 2010 (follow up until end of 2011) were included. Cases reported from death certificate or autopsy only were excluded, along with patients recorded as alive but with no survival time (<1% of total). Relative EM rates (1 – relative survival) used data from the US population in 2000 as reference. We described EM for different population groups, changes over time and performed multivariate analysis (binary logistic regression) to assess risk factors for EM in MM. To assess the impact of factors other than reduction in EM in the increased survival of MM, we performed a landmark survival analysis including only those patients who survived at least 1 year after diagnosis. Results: There were 30,324 patients in the analysis, 11,439 diagnosed at age < 65 and 18,885 at age ≥ 65. Absolute EM was 17.6% and 35.3% while relative EMwas 16.9% and 31.7% for the younger and the older groups respectively. There was decline of relative EM rates that occurred in both age groups but only became evident among older patients after 2005 (Figure 1). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased risk of EM were male sex, age ≥65 years , diagnosis in 1993-2001, presence of primary plasma cell leukemia, low household income and residence in the coverage area of certain SEER registries (Table 1). Landmark analysis of 1-year survivors demonstrated increased survival from 1993-2001 to 2002-2010 for patients < 65 (median 58 vs. 85 months, P<0.001) and for patients ≥ 65 (median 38 vs. 48 months, P<0.001, Figure 2). Conclusions: Reduction in EM partially explains population improvements in MM overall survival. EM remains high in MM and a major barrier for continued improvement in survival outcomes. Table 1 Factor Reference OR 95% C.I. P Female sex Male 0.90 0.85-0.95 <0.001 Year of diagnosis 1993-2001 2002-2010 1.16 1.10-1.22 <0.001 Plasma Cell Leukemia Multiple Myeloma 5.62 4.17-7.58 <0.001 Age ≥65 years < 65 years 2.56 2.42-2.72 <0.001 Race-ethnicity <0.001 NHB NHW 0.97 0.90-1.04 0.39 Hispanic NHW 1.04 0.95-1.14 0.41 AIAN NHW 0.90 0.63-1.28 0.56 API NHW 0.84 0.75-0.94 0.004 Median household income# 0.91 0.87-0.95 <0.001 SEER registry <0.001 Alaska Los Angeles 1.37 0.62-3.02 0.43 Atlanta Los Angeles 1.003 0.89-1.14 0.96 Connecticut Los Angeles 0.83 0.75-0.93 0.002 Detroit Los Angeles 1.06 0.96-1.16 0.23 Hawaii Los Angeles 1.21 1.01-1.45 0.04 Iowa Los Angeles 0.89 0.80-0.99 0.03 New Mexico Los Angeles 0.88 0.77-1.01 0.07 Rural Georgia Los Angeles 1.10 0.76-1.58 0.63 San Francisco-Oakland Los Angeles 0.99 0.86-1.11 0.87 San Jose-Monterey Los Angeles 1.05 0.87-1.12 0.51 Seattle-Puget Sound Los Angeles 0.91 0.83-1.01 0.08 Utah Los Angeles 1.13 0.98-1.29 0.08 NHB= non-Hispanic Blacks;, NHW= non-Hispanic Whites; AIAN= American Indian, Alaska Natives; API= Asian and Pacific Islanders; #Per US$ 10,000 Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

SummaryIbrutinib‐related data in Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) remain sparse, particularly outside of trials. We report on 80 patients [previously treated, n = 67 (84%), treatment‐naïve, n = 13 (16%)] with WM, evaluated consecutively at Mayo Clinic, who received ibrutinib off‐study after its approval in 2015 for WM. Overall response rate (ORR) was 91%; major‐response rate (MRR) was 78%. The median time to first response and best response was 2·9 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2–4] and 5·7 (95% CI: 4–12) months, respectively. The median follow‐up was 19 (95% CI: 14–21) months; 18‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) was 82%. The median time on therapy was 12·5 (95% CI: 9·3–16·7) months, and the median duration‐of‐response was 32 (range: 23–32) months. Twenty‐five patients (31%) had discontinued therapy at last follow‐up (68% due to treatment‐related toxicities) and 18% of patients required dose reduction. Fatigue (12%) and atrial‐fibrillation (11%) were common non‐haematological toxicities. IgM rebound occurred in 36% of patients who abruptly discontinued ibrutinib. Following ibrutinib discontinuation, 84% of patients received subsequent treatment, achieving an ORR of 57% and MRR of 50%. The median PFS from commencement of subsequent salvage therapy was 18 months. Ibrutinib therapy, outside of clinical trials, is effective in WM, but is associated with toxicities and challenges, including IgM rebound and a high drug discontinuation rate for reasons other than disease progression.

Summary Improvement in survival in Light chain (AL) amyloidosis has been seen over recent decades, enabling more patients to achieve long‐term survival. Patients with AL amyloidosis who survived ≥10 years from time of diagnosis ( n = 186) were the subject of this study. Ten‐year survivors represented 22% of the total population. These patients were characterized by favourable patient, organ and plasma cell features. Of note, trisomies were less common among 10‐year survivors compared to those who did not survive to 10 years. All‐time best haematological response was complete response in 67%, very good partial response in 30%, partial response in 2% and no response in 1%, with 11% having received a consolidative strategy for inadequate response to first line therapy. The overall organ response rate to first‐line therapy was 76%, which increased to 86% when considering subsequent line(s) of therapy. Forty‐seven percent of the 10‐year survivors did not require a second‐line therapy. The median treatment‐free survival (TFS) among the 10‐year survivors was 10·5 years (interquartile range 7·4‐12·2). On multivariate analysis independent predictors for TFS were the achievement of complete haematological response and lack of cardiac involvement. Long‐term survivors are increasingly seen in AL amyloidosis and present distinct patient, organ and clonal disease features.

AbstractThe role of consolidation post autologous stem cell transplant in light chain amyloidosis is not well defined. We retrospectively identified patients who had light chain amyloidosis and underwent autologous stem cell transplant at the Mayo Clinic. Consolidation was defined as any treatment given after the day 100 evaluation post‐transplant to maintain or deepen the response. We identified 471 patients, of whom 72 (15%) received consolidation. Patients receiving consolidation had more advanced disease (Mayo 2012 stage ≥II in 67% vs 52%, P = .02), and had lower day 100 response rates (very good partial response or better: 35% vs 84%, P < .001). After consolidation, rates of very good partial response improved from 24% to 28%, and rates of complete response improved from 11% to 40%. Patients with less than very good partial response who received consolidation, had better progression‐free survival (median of 22.4 vs 8.8 months, P < .001), and the benefit was greater in those who deepened their response (median of 41 vs 8.8 months, P < .001). In patients with less than very good partial response, there was a trend for better overall survival in patients who responded to consolidation (median of 125.8 vs 74.4 months, P = .07). In patients who achieved very good partial response, or better, at day 100 post autologous stem cell transplant, consolidation did not improve progression‐free or overall survival. Consolidation after autologous stem cell transplant for light chain amyloidosis improves progression‐free survival for patients who achieve less than very good partial response.