Richardson, Paul G.

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence for the clinical benefit of long-term, continuous therapy for NDMM pts. Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) form a backbone of therapy in MM; however, long-term therapy with some PIs may be limited due to toxicity and the need for regular parenteral administration, increasing the treatment burden. Ixazomib, the first oral PI, has been studied in NDMM pts in 4 phase 1/2 studies in which approximately 1 year of induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd) was followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance. Here we report an integrated analysis of pts from these studies who did not undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and received ixazomib maintenance therapy. Methods Pts from 4 studies were included: 1) weekly IRd, 12x28-d cycles IRd (weekly ixazomib 1.68-3.95 mg/m² in phase 1, recommended phase 2 dose [RP2D] 4.0 mg; C16005, NCT01217957; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 2) twice-weekly IRd, 16x21-d cycles IRd (twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D 3.0 mg; C16008, NCT01383928; ASCT-eligible/-ineligible pts); 3) IMP, 9x42-d or 13x28-d cycles IMP (weekly/twice-weekly ixazomib 3.0-5.5/3.0-3.7 mg in phase 1, RP2D of weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16006, NCT01335685; ASCT-ineligible pts); 4) ICd, 13x28-d cycles ICd (weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg; C16020, NCT02046070; ASCT-ineligible pts). In all 4 studies, pts completing induction without progressive disease (PD) and, in the IRd studies, not withdrawn for ASCT, could receive single-agent ixazomib maintenance at the last tolerated dose during induction until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Results 121 pts received ixazomib maintenance (25, 18, 35, and 43 in weekly IRd, twice-weekly IRd, IMP, and ICd studies, respectively). Median age was 72 yrs (range 34-90 yrs; 83% aged ≥65 yrs), 62% had IgG myeloma, 47/34/19% had ISS disease stage I/II/III, 40/49% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1. Combined median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33.8 months from time of study entry and 21.4 months from start of maintenance (Figure). Median PFS from the start of maintenance seemed to be longer for the two IRd studies than for IMP, while median PFS for ICd had not yet been reached. 4-yr OS from time of study entry/3-yr OS from the start of maintenance was 82%. Overall response rate was 93% after induction and 94% after maintenance. Best response rate of CR+VGPR after induction was 57% (22% CR), which increased to 63% (35% CR/sCR) after maintenance; 24 pts (20%) improved their response during maintenance (4 pts with CR improved to sCR; 14 VGPR to CR/sCR; 5 partial response [PR] to VGPR/CR; 1 stable disease to PR). Combined mean dose intensity during maintenance was 89.1%. At time of analysis, median duration of maintenance therapy was 2.2 yrs for weekly IRd, 1.0 yr for twice-weekly IRd, and 0.9 yr for IMP and ICd; maximum duration was 4.8, 3.8, 3.9, and 1.6 yrs respectively. 78% of pts had discontinued maintenance, primarily due to PD (55%), and only 7% due to adverse events (AEs). 15% of pts had ixazomib dose reductions during maintenance. Grade ≥3 AEs (48% vs 74%), drug-related grade ≥3 AEs (24% vs 62%), serious AEs (SAEs; 21% vs 43%), and drug-related SAEs (5% vs 19%) were less common during maintenance than during induction. Common grade ≥3 AEs are shown in the Table. Other AEs of clinical interest were also generally similar or less common during maintenance than during induction, including cardiac arrhythmias (13% vs 21%), pneumonia (12% vs 17%), acute renal failure (7% vs 8%), hypotension (4% vs 7%), myocardial infarction (0 vs <1%), and heart failure (2% vs 2%). Only 6 pts (5%) reported a new primary malignancy. There was only 1 on-study death during maintenance, which was not considered related to ixazomib; due to pulmonary edema in an 81-yr old pt with a history of cardiovascular co-morbidities. Conclusions In this integrated analysis, single-agent ixazomib maintenance therapy following an ixazomib-based induction regimen was associated with deepening of responses and good long-term outcomes in NDMM pts not undergoing ASCT. Single-agent ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration, with limited new-onset grade ≥3 AEs. These outcomes appear similar to other studies involving maintenance approaches in NDMM and support the ongoing phase 3 investigation of ixazomib maintenance therapy. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding. Laubach: Novartis, Takeda, Celgene, Onyx: Research Funding; Novartis, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy. Hofmeister: Thrassos: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. San Miguel: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Onyx, AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Merck, Oncopeptides, Roche, Skyline Diagnostics: Research Funding; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Oncopeptides, Skyline Diagnostics, Takeda: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria. Lu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Teng: Array Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead Science: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Liu: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Byrne: Oncopeptides AB: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Berg: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. van de Velde: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides AB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .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.

Background: Here we describe an online network of patients with cancer, clinicians and researchers, layered on top of a comprehensive real world database of treatments and outcomes, continuously updated in near real time, and initially focused on multiple myeloma. Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma register at www.all4cure.com and sign HIPAA release forms to provide access to all of their medical records from all of the institutions from which they have received care. From the medical records, a structured dataset of treatments and lab results is extracted by a myeloma-dedicated team for display on each patient's de-identified, personalized dashboard. A discussion panel allows more than 1200 participating patients, clinicians and researchers to post comments or questions regarding each patient's specific circumstances. For each patient, lines of therapy and responses are determined according to IMWG and published criteria (Blood [2015] 126: 921-922). Here we report initial results from the treatments and responses among patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Results: A total of 493 patients includes 26 with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 51 with smoldering myeloma, 408 with multiple myeloma, and 8 with primary plasma cell leukemia. Among patients with multiple myeloma, 42 (10.3%) had antecedent MGUS and/or smoldering myeloma. The average age is 65.6 (+/- 9.7). 50.9% are male and 49.1% are female. 42 states in the U.S. and 8 other countries are represented. Two patients with multiple myeloma had not started treatment by the time of this report. The remaining 414 patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received 1 to 16 lines of therapy. Among the 414 patients that received at least one line of therapy, a remarkable 89 distinct first line therapies were administered. The most common first line therapies were lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=92), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=50), lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone + autologous stem cell transplant + lenalidomide maintenance (n=41), lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=29), and bortezomib and dexamethasone (n=22). 62 patients received a first line therapy that was not received by any other patient in our database. This variation was attributable to participation in clinical trials, variation in the availability of drugs over time and different geographic locations, and the very large number of distinct combinations associated with multi-agent regimens. Seventy six percent of patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received a second line of therapy, 52% received a third line of therapy, 34% received a fourth line of therapy, 23% received a fifth line of therapy, and 18% received a sixth line of therapy. We observed a trend toward a decline in favorable responses with successive lines of therapy (Table 1) consistent with previous reports, with a correlation coefficient between the line of therapy and overall response rate of -0.74. Among the 76 patients who received 6 or more lines of therapy (247 lines of therapy in total), only 7 achieved stringent complete responses (sCRs), of which 5 were associated with a CAR-T therapy. Table 1 also shows a trend toward more rapid changes in treatment associated with later lines of therapy. 57 of 493 patients (12%) are deceased. Conclusions: Our findings reveal remarkable variation in the treatment of myeloma and provide a potentially valuable resource of up to date and current clinical features, prognosis, treatments, side effects, and outcomes of patients with myeloma in the real world. Table 1. Summary of lines of therapy and outcomes across 414 patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. The percentages of patients achieving sCR, ≥ PR (overall response rate - ORR), and ≥MR (clinical benefit rate - CBR) are shown for each line of therapy. Also depicted is the interval mortality and the mean and median number of days between the beginning of a line therapy and the beginning of the next line of therapy. Table Disclosures Richter: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; X4 pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive biotechnologies: Consultancy; Secura bio: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy. Chhun:All4Cure: Current Employment. Zheng:All4Cure: Current Employment. Piboonvaranggoon:All4Cure: Current Employment. Mallick:All4Cure: Current Employment. Wren:All4Cure: Current Employment. Nam:All4Cure: Current Employment. Lopez Barquilla:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Blau:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Cowan:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bensinger:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Anderson:Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blau:All4Cure: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs >75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients >75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: 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, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: IBER is an oral, potent novel cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent with marked synergistic tumoricidal and immune-stimulatory effects in combination with BORT or DARA in preclinical models. CC-220-MM-001 is a phase 1/2 study evaluating dose escalations of IBER with different treatment combinations in independent cohorts, in patients (pts) with RRMM (NCT02773030); the IBER + DEX cohort showed a favorable safety profile with promising efficacy and a selected IBER RP2D of 1.6 mg 21/28 days (D). Here, we present results from the IBER + DARA + DEX (IberDd) and IBER + BORT + DEX (IberVd) cohorts. Methods: Eligible pts had received ≥ 2 prior regimens in the IberDd cohort, and ≥ 1 prior regimen in the IberVd cohort, containing at least lenalidomide or pomalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and had experienced disease progression on or within 60 days of last MM therapy. Escalating doses of IBER were given orally, in the IberDd cohort on D1-21, with DARA (16 mg/kg) on D1, D8, D15, and D22 (cycles [C]1-2), D1 and D15 (C3-6), and D1 (C ≥ 7), of each 28-day cycle; in the IberVd cohort, on D1-14, with BORT (1.3 mg/m2) on D1, D4, D8, and D11 (C1-8), and on D1 and D8 (C ≥ 9), of each 21-day cycle. In both cohorts DEX was given weekly. Primary objectives were to evaluate MTD, RP2D, and safety separately for each cohort; a key secondary objective was preliminary assessment of efficacy. Immune profiling was evaluated by flow cytometry from pt peripheral blood at C1D1, C2D15, C4D1, and C4D15. Results: As of June 18, 2020, 19 pts had received IberDd and 21 pts IberVd. Baseline characteristics for the 2 independent cohorts are shown in the table. All pts were refractory to their last prior regimen, and exposure to prior regimens was heterogeneous. IBER doses ranged from 1.0 to 1.6 mg; the MTD/RP2D has not been reached in either cohort. Median follow-up was 5 (0-14) and 3 (0-11) months, 10 (53%) and 13 (62%) pts continue on treatment, median cycles received was 5 (1-14) and 4.5 (1-17), with IberDd and IberVd, respectively. Grade (Gr) 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 14 (78%) pts with IberDd, and in 13 (65%) pts with IberVd. Most frequent Gr 3-4 TEAEs of interest included neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (22%), and anemia (22%) with IberDd; and neutropenia (20%) and thrombocytopenia (20%) with IberVd. In both cohorts, neutropenia was managed with G-CSF. One pt (IberDd; 1.2 mg dose) had Gr 4 neutropenic sepsis. Occurrence of Gr 3-4 non-hematological TEAEs was low in both cohorts. One pt had Gr 2 infusion-related reaction with IberDd, and 3 pts had Gr 1-2 peripheral neuropathy with IberVd. Six (33%) and 4 (20%) pts had IBER dose reductions with IberDd and IberVd, respectively. In the IberDd cohort, with 12/19 (63%) DARA-refractory pts and 11 (58%) quad-class-refractory pts, the overall response rate (ORR) was 35% across all dosing groups (2 very good partial responses [VGPRs], 4 partial responses [PRs]); the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 47% and disease control rate (DCR) was 88%. In the IberVd cohort, with 16/21 (76%) PI-refractory pts, 9 (43%) BORT-refractory pts, and 10 (48%) quad-class refractory pts, ORR was 50% (1 complete response, 3 VGPRs, 6 PRs); CBR was 65% and DCR was 85%. Responses with IberDd and IberVd were observed irrespective of DARA- and BORT-refractoriness, respectively. Median time to response was 4.1 (4.1-12.0) and 4.9 (3.0-13.1) weeks, in the IberDd and IberVd cohorts, respectively; median duration of response was not reached in both cohorts. Immune profiling showed dose-dependent decreases in B cells and increases in activated and differentiated T cells, in both cohorts. Except for reductions in CD38+ T cells in pts receiving IberDd, these observations were similar in pts treated with IBER + DEX. Conclusions: IberDd and IberVd showed a favorable tolerability profile in heavily pretreated RRMM pts, with promising clinical activity, even among pts refractory to the last prior regimen and previously exposed to IMiD agents, PIs, and CD38 antibodies. Immune-profiling data confirm that IBER + DEX was pharmacodynamically active in triplet combination and not augmented by the addition of DARA or BORT. The study is ongoing with continued enrollment at the 1.6 mg dose level for both cohorts. Updated results, including the MTD/RP2D, will be presented at the meeting. These results support the further development of IBER-based regimens in MM; phase 3 trials are planned to further evaluate these combinations. Disclosures van de Donk: Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ferrer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Popat:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Larsen:Janssen Oncology: 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. Minnema:Servier: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Oriol:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy; Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees; Caelum: Consultancy; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Rodriguez-Otero:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Stadtmauer:Sanofi: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celulatiry: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gamberi:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gironella Mesa:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Nguyen:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Di Micco:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sorrell:Children's Oncology Group: Other: Non-member; Previous Study Chair AAML08B1; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Chen:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Amatangelo:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kueenburg:Celgene International Sàrl, a Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Boudry, Switzerland: Current Employment. Lonial:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees.

AbstractTriple‐class‐refractory multiple myeloma (MM) describes MM refractory to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the Phase IIb STORM study (NCT02336815), oral selinexor plus low‐dose dexamethasone (Sel‐dex) demonstrated a 26.2% overall response rate in triple‐class‐refractory MM. Here, we compare overall survival (OS) of 122 patients with triple‐class‐refractory MM who received Sel‐dex in STORM Part 2 with that of 64 similar patients treated with other available therapies in a Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD) cohort. OS from the date that the patients’ MM became triple‐class‐refractory was longer in STORM versus FHAD, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (P = .0002; adjusted HR 0.35 [P = .011]). In a subset analysis of highly resistant patients receiving further therapies after their MM first became at least triple‐class‐refractory (i.e., who received Sel‐dex in STORM,n = 64, and non‐Sel‐dex in FHAD,n = 36), the OS was significantly longer in STORM with an unadjusted HR of 0.52 (P = .0331; adjusted HR 0.33 [P = .041]). Within the limits of this analysis, the OS of patients with at least triple‐class‐refractory MM was significantly better with Sel‐dex versus available therapies, suggesting that Sel‐dex may be associated with a meaningful OS benefit in these patients.

LBA3 Background: Bortezomib (btz) combined with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) (VRd) is a standard initial therapy for NDMM. Carfilzomib (cfz), a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with len-dex (KRd) has shown higher efficacy in phase II trials. This randomized phase III trial was designed to examine if KRd improves progression free survival (PFS) compared to VRd in NDMM (current results), and whether indefinite maintenance with len improves OS compared with two-year maintenance (to be analyzed once data matures). Methods: Patients (Pts) with NDMM, were randomized to receive VRd or KRd in a 1:1 fashion for 36 weeks followed by a second randomization (1:1) to indefinite versus two years of len maintenance. Pts without del17p, t (14;16), t(14;20), plasma cell leukemia or high-risk GEP70 profile, were enrolled. VRd arm included btz 1.3 mg/m2 on days(d) 1, 4, 8, and 11 (d 1, 8 for cycles 9-12), len 25 mg d 1-14, and dex 40 mg d 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 3-week (wk) cycle for 12 cycles, while pts in the KRd arm received cfz 36 mg/m2 d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 with len 25 mg daily on d 1-21 and dex 40 mg wkly, in 4 wk cycles for 9 cycles. Maintenance included len 15mg d 1-21 every 4 wks. The study was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 with 80% power at 1-sided 2.5% alpha and 399 PFS events (progression or death regardless of intervening therapy). Results: The study accrued 1087 pts (VRd=542, KRd=545). The median age was 65y. Treatment, efficacy, and toxicity data are in the table. At the second of 3 planned interim analyses, with PFS HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3, p=0.74), futility was met. Median PFS was VRd=34.4m and KRd=34.6m; no differences were seen based on age (<65 or ≥65), presence or absence of t(4;14) or ISS stage. The three-year OS (95% CI) was similar: VRd 84% (80 to 88) and KRd 86% (82 to 89). Conclusions: In this randomized phase 3 trial, KRd did not improve PFS compared with VRd in NDMM. A significantly higher rate of cardio-pulmonary and renal toxicity was observed with KRd, while neuropathy rates were higher with VRd. VRd remains the standard triplet induction regimen in standard and intermediate risk NDMM, and a suitable backbone for 4 drug combinations. Clinical trial information: NCT01863550 . [Table: see text]

8507 Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but those with high risk MM (HRMM) have a poor long-term prognosis. To date, no trials have addressed optimal treatment for these patients. Methods: S1211 is a randomized phase II trial (NCT01668719) comparing 8 cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance until disease progression with or without elotuzumab. Stem cell collection was allowed, but ASCT was deferred until progression. HRMM was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high-risk (GEPhi), t(14; 16), t(14; 20), del(17p) or amplification 1q21, primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) and elevated serum LDH (> 2X ULN). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.1. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) and OS. Response was assessed using the IMWG 2009 criteria. Results: S1211 enrolled 103 evaluable patients, RVd n = 54, RVd-Elo n = 49. 75% had ISS II/III, 47% amp1q21, 38% del17p, 12% t(14; 16), 9% GEPhi, 7% pPCL, 5% t(14; 20) and 4% elevated serum LDH (18.5% > 1 feature). With median follow-up of 53 months (mos.), no difference in median PFS was observed [RVd-Elo = 31 mos., RVd = 34 mos.,HR = 0.968 (80% CI = 0.697-1.344), p = 0.449]. No difference in OS was observed [RVd-Elo = 68 mos, RVd = not reached, HR = 1.279 (80% CI: 0.819, 2.000), p-value = 0.478]. 72% pts had > Grade 3 AEs, no differences in the safety profile were observed except >Grade 3 infections (RVd 8%, RVd-Elo 16%), >Grade 3 sensory neuropathy (RVd 8%, RVd-Elo 13%). Conclusions: In the first randomized HRMM study reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, the PFS and OS seen in both arms of the study exceeded the original statistical assumptions and support the role for PI/IMiD combination maintenance therapy for this patient population. The S1211 data will serve as an important benchmark for future HRMM clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01668719 .

PURPOSE Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor condition of multiple myeloma (MM) with a 10% annual risk of progression. Various prognostic models exist for risk stratification; however, those are based on solely clinical metrics. The discovery of genomic alterations that underlie disease progression to MM could improve current risk models. METHODS We used next-generation sequencing to study 214 patients with SMM. We performed whole-exome sequencing on 166 tumors, including 5 with serial samples, and deep targeted sequencing on 48 tumors. RESULTS We observed that most of the genetic alterations necessary for progression have already been acquired by the diagnosis of SMM. Particularly, we found that alterations of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway ( KRAS and NRAS single nucleotide variants [SNVs]), the DNA repair pathway (deletion 17p, TP53, and ATM SNVs), and MYC (translocations or copy number variations) were all independent risk factors of progression after accounting for clinical risk staging. We validated these findings in an external SMM cohort by showing that patients who have any of these three features have a higher risk of progressing to MM. Moreover, APOBEC associated mutations were enriched in patients who progressed and were associated with a shorter time to progression in our cohort. CONCLUSION SMM is a genetically mature entity whereby most driver genetic alterations have already occurred, which suggests the existence of a right-skewed model of genetic evolution from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to MM. We identified and externally validated genomic predictors of progression that could distinguish patients at high risk of progression to MM and, thus, improve on the precision of current clinical models.