Richardson, Paul G.

Abstract Abstract 1409 MYC is among the most prolific oncogenes in cancer, yet pharmacologic strategies to modulate the function of the c-Myc oncoprotein do not exist. Toward this objective, we have undertaken to target c-Myc transcription by interfering with chromatin-dependent signal transduction to RNA polymerase, specifically by inhibiting the acetyl-lysine recognition domains (bromodomains) of putative co-activator proteins implicated in transcriptional initiation and elongation. Using a selective small-molecule bromodomain inhibitor, JQ1, we identify BET bromodomain-containing proteins as transcriptional regulatory factors for c-Myc. BET inhibition with JQ1 rapidly downregulates c-Myc transcription, followed by depletion of chromatin-bound c-Myc and genome-wide downregulation of Myc-dependent target genes. In translational model systems of multiple myeloma and Burkitt's lymphoma, both canonical MYC -dependent hematologic malignancies, JQ1 treatment produces a potent antiproliferative effect associated with cell cycle arrest. In multiple myeloma, adhesion to bone marrow stroma is associated with upregulation of BRD4, a BET bromomdomain coactivator protein. Inhibition of Myc function with JQ1 leads to impaired adhesion to stroma and cellular senescence, a classical Myc-specific phenotype. Mechanistically, JQ1 treatment depletes BRD4 from IgH enhancers, leading to prompt and robust downregulation of MYC transcription. In vivo efficacy of JQ1 in two disseminated models of multiple myeloma and in a Burkitt's lymphoma human xenograft establishes the therapeutic rationale for BET bromodomain inhibition in these diseases. Together, these studies identify a mechanistic rationale for targeting c-Myc in human cancer, and potentially other undruggable oncogenes driven by immunoglobulin rearrangement. Note: G.C.I. and J.E.D. have made equal contributions to this research; C.S.M. and J.E.B. are jointly senior authors Disclosures: Richardson: Millennium: Advisory Board; Celgene: Advisory Board; Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board; Novartis: Advisory Board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Advisory Board. Ghobrial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Noxxon:; Millennium:; Celgene:; Novartis:. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kung:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mitsiades:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kosan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amnis Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar:; OSI Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AVEO Pharma: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gloucester Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Bradner:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Scientific Founder; SHAPE Pharmaceuticals: Scientific Founder; Tensha Therapeutics: Scientific Founder.

Abstract Abstract 587 Background: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the anti-tumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable disease (IgM monoclonal protein >1000 mg/dL with >10% marrow involvement or nodal masses >2 cm), a platelet count ≥75,000 × 106/L, a neutrophil count ≥1,000 × 106/L, and a creatinine and bilirubin ≤2x laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every 3 cycles until progression. Results: 50 pts were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43-85). The overall response rate (CR+PR+MR) was 70% (95% CI: 55-82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) has not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95%CI: 64-89%) and 62% (95%CI: 48-80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematological toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusions: Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM, and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Treon:Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: CP-751,871, a fully human IgG2 subtype monoclonal antibody, is a potent and specific inhibitor of the insulin- like growth factor type I receptor (IGF-IR). The IGF-IR regulates the growth, survival, adhesion and invasiveness of multiple myeloma cells. High IGF-IR expression is observed in poor-prognostic subtypes of multiple myeloma and its inhibition has been long proposed as a potential therapeutic approach for treatment of this disease. Methods: A phase 1 dose escalation study was conducted to define the safety and tolerability, and to characterize the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (granulocyte surface IGF-IR expression and serum IGF-I levels) properties of CP-751,871 in patients with multiple myeloma. Patient’s eligibility included previously treated multiple myeloma in relapse or refractory phase including those less than complete remission to autologous stem cell transplant or tandem transplant. Results: Following informed consent and screening, 47 patients were enrolled into 11 dose-escalation cohorts of CP-751,871 at doses from 0.025 to 20 mg/Kg. Median patient age was 60 years. Median number of previous regimens was 4 (range 1–8). CP-751,871 was given as an IV infusion on Day 1 of 4-week cycles. Patients with a suboptimal response to CP-751,871 alone were eligible to receive CP-751,871 in combination with either oral dexamethasone and/or rapamycin at the discretion of the investigator. Twenty-seven patients received CP-751, 871 in combination with dexamethasone, while four patients received rapamycin in combination with either CP-751,871 or CP-751,871 and dexamethasone. Median number of treatment cycles was 3 (range 1–16). Ten patients were dosed at the highest cohort of 20 mg/Kg. No CP-751,871 related dose limiting toxicities were identified. Grade 3 toxicities were all observed at the 20 mg/Kg cohort (1 hyperglycemia, 1 anemia, 1 AST increase, 1 accidental fall, 1 muscle weakness). Plasma CP-751,871 exposure increased with dose, and the pharmacokinetic characteristics were consistent with target-mediated disposition. Granulocyte IGF-IR expression was maximally down-regulated for the entire duration of the dosing period at doses ≥1.5 mg/kg, indicating a saturation of circulating targets. CP-751,871 also led to a dose-dependent increase in circulating IGF-I concentrations. Tumor response was assessed according to Blade criteria. Two remissions and 4 partial remissions were reported in patients treated with different doses of CP-751,871 in combination with dexamethasone. Interestingly, the 2 patients with remission were previously found to be refractory to dexamethasone treatment. Conclusions: These data indicate that CP-751,871 is well tolerated either as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone. Furthermore, CP-751,981 in combination with dexamethasone, may constitute a novel and effective therapeutic approach for patients with multiple myeloma.

Abstract Background: Combination regimens incorporating bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc), lenalidomide (REVLIMID®, Rev), dexamethasone (Dex) and cyclophosphamide (Cy) (Vc–Dex, Rev–Dex, Vc–Dex–Rev [VDR], and Vc–Dex–Cy [VDC]), have all shown substantial activity in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). A combination of all four agents (VDCR) may result in even greater activity. This randomized multi-center 3-arm phase I/II EVOLUTION study is investigating the efficacy and safety of VDR, VDC, and VDCR as initial therapy in previously untreated MM patients (pts). We now report safety and efficacy results from the phase l dose-escalation portion of the study, which sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the VDCR regimen. These results represent the first clinical data with this novel 4-drug combination that includes bortezomib, lenalidomide, an alkylator, and a corticosteroid. Methods: Pts received Vc 1.3 mg/m2 IV (d 1, 4, 8, 11), Dex 40 mg PO (d 1, 8, 15), Rev 15 mg PO (d 1–14), plus Cy 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mg/m2 PO (d 1, 8) for up to eight 21-d cycles, followed by Vc 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 42-d maintenance cycles. Pts received prophylactic antibiotics, acyclovir, transfusion support and concomitant anticoagulants as required. Eligible pts wishing to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2, and discontinue therapy for ASCT any time after cycle 4. The MTD was defined as the highest dose of Cy in combination with VDR resulting in ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 6 pts. A DLT was defined as: platelet count <25,000/mm3 lasting >7 days or any platelet count <10,000/mm3; grade 4 neutropenia lasting >7 days; any ≥grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity considered to be related to Cy except for inadequately treated nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, or any toxicity resulting in a >2 week treatment delay. Results: Twenty-six pts were enrolled; 1 pt was not dosed due to a heart problem and was excluded (dose level 4) and 4 pts were not evaluable for DLT. In the 25 treated pts, median age was 61 years (range 49–79); 52% were male; 48% had ISS Stage lI and 4% Stage III disease, and 44% had KPS ≤80%. At data cut-off, 11 pts remain on treatment and 9 have undergone successful ASCT. To date, median treatment duration is 4 cycles (range 2–11). Two pts experienced DLT: 1 grade 4 febrile neutropenia at dose level 4 (Cy 400 mg/m2), and 1 grade 3 herpes zoster virus reactivation despite antiviral prophylaxis at dose level 5 (Cy 500 mg/m2). The recommended phase II dose of Cy in the VDCR regimen was the highest planned dose of 500 mg/m2. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were constipation (64%), fatigue (60%), and nausea (52%). Hematologic toxicities were acceptable, with grade 3 neutropenia in 16% of patients, grade 4 in 4%, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 4%. Peripheral neuropathy (56%), included 8% grade 3 but no grade 4; no deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism events were reported. Overall rate of serious AEs was 40%; the only SAE reported in >1 pt was febrile neutropenia (2 pts). Best responses to date by International Uniform Response Criteria are shown in the table. Preliminary response rates are: 100% ≥PR, 68% ≥VGPR, 32% CR/nCR, 28% CR/stringent CR and 20% sCR. Ten pts have undergone stem cell mobilization with median CD34+ yield of 4.95×106/kg. Conclusions: VDCR was well tolerated and hematologic toxicities were manageable. The current study shows that the VDCR regimen is feasible and highly active in newly diagnosed myeloma and merits further testing in clinical trials. Enrollment to the 3 arms (VDR, VDC and VDCR) of the phase ll portion of the study and testing for minimal residual disease by flow cytometry are ongoing. Best unconfirmed response to date with VDCR Dose level 1 2 3 4 5 Cyclophosphamide dose, mg/m2 100 200 300 400 500 Enrolled 3 4 4 8 7 Treated 3 4 4 7 7 Still on treatment – 1 1 2 7 Best unconfirmed response to date CR (sCR) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 1 (1) VGPR (nCR) 1 – 3 (1) 4 2 PR – 3 – 1 4

Abstract Abstract 906 Background: Single-arm Phase 2 trials of DF in the treatment of severe VOD/MOF post-SCT demonstrated a complete response (CR) in 36–46% of patients (pts). A subsequent Phase 3 trial enrolling pts with more severe VOD (28%/24% with ventilator/dialysis dependence at study entry vs 5%/7%) demonstrated a CR of 24% compared to 9% in a matched Historical Control (HC); p=0.0148; Richardson ASH 2009). Given the life-threatening nature of VOD/MOF, DF was made available in the United States through a Treatment IND protocol (T-IND) in December 2007 to gather additional safety and response data. Methods: Pts were required to have a diagnosis of VOD based upon Baltimore criteria (total bilirubin ≥ 2.0 mg/dL with ≥ 2 of the following: hepatomegaly, ascites or 5% weight gain) with MOF (either renal and/or pulmonary failure). Pts without a Baltimore diagnosis could enroll with biopsy-proven evidence of VOD. Eligibility criteria were expanded to permit patients with late onset VOD (VOD diagnosed after 21 days (d) or VOD/MOF after 28d post-SCT). Key exclusion criteria included clinically significant bleeding or need for >1 pressor to maintain BP. CR was defined as bilirubin < 2 mg/dL + resolution of MOF. Mortality was assessed at D+100. DF was given at 6.25 mg/kg IV q6h (25 mg/kg/d); treatment duration was recommended for at least 21d. Results: This interim analysis is based on 104 pts enrolled between14Dec2007-29Sep2009 and treated at 36 institutions. Most sites (n=23) enrolled only 1–2 pts. Nearly all pts (n=98) had undergone prior SCT; 6 had prior chemotherapy only; and 29 pts had late onset VOD post-SCT. Of the SCT pts, 69 pts enrolled in the T-IND met eligibility criteria for the original Phase 3 trial. Baseline demographics included median age 17 years (range 0.1 – 66); 59% male; and 16% with prior SCT. The most common diagnosis was leukemia (30% AML; 22% ALL; 7% other leukemia). The majority of pts had undergone allogeneic SCT (88%) with conditioning consisting of cyclophosphamide (76%), busulfan (42%) and/or TBI (41%). Mean onset of VOD post-SCT was 17 days. At entry, 20% of pts were dialysis dependent; 28% were ventilator dependent. Mean number of days of DF administration was 20 (range 2–88). Of the 104 pts, 36 (35%) achieved a CR by D+100. For the various sub-populations, the CR by D+100 rate was 24% for pts with late-onset VOD (n=29); 35% for those pts undergoing SCT (n=98); and 39% for the 69 pts who matched the entry criteria for the Phase 3 trial. Comparison of this group of 69 pts to the Phase 3 HC showed a statistically improved outcome (p=0.0007). Similar to the Phase 3 results, the CR rate was higher in pts who were not on dialysis/ventilator at study entry (41% vs 23%). Although children had previously been noted to have a higher CR rate in prior studies, the CR rate in the T-IND was similar in children compared to adults (35% and 34%, respectively). Overall D+100 mortality rate equaled 61% (n=104). Comparing the 69 pts who met Phase 3 entry criteria, D+100 mortality was 58% (p=0.0465 compared to the HC using Kaplan Meier estimates by log-rank analysis). Toxicity proved manageable: 11 pts experienced a total of 13 drug-related AEs including pulmonary hemorrhage (n=5), GI hemorrhage (n=3), hypotension (n=2), rectal hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage and pulmonary alveolar hemorrhage (1 pt each). Overall, 10% of pts experienced a drug-related toxicity that led to discontinuation. Similar to the observation of decreased GvHD in pediatric pts undergoing SCT who received prophylactic DF compared to best supportive care, the incidence of all grade GvHD was relatively low (8%). Conclusions: In 104 pts with severe VOD/MOF enrolled at 36 US institutions, use of DF demonstrated a 35% CR by D+100. Comparing those pts who met criteria for the Phase 3 trial to the HC used in that study, D+100 CR and survival were significantly improved in this study population. DF-associated toxicities are consistent with prior studies. Following an amendment in 30Sep2009, entry criteria for the T-IND study were expanded to permit enrollment of pts without SCT (VOD post chemotherapy) as well as pts without MOF to evaluate earlier intervention. Analysis of this group will be performed separately. Enrollment into the T-IND study continues. Disclosures: Richardson: Gentium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Massaro:Gentium: Consultancy. Hannah:Gentium: Consultancy. Iacobelli:Gentium: Employment.

Background Ixazomib is the first orally administered PI studied in the clinic. The feasibility of combining ixazomib weekly and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in the first all-oral PI- and immunomodulatory drug-containing triplet regimen was evaluated in a phase 1/2 trial of 65 pts with newly diagnosed MM. Results indicated a 90% ORR (62% ≥VGPR) using ixazomib 4 mg (recommended phase 2/3 dose), with a manageable safety profile, including 14% gr ≥3 skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders and limited (4% gr 3) peripheral neuropathy (PN) (Kumar et al, Lancet Oncol 2014). These data provided the rationale for phase 3 investigation of IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with RRMM in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter study. Methods Adults with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to prior lenalidomide or PI-based therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive ixazomib 4 mg or matching placebo weekly on d 1, 8, and 15, plus lenalidomide 25 mg PO on d 1-21 (dose reduced for renal impairment per local label/practice) and dexamethasone 40 mg PO on d 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-d cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2/3), PI exposure (naïve vs exposed), and ISS disease stage (I/II vs III). Cycles were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was PFS as assessed by an independent review committee blinded to treatment, per IMWG criteria. Key secondary endpoints were OS and OS in high-risk pts with del(17). Sample size was determined to provide 80% power for the OS endpoint and adequate power to test PFS. Three interim analyses (IAs) and a final analysis were planned to test PFS and OS; here, we report data from the first IA, the final analysis for PFS. Results 722 pts were randomized (360 IRd; 362 Rd). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 66 yrs (30-91), 70% were PI-exposed, 88% were ISS stage I/II, 59% had received 1 prior therapy, and 77%/11%/11% were relapsed/refractory/relapsed and refractory, with 6% primary refractory. Based primarily (97%) on central laboratory evaluation, 19% had high-risk cytogenetics by FISH (del(17), t(4;14), or t(14;16)), including 10% del(17). Prior therapies included 69% bortezomib, 45% thalidomide, and 12% lenalidomide. The study met the primary endpoint at the first IA (median follow-up 14.8 vs 14.6 mos with IRd vs Rd), demonstrating a 35% improvement in PFS with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.742; p=0.012; Table). In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, the PFS HR was 0.543 with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.596 in pts with del(17)), with a median PFS similar to the overall IRd group, indicating ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations. OS data were not yet mature. Key response data are shown in the Table. Pts received a median of 13 (1-26) vs 12 (1-25) cycles of IRd vs Rd; 55% and 52% of pts remained on treatment. With IRd vs Rd, 68% vs 61% of pts had gr ≥3 AEs (driven by thrombocytopenia), 40% vs 44% had serious AEs, 13% vs 11% discontinued all study drugs due to AEs, and 3% vs 5% died on treatment. AEs observed with IRd were consistent with reported safety profiles for the individual agents. Common gr ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (19% vs 16%), anemia (9% vs 13%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 5%), and pneumonia (6% vs 8%). Gastrointestinal events included 42% vs 36% diarrhea (6% vs 2% gr 3), 26% vs 21% nausea (2% vs 0% gr 3), and 22% vs 11% vomiting (1% vs <1% gr 3). PN rates were 28% vs 21% (2% vs 2% gr 3), 35% vs 21% had rash events (4% vs 1% gr 3), 4% vs 6% had renal failure (2% vs 3% gr ≥3), and 4% vs 3% had heart failure (2% vs 2% gr ≥3). Conclusion At this first prespecified IA, addition of ixazomib to Rd in pts with RRMM increased median PFS to 20.6 from 14.7 mos without a substantial increase in overall toxicity, including cardiac and PN toxicity. Benefit with IRd was also noted in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, including those with del(17), in whom median PFS was similar to all IRd-treated pts indicating that ixazomib may have a favorable impact on the adverse prognosis associated with genetic mutations. If approved, this all-oral combination of IRd may become a new standard of care in this setting. Table. Key efficacy data IRd Rd HR / OR Median PFS, mos 20.6 14.7 HR 0.742; 95% CI: 0.587-0.939; p=0.012 Confirmed ORR, % 78.3 71.5 OR 1.44; p=0.035 CR 11.7 6.6 OR 1.87; p=0.019 ≥VGPR 48.1 39.0 OR 1.45; p=0.014 Median time to first response (ITT analysis), mos 1.1 1.9 Median duration of response (≥PR), mos 20.5 15.0 Disclosures Moreau: Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sandhu:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ganly:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medipics: Equity Ownership. Baker:Janssen-Cilag New Zealand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stoppa:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Simpson:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Gimsing:Amgen: Honoraria. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. DiBacco:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hui:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Gentium S.p.A.: 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; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3989 Background: Treatment patterns of multiple myeloma (MM) vary across the globe, mostly dictated by the availability and patient access to different drug therapies. The outcomes of patients with MM, especially relapsed myeloma can be significantly affected by the availability of newer treatments, as well as potential biological differences related to ethnicity. We have previously shown that the outcome of patients relapsing after therapy with bortezomib (Bz) and one or more of the IMiDs remain poor with the currently available treatments and represent a difficult group of patients to treat. We undertook the current analysis on a set of patients from United States, several European countries and South Korea. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study that enrolled 294 patients with relapsed MM, from 14 sites (122 from Europe, 107 from US, and 65 from Korea). Patients were refractory to Bz, defined as no response to prior Bz-containing regimen or disease progression within 60 days of a Bz-containing regimen. Patients were also relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible, to treatment with an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). Clinical and laboratory data from diagnosis and individual relapses were collected along with details of all MM drug therapies before and after T0. Responses were assessed by IMWG or EBMT criteria. The goal of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients who satisfy the above inclusion criteria, the therapies employed prior to and after T0 and clinical outcome among these patients from different parts of the world. Results: The mean (median, range) time to reaching T0 from diagnosis was 4.5 (4.0, 12.8), 4.2 (3.2, 18.6), and 3.2 (2.8, 9.6) years from diagnosis for patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, P=0.021. The mean (median, range) number of therapies for the three groups were 8 (8, 13), 4 (4, 10), 5 (4, 7), respectively; P<0.001. The response rates (>=PR) to the initial therapy at diagnosis were 56%, 77% and 49% respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts. Overall 220 patients had at least one therapy after T0, and 114 (52%) had a novel agent (Bz, len or thal) containing regimen as their first treatment after T0. Patients in US were more likely to receive additional therapies after the first post-T0 therapy; 62%, 32%, and 12% of patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, began a second post-T0 regimen within 2 years following time zero. The median number of therapies post T0 was 2, 1, and 1 for patients in US, Europe and Korea respectively. The response rates to the first regimen after T0 were 15%, 33% and 19% for the US, European and Korean cohorts, and were similar between those receiving a regimen with one of the novel drugs compared to rest. Patients younger than 60 years and those with prior transplants were more likely to respond to post T0 regimens. The median time to progression or death from T0was similar for the three patient cohorts, 5 months (Figure 1A). The median overall survival (95% CI) from T0 was 13 months (10, 16), 7 (5,9) and 8 (4,9) respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts (Figure 1B). Conventional prognostic factors, especially the ISS stage was predictive of OS post T0. Additionally, presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a shorter overall survival. Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrate significant differences between different parts of the world in terms of the treatment patterns both in the setting of initial therapy as well as treatment of relapsed disease. Patients in the US were more likely to receive multiple regimens both before and after T0. This is likely a reflection of increasing numbers of new drugs that have gone into clinical trials and thus enhancing options. The study further highlights the poor outcome of patients who have relapsed after the new drugs, irrespective of the geographical location. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Millennium: ; Celgene: ; Johnson & Johnson: ; Novartis: ; Bristol Myers Squibb:. Moreau:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory board, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Siegel:Merck: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 1881 Background: Drug-disease modeling and simulation has recently been proposed to support drug development decisions in patients with liquid and solid tumors (Claret et al J Clin Oncol, 27:4103-4108, 2010; Wang et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 86:167-174, 2009). We hypothesized that similar modeling based on a decrease in M-protein may be applied in multiple myeloma. The objective was to use a modeling and simulation approach to leverage available lenalidomide multiple myeloma data and support pomalidomide development decisions by, 1) developing a drug-independent link between tumor burden reduction (as assessed by change from baseline in serum M-Protein) and survival and PFS and 2) simulating expected survival and PFS based on interim M-protein data of the phase 1/2 trial (CC-4047-MM02, NCT00833833) of pomalidomide (POM) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least 2 prior therapies including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib. Methods: M-Protein measurements were modeled as a function of time from 704 patients included in two phase 3 clinical studies of LEN plus dexamethasone (DEX) vs. DEX (MM010, Dimopoulos, NEJM 357, 2123–2132, 2007 and MM009, Weber, NEJM 357, 2133–2142, 2007). Models were developed for survival and PFS times as a function of change in M-protein level at end-of-cycle 2 (week 8) from baseline as well as other prognostic factors. Interim M-protein data from the ongoing MM-002 POM study (217 patients) were modeled to simulate clinical endpoints. Results: Based on lenalidomide Phase 3 data, week-8 change in M-Protein (p < 0.00001), ECOG performance status (p < 0.0009), baseline albumin, hemoglobin and creatinine levels (p < 0.01) were significant independent predictors of survival when week-8 change in M-Protein (p < 0.00001) and baseline hemoglobin (p < 0.001) were significant independent predictors of PFS. Observed survival and PFS distributions over 100 weeks in lenalidomide studies and difference between the two treatments (LEN + DEX vs. DEX) were consistent with the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the models. Model predictions (95% PIs) of median survival and PFS based on week-8 change in M-Protein following treatment with POM and POM + DEX are presented in the table below. The recently disclosed observed medians and 95% CIs for all endpoints and all arms from MM-002 are included in the model. Conclusions: Change in M-protein level as a continuous longitudinal biomarker appears to be a potential indicator to assess drug effect in multiple myeloma studies using modeling and simulation based on early interim data. PFS predicted by the model and the actual PFS are similar and thus may support end-of-Phase 2 decision (Bruno et al Clin Pharmacol Ther 86:136-138, 2009). Current simulations indicate encouraging results for POM in a refractory multiple myeloma patient population who have received prior treatment that includes lenalidomide and bortezomib but these exploratory methods require confirmation as part of ongoing studies. Disclosures: Bruno: Pharsight: Employment; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is not an FDA licensed product for multiple myeloma treatment. Jonsson:Pharsight: Employment; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Claret:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharsight: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Abstract 621 Background: Two- and three-drug regimens incorporating bortezomib (Velcade®, V), lenalidomide (Revlimid®, R), dexamethasone (D), or cyclophosphamide (C) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Combining all four drugs in a single regimen (VDCR) may further enhance efficacy. Published results from the phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the non-comparative, multi-center EVOLUTION study showed that the VDCR regimen was highly active and generally well tolerated (Kumar et al Leukemia 2010). Here we present updated results from the phase 2 portion of the trial, focusing on efficacy and safety of the VDCR, VDR, and VDC regimens. Methods: Previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to one of four treatment groups receiving up to eight 21-d cycles of VDCR (V 1.3 mg/m2 d 1, 4, 8, 11; D 40 mg d 1, 8, 15; R 15 mg d 1–14; C 500 mg/m2 d 1, 8), VDR (VD as in VDCR but with R 25 mg d 1–14), VDC (VDC as in VDCR), or VDC-mod (as for VDC but with an additional dose of C on d 15) as induction therapy, followed by four 42-d maintenance cycles of V 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) (all treatment arms). Patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2 and SCT any time after cycle 4. The primary endpoint was the combined complete response (CR) + very good partial response (VGPR) rate; secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Responses were assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform criteria using an automated computer algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the CTCAE v3.0. Results: Patient characteristics were similar among the groups with respect to age, performance status, ISS stage, and proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetic features. Patients received a median of 5, 6, 6, and 6 treatment cycles in the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively; 65%, 60%, 52%, and 47% of patients had dose reductions of any drug. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively, 52%, 62%, 58%, and 65% of patients completed treatment; 31%, 43%, 24%, and 41%, respectively, underwent SCT. In the phase 2 response-evaluable patients (n=132), all treatment regimens showed substantial efficacy, with CR+VGPR rates of 59% (VDCR), 50% (VDR), 41% (VDC), and 59% (VDC-mod) (Table) (includes pre-transplant responses only in SCT patients). Of MRD-assessed patients, 46% (21/46) of those who achieved CR (including sCR) or nCR were MRD-negative; 48% (10/21), 75% (9/12), 0% (0/7) and 33% (2/6) in the VDCR, VDR, VDC and VDC-mod arms, respectively. Median time to first response was similar across arms (range 1.6–1.8 months); median time to best response of CR+VGPR was 4.0 months (VDCR), 3.4 months (VDR), 5.1 months (VDC), and 3.1 months (VDC-mod). Median duration of response has not been reached in any arm to date. All treatment regimens were generally well tolerated. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, at least one grade ≥3 AE was observed in 81%, 76%, 79%, and 88% of enrolled patients, respectively; serious AEs were experienced by 42%, 40%, 21%, and 41% of patients, and AEs resulting in study discontinuation were reported for 19%, 17%, 12%, and 6% of patients. The five most common all-grade AEs across all treatment groups were fatigue (range 47–67%), nausea (36–67%), constipation (40–62%), diarrhea NOS (42–65%), and neutropenia (19–52%). The incidence of grade ≥3 (grade ≥2) peripheral neuropathy (PN) was 13% (40%) in the VDCR arm, 14% (45%) VDR, 9% (48%) VDC, and 18% (41%) VDC-mod; there was no grade 4 PN. Rates of grade ≥3 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia were 42%/10% for VDCR, 7%/7% VDR, 36%/12% VDC, and 65%/18% VDC-mod. Conclusions: All regimens appear highly active and generally well tolerated in previously untreated MM patients. The four-drug combination did not result in a substantial increase in response rate and was associated with a modest increase in the incidence of hematologic toxicities. Continuous weekly C in the VDC regimen was associated with high response rates and rapid responses, comparable to the VDR and VDCR arms. Outcome data will be presented following longer follow-up. Disclosures: Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Celgene: Research Funding. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Noga:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ortho-Centicor: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stewart:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Rifkin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau; Dendreon: Speakers Bureau. Wolf:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech and Multiple Myeloma Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; OrthoBiotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Estevam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Mulligan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Shi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Webb:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment.