Miguel, Jesús F. San

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.

Abstract Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to a unique epitope on the human CD38 receptor. In the dose escalation part of the Phase I portion of the trial (NCT01749969), isatuximab ≥10 mg/kg IV given every other week (q2w) or 10 mg/kg weekly (qw) induced responses in 6/19 recipients (ORR 32%). Responses were noted at doses as low as 1 mg/kg q2w. The maximum tolerated dose (up to 20 mg/kg IV qw) was not reached. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue and nausea; few serious grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported (pneumonia 6%). The most common category of drug-related TEAE involved infusion-associated reactions (IARs) occurring in half of the patients, with grade 3/4 IARs in <5% of the patients. Based on promising Phase I activity, a Phase II dose finding study was added to investigate single-agent isatuximab in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma (RRMM). Methods: In Phase II, eligible patients were originally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of 3 treatment groups: 3 mg/kg q2w, 10 mg/kg q2w, and 10 mg/kg q2w x 4 doses then q4w. A 4th treatment group was enrolled at a higher isatuximab dose with an optimized schedule of 20 mg/kg qw x 4 doses then q2w. Patient assignment was stratified by prior anti-myeloma therapy (Stratum 1: prior treatment with pomalidomide (POM) and/or carfilzomib (CAR); Stratum 2: no prior POM or CAR). Patients continued therapy until disease progression, unacceptable AEs or physician/patient decision. Eligible patients had measurable disease (serum M-protein >1 g/dL or urine M-protein ≥200 mg/24 h, or serum free light chain ≥10 mg/dL), prior exposure to ≥3 lines of anti-myeloma therapy or were double-refractory to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs), prior treatment with an alkylating agent, and adequate baseline bone marrow reserve and organ function. Enrollment of 24 patients was planned for each treatment group. An interim efficacy analysis is planned when all patients have completed ≥2 disease assessments, with central review of these data currently ongoing. Enrollment has now been completed and all patients who completed at least 1 cycle of isatuximab at the cutoff date (5/29/15) are included in this preliminary analysis. Results: Patient characteristics (n=96): median age 62.5 yrs (range 38-85); median time from initial diagnosis to study treatment 5.85 yrs (1.2-24.1); 76% had IgA/G MM; 24% had light-chain only disease; and 22%, 22%, and 44% had Stage I, II, and III disease, respectively. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (2-14) with 100%, 99%, and 98% having prior exposure to PIs, IMiDs, and alkylator-containing therapy, respectively. Overall, 78% of patients had previously received POM and/or CAR; 55% had been exposed to both of these agents. At data cut-off, 36.5% of patients remained on therapy and 53.1%, 6.3%, and 4.2% had discontinued therapy due to disease progression, AEs, or other reason, respectively. The median number of cycles received was 3 (1-9), with a median duration of treatment of 11.7 wks. Approximately 17% of patients required at least 1 dose delay and 7.3% of isatuximab infusions were interrupted. TEAEs occurred in 93% of patients, with 51% being grade ≥3. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 61% of patients (grade ≥3, 10%). The most common drug-related TEAEs (>5% of patients) were nausea (14.6%), chills (14.6%), dyspnea (13.5%), chest discomfort (10.4%), flushing (7.3%), headache (7.3%), cough (6.3%), and vomiting (5.2%). The majority of the symptoms occurred within 24 h of isatuximab infusion and were attributed to an IAR. IARs occurred in 50% of patients, were predominantly grade 1/2 (grade ≥3, 3.1%), and were mostly limited to Cycle 1 (2 patients had IARs in Cycle 2). Pneumonia (6.3%) and sepsis (5.2%) were the most common serious TEAEs. Six deaths have occurred within 30 days of last dose, 4 due to disease progression, and 2 due to serious AEs unrelated to study therapy (cardiopulmonary arrest and cerebral hemorrhage). Conclusion: Isatuximab administered to heavily pre-treated patients with RRMM appears well tolerated. IARs are common in Cycle 1, but typically do not recur. Results by treatment arm, including interim analysis response data, will be presented. Disclosures Martin: Sanofi: Research Funding. Richter:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vij:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS, Amgen, Prothena, Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Spectrum: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy. Bensinger:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Sanofi: 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, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. San Miguel:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Onyx, BMS, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zimmerman:Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, Sanofi, BMS, Skyline: Consultancy; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi: Research Funding. Hsu:Sanofi: Employment. Charpentier:Sanofi: Employment. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Steering Committee and Advisory Board Participation. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Introduction : Daratumumab (DARA) is a human CD38 antibody approved in combination with standard-of-care (SoC) regimens in pts with NDMM who are TIE. DARA-based treatments showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with TIE NDMM in ongoing phase 3 studies ALCYONE (DARA + bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP] vs VMP) and MAIA (DARA + lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd] vs Rd continuous). An NMA allows estimation of the relative efficacy of regimens not compared in head-to-head trials. A previous NMA examined D-VMP and D-Rd vs comparators (Facon T et al., EHA 2019), excluding the SWOG S0777 study (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [VRd]; Durie BG, et al. Lancet 2017) as it enrolled both transplant-eligible (TE) and TIE pts, and data for pts who are TIE only (~50% [aged ≥65 y and frail]) were unavailable. In this NMA, D-Rd and D-VMP had the highest probabilities of being more effective than reference treatment Rd continuous in terms of PFS. Recently, VRd received EMA approval for treatment of TIE NDMM based on SWOG S0777, but results specific to TIE pts are still unavailable. Recent NMAs of TIE pts (Blommestein HM et al., Haematologica, 2019; Weisel et al., EHA 2019; Cao Y et al., Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2019) have included data from the the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of SWOG S0777, though its inclusion violates the similarity assumption. Here, we present a sensitivity analysis of the previously-conducted NMA including all pts who received VRd in SWOG S0777 for a comprehensive view of the comparative effectiveness of DARA-based treatments in TIE NDMM. Methods: VRd was included as part of a sensitivity analysis of the previous NMA based on the ITT population, reporting PFS and overall survival (OS). The Guyot method was used to estimate OS hazard ratios (HRs) for pts aged ≥65 y (proxy for TIE) from SWOG S0777 (Durie BG et al., ASH 2018). Median follow-up in ALCYONE and MAIA was 27.8 months and 28.0 months, respectively. Based on a systematic literature review conducted through January 2019, both PFS and OS were extracted and synthesized in Bayesian NMAs. Choice of fixed- or random-effects (FE or RE) model was based on lowest deviance information criterion (DIC) and/or presence of heterogeneity in the network. Rd continuous was selected as reference, as it was commonly included in guidelines across regions. For PFS and OS, HR <1 indicates the comparison is not in favor of Rd continuous. In addition to the previous NMA, we also report an NMA sensitivity analysis including only comparators approved by the EMA that are relevant for the European, Middle East and/or Africa (EMEA) region (EMEA NMA). Results: Global NMA: RE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.42-1.30), which was similar to SWOG S0777 (0.71; [96% Wald confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.91]) and higher than HRs for D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.97) and D-VMP (0.58; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.62; Table). For OS, the SWOG S0777 HR estimated by Guyot algorithm for pts aged ≥65 y was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.56-1.16). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.51-1.26), which was similar to SWOG S0777 and higher than D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.18). EMEA NMA: FE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% CrI, 0.60-0.92), which was higher than HRs of D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71) and D-VMP (0.64; 95% CrI, 0.41-1.02). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.55-1.17), which was higher than for D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.09). These results are consistent with the Global NMA, but differ slightly as the EMEA NMA has fewer evidence-loops (only EMEA SoC regimens were included). Conclusions: This study demonstrated favorable efficacy outcomes for DARA-based regimens vs other relevant frontline options, such as VRd, for pts with NDMM who are TIE. Limitations of the sensitivity analysis include lack of comparative trial data and demographic differences between pts from SWOG S0777 and trials of frontline MM treatments for pts who are TIE included in our network. The majority of SWOG S0777 pts are TE (<65 y), who often have better prognoses than TIE pts (≥65 y), and thus violates the similarity assumption of NMAs. However, DARA-based regimens still showed a comparative clinical advantage. Disclosures Facon: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mateos:Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Accommodations; Janssen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Heeg:Ingress-Health: Employment. Van Beekhuizen:Ingress-health: Consultancy. Pisini:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nair:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lam:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Slavcev:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for about 20% of deaths from hematological cancers and remains incurable despite conventional and high-dose chemotherapy. Two phase III trials in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (MM-009 and MM-010) showed that lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone resulted in significantly improved response rates and significantly prolonged median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) compared with dexamethasone alone. This current sub-analysis of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone therapy assessed whether there was a survival benefit in maintaining patients on therapy after achieving their best response and what the impact of early discontinuation on TTP and OS was. Methods: Of the 353 patients from MM-009 and MM-010 treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, 32 did not respond. Of the remaining 321 responding patients, 214 had a partial response (PR) or better and 107 patients had stable disease (SD). In this post-hoc sub-analysis, we first assessed the outcome of continuing treatment for ≤10 months vs. >10 months in all 321 patients who achieved SD or better, after they achieved their best response. In this landmark analysis, OS was measured from the time of achieving best response to death from any cause or to last contact. In a second analysis, we assessed the impact of early discontinuation due to adverse events or withdrawn consent on OS and TTP in all patients who achieved SD or better. Therefore, we excluded patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Patients who achieved SD or better and who continued on therapy were compared with those who discontinued. OS and TTP were assessed from time of randomization. Results: In the landmark analysis, of the 321 responding patients (≥PR, n=214; SD, n=107), 223 patients received treatment for ≤10 months after achieving their best response and 98 patients for >10 months after achieving their best response. Patients who continued therapy for >10 months after achieving their first best response had significantly longer OS vs. those who received therapy for ≤10 months (not reached vs. 23.4 months; p<0.0001). At 24 months after achieving their best response, significantly more patients were alive if they continued therapy >10 months vs. ≤10 months (93.8% vs. 48.4%, p<0.0001). In the second analysis, in order to evaluate the impact of discontinuation in patients achieving SD or better, we excluded 134 patients due to disease progression, death, or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 187 responding patients, 72 discontinued treatment for AE (n=42) or withdrew consent (n=30), while the remaining 115 patients continued treatment. Median OS and TTP were significantly longer for patients who continued vs. those who discontinued treatment (median OS: not reached vs. 29.5 months, p<0.0001; median TTP: not reached vs. 13.6 months, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In patients achieving SD or better, prolonged duration of treatment was associated with significantly longer OS and TTP. In contrast, early discontinuation of treatment led to reduced OS and TTP. Therefore, efforts should be made to manage adverse events while maintaining patients on therapy. Furthermore, maintaining treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone after achieving the optimal response ensures a significant improvement in OS for patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, 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; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: The use of low-dose dexamethasone (Dex) in combination with lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory compound, improves overall survival (OS) compared with high-dose Dex plus Len in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al. 2007). Two phase III randomised trials of pts with relapsed/refractory MM showed that Len/Dex had significantly better overall response (OR), complete response (CR), OS and time to progression (TTP) than Dex alone. Dex dose reductions were permitted in relation to severity of adverse events (AEs). We investigated the effect of Dex dose reductions on efficacy and tolerability of Len/Dex in relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Data were pooled from the MM-009/010 studies for pts treated in the Len/Dex group who had an unchanged Len dose (n=233). Pts were treated with Len (25mg/day on day 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) and Dex 40mg on day 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (for the first four cycles). After four cycles, Dex 40mg/day was administered only on day 1–4. Dex dose reductions were: 40mg day 1–4 every 2 weeks (level -1), 40mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -2), and 20mg day 1–4 every 4 weeks (level -3). Response to therapy, TTP, OS, and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as AEs were assessed. Response rate and TTP were based on data obtained before unblinding (June/August 2005 [MM-009/010]. Results: Of 233 pts in this post-hoc analysis, 177 pts were treated with Dex 40 mg/day throughout the study and 46 received Dex dose reductions. Forty-one pts received a dose reduction due to AEs. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Pts who received Dex dose reductions had a significantly higher OR rate, including a higher CR, compared with those who received standard Dex dose (Table). Pts in the Dex reductions group had significantly longer median TTP, median OS, and median PFS, compared with those who received Dex at the assigned dose. At the end of the study, rates of serious AEs, grade 3–4 AEs, treatment-related AEs and withdrawals because of AEs were comparable between pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who received an unchanged Dex dose. Although most Dex dose reductions were made for an AE, by reducing the dose pts were able to maintain a similar safety profile to those who did not require dose reductions. Grade 3–4 haematological AEs in pts who received Dex dose reductions and those who did not were neutropenia (23.7% and 32.6%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (8.5% and 6.8%, respectively) and anaemia (6.8% and 6.2%, respectively). No febrile neutropenia was reported in these pts. Conclusion: Dex dose reductions improved the efficacy of Len/Dex without affecting tolerability in pts with relapsed/refractory MM. Len/Dex Dex unchanged (n=177) Dex reduced (n=46) P *Most conservative median estimate obtained assuming all censored patients die right right after the censor date Response, % OR 50.8 69.6 <0.05 CR 13.0 23.9 <0.01 nCR 19.8 37.0 <0.01 PR 18.1 8.7 <0.01 Median TTP, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.002 Median OS, weeks* >109.7 >121.9 0.19 Median PFS, weeks* >24.1 >59.9 0.001

Abstract Background: Patients (Pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) who relapse within 12 months of autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) have a poor prognosis. As reported by Mahmood et al. (ASCO 2007), of 432 pts who received SCT at the Mayo Clinic between 1994–2005, those with early relapse within 12 months (94/432– 22%) showed poorer median overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month survival from the date of first relapse were 37% for pts relapsing within 12 months after SCT as compared to 85% for those relapsing after 12 months. In that study, pts had received regimens other than B. In a recent report of a large, phase III study (DOXIL-MMY3001), the combination of PLD+B improved time to progression (TTP) as compared to B alone (Orlowski et al. JCO 2007). The present analysis examined the 12-month post-randomization survival of patients who had early (<12 months) vs. late (≥12 months) relapse following SCT, as well as the effect of PLD+B vs. B alone in pts who had relapsed early. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 646 pts who received intravenous B, 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1,4,8 and 11 of every 21-day cycle ± PLD, 30 mg/m2 on day 4. Results: 359 pts had previously received transplant, 114 (32%) of whom relapsed within 12 months from SCT. The median age, gender distribution, time from diagnosis trial enrollment, measures of disease burden (M-Protein levels and B2M) and renal function were comparable between the early and late relapse groups. There was no difference in overall response rates [complete + partial response (CR+PR)] or very good PR (VGPR) rates between the two groups, or between treatment arms within each group. There was no significant difference in TTP between early vs. late relapse groups (HR=0.94). 12-month survival from randomization was significantly lower in the early relapse group as compared to late relapse (83% vs. 92% respectively, p=0.009). However, within the early relapse group 12-months post-randomization survival rate was significantly superior following treatment with PLD+B as compared to B alone [52/56 patients (93%) vs. 43/58 patients (74%) respectively, p=0.01]. Correspondingly, TTP was better in this group with PLD+B vs. B alone (276 days vs. 205 days respectively, p=0.13). Overall, the toxicity profiles of the combination and B alone were comparable regardless of early or late relapse following SCT. Conclusions: The present analysis of the MMY3001 study corroborates the prior Mayo observation of lower survival in MM pts relapsing within 12 months of SCT. Importantly, it demonstrates that PLD+B may provide a therapeutic advantage for high-risk MM pts with early relapse following SCT.