Morgan, Gareth J.

Abstract Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a twofold higher risk for multiple myeloma (MM) compared with persons of European ancestry (EA). Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) support a genetic contribution to MM etiology in individuals of EA. Little is known about genetic risk factors for MM in individuals of AA. We performed a meta-analysis of 2 GWASs of MM in 1813 cases and 8871 controls and conducted an admixture mapping scan to identify risk alleles. We fine-mapped the 23 known susceptibility loci to find markers that could better capture MM risk in individuals of AA and constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) to assess the aggregated effect of known MM risk alleles. In GWAS meta-analysis, we identified 2 suggestive novel loci located at 9p24.3 and 9p13.1 at P < 1 × 10−6; however, no genome-wide significant association was noted. In admixture mapping, we observed a genome-wide significant inverse association between local AA at 2p24.1-23.1 and MM risk in AA individuals. Of the 23 known EA risk variants, 20 showed directional consistency, and 9 replicated at P < .05 in AA individuals. In 8 regions, we identified markers that better capture MM risk in persons with AA. AA individuals with a PRS in the top 10% had a 1.82-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.11) increased MM risk compared with those with average risk (25%-75%). The strongest functional association was between the risk allele for variant rs56219066 at 5q15 and lower ELL2 expression (P = 5.1 × 10−12). Our study shows that common genetic variation contributes to MM risk in individuals with AA.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplasm thought to arise from a damaged germinal center B-cell that progresses to a plasma cell clone arising in bone marrow. MM comprises 20% of all hematologic cancer deaths. Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 1.5 to 2-fold higher risk compared to individuals of European ancestry (EA). Genetically driven differences in hematopoiesis may lead to variation in the levels white blood cell (WBC) subsets which could, in turn, be associated with MM etiology. There are differences in genetic determinants of WBC traits between EA and AA populations, with possible implications for the racial disparity in risk. We tested the above hypothesis using Mendelian randomization (MR), an approach that leverages genetic determinants of specific traits (i.e. WBC counts) to estimate their effects on the risk of an outcome; and a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), which utilizes genetic predictors of gene expression to identify susceptibility genes. These analytic approaches were applied to data from the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) consisting of 1813 cases and 8871 AA cancer-free controls to examine how differences in heritable WBC gene expression profiles influence MM risk. Genetic determinants of variation in WBC subsets in AA were obtained from the literature and supplemented with new genome-wide association findings in AA subjects from the UK Biobank cohort (n=6108). Odds ratios (OR) for MM per 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in each WBC phenotype were estimated using independent (linkage disequilibrium (LD) r2<0.10) variants with P<10-6 as genetic instruments. Analyses based on variants associated with WBC traits in AA populations did not identify any statistically-significant associations between MM risk and WBC overall (p=0.81, using 15 SNPs) or subsets (lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils and basophils, p>0.05 for each). However, when we applied genetic determinants of WBC identified in 330,000 cancer-free EA UK Biobank participants (P<10-8, replication P<0.05, LD r2<0.05), a statistically significant inverse relationship emerged between increasing lymphocyte counts and MM risk (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97, p=0.02, using 385 SNPs), as well as increasing basophil counts (OR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.96, p=0.03, using 140 SNPs). Next, we examined the association between WBC gene expression profiles and MM risk in AAMMS data. We applied published and validated ancestry-specific models developed using the PrediXcan approach, which leverage germline genetic and transcriptomic data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) (Mogil et al. PMID: 30096133). The primary TWAS used gene expression models trained in AA subjects (n=233), with sensitivity analyses using models developed in AA and Hispanic subjects (n=585). The TWAS significance threshold was based on the number of genes with significant germline prediction models (p<0.05 and R2 ≥0.05) in AA, corresponding to P < 0.05/2700 = 1.85×10-5. The expression of two genes was significantly associated with MM risk: KANK1at 9p24.3 (P = 1.01×10-5) and DNAJC27at 2p23.3 (P = 1.56×10-5). KANK1is a candidate tumor suppressor gene for renal cell carcinoma and has recently been associated with MM risk in AA [Du, Blood 2017 130:3058]. Here we provide additional evidence for its role in MM etiology via gene expression-mediated mechanisms. DNAJC27 (previously known as RBJ) is a novel MM risk gene linked to constitutive activation of ERK in solid tumors. We also identified two suggestively associated genes: PRR14 (P = 1.34×10-4; combined AA-Hispanic sample: P = 1.56×10-6), which has been linked to MM risk in EA populations, and PARP16 (P = 9.46×10-5). To our knowledge this is the first study to comprehensively examine variation in WBC traits and gene expression profiles with respect to MM risk in AA. Our TWAS analysis leveraged data from the largest collection of genetic and gene expression data in AA, enabling ancestry-matched inference and identification of two novel risk genes. Although the limited availability of genetic instruments for WBC limited the power of MR analysis, findings using variants identified in European populations may offer some insight into trans-ethnic etiologic pathways and contribute to risk stratification strategies using genetic and blood cell count biomarkers. Future studies, particularly with MGUS-free controls, are needed to validate these results. Disclosures Song: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Employment. Rand:Ancestry.com: Employment. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Nooka:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; GSK: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Spectrum pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Adaptive technologies: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation; BMS: Honoraria, Other: advisory board participation. Singhal:Bureau of Millennium/Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird: Speakers Bureau. van Rhee:Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Castleman Disease Collaborative Network: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Adicet Bio: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mehta:Millennium/Takeda, Celgene; stock in Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Bluebird: Speakers Bureau. Wolf:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Terebelo:Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Anderson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Scientific Founder; Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Other: Advisory Board. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bernal-Mizrachi:TAKEDA: Research Funding; Kodikas Therapeutic Solutions, Inc: Equity Ownership; Winship Cancer Institute: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Morgan:Amgen, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: research grant, Research Funding. Zonder:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Huff:Member of Safety Monitoring Board for Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm, Sanofi, MiDiagnostics: Consultancy. Lonial:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Orlowski:Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy has been extensively explored as a strategy for prolonging the duration of disease control and potentially survival following ASCT. To date, only lenalidomide has been approved for this indication. However, lenalidomide maintenance is associated with the development of second primary malignancies and tolerability issues. PIs are a backbone of MM treatment, and bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, yet the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Moreover, the feasibility of bortezomib maintenance in routine clinical practice is limited due to tolerability and the need for regular parenteral administration. There is a need for an oral PI maintenance therapy that can be administered for a prolonged period, improve depth of response without cumulative or late-onset toxicity, and improve convenience for patients. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) compared weekly ixazomib vs placebo maintenance in NDMM patients who had at least a partial response (≥PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) followed by single ASCT. Patients were randomized (3:2) to receive ixazomib or matched placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen (PI without IMiD vs IMiD without PI vs PI+IMiD), pre-induction ISS stage (I vs II or III), and post-ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good partial response [VGPR] vs PR). Patients were ineligible if they had received post-ASCT consolidation or tandem ASCT. The ixazomib dose was 3.0 mg during cycles 1-4, increasing to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC), who were blinded to treatment assignment. The key secondary endpoint was OS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 57 years (range, 24-73), 37% vs 63% had ISS I vs II or III, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without IMiD / IMiD without PI / PI+IMiD induction therapy, 34%/45%/21% had achieved CR / VGPR / PR following induction/ASCT, and 18% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)]. After a median follow-up of 31 months with 54% of PFS events, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). In a landmark analysis from ASCT, PFS was 30.7 vs 24.9 months (HR 0.684; 95% CI: 0.551, 0.848; p<0.001). Median PFS2 and OS have not yet been reached in either arm. Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response compared with placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented MRD positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib compared with placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including ISS III (HR 0.661), PI-exposed (HR 0.750), PI-naïve (HR 0.497), and patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625). Discontinuation due to AEs was low (7% ixazomib vs 5% placebo). With ixazomib vs placebo, 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%) including pneumonia (6% vs 4%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Global Quality of Life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) on ixazomib were similar to placebo. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib maintenance, with deepening of responses and increased conversions to MRD negativity over control, as well as a favorable safety profile, including an absence of risk of second primary malignancies and low rates of peripheral neuropathy, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Takeda Celgene, Amgen, BMS, and Roche: Other: Advisor; Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Beksac:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: 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, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Maisnar:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chng:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Aslan: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: 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. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Iida:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Toyama Chemical: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Suryanarayan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Department of Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic: Other: Affiliation. Dash:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven), an oral agent that targets the antiapoptotic protein, BCL-2, has demonstrated efficacy, as monotherapy and combined with proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib, in relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). We report preliminary safety and efficacy data for Ven combined with the second generation PI carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (VenKd) in R/R MM. Methods: In this ongoing phase 2, dose escalation study (NCT02899052), patients with R/R MM and no prior K exposure received VenKd on 28-d cycles in 4 dose finding and one expansion cohorts: Ven 400 mg/day + K 27 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 1), same regimen but with Ven 800 mg/day (Cohort 2), Ven 800 mg/day + K 70 mg/m2 Day 1, 8, 15 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 3/expansion cohort), or Ven 800 mg + K 56 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23 (Cohort 4). Treatment continued until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Results: As of June 11, 2018, 42 patients were enrolled. The median age was 66.5 years (min, max: 37, 79), 63% had ISS II/III disease, and 8 patients (19%) had t(11;14). Patients received a median of 2 prior therapies (range: 1 - 3), 93% had received prior PI (50% refractory), 62% were refractory to immunomodulatory therapies, and 33% double refractory. At the data cut off, 29 patients were still active and had completed ≥2 cycles and 13 patients discontinued with the primary reason being disease progression (n=4), death (n=3), physician decision (n=2), withdrawal of consent (n=2), lack of efficacy (n=1), and AE (n=1). All patients experienced at least one AE, and grade 3/4 AEs experienced by >10% of subjects included: decreased lymphocyte count (26%), decreased neutrophil count (14%), and hypertension (12%). Thirteen subjects experienced at least one serious AE. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and Ven 800 mg/day + K 70 mg/m2 was selected for expansion. Ven mean (% coefficient of variation) maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 hours (AUC24) on Cycle 1 Day 15 were 2.7 (57) mg/mL and 33.1 (54) mg×h/mL, respectively, at 400 mg venetoclax (n=4); and were 2.42 (53) mg/mL and 38.7 (51) mg×h/mL, respectively, at 800 mg venetoclax (n=13) in the dose escalation cohorts. The overall response rate (ORR) was 78% and the very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 56% (Table). Median time from first dose to the data cut or discontinuation was 5.7 months (range: 0.9 - 16.3) and the median time to first response was 1.9 months (95% CI: 0.9, 9.2). ORRs for subgroups of interest are reported in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of VenKd appears tolerable with no new safety signals or changes in Ven pharmacokinetics. VenKd shows promising preliminary efficacy in R/R MM patient subgroups. Response rates were comparable in all high risk subgroups and overall population. However, the subset of patients with t(11;14) had the highest response. Overall, these results demonstrate that VenKd is a safe and efficacious regimen in R/R MM and support the continued study of VenKd. Disclosures Costa: Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Stadtmauer:Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kovacsovics:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaufman:Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Mobasher:Genentech Inc: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Freise:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pesko:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gudipati:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mudd:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bueno:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract We describe the features of 24 cases of atypical CD5+ small B-cell leukaemia unclassifiable by current methods. The male/female ratio was 3 (18M/6F), with a median age at diagnosis of 58 years (range 39–84 years). All cases were CD5 positive, but with an immunophenotype and morphology atypical for CLL. All cases were negative for t(11;14) and other B cell malignancies were excluded. FISH analysis was carried out using probes for IGH break apart, t(14;19) involving BCL3, trisomy 12, 13q14, 11q22–23 (ATM) and 17p13 (p53 locus). IgVH somatic mutations were analysed using direct sequencing (2% cut off). FISH using IgH break apart probe showed 8 (32%) cases with a split at 14q32. These 8 cases were further investigated using a FISH probe for t(14;19). Four cases (16%) exhibited t(14;19) ie. showed the IgH/BCL3 rearrangement in >70% of cells. Further characterisation of the 24 cases, at additional loci showed that 4 (16%) patients had 17p deletion, 3 (12%) 11q deletion, 3 (12%) 13q deletion, and 14 cases (56%) trisomy 12. The 8 cases showing a split IgH signal did not show deletions of 17p, 11q, or 13q but trisomy 12 was present in 7/8 (88%) patients. Sixteen out of 24 (67%) cases had unmutated IgVH genes with VH3 and VH4 families being used in 91% (22/24). Interestingly, unlike in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), the VH1 family was not used in this group of patients. All 4 cases with t(14;19) showed unmutated IgVH genes. Of the sixteen patients without involvement of 14q32, only 2 patients have died with a median follow up of 5.5 years. Of the 4 cases with the t(14;19) (IgH/BCL3 rearrangement), 3 required treatment within 2.5 years of diagnosis and two out of four patients died 5 years after diagnosis, following Richter’s transformation suggesting that this rearrangement is a poor prognostic factor and defines a group with a distinct clinical outcome. Our findings show a high frequency of 14q abnormalities in atypical CD5+ small B-cell leukaemia. BCL3 rearrangement is seen in a significant subset of these cases. The BCL3 gene encodes a nuclear protein that belongs to the IkB family of inhibitors of NFkB. It is involved in the regulation of a variety of transcription factors and it is able to stimulate the expression of cyclin D1. The dysregulation of BCL3 via its juxtaposition to the regulatory element of the IgH locus in our cases suggests a pathogenic role for BCL3 in these B cell disorders and may define a group of patients with a more aggressive clinical course. Further, we have examined these cases for signatures, defined in myeloma, characteristic of NFkB deregulation. We suggest that in cases of CD5 positive B-cell disorders with an immunophenotype and morphology atypical for CLL, and negative for t(11;14), rearrangements involving the IgH locus are frequent and have allowed us to identify cases with poor prognosis and with a pathogenesis that involves deregulation of NFkB.

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 Introduction Over the last 15 years gene expression profiling (GEP) has been used to define myeloma molecular subgroups and to determine clinical prognosis. Two major molecular subgroup classifications have been used: the UAMS which determines 7 subgroups and the TC classification based on the presence of IgH translocations and expression of D group cyclins. For prognosis, although a number of different GEP signatures have been defined, the widely used GEP70 identifies 15% of patients with high risk (HR) disease who have a median PFS and OS of 1.75 and 2.83 years. An ideal classification system would identify clinically relevant subgroups with distinct etiology and biology using standardized techniques. We have examined a large group of patients characterized at multiple genetic levels to optimize the diagnostic approach of newly diagnosed patients going forward. Materials and methods Study subjects included 1349 cases enrolled in Total Therapy trials (median follow up 7.5 years). Gene expression profiling was used to determine GEP70 risk status, molecular subgroup by UAMS and TC classifications, and to devise a new and extended TC classification (TC10). Interphase FISH associated with IgH translocations and 1q+ and 17p- were used to build GEP proxies. Data from mutational analysis generated by the FoundationOne targeted sequence panel was also incorporated. Results were validated on the UK MRC MyelomaIX and Hovon65/GMMG-4 studies. Results An initial agnostic analysis of GEP data using sparse k-means clustering verified the existence of TC based groups. Six groups were identified that corresponded overwhelmingly with known TC subgroups; CCND1-t(11;14), D1-HRD, D2-HRD, MMSET, MAF/CCND2, and CCND3. Further comparisons between the molecular subgroup and TC classifier revealed that the UAMS 7 subgroups clustered strongly within one predominant TC group: CD-1 and CD-2 to t(11;14), HY to D1, LB and PR to D2, MF to t(14;16) or t(14;20), and MS to t(4;14). As the UAMS molecular subgroups are largely contained within the TC framework, we aimed to extend the TC by developing the TC10. To extend the known TC subgroups, unsupervised clustering was applied to the 3 largest subgroups [t(11;14), D1, and D2] to determine the strongest single divisor within each respective subgroup. The dominant feature within the t(11;14) cases was CD20 expression, while the D1 and D2 subgroups both split according to RRAS2. CD20 is associated with PAX5 and VPREB3 expression, and RRAS2 is associated with decreased PTP4A3 and increased TNFAIP3 and BIRC3 expression. RRAS2 activation within D1 subgroup and CD20 activation within t(11;14) cases corresponds to an increased time to response to induction therapy suggesting they constitute important biological subgroups. The TC10 combines the known etiologic subgroups of the TC with functionally relevant subdivisions to create 10 novel subgroups: t(11;14) CD20+/-, D1: RRAS2+/-, D2: RRAS2+/-, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and t(6;14). Analysis of mutational data revealed that RRAS2 and CD20 activation within the D1, D2, and t(11;14) subgroups reduced the number of mutations in the MAPK pathway. Further mutational analysis revealed that median mutational load was highest in t(14;16) and lowest in D2: RRAS2+ subgroups. The GEP70 score identifies 15% of patients with HR disease and is specific for this purpose. In an analysis of risk assessment methods, we compared GEP detected adverse lesions [t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 17p- and 1q+] with the GEP70 and revealed that GEP70 HR identified samples have lower OS rates than cases with more than one adverse lesion (validated in external sets). GEP70 HR segregates non-uniformly across molecular subgroups as over 40% of all HR cases are found in the TC10 t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) subgroups. GEP70 HR cases also have a higher mutational load than low risk cases. Furthermore, GEP70 HR is uniquely associated with 1q+ and 17p- as cases with at least one of these adverse lesions are 4.9 times as likely to be GEP70 HR as cases with neither. Conclusion GEP profiling has a central role in simplifying and standardizing the molecular subgroup designation and risk stratifying of MM patients. The GEP70 risk score reliably identifies HR cases and outperforms FISH in risk assessment, even in validation data sets. The TC10 provides a classification system that improves upon previous methods by defining both etiological and functionally meaningful subgroups. Disclosures Stein: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Heuck:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Millenium: Other: Advisory Board; Foundation Medicine: Honoraria. Weinhold:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Janssen Cilag: Other: Advisory Board. Chavan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Thanendrarajan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Yaccoby:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Zangari:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. van Rhee:University of Arkansa for Medical Sciences: Employment. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Takeda: Consultancy, 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, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Barlogie:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Morgan:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weismann Institute: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 2878 Poster Board II-854 Background: Significant advances have been made in the treatment of myeloma with the introduction of thalidomide, its analogue, lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. While these new drugs have improved the outcome of patients with myeloma, the disease still remains incurable. Effectiveness of upcoming new therapies will need to be assessed in the context of anticipated outcome with the currently available therapies. However, given the rapid pace of development over the past decade, outcome of patients who have relapsed on the new therapies remain unclear. Methods: In order to further study this group of patients, we undertook a study of patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to one of the IMiDs (thalidomide or lenalidomide) as well as bortezomib. A total of 300 cases from 8 sites in the US, 5 sites in Europe and one site in Asia were identified for this study. Enrolled patients had relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, per the EBMT or IMWG response criteria, after at least 2 prior treatments. Patients were refractory to bortezomib, defined as having no response on a prior bortezomib-containing regimen or experiencing disease progression within 60 days of a bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients also should have relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible in the opinion of the investigator, to other therapies, including an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses were obtained from the clinical records. The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero. Results: The current analysis includes the first 119 patients with complete data available. The median age at initial diagnosis was 59 years (range, 31-86 yr); 71% were males. The ISS stage distribution at diagnosis was 33%, 39% and 28% for stages 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 19 patients (37%) had high risk disease by FISH [t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p] or by cytogenetics [del 13, hypodiploidy]. The median time from diagnosis to time zero was 3.8 yrs (range 0.2-18.7 yr) and the median reported lines of therapy before time zero was 2. 74% patients had at least 1 autologous stem cell transplant prior to becoming eligible for the study. Following time zero, 77 (65%) pts had a treatment recorded, including an autologous SCT in 21 (18%), with the treatment regimen starting at a median of 1 month after time zero. A variety of treatment regimens were utilized beyond time zero (median=1; range 0-7). Thirty-two (27%) patients had a response any time following time zero, and only 8 had a subsequent response. Response to the first treatment, or supportive care for patients not treated, recorded following time zero included minor response or stable disease (n=14; 12%), PR (n=17, 14%), and VGPR or better (n=6, 5%). Patients treated with SCT had a higher rate of PR or better compared to patients receiving other treatments (85%; 17/20 vs. 26%; 15/57). In a multivariate analysis, the only significant predictor of a PR or better after time zero was younger age (<60 yrs). The median overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) were 6 mos (95% CI, 4-7 mos) and 1 month (95% CI,1-2 mos) respectively. In a multivariate analysis normal creatinine predicted for a better overall survival and having an IgG M protein type predicted for better EFS. A complete analysis from all 300 patients will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This study confirms the poor outcome of patients once they become relapsed and refractory to agents that have become the mainstay of myeloma therapy. The findings highlight the incurable nature of the disease and urgent need to develop newer effective therapeutic agents for this group of patients, who currently do not have effective treatment options. Disclosures: Kumar: CELGENE: Research Funding; MILLENNIUM: Research Funding; BAYER: Research Funding; GENZYME: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding. Jagannath:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Laubach:Novartis: . Palumbo:Ortho Biotech, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. 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. San Miguel:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract We have taken a genetic strategy to define the mechanisms underlying the increased risk of VTE in myeloma patient treated with thalidomide using clinical trial data derived from the MRC, ECOG, Little Rock and HOVON trial groups. Baseline VTE rates in the MRC IX study, (CTD vs CVAD; n=748 no prophylactic anticoagulation), were 14%. Rates in both arms were equal but in the thalidomide arm, thrombotic events were all DVT’s or PE’s, whereas in the CVAD arm they split equally between line related and VTE’s. In the other comparison (CTD vs MP; n=542), the VTE rate was 17%, all in the thalidomide arm. Rates were similar or higher (30%) in the other trials depending on the intensity of treatment used. We carried out a nested case control on DNA from MRC IX on 90 VTE (45 thalidomide, 45 non-thalidomide related), matched to 180 controls. SNPlex analysis for 60 SNPs in the coagulation cascade, DNA repair, thalidomide, metabolism and myeloma specific pathways, identified 7 genes which affected risk (NBS1, MTHFR, Ku80, Cyp3A5, LGAL52 and IL12B). This suggests three major pathways contribute to the risk of thalidomide related VTE, metabolism of thalidomide, tumour responsiveness and some pro-thrombotic factors. These factors differ from non-thalidomide related risk where a strong pro-inflammatory response is most relevant. We tested this hypothesis further using an expanded panel of 3,404 SNPs (BOAC panel), using the Megalle system. Statistical analysis of this data defined the top 20 thalidomide and non-thalidomide associated SNPs, which were consistent with the initial hypothesis, the results of which exclude variation in the coagulation cascade as being a significant risk factor. We explored this hypothesis further using pathway-based analysis focussing on the MTHFR, DNA repair and WNT pathways on data from the ECOG, HOVON and Little Rock data sets. The biological relevance of the SNPs and genes identified was validated by correlating the level of expression using the Affymetrix U133 CHIP with genetic variation at the DNA level. To verify the relevance of DNA repair variability to tumour response further, we correlated gene expression profiling with response and again Ku80 was identified as one of a cluster of genes defining increased risk. The data suggests that the risk of thalidomide related VTE relates to rapid tumour lysis combined with a prothrombotic tendency, whereas in line related thrombosis, risk is dependent upon a strong proinflammatory response. We are building this genetic data into a clinical risk model in order to allow us to develop a rationale for intervention strategies.