Stewart, A. Keith

Abstract Background: The randomized phase 3 ASPIRE study demonstrated that the addition of the proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib to Rd resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Rd alone in patients with RRMM (median 26.3 vs 17.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.83; 2-sided P=0.0001; Stewart AK, et al. N Engl J Med . 2015;372:142-52; Table). OS data were immature at the time of the PFS analysis but showed a trend in favor of the KRd group (HR=0.79). Hereby, results from the planned final analysis of OS in ASPIRE are presented. Methods: Adults with RRMM who received 1─3 prior lines of therapy were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd in 28-day cycles until withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or the occurrence of unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified according to β2-microglobulin level (<2.5 mg per liter vs. ≥2.5 mg per liter), previous therapy with bortezomib, and previous therapy with lenalidomide. Carfilzomib was given as a 10-minute infusion (starting dose of 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose of 27 mg/m2 thereafter) on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1─12 and on days 1, 2, 15, and 16 (cycles 13─18). Lenalidomide (25 mg) was administered on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. After cycle 18 of carfilzomib, patients randomized to the KRd arm received Rd treatment only. In total, 510 deaths were required to provide 85% power to detect a reduction in the risk of death for KRd vs Rd, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. OS was compared between treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test. HRs were estimated using a stratified Cox model. Results: As of the data cutoff date (April 28, 2017) for the planned final OS analysis, median treatment durations were 72 weeks for carfilzomib (per protocol, carfilzomib was discontinued after cycle 18), 85 weeks (KRd arm) and 57 weeks (Rd arm) for lenalidomide, and 80 weeks (KRd arm) and 49 weeks (Rd arm) for dexamethasone. The median follow up was 67 months for both arms. Median OS (95% CI) was 48.3 (42.4-52.8) months for KRd vs 40.4 (33.6-44.4) months for Rd (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95; 1-sided P=0.0045; Table and Figure). Median OS was 11.4 months longer for KRd vs Rd in patients receiving 1 prior line (47.3 vs 35.9 months [HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62-1.06]) and 6.5 months longer for patients receiving ≥2 prior lines (48.8 vs 42.3 months; [HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99]). Among patients with 1 prior line of therapy, OS was improved with KRd vs Rd regardless of whether patients had received prior bortezomib; in patients with 1 prior line, median OS was improved by 12 months in the prior bortezomib group (45.9 vs 33.9 months [HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56-1.19]) and 7.9 months in the no prior bortezomib group (48.3 vs 40.4 months [HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.17]). With respect to risk, OS by Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage was assessed. For R-ISS stage I (KRd, n=42; Rd, n=46), median OS was not reached for KRd and was 58.0 months for Rd (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92). For patients with R-ISS stage II (KRd, n=194; Rd, n=195), median OS was 45.4 months for KRd and 41.2 months for Rd (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.10). For the small number of patients with R-ISS stage III (KRd, n=37; Rd, n=47), median OS was 23.3 months for KRd and 18.8 months for Rd (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.66-1.68). For the overall study population, treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 19.9% (KRd) and 21.5% (Rd) of patients. Fatal AEs were reported in 11.5% (KRd) and 10.5% (Rd) of patients. Grade ≥3 AE rates were 87.0% (KRd) and 83.0% (Rd). Selected grade ≥3 AEs of interest (grouped terms; KRd vs Rd) included acute renal failure (3.8% vs 3.3%), cardiac failure (4.3% vs 2.1%), ischemic heart disease (3.8% vs 2.3%), hypertension (6.4% vs 2.3%), and hematopoietic thrombocytopenia (20.2% vs 14.9%). Conclusions: KRd demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 21% reduction in the risk of death vs Rd. KRd should be considered a standard of care in RRMM. Disclosures Stewart: Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Siegel: Celgene, Takeda, Amgen Inc, Novartis and BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Ludwig: Bristol-Meyers: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Facon: Amgen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak: Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Karypharm, Millennium-Takeda, Sanofi, SkylineDX: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; University of Chicago: Employment. San Miguel: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Obreja: Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blaedel: Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Committee: Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary, Takeda Oncology; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable plasma cell (PC) malignancy. Despite improvements in clinical outcomes, variability in treatment response exists. Some patients experience innate resistance, while others develop resistance over the course of treatment. Identifying signatures of treatment response and resistance is essential to predicting effective treatment strategies. Given the phenotypic clonal heterogeneity observed in MM, we hypothesize that resistant and sensitive subpopulations have unique phenotypic signatures. We used mass cytometry (CyTOF) to characterize primary MM samples and correlated their phenotypic signatures with treatment response. Methods: We characterized 102 primary MM samples by CyTOF using 37 antibodies (see figure). Frozen whole BM specimens were thawed, stained with antibodies, barcoded, and analyzed on a Helios mass cytometer. Data was processed using Cytobank or Pathsetter and analyzed using t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) algorithm. T-SNE plots for CD45+ cells were created using lineage defining markers. T-SNE plots of neoplastic PCs (CD138+,CD3-,CD16-,CD19-,cytoplasmic kappa or lambda+) were created using all remaining markers. A differential analysis of each sample's clusters was performed against all other events. Z-score values, representing marker changes from the differential analysis, for each cluster were used to group similar clusters across all samples, allowing us to compare sub populations of PCs between patients (see figure). From these groups of clusters with similar changes in markers, we calculated the proportion of cells with increases or decreases in markers for each sample. Results were compared to IMWG 90-day response criteria using a random forest model. Results: We performed mass cytometry on 102 samples from 68 unique MM patients. Median age was 66 years (range 34-95) with a 1.5:1 male:female ratio. 37 (36%) had NDMM, 55 (54%) had RRMM, 2 (2%) had SMM and 8 cases (8%) had unknown status. FISH studies revealed 47 (46%) had hyperdiploidy without a recurrent primary IgH rearrangement, 31 (30%) had t(11;14), 13 (13%) had t(4;14), 5 (5%) had 14;16 or 14;20, 3 (3%) had hyperhaploidy and 3 (3%) had an undefined primary. 54 (53%) had 1q gain/amp, 22 (22%) had TP53 deletion, 22 (22%) had a MYC rearrangement and 71% had high mSMART risk. Nearly all patients received an immunomodulatory compound, a proteasome inhibitor and dexamethasone. 2 (2%) had complete response (CR), 10 (9.8%) very good partial response (VGPR), 36 (35%) had partial response (PR), 14 (14%) had minimal response (MR), 13 (13%) had stable disease (SD) and 17 (17%) had progressive disease (PD). Characterization of CD45+ cells identified a relatively conserved and reproducible map from each patient. Notable differences included an ~2-fold reduction in the percentage of total B cells (CD45+,CD3-,CD19+)/total CD45+ cells in cases with high risk mSMART, RRMM and TP53 deletion compared to cases with standard risk, NDMM or normal TP53 status. Similar B-cell reductions were found in RRMM vs. NDMM samples from matched-patients. In contrast to the conserved t-SNE structure of the CD45+ population, the neoplastic PC population displayed dramatically reduced t-SNE structural consistency. Heterogeneity between patient samples and between the same patient samples over time was observed. We focused our analysis on 22 patients with serial samples. The proportion of each t-SNE group present in each patient sample was calculated and then correlated to the 90-day response metric. We identified a phenotypic group whose proportion increased in relation to disease progression (R2=0.85). This group had elevated BCL-2, pSTAT3, CD56 levels and reduced CD45 and CD81 levels. Evaluating individual markers, we found an increase in the proportion of cells with elevated BCL-2, pS6, Ki67, and IKZF1 levels in relation to disease progression. We also observed an increase in the proportion of cells with reduced pCREB levels and a reduction in the proportion of cells with reduced CD147 levels in relation to disease progression. Conclusions: We have utilized CyTOF to characterize phenotypic and functional markers in MM cells on a single cell level and can identify unique subgroups that change in relation to disease progression. Future analysis will correlate phenotypic signatures with ISS stage, mSMART risk, cytogenetic abnormality and type of treatment. Figure 1 Disclosures Kumar: Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria.

Background: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; JNJ-68284528; LCAR-B38M CAR-T cells) is a chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy with 2 B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies designed to confer avidity. In the phase 1 LEGEND-2 study in China, LCAR-B38M yielded deep, durable responses with a manageable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). The phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study (NCT03548207) is further evaluating cilta-cel in this pt population in the US. We present updated data from the phase 1b portion along with initial phase 2 data. Methods: Eligible pts (aged ≥18 y) were diagnosed with MM per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, received ≥3 prior regimens or were double-refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, and received an anti-CD38 antibody. After apheresis, bridging therapy was permitted. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 3 d were used for lymphodepletion. A single infusion of cilta-cel at a target dose of 0.75×106 (range 0.5-1.0×106) CAR+ viable T cells/kg was administered 5-7 d after start of lymphodepletion. The primary objective of the phase 1b portion was to characterize cilta-cel safety and establish the recommended phase 2 dose; the primary objective of the phase 2 portion was to evaluate cilta-cel efficacy. Response was assessed per IMWG criteria and minimal residual disease (MRD) by next-generation sequencing. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using CTCAE v5.0. In the phase 1b portion, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was graded by Lee et al (Blood 2014) and neurotoxicity by CTCAE v5.0; in the phase 2 portion, CRS and neurotoxicity were graded by American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) criteria. In this combined analysis, Lee et al and CTCAE v5.0 were mapped to ASTCT criteria for CRS and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), respectively. Results: As of the May 20, 2020 clinical cutoff, 97 pts (58.8% male; median age 61.0 y [range 43-78]) with R/R MM received cilta-cel (29 in phase 1b; 68 in phase 2). Median follow-up duration was 8.8 mo (range 1.5-20.4). Pts had received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 3-18); 83.5% were penta-exposed, 87.6% were triple-refractory, 41.2% were penta-refractory, and 97.9% were refractory to last line of therapy. Overall response rate per independent review committee (primary endpoint) was 94.8% (95% CI 88.4-98.3), with a stringent complete response rate of 55.7% (95% CI 45.2-65.8), very good partial response rate of 32.0% (95% CI 22.9-42.2), and partial response rate of 7.2% (95% CI 3.0-14.3). All pts achieved a reduction in M-protein. Median time to first response was 1.0 mo (range 0.9-5.8; 80.4% ≤1.0 mo), and median time to complete response or better was 1.8 mo (range 0.9-12.5; 74.1% ≤3.0 mo); responses deepened over time (Figure). Median duration of response was not reached (NR). Of 52 MRD-evaluable pts, 94.2% were MRD-negative at 10-5. The 6-mo progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates (95% CI) were 87.4% (78.9-92.7) and 93.8% (86.7-97.2), respectively; median PFS and OS were NR. Ten deaths occurred during the study; 8 were due to AEs (both related and unrelated; CRS/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, neurotoxicity, respiratory failure, sepsis, septic shock, pneumonia, lung abscess, and acute myelogenous leukemia [n=1 each]), and 2 due to progressive disease. AEs reported in >70% of pts were CRS (94.8%; grade [gr] 3/4 4.1%), neutropenia (90.7%; gr 3/4 90.7%), anemia (81.4%; gr 3/4 68.0%), and thrombocytopenia (79.4%; gr 3/4 59.8%). Median time to CRS onset was 7.0 d (range 1-12) and median duration 4.0 d (range 1-27, excluding n=1 with 97 d). CAR-T cell-related neurotoxicity was reported in 20.6% of pts (gr 3/4 10.3%). Cilta-cel CAR+ T cells showed maximum peripheral expansion at 14 d (range 9-43). Among pts with 6 mo' individual follow-up, 67% had cilta-cel CAR+ T cells below the level of quantification (2 cells/µL) in peripheral blood. Conclusions: Preliminary phase 1b/2 data from CARTITUDE-1 indicate a single low-dose infusion of cilta-cel leads to early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated pts with MM with a safety profile consistent with LEGEND-2. Further investigation of cilta-cel in other MM populations is underway. Disclosures Madduri: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; Kinevant: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaking Engagement, Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:Teva: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Cellularity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Usmani:Celgene: Other; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cohen:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: 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, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Patents/Intellectual property licensed, Research Funding. Stewart:Janssen, BMS, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK: Honoraria; Tempus, Inc., Genomics England LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Htut:City of Hope Medical Center: Current Employment. Munshi:OncoPep: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; C4: Current equity holder in private company. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Lesokhin:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Serametrix Inc.: Patents & Royalties; GenMab: Consultancy, Honoraria. Singh:Janssen: Current Employment. Zudaire:Janssen: Current Employment. Yeh:Janssen: Current Employment. Allred:Janssen: Current Employment. Olyslager:Janssen: Current Employment. Banerjee:Janssen: Current Employment. Goldberg:Johnson & Johnson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Schecter:Janssen: Current Employment. Jackson:Janssen: Current Employment; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Consultancy. Deraedt:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhuang:Janssen: Current Employment. Infante:Janssen: Current Employment. Geng:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Wu:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Carrasco:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Akram:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Hossain:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Rizvi:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Fan:Legend Biotech USA Inc.: Current Employment. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Lin:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin:AMGEN: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Introduction: Response assessment at day 100 post Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) is associated with long-term relapsed free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) are the preferred criteria to define best response to treatment and define relapse. In the last years, response assessment has incorporated minimal residual disease (MRD) status -associated with improved RFS and OS (Munshi et al); and PET/CT combined with clinical characteristics -also associated with favorable outcomes (Zamagni et al. NCT01910987; MMY3033). The 2016 IMWG MRD criteria, combined imaging (PET/CT) plus next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD-negative to define complete response (CR). To our knowledge, there is limited data examining the correlation and prognostic value of MRD and FDG-PET/CT at day 100 post ASCT in MM. IN this study, we aimed to determine the prognostic valued of MRD by NGS combined with PET/CT in RFS and OS status after high dose chemotherapy and ASCT in MM. Methods: Patients who underwent ASCT for MM at Mayo Clinic Arizona and had MRD and PET/CT data were included in the study. Clinical data was obtained via retrospective chart review. Cytogenetic risk (CyR) was classified using the mSMART criteria . Disease and ASCT related characteristics were compared by MRD status. MRD was measured by NGS on bone marrow aspirates using the previosly validated clonoSEQ ® Assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Seattle, USA) tracking the IgH, IgK and IgL rearrangements at a minimum sensitivity level of 10-5. MRD was defined by residual clonal cells per million nucleated cells as: negative= 0, borderline= 1-5, positive >5. PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline and at day 100. Comparisons were performed using the chi-square test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuos variables, McNemar's test and Cohens's Kappa for agreement measures. Results: A total of 103 patients had matched MRD and PET/CT assessment around day 100 (+/-9 days) and were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 54-66 years), 71 patients (68.9%) were men. CyR was standard risk in 49 (47.6%), high-risk in 39 (37.9%) and unknown in 15 (14.6%) patients. Most 75 (72.8%) patients were MRD positive, 16 (15.5%) were MRD negative, and 12 (11.7%) borderline. The median main MRD clone detected was 64 (range 0-91,874). 70 patients (68%) and 33 (32%) had a negative and positive PET/CT respectively. The median follow-up time was 18 months (range, 13-31 months). At the time of data analysis, 10 patients (9.7%) had relapsed and only 4 (3.9%) had died. There was a high-correlation between MRD status and PET/CT, 31 patients (93.9%) with positive PET/CT were also MRD positive (p=0.0027). There were no statistical differences between PET/CT and CyR (p=0.95). We analyzed the correlation using the FREQ procedure (McNemars's test); there was a strong association between positive PET/CT and positive MRD in 31/33 patients (93.9%, high sensitivity), and low association for negative PET/CT the negative/borderline MRD in 26/70 (37.1%, low specificity; p<0.001). The agreement measure between the PET/CT and MRD using negative/borderline combined had a kappa of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11, 0.35) indicating a fair agreement beyond chance (Figure 1). PET/CT-CT was a statistically significant predictor of worse RFS (HR 3.53, 95%CI: 1.02-12.24, p<0.0337) and OS (HR 11.38, 95%CI: 1.18-109.56, p<0.0078) (Figure 2-3, respectively). MRD was not predictive of neither RFS (HR 1.72, 95%CI: 0.36-8.14, p<0.49) or OS (p<0.16). Conclusions: In conclusion, we demonstrate that the combination of MRD by NGS (clonoSEQ ®) and PET/CT at day 100 are complementary and have a high sensitivity (true positive rate) and fair correlation of agreement but low specificity (true negative rate). PET/CT was the best most sensitive technique to prognosticate RFS and OS. We did not find prognostic correlation of MRD with RFS and OS. However, our findings might be confounded by the low risk of relapse and death, a longer follow-up may demonstrate clinically important differences. Our results add evidence that MRD plus PET/CT improve the definition of CR in MM patients post ASCT. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal timing and role of combined MRD, PET/CT with other prognostic markers of clinical outcomes. Disclosures Larsen: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

8537 Background: Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a proteasome inhibitor, active against hematologic malignancies. Preclinically, CFZ overcomes bortezomib (BTZ) resistance in multiple tumors, including myeloma (MM). PX-171–004 is an ongoing Phase II study evaluating safety and efficacy of CFZ in MM patients with relapsed disease after 1–3 prior therapies. Overall Response Rate (ORR) of 35.5% for all subjects was previously reported (ASH 2008); updated data are now available. Methods: Patients were divided into two cohorts: BTZ-naïve and BTZ-exposed. CFZ 20 mg/m2 was administered Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 in a 28-day cycle, for up to 12 cycles. Dexamethasone 4 mg po was administered prior to each dose in Cycle 1. The primary endpoint was ORR, defined as Partial Response (PR) or better. Secondary endpoints included Duration Of Response (DOR) and Time To Progression (TTP). Results: 31 patients were enrolled; 14 (45%) BTZ-naïve and 17 (55%) BTZ-exposed. Of the BTZ-exposed cohort, 2 subjects received BTZ exclusively as a single agent, 6 had BTZ in a chemotherapy combination, and 9 received BTZ in a transplant regime. Overall, 23 (74%) subjects had > 1 prior therapy and 27 (87%) received transplant. In BTZ-naïve patients, CFZ achieved an ORR of 57%; median DOR of 8.6 mos (range >1.9 to >9.7 mos). To date, 7 patients (50%) remain progression free and 3 patients have completed 12 cycles. The median follow-up was 10 mos and the median TTP has not been reached. For the BTZ- exposed group, CFZ achieved an ORR of 18%; median DOR not yet reached (>8.5 mos) (range >1 d to >8.5 mos). 7 patients (41%) are progression free and 3 patients have completed 12 cycles. Median follow-up and TTP were 9.2 and 8.9 mos, respectively. Conclusions: These preliminary results demonstrate that single-agent CFZ is tolerable for at least 1 yr and achieves sustained responses in relapsed MM. Prior BTZ mono/combination therapy does not preclude durable response with CFZ. These data support continuing evaluation of CFZ in the treatment of relapsed MM. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Abstract We generated eight multiple myeloma cell lines resistant to bortezomib; five acquired PSMB5 mutations. In 1,500 patients such mutations were rare clinically. To better understand disruption of proteasomes on multiple myeloma viability and drug sensitivity, we systematically deleted the major proteasome catalytic subunits. Multiple myeloma cells without PSMB5 were viable. Drug-resistant, PSMB5-mutated cell lines were resensitized to bortezomib by PSMB5 deletion, implying PSMB5 mutation is activating in its drug resistance function. In contrast, PSMB6 knockout was lethal to multiple myeloma cell lines. Depleting PSMB6 prevented splicing of the major catalytic subunits PSMB5, PSMB7, PSMB8, and PSMB10; however, PSMB6 engineered without splicing function or catalytic activity, also restored viability, inferring the contribution of PSMB6 to proteasome structure to be more important than functional activity. Supporting this, bortezomib sensitivity was restored in drug-resistant multiple myeloma cell lines by low level expression of mutated PSMB6 lacking splicing function. Loss of PSMB8 and PSMB9 was neither lethal nor restored bortezomib sensitivity. Significant codependency of PSMB5, PSMB6, and PSMB7 expression was observed. We demonstrated elevated levels of PSMB6 and 7, but not 8 and 9, in some, but not all, serial patient samples exposed to proteasome inhibitors. In summary, we show PSMB6 and PSMB7, but not PSMB5, to be essential for multiple myeloma cell survival, this dependency is structural and that upregulation or activating mutation of PSMB5, 6, and 7 confers proteasome inhibitor resistance, while depletion confers sensitivity. Implications: These findings support modulation of PSMB5, PSMB6, or PSMB7 expression as a new therapeutic strategy.

e19136 Background: Patient reported side effect bother is needed to understand tolerability of cancer drugs. We examined whether increase in side effect bother from baseline to cycle 7 as measured by a single item (GP5) from the FACT-G, “I am bothered by side effects of treatment”, was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) in a multiple myeloma (MM) trial. Methods: Data were drawn from the induction phase of ECOG ACRIN E1A06, a two arm, phase 3 trial conducted in patients with untreated MM. The induction phase occurred over twelve, 28-day cycles. GP5 was assessed at registration and cycle 7. ETD was defined as completion of less than 12 cycles of treatment. We tested whether increase in side effect bother on the GP5 from baseline to cycle 7 was associated with months to ETD in two ways. At each timepoint, GP5 was rated with these response options: “Not at all”, “A little bit”, “Somewhat”, “Quite a bit”, “Very Much”. First, we stratified Kaplan Meier curves by patients with versus without substantially increased side effect burden from registration to cycle 7 on the GP5, defined as an increase of > 2 response categories; Cox regression was used to calculate a hazard ratio. Second, we fit a joint model of the GP5 change trajectory on months to ETD that substituted the estimated slope of a longitudinal logistic regression model into the hazard function of a Cox model. In this model, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all/”A little bit”; 1 = “Somewhat”/ “Quite a bit”/ “Very Much”. Results: 159 patients were followed during induction for a median of 11 months (range: 0.2-16.0). 10 patients (6%) reported a substantial increase on GP5 from registration to cycle 7. After 16 months, these patients had a significantly higher hazard of ETD as estimated by Kaplan Meier methods: 40% experienced ETD vs. 24% of patients without substantial GP5 increase [hazard ratio (HR): 3.08 (95% CI: 1.18-8.02)]. In the joint model, the effect of GP5 on hazard of ETD was larger [HR: 9.56 (95% CI: 2.41-37.82)]. Conclusions: This study found initial evidence that increase in side effect bother as measured by the GP5 predicts ETD and may therefore reflect treatment intolerability in cancer drug trials. The effects found in this study will be tested for replication in additional ECOG-ACRIN trials with diverse designs, treatments, and cancer types. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 .