Grosicki, Sebastian

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

TPS7583 Background: Covalent (c) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) have reshaped the treatment landscape for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and are now often used as initial therapy. The MURANO study established 2-year fixed duration venetoclax plus rituximab as a standard of care regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL. However, its efficacy has not been formally assessed in CLL/SLL patients treated with a cBTKi, a common setting where this regimen is used in contemporary practice. Pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi, inhibits both wildtype and C481-mutant BTK with equal low nM potency, and has favorable oral pharmacology that enables continuous BTK inhibition throughout the dosing interval regardless of intrinsic rate of BTK turnover. In the phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib demonstrated promising durable overall response rates (ORR) and was well tolerated in patients with pre-treated CLL/SLL regardless of prior therapy (including cBTKi), number of prior lines of therapy, BTK C481 mutation status, or reason for prior cBTKi discontinuation. The study's objective is to assess the superiority of adding time-limited pirtobrutinib to the MURANO regimen, hypothesized to prolong disease control in a largely BTKi-pretreated population. Methods: BRUIN CLL-322 (NCT04965493) is a randomized, open-label, global, phase 3 study comparing time-limited pirtobrutinib (200mg QD) plus venetoclax and rituximab versus venetoclax and rituximab in previously treated CLL/SLL patients. Approximately 600 patients, 80% who have been previously treated with cBTKi, will be randomized 1:1 and stratified by del(17p) status (yes/no) and prior BTKi experience (discontinuation due to progressive disease vs due to other reasons vs no prior BTKi exposure). Eligible patients are adults diagnosed with CLL/SLL and require therapy per iwCLL 2018 criteria who have received prior therapy that may or may not include a cBTKi. There are no restrictions on the number of lines of prior therapy. Key exclusion criteria include CNS involvement by CLL/SLL, Richter transformation at any time, prior BCL2 inhibitor or non-covalent BTK inhibitor, or a history of either allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant, or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy within 60 days prior to randomization. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per iwCLL criteria assessed by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints include investigator assessed PFS, ORR, overall survival, time to next treatment, event-free survival, safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. Enrollment is ongoing for patients previously treated with BTKi and completed for BTKi naïve patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04965493 .

Background Maintenance therapy improves PFS in NDMM pts. Additional active, well-tolerated treatment options that are suitable for long-term administration are required. The international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM4 trial (NCT02312258) of the oral PI ixazomib as maintenance therapy post-induction in non-transplant NDMM pts met its primary endpoint of PFS. Ixazomib demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful benefit vs placebo, with a manageable and well-tolerated toxicity profile. Feasible, tolerable options for long-term therapy are particularly important in this setting, as pts are often elderly and/or frail. We report herein a subgroup analysis of TOURMALINE-MM4 according to age and frailty status. Methods Pts who achieved ≥partial response (PR) after 6-12 months of standard-of-care induction therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib or placebo maintenance for up to 24 months. The sum of 4 components - age (<75 vs 75-80 vs >80 years; score 0 vs 1 vs 2), the Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL; >4 vs ≤4, score 0 vs 1), the Lawton Instrumental ADL Scale (>5 vs ≤5, score 0 vs 1), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (≤1 vs ≥2, score 0 vs 1) - was used to classify pts as fit (total score: 0), unfit (score: 1), or frail (score: ≥2). Analyses of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and MY20 modules were conducted to evaluate the effects of treatment on QoL within subgroups defined by frailty status and age. Results In the ixazomib (n=425) vs placebo (n=281) arms, there were similar proportions of pts aged <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years and of pts classified as fit, unfit, and frail (Table 1). Baseline disease and treatment characteristics were generally balanced in ixazomib vs placebo pts across the different age and frailty groups, with some numerical differences observed. In pts aged <65 years, higher rates of International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease and fit pts and a lower rate of complete (CR) or very good partial (VGPR) response post-induction were seen (Table 1). Across frailty groups, a higher rate of CR or VGPR was seen in fit pts, a lower rate of ISS stage III disease was seen in unfit pts, and a higher rate of ISS stage III disease and a lower rate of CR or VGPR were seen in frail pts (Table 1). PFS benefit with ixazomib vs placebo was seen across age groups, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.576 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.299-1.108, p=0.095, median 11.0 vs 9.3 months) in pts aged <65 years, 0.615 (95% CI 0.467-0.810, p<0.001, median 17.9 vs 9.3 months) in pts aged 65-74, and 0.740 (95% CI 0.537-1.019, p=0.064, median 16.7 vs 10.2 months) in pts aged ≥75 years. HRs for time to progression (TTP) were similar to those for PFS. PFS benefit with ixazomib vs placebo was also seen across frailty groups (Figure), with similar HRs for TTP. Rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuation due to TEAEs were higher or similar with ixazomib vs placebo across age and frailty subgroups (Table 2). Rates were generally somewhat higher in older age groups and in unfit/frail pts in both arms; nevertheless, rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs across groups were <20%, even in pts aged ≥75 years and frail pts (Table 2). With ixazomib, rates of common gastrointestinal TEAEs were similar across age groups; rash and liver impairment appeared less common and peripheral neuropathy more common in older pts (Table 2). Covariate-adjusted changes in QoL subscales from baseline were estimated at each cycle using repeated measures linear mixed models stratified by frailty status. In all frailty groups, the mean changes in each treatment arm were small over time (<10 points on a 0-100 scale) and similar between arms, indicating that continued treatment with ixazomib vs placebo maintenance did not adversely affect pts' QoL. Analyses by age were generally consistent with the results by frailty. Conclusions Ixazomib as post-induction maintenance therapy in non-transplant NDMM pts results in PFS benefits vs placebo regardless of age or frailty status. Ixazomib appeared generally well tolerated across groups, with TEAE rates in both arms generally elevated in elderly/frail vs younger/fit pts. Ixazomib is a feasible and effective maintenance option for prolonging PFS across this heterogeneous pt population. Disclosures Bringhen: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vorog:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Wang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Cherepanov:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Cain:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Manne:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Current Employment. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not undergoing stem cell transplantation

Abstract Introduction In 2 large phase 3 trials of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL, single-agent ibrutinib (ibr) was superior to ofatumumab (ofa) (RESONATE; Byrd. NEJM 2013) and ibr + BR was superior to placebo + BR (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan. ASCO 2015). Both studies evaluated ibr in different pt populations with different relevant comparators (eg, ofa in pts who had relapsed following prior anti-CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy [CIT] and/or with del17p, and BR in pts eligible for CIT). In the absence of head-to-head evaluations of single-agent ibr vs BR or single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, indirect comparisons can be used for hypothesis testing by potentially providing insights on the relative efficacy of treatments. As such, an indirect comparative analysis of data from RESONATE and HELIOS was performed. Recognizing biases inherent in cross-trial comparisons, including lack of randomization across trials and consequent differences in distributions of important confounding variables (eg, pt characteristics, prognostic factors), we used pt-level data from both studies to risk adjust for confounders using accepted multivariate statistical approaches. Methods In RESONATE, pts received 420 mg oral ibr daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or intravenous ofa for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of OS and ORR. In HELIOS, pts received BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either 420 mg oral ibr daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with del17p were excluded. The primary end point was IRC-assessed PFS, with secondary end points of ORR and OS. Per protocol amendment in both studies, pts in comparator arms could switch to ibr upon IRC-confirmed progression. The current exploratory analysis was based on the latest available data from each trial (median time on study: RESONATE, 19 months; HELIOS, 17 months) using investigator assessments, but excluding del17p pts from RESONATE. Analyses were performed using data from both the overall CLL/SLL population and only the CLL pts. Separate multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for PFS and OS, including treatment and clinically relevant prognostic variables as covariates (age, gender, Rai staging, ECOG score, del11q status, refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, bulky disease, IgVH status). Adjusted HRs and 95% CIs are presented vs single-agent ibr, along with predicted survival curves derived from the multivariate Cox regressions. Results RESONATE and HELIOS enrolled populations with notable differences making naïve comparison flawed. Because HELIOS enrolled only CIT-eligible pts, the trial included younger pts who had received fewer lines of therapy, as well as lower proportions of pts with purine analog refractory disease, del11q, or Rai stage 4 disease. These factors have been previously reported to influence outcomes in pts with R/R CLL/SLL and thus were included as covariates in the statistical models. Other baseline factors (gender, ECOG score, bulky disease, and IgVH status) were not notably different between the trials, but were found to impact PFS and OS and thus were included as additional covariates. In the overall CLL/SLL population, PFS and OS were comparable for single-agent ibr vs ibr + BR, and were significantly improved for single-agent ibr vs BR (Figure 1). Results for only the CLL pts were similar to those shown in Figure 1 for both PFS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.03 [0.61-1.75], p = 0.9042; BR vs single-agent ibr: 7.52 [4.72-11.99], p < 0.0001; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of progression/death by 87% vs BR) and OS (ibr + BR vs single-agent ibr: 1.20 [0.59-2.43], p = 0.6197; BR vs single-agent ibr: 2.24 [1.14-4.40], p = 0.0197; single-agent ibr reduced the risk of death by 55% vs BR). Conclusions The adjusted indirect comparisons reported here suggest superiority of single-agent ibr over BR for PFS and OS in patients with R/R CLL/SLL. The comparisons also suggest that the addition of BR to ibr did not improve PFS or OS compared with single-agent ibr. However, as median PFS has not been reached for either ibr arm, it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Longer follow-up in the ibr arms of these studies will be required to give an indication of whether CIT adds any benefit to ibrutinib for PFS and OS. Overall, these findings provide support for single-agent ibr as an appropriate choice for all pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Disclosures Hillmen: Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cymbalista:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Cheng:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib has become a new standard of care in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL based on the phase 3 RESONATE study (Byrd, et al. NEJM 2014) and other trials evaluating ibrutinib mainly as a single agent in CLL. The first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (HELIOS) investigating ibrutinib in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) was recently reported (Chanan-Khan, et al. ASCO 2015), with ibrutinib significantly extending progression-free survival and reducing the risk of progression/death by 80%. The study design provides an opportunity to examine the overall safety and management of adverse events (AEs) with ibrutinib and placebo in a blinded manner that previously has not been possible. Here we examine the safety and management of AEs with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in HELIOS. Methods Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib 420 mg daily or placebo (n = 289 in each group). Safety was a secondary end point. Results Median exposure to ibrutinib and placebo was 14.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Rates of infection in the ibrutinib + BR and placebo + BR arms were similar (all-grade, 70.4%; grade ≥ 3, 26.8% vs all-grade, 70.0%; grade ≥ 3, 22.6%, respectively) but exposure-adjusted analysis reveals an overall lower rate of infections with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (10.3/100 vs 11.2/100 patient-months), with similar rates of grade ≥ 3 infections (2.4/100 patient-months each arm). Rates of all-grade (grade 3/4) anemia were 22.3% (3.5%) with ibrutinib + BR and 28.9% (8.0%) with placebo + BR. Patients also required fewer transfusions with ibrutinib + BR (23%) vs placebo + BR (29%), the majority of which were red blood cell transfusions. Similar proportions of patients used growth factors in both arms (54% vs 52%, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported at similar rates in both arms (53.7% vs 50.5%, respectively); however, fewer patients discontinued due to treatment-related neutropenia with ibrutinib + BR (1.0%) vs placebo + BR (2.8%). Rates of thrombocytopenia were slightly higher with ibrutinib + BR (30.7%) than placebo + BR (24.0%), but rates of grade 3/4 events were similar between arms (15.0% each arm). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed more frequently in patients on ibrutinib + BR than placebo + BR (7.3% vs 2.8% overall and 2.8% vs 0.7% grade 3/4, respectively). However, only 4 patients with grade 3/4 AF discontinued therapy in the ibrutinib arm. No patients with grade 1/2 AF discontinued treatment. One-third of patients held ibrutinib treatment to manage AF, with all restarting at the same dose (420 mg). Median (range) time to onset was 3.0 (0.3-17.5) months with ibrutinib + BR and 2.4 (0.6-18.9) months with placebo + BR. Importantly, in those with a prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm, only 7/25 receiving ibrutinib + BR and 2/22 receiving placebo + BR developed AF/atrial flutter on study. The rates of any-grade bleeding were 31.0% and 14.6%, respectively, with the majority being grade 1 (77.5% and 69.0%, respectively). Low rates of grade 3/4 major bleeding were observed in the ibrutinib + BR (2.1%) and placebo + BR (1.7%) arms. Many patients (41.8% ibrutinib + BR, 41.1% placebo + BR) were receiving concomitant anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication. A low rate of treatment-related lymphocytosis was observed in both arms (7.0% ibrutinib + BR, 5.9% placebo + BR). The majority of cases resolved within 2 weeks. Conclusions In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ibrutinib to BR was well tolerated and did not significantly impact the safety profile of BR. In addition, ibrutinib was associated with reduced rates of anemia and transfusional support. Consistent with its known toxicity profile, patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm had higher rates of bleeding (mostly grade 1 or 2) and AF; however, few patients discontinued therapy as a result of these AEs. A prior history of AF or abnormal heart rhythm did not lead to recurrent episodes in the majority of cases. Taken together, the results from HELIOS establish the significant efficacy of ibrutinib and also the overall positive risk-benefit profile of ibrutinib + BR. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Demirkan:Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement; Amgen: Consultancy. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Janssens:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Recent results from the HELIOS phase 3 study in relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL demonstrated that the addition of ibrutinib to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) leads to an 80% reduction in risk of progression or death compared with placebo + BR (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In addition to prolongation of progression-free survival (PFS; median not reached vs 13.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.203, 95% confidence interval: 0.150-0.276, p<0.0001), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) were significantly improved with ibrutinib + BR (ORR: 82.7% vs 67.8%; CR/CRi: 10.4% vs 2.8%). Here we report additional analyses on the quality of response with ibrutinib combined with BR. Methods In total, 578 patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL requiring treatment were randomized 1:1 (289 per arm) to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo. Purine analog refractoriness (yes vs no) and number of prior therapies (1 vs > 1) were stratification factors. Pts with deletion 17p (del17p; > 20% of cells) were excluded. All pts were required to have ≥ 1 abnormal lymph node (LN; defined as a measurable lesion > 1.5 cm). The primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. In this analysis, individual parameters of response (LN, spleen, overall radiology, absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], complete blood count [CBC], and bone marrow [BM]) were evaluated. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by flow cytometry using an 8-color panel (Rawstron AC, et al. Leukemia. 2007;21:956-964); MRD samples were collected at confirmation of suspected CR (bone marrow) and every 3 months thereafter (peripheral blood). Rate of MRD-negative response was defined as the proportion of pts who reached negative disease status (< 0.01%, ie, < 1 CLL cell/10,000 leukocytes) in any sample. Reported MRD rates are based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The ORR assessed by the IRC was 82.7% with ibrutinib + BR vs 67.8% with placebo + BR (p < 0.0001), and was consistent with ORR reported by the treating physician (investigator assessed) (ORR: 86.2% vs 68.9%, p < 0.0001). However, rates of CR/CRi were higher by investigator assessment (21.4%, ibrutinib + BR vs 5.9%, placebo + BR) than IRC (10.4% vs 2.8%). The IRC employed an independent evaluation of radiological scans including stringent evaluation of LN and volumetric assessment of spleen size-the main reasons for the difference in CR/CRi rates between investigator and IRC assessment. At baseline, similar proportions of pts in each arm had bulky disease defined as LN > 5 cm (54%-58%) or abnormal spleen (~40%) as assessed by IRC. Complete resolution of previous CLL/SLL manifestations as assessed by the IRC was achieved more often in the ibrutinib + BR arm in comparison with placebo + BR for LN (34.6% vs 15.2%), spleen (56.7% vs 37.0%), overall radiology (21.1% vs 9.0%), and BM (19.7% vs 5.9%). Rates of normalization of ALC (> 90%) and CBC (> 70%) were high and similar in the 2 arms. MRD was assessed in 120 pts treated with ibrutinib + BR and 57 pts treated with placebo + BR and was negative in 37 pts and 14 pts, respectively, which corresponds with an MRD-negative response rate of 12.8% vs 4.8% for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (p = 0.0011). Investigator-determined responses by different levels of MRD are shown in Table 1. The percentage of pts with an MRD level < 1% was higher with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (32.2% vs 11.8%). Moreover, the percentage of pts with an MRD level < 0.1% was higher for ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (24.6% vs 7.6%) suggesting that the depth of response with ibrutinib + BR was superior. Kaplan-Meier plots by MRD level (Figure 1) show that a lower MRD level was associated with a longer PFS. However, pts in the ibrutinib + BR arm had a more sustained response at every MRD level compared with pts in the placebo + BR arm. Conclusions Pts treated with ibrutinib + BR showed not only a higher ORR, but also a greater depth of response, with more CRs and a higher rate of resolution of LN, spleen, and BM involvement. Furthermore, the rate and depth of MRD negativity was improved, and appeared to last longer in pts treated with ibrutinib + BR compared with pts receiving placebo + BR. With a median follow up of 17 months in the ibrutinib + BR arm, no MRD-negative pts and few MRD-positive pts had progressed, thus evaluating a trend in PFS with MRD negativity is currently limited in this arm. Disclosures Cramer: Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Combination of bendamustine, obinutuzumab and ibrutinib for treatment of CLL. Fraser:Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel reimbursement. Santucci Silva:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement. Janssens:Mundipharma: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mayer:Janssen: Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Bartlett:Millenium: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Rule:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; J&J: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel reimbursement; Gilead: Research Funding. Sun:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hallek:AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of BTK that has excellent single-agent activity in patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, based on results of published clinical studies. In the HELIOS trial, addition of ibrutinib to BR resulted in an 80% reduction in disease progression or death and confirmed for the first time, in a randomized setting, the benefit of ibrutinib-based therapy compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in previously treated patients (Chanan-Khan et al. ASCO 2015). In patients with CLL or SLL, deletion 17p (del17p) and 11q (del11q), complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH, and elevated ZAP70 are known high-risk prognostic factors. The current analysis reports on the efficacy of ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in patients in the HELIOS trial with relevant high-risk biomarkers. Methods HELIOS is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with active CLL/SLL following ≥ 1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive BR (≤ 6 cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) (n = 289) or placebo (n = 289). Patients with del17p (> 20% of cells) were excluded. Ninety patients in the placebo arm with independent review committee (IRC)-confirmed progressive disease crossed over to ibrutinib, per protocol amendment. The primary end point was IRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. A total of 287 patients in each arm had data available for at least 1 biomarker, and this population was used for the biomarker analyses. Correlation of biological risk factors at baseline with PFS and OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and curves compared using log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using univariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results At a median follow-up of 17 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR in the overall study population (median not reached vs 13.3 months, respectively; HR: 0.203; 95% CI: 0.150-0.276; p < 0.0001). All subgroups of patients, including those with adverse prognostic parameters, e.g., del11q, complex karyotype, unmutated IgVH and elevated ZAP70 levels, had a significantly longer PFS with the addition of ibrutinib to BR as compared with placebo + BR (Table 1). As expected, each of these adverse prognostic parameters had a negative impact on PFS in the placebo + BR arm, e.g., the median PFS was shortest in patients with complex karyotype [8.5 months vs 13.8 months in patients without complex karyotype] and in patients with unmutated IgVH (11.3 months vs 22.1 months in patients with mutated IgVH). Interestingly, in the ibrutinib + BR arm, the adverse impact of these risk factors could not be detected (median PFS not reached irrespective of presence of risk factors). For example, in Figure 1 showing the PFS curves stratified by both del11q status and treatment, the outcome for patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm with del11q was similar to those without, with a trend toward better outcome in the del11q patients (e.g., longer PFS - not reached vs 24.9 months), unlike for patients in the placebo + BR arm (11.01 months vs 13.86 months). In patients with del11q, unmutated IgVH, or elevated ZAP70, there were also statistically significant benefits in OS for those receiving ibrutinib + BR vs placebo + BR (del11q: HR: 0.326, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.122-0.870; p = 0.025; unmutated IgVH: HR: 0.515, 95% CI, 0.298-0.890: p = 0.017; elevated ZAP70, HR 0.536, 95% CI, 0.289-0.994: p = 0.048). Addition of ibrutinib also increased PFS in patient subgroups with other cytogenetic or clinical prognostic markers (such as del13q or bulky disease) compared with placebo. Conclusions All subgroups of patients, irrespective of adverse risk factors, such as del11q, complex karyotype, elevated ZAP70, and unmutated IgVH, benefit from the addition of ibrutinib to BR compared with placebo + BR. The negative impact of these known risk factors is apparent in patients in the placebo + BR arm, but is not seen in patients in the ibrutinib + BR arm. These results suggest that ibrutinib + BR is a suitable treatment regimen for all patients with previously treated CLL/SLL, including those with high-risk prognostic markers. Disclosures Cramer: Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Fraser:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Santucci Silva:Janssen: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel reimbursement; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel reimbursement, Research Funding. Dilhuydy:Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel reimbursement; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Goy:Allos, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Genentech, and Millennium. Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mato:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; TA Therapeutics: Research Funding. Damle:Janssen: Employment. Phelps:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen: Employment, Other: Travel reimbursement. Salman:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schaffer:Janssen: Employment. Howes:Janssen/J&J: Employment, Equity Ownership. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with CLL/SLL that have del11q tend to have relatively short remission durations and shorter overall survival (OS) with standard chemotherapy regimens. Ibrutinib (ibr), a first-in-class, oral, once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is indicated by the US FDA for the treatment of pts with CLL/SLL and allows for treatment without chemotherapy. In phase 3 studies, treatment with single-agent ibr was superior to treatment with ofatumumab (ofa) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL/SLL (RESONATE; Byrd, N Engl J Med 2013) or chlorambucil (clb) in treatment-naïve (TN) CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2; Burger, N Engl J Med 2015); treatment with ibr + bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was also superior to treatment with BR in R/R CLL/SLL (HELIOS; Chanan-Khan, Lancet Oncol 2016). We examined the outcome of pts in these 3 studies who did or did not have del11q to determine the impact of del11q on clinical outcomes. Methods: In RESONATE, pts with R/R CLL/SLL received ibr 420 mg/day until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (tox) vs ofa for up to 24 weeks (300 mg week 1, 2000 mg weekly for 7 weeks, 2000 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks). In RESONATE-2, pts ≥65 years of age with TN CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received ibr 420 mg/day until PD or tox vs clb 0.5 mg/kg (up to max of 0.8 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (≤12 cycles). In HELIOS, pts with R/R CLL/SLL (excluding del17p) received BR (≤6 cycles) with or without ibr 420 mg/day (starting on day 2 of cycle 1) followed by single-agent ibr or placebo continued until PD or tox. Data from pts in the 3 studies were pooled (ibr pool, comparator pool) and analyzed based on whether or not their CLL/SLL had del11q. We performed a multivariate analysis to examine for risk factors prognostic for survival (del11q del17p, age, sex, race, current Rai stage, baseline ECOG PS, number of prior therapies, cytopenias; no multiplicity adjustment). Results: A total of 1210 pts with del11q data were included in the analysis: 609 in the ibr pool (179 with del11q, 430 without del11q) vs 601 in the comparator pool (149 with del11q, 452 without del11q). Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar in pts regardless of del11q status; differences of more than 10% included proportions with bulky disease ≥5 cm (63% vs 49%) and unmutated IGHV (88% vs 72%) in pts with or without del11q, respectively. Median lymphadenopathy and absolute lymphocyte counts were also higher in pts with del11q. At the time of the primary analysis, median treatment durations in the ibr pool were 20.0 mo with del11q and 18.7 mo without del11q; in the comparator pool 5.3 mo with del11q and 8.5 mo without del11q. Overall, ibr-treated pts had higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS, Figure) and OS than comparator-treated pts regardless of del11q status. In the ibr pool, the presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS while in the comparator pool, pts with del11q had shorter PFS (Figure, Table), as compared to pts without del11q. Results were similar when excluding pts with del17p (10% of ibr pool [6%/11% with/without del11q] and 9% of comparator pool [8%/10% with/without del11q]; Table). By multivariate analysis, in the comparator pool, del11q, male sex, >1 prior therapy, presence of cytopenias, and unmutated IGHV (in R/R only) were associated with shorter PFS. However, these differences were not found in the ibr pool. The presence of del11q did not unfavorably impact the tempo of reductions in lymphadenopathy for ibr-treated pts, but did for comparator-treated pts. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in ibr- and comparator-treated pts (12% [9% vs 13% with/without del11q] vs 13% [12% vs 13% with/without del11q]). Deaths within 30 days of last dose occurred in 31 pts (5% [3% vs 6% with/without del11q]) in the ibr pool and 28 pts (5% [6% vs 4% with/without del11q]) in the comparator pool. Conclusions: Treatment with ibr was superior to comparator regardless of del11q status; the benefit of ibr was most marked for pts with CLL/SLL with del11q. Presence of del11q was associated with a trend of longer PFS and OS in ibr-treated pts and shorter PFS and lower ORR in comparator-treated pts. By multivariate analysis, presence of del11q was a prognostic factor for shorter PFS for comparator-treated pts, but not for ibr-treated pts. Disclosures Kipps: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Demirkan:Amgen: Consultancy. Coutre:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fraser:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Cramer:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Astellas: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Salman:Janssen Research & Development: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Solman:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Cheng:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment. Phelps:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ninomoto:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; Amgen, Inc.: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Howes:Janssen: Employment, Other: Leadership; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. James:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Employment; AbbVie: Equity Ownership. Hallek:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), is approved by the US FDA, in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of pts who have received at least 1 prior therapy. Lenalidomide is a common partner agent in regimens for RRMM; however, due to increasing use of lenalidomide treatment to progression as a standard of care in the first-line setting, novel PI-based combinations without lenalidomide are needed for RRMM. Combinations of a PI, an alkylating agent, and dexamethasone have been shown to be active, with manageable side effects, in RRMM patients (e.g. VCD - bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone), but require SC or IV administration of the PI. The all-oral combination of ICd may offer activity, tolerability, and more convenient administration. This open-label, multicenter phase 2 study (NCT02046070) assessed the safety and efficacy of ICd in pts with RRMM. Methods Adult pts with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy, who had ECOG performance status 0-2, were not PI-refractory, had adequate hematologic, renal, cardiac, and hepatic function, and did not have grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) or grade 1 PN with pain, were eligible. Pts received oral ixazomib 4.0 mg and oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged &gt;75 yrs) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; ≥partial response [PR]); secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), complete response (CR) plus very good PR (VGPR) rate, CR rate, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results 78 pts were enrolled; median age was 64 yrs (40% aged &gt;65 yrs), 53% were male, median time from initial diagnosis was 53.4 months (range, 12.9-142.7), and 24%/27% had ISS stage II/III disease at diagnosis. Median number of prior therapies was 2, including prior bortezomib, lenalidomide, and stem cell transplant (SCT) in 45 (58%), 38 (49%), and 50 (64%) pts, respectively; 17% were immunomodulatory-drug-naive. At data cut-off (June 20, 2016), pts had received a median of 12 treatment cycles (range, 1-22). A total of 51 (65%) pts had discontinued treatment, primarily due to disease progression (26 pts, 33%) and AEs (13 pts, 17%). Overall, 92% of pts reported AEs, including 59% with grade ≥3 AEs (51%/71% in pts aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs), and 29% with serious AEs (30%/29%). Common AEs are listed in Table 1. AEs resulted in dose reductions of any study drug in 28 (36%) pts (28%/48% of pts aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs) and treatment discontinuation in 11 (14%) pts (15%/13% aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs). Ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone were dose modified in 83%, 85%, and 87% of pts, respectively. Median ixazomib relative dose intensity was 96%. There were 3 on-study deaths: cardiac arrest, severe pulmonary edema, and cerebral hemorrhage secondary to thrombocytopenia, with the latter considered treatment-related. PK data showed that ixazomib exposures were comparable to those in pts treated with IRd in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study, suggesting no PK interaction with Cd. ORR was 49%, including 16% CR+VGPR (Table 2); in pts with/without prior SCT, ORR was 41%/61% (15%/18% CR+VGPR). Median TTR in responding pts was 2.14 months; median DOR was not reached, with response durations of up to 17 months. After a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median PFS was not reached; 12-month PFS rate estimate was 57.5%. Subgroup analysis showed a higher ORR (68% vs 35%), a higher CR+VGPR rate (23% vs 12%), and a significant PFS improvement in pts aged &gt;65 yrs vs pts aged ≤65 yrs (12-month PFS rate estimate 67.2% vs 50.7%; HR=0.43, p=0.028) (Figure). Although pts aged &gt;65 yrs were less likely to have had prior SCT than those aged ≤65 yrs (22% vs 78%), this did not appear to account fully for the difference in outcomes (PFS in pts without vs with prior SCT, HR=0.82, p=0.6). Conclusions All-oral triplet therapy with ICd appears to have activity in RRMM pts, with a toxicity profile consistent with that seen with ixazomib in combination with Rd (Moreau, et al; N Engl J Med 2016). Preliminary best response and PFS data suggest there may be preferential benefit in elderly pts compared to younger patients (possibly related in part to more limited use of prior high-dose alkylator [melphalan] exposure associated with SCT in elderly pts) albeit with additional toxicity. Disclosures Kumar: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grzasko:Celgene: Honoraria; Munipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Jędrzejczak:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Angelini: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kyrtsonis:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead Science: Equity Ownership; Array: Equity Ownership. Byrne:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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.