Abonour, Rafat

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is typically diagnosed in patients (pts) aged 65-74 y (SEER: Myeloma. 2019); therefore, many pts present with concomitant metabolic disorders such as diabetes (18%-22% prevalence of type 2 diabetes [T2D; BMC Cancer. 2020;20:489]). Obesity (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 30 kg/m2) is associated with increased prevalence of T2D (Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:737), and both are suggested risk factors for MM (Blood. 2012;119:4845; Bone Marrow Transpl. 2014;49:1009). Results from single-center, retrospective studies have shown poorer clinical features and survival outcomes in diabetic pts with MM vs their nondiabetic counterparts (Eur J Haematol. 2012;89:320, Br J Cancer. 2014;111:628). The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of largely community-based pts with NDMM. Reported here is a descriptive analysis assessing differences in baseline (BL) characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts enrolled in the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts with NDMM (N = 3011) were enrolled at 250 community, academic, and government sites. Eligible pts were aged ≥ 18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤ 2 months (mo) pre-enrollment per International Myeloma Working Group criteria (Leukemia. 2009;23:3). Diabetic pts were defined as those with a history of diabetes and also receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL; those without a history of diabetes and not receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL were defined as nondiabetic pts. Descriptive statistics were used for BL characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]) were analyzed using Cox regression and adjusted for covariates. Results: Of the 2845 pts included in this analysis, 467 (16%) were diabetic, and 2378 (84%) were nondiabetic. The median age was 69 y for diabetic pts and 66 y for nondiabetic pts, with fewer Black pts (12.2% vs 19.5%) in the nondiabetic group. The proportion of men was higher in the diabetic vs the nondiabetic group (61.9% vs 56.6%). Similar percentages of pts had ECOG PS of 0-1 in both groups (53.3% vs 55.3%). Obesity was more prevalent in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts (55.9% vs 30.4%). More diabetic pts had a history of hypertension requiring treatment vs nondiabetic pts (84.2% vs 52.5%). The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities was comparable between the groups (within the limitation that data were missing in a substantial number of pts). Among MM-defining criteria, diabetic pts had a higher incidence of hypercalcemia (11.8% vs 8.5%), anemia (50.3% vs 46.5%), and increased creatinine (23.8% vs 19%), whereas measured kidney function was similar. A lower proportion of diabetic than nondiabetic pts received stem cell transplantation (SCT; 28.9% vs 41.5%) and triplet regimens during first induction (48.2% vs 52.8%%). The use of ≥ 2 novel agents during first line (1L) was lower in diabetic than nondiabetic pts (27.8% vs 34.6%), but use of a single novel agent (63.4% vs 60%) and alkylator in 1L (20.6% vs 22.4%) was comparable. The top five 1L regimens were similar for both groups, with lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone being the most common 1L regimen, and lenalidomide the most common maintenance therapy. Diabetic pts had significantly shorter adjusted median PFS (24.4 vs 31.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P = 0.001; Fig. 1A) and median OS (60 vs 72.6 mo; HR, 1.29; P = 0.001; Fig. 1B) than nondiabetic pts. In a subgroup analysis by BMI, diabetic pts had significantly shorter OS than nondiabetic pts (for BMI < 30 [50.8 vs 73.1 mo; HR, 1.51; P = 0.0001] and BMI ≥ 30 [56.4 vs 78.6 mo; HR, 1.51; P < 0.0001]). Conclusions: Diabetic pts with NDMM had poorer BL features and were less likely to receive SCT and triplet regimens and/or aggressive upfront treatment. Regardless of BMI, diabetic pts had shorter median OS than nondiabetic pts, suggesting that diabetes might be a stronger factor for survival than obesity. These results support a previous analysis of the Connect MM Registry that identified history of diabetes as a predictive prognostic factor for poor OS (Br J Haematol. 2019;187:602). Limitations of this analysis include limited detail on the care/management of diabetes and steroid use/dosage (which can be challenging for glycemic control). These findings highlight the need to provide better supportive care for diabetes management in MM pts to improve survival. Disclosures La: Celgene BMS: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hardin:Celgene Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Lee:Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Narang:Maryland Oncology Hematology: Current Employment; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Consultancy, Honoraria. Omel:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:McKesson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Other: Stock ownership; Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Mylan, Coherus BioSciences, Fresenius: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie sponsored clinical trials; Takeda, Amgen, BMS (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Newland Medical Associates: Current Employment; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dhalla:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:TechData Inc: Consultancy. Yang:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joshi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eisai Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Abonour:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) represents an intermediate stage between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and active myeloma with a high risk of progression to active MM, especially during the initial years after diagnosis. Available clinical risk factors have enabled development of risk stratification systems that allow for identification of patients at the highest risk of progression, opening opportunities for early intervention. Two phase 3 trials using lenalidomide with dexamethasone or lenalidomide alone have both shown benefit for early intervention by decreasing the risk of progression and improving the overall survival in the former. It remains unknown if an approach using a single active drug to delay progression, or one that uses therapies like active myeloma, represent a better approach; both are being studied in phase 3 trials. We designed this phase 2 trial to examine if an intense but limited duration therapy can possibly provide a significant elimination of the tumour burden that can potentially lead to long term responses. Patients and Methods: Patients with SMM (per updated IMWG definition of SMM) with high risk disease (defined by the IMWG updated risk stratification criteria- presence of any two of the following: Serum M spike > 2 gm/dL OR an involved to uninvolved FLC ratio > 20 OR bone marrow PC% > 20%) or a score of ≥9 using the risk scoring system using FLC ratio, serum M spike, marrow plasma cell% and presence of high risk FISH were enrolled provided they had adequate marrow and organ function. Patients with significant comorbidities such as heart disease were excluded from the trial. Treatment consisted of three phases: induction, consolidation and maintenance. Patients received carfilzomib (36 mg/m2 twice weekly or as per updated protocol 56mg/m2 weekly for 2 weeks), lenalidomide (25 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (weekly for 8 doses, every other week for 16 weeks) and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly, in 4 week cycles for 6 cycles as part of induction, the same regimen was administered with daratumumab every 4 weeks and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly for another 6 cycles for consolidation. This was followed by 12 cycles of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (10 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (day 1 every other cycle) of a 4-week cycle. Appropriate antiviral, and thrombosis prophylaxis were mandated. The primary endpoint of this trial is the rate of confirmed sCR as best response across all cycles of treatment. We plan to accrue 83 patients to this trial with one-stage binomial trial design to test the null hypothesis that the true success (sCR) proportion is at most 65% and the alternate hypothesis of 80%. Results: Forty-six patients have been accrued to the trial as of July 14, 2020. The median age of the study population is 63 years (range 47 - 76); 70% are male. Overall, 2% have completed the maintenance, 50% have completed the consolidation, 80% have completed the induction and 15% are in the induction phase; only two patients have gone off treatment. The reasons for going off treatment were patient preference. At least one patient needed a dose modification for each drug; 17%, 2%, 13% and 7% required dose reductions for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively. The relative median dose intensity for the drugs were 85%, 92%, 80% and 98% for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively across the delivered cycles. The adverse events seen in at least 5% of the patients are as shown in the figure. A grade 3 or higher AE was seen in 52% of patients. There were no treatment related deaths observed. Response rate and depth have been as expected for this regimen in myeloma and analysis is pending completed accrual. Figure 1 Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: 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; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Dhakal:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: AdvIsory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenbaum:Celgene: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Bensinger:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bhutani:Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

SummaryAlthough new multiple myeloma (MM) therapies are effective in alleviating some disease‐associated symptoms (e.g. bone pain, fatigue, functional decline), they can result in additional toxicities, further impacting health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Here, we compared HRQoL and safety of lenalidomide‐bortezomib‐dexamethasone [RVd (n = 445)], bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisone [VMP (n = 77)] and Vd or VMP (n = 588) in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) from the Connect® MM Registry, a large, USA, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Multiple Myeloma subscale, EuroQol‐5D overall score and Bone Pain Inventory HRQoL scores were significantly improved with RVd versus Vd/VMP. Serious adverse event rates were similar in all groups. Treatment with RVd maintained HRQoL in this real‐world, largely community‐based population of patients with NDMM.

8513 Background: Waldenström's macroglobulinemia is a low-grade lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma that is responsive to rituximab. Uniform response criteria define an objective response as a 50% reduction in the IgM level, and a minor response as a 25% reduction in IgM level. No publications in the literature exist that justify the use of the minor response. Clinicians who treat patients that achieve a minor response are left uncertain as to whether the response is adequate and patients should be monitored for progression or whether they should be considered therapy failures and crossover to an alternate chemotherapy regimen in an effort to achieve a deeper response. Methods: 69 patients, 34 previously untreated, and 35 previously treated (but rituximab naive) were included. All patients were treated with a single four-week course of rituximab 375 mg/m2 and were monitored with no further therapy until progression. Results: There were 19 objective and 17 minor responses out of 69 eligible patients (52.2%). Response rate and progression-free survival (26.6 mo) were similar whether patients were previously untreated or previously treated. Previously treated rituximab-naïve and previously untreated patients had, five-year survivals of 48% and 85%, respectively. There was no difference in overall or progression free survival between patients who achieved an objective response when compared to those who achieved a minor response. There was no difference between objective and minor responders by age, time from diagnosis to treatment in the treated group, bone marrow lymphoplasmacytes, hemoglobin level, creatinine, IgM level, or M-spike. The pre-treatment level of IgM did not predict overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, or response rate (All p>0.05). This lack of significance was found whether IgM was assessed as a continuous or discrete variable. Conclusions: These results reconfirm rituximab's efficacy as a single-agent for the treatment of Waldenström's macroglobulinemia, and patients who have a 25–50% reduction in their IgM protein derive significant clinical benefits that are durable and appear to not have an impact on overall survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

BackgroundStudies have reported racial disparities in access to and use of multiple myeloma (MM) treatments between African American (AA) and White patients. Although AA patients demonstrate longer disease‐specific survival, this has not uniformly translated into improved survival over time. The association between race and treatment patterns and survival outcomes was analyzed using data from the Connect MM Registry.MethodsThe Connect MM Registry is a large US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients who received first‐line (1L) stem cell transplantation (SCT) or who did not receive SCT (non‐SCT or non–stem cell transplantation [NSCT]) were grouped by raceEffects of race and transplantation status on the use of triplet treatment were estimated using logistic regression.ResultsTreatment patterns in 1L (types and duration of induction, posttransplantation maintenance) were similar between AA and White patients. SCT rates in 1L (32% vs 36%) and triplet treatment use (AA: 44% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients; and White: 48% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients) during first induction were similar. No significant effect of race or transplantation status on 1L triplet treatment use was observed. Race was not found to be associated with survival outcomes among patients who underwent NSCT; however, AA patients who received SCT had significantly longer overall survival compared with White patients who underwent SCT (not reached vs 88.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35‐0.89 [P = .0141]).ConclusionsAA and White patients were found to have similar treatment patterns in the Connect MM Registry, suggesting that both groups had equal access to health care. In this real‐world setting, AA patients received standard‐of‐care treatment, which might have contributed to better MM‐specific survival compared with White patients.

8518 Background: Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and renal impairment (RI) are often excluded from clinical trials. Data are limited on the effects of induction treatment in these pts, who may also be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) due to severity of RI. This analysis investigated the impact of RVd induction on renal function in transplant eligible (TE) and noneligible (TNE) pts from the Connect MM Registry, a US, multicenter, prospective, observational study. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 y and had symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤ 2 mos prior to enrollment, as defined by the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. For this analysis, pts that received front-line RVd for ≥ 3 cycles were grouped per transplant eligibility and renal function at baseline (BL; creatinine clearance [CrCl] < 30, 30-50, > 50-80, and > 80). Pts with progressive disease at BL were excluded. Renal function at 3 mos was measured. Median unadjusted progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from start of regimen in TE and TNE populations, with pts grouped by CrCl (≤ 60 or > 60) at BL. Results: As of 7/23/19, 421 TE and 212 TNE pts received RVd for ≥ 3 cycles. TE and TNE pts were grouped by BL CrCl of < 30 (20 and 16 pts), 30-50 (36 and 50 pts), > 50-80 (117 and 63 pts), and > 80 (248 and 83 pts). Renal function improvement was observed in all pts receiving RVd, including those with moderate (30-50 CrCl) and severe (< 30 CrCl) RI at BL (Table). In pts with > 60 CrCl and ≤ 60 CrCl at BL, median PFS in TE pts was 48.6 mos and 43.2 mos, respectively. In TNE pts, median PFS was 36.4 mos and 30.6 mos, respectively. Conclusions: The results from the Connect MM Registry indicate that pts with NDMM and RI (including moderate and severe) who receive front-line RVd for ≥ 3 cycles may see improvement in renal function at 3 mos, regardless of transplant eligibility. RVd therefore can potentially be used in pts with RI. This analysis provides real-world data that support further investigation of RVd treatment in pts with moderate or severe RI. Clinical trial information: NCT01081028 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are a common complication of therapy with the lenalidomide plus dexamethasone regimen. The incidence of VTE with RD is approximately 20%, and can be lowered with the use of effective thromboprophylaxis, avoidance of erythropoietin, and the use of lower doses of dexamethasone. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of VTE on overall survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma by studying events occurring in ECOG E4A03 phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The trial initially did not mandate routine thromboprophylaxis, but recommended that such treatment be considered. After the first 264 patients were enrolled the trial was amended to require mandatory thromboprophylaxis of aspirin for all patients, with a recommendation to use stronger thromboprophylaxis with either warfarin (target INR 2–3) or low molecular weight heparin among patients in the RD arm. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 30 months. Overall VTE including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 18.5% of patients; 25.6% in Arm A and 11.4% in Arm B. Rates for the first 4 cycles of treatment were 20.2% in Arm A and 8.2% in Arm B, P&lt;0.01. Rates did not change substantially before and after the prophylaxis amendment. A partial response (PR) or higher was seen in 82.1% of pts who experienced VTE compared with 74.6% of pts who did not experience VTE, P=0.19. Overall VGPR rates also were not inferior. Pts who had VTE, however, had significantly higher other grade 3–5 toxicities such as hyperglycemia (14.6% vs 7.5%, P=0.051), cardiac ischemia (4.9% vs 0.8%, P=0.002), non-neuropathic weakness (13.4% vs 6.4%, P=0.039), infection/pneumonia (17.1% vs 11.1%, P=0.138) and fatigue (18.3% vs 10.5%, P=0.060). In a Cox PH model, VTE status as a time-varying covariate was marginally significant: HR 1.54 95%CI (0.96–2.47), P=0.074, suggesting patients that develop VTE have a higher hazard of death. Conclusions: The occurrence of VTE may adversely affect the survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma receiving Rev-Dex. VTE was associated with a higher frequency of other serious adverse events. Prevention of VTE events is a priority. Besides lowering the dose of dexamethasone, studies investigating optimum thromboprophylaxis are needed.

Abstract Background: Outcome of patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) is influenced by a variety of baseline prognostic factors, most importantly presence of chromosomal abnormalities. Nevertheless, these biologically determined risk-factors do not account for a significant subset of patients whose outcome varies greatly from what one expects based on the underlying prognostic characteristics. We have previously demonstrated that outcome in myeloma is dictated not only by baseline risk-factors but also response to therapy (R2, risk and response dependent outcome). We studied response duration following initial therapy as a prognostic factor for long-term overall survival in myeloma in three ECOG clinical trials that enrolled patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Methods: Data from three studies with long-term, mature follow up were analyzed: E9486, E5A93, and E1A00. The regimens used in these studies included Thalidomide/Dex, Dex, VBMCP, VBMCP + alpha-IFN, and VBMCP + Cyclophosphamide. Among progressed/relapsed patients, the association between time to progression and overall survival since relapse was explored using Cox proportional hazards model, in which time to progression was analyzed as a continuous variable. In addition, the association between response duration and overall survival since relapse was explored similarly among relapsed responders. Treatment effect and calendar time of diagnosis have been adjusted in the model. Also, to determine the best cut off point associated with the best differentiation of patients with short OS after relapse, an outcome-oriented method using log likelihood value was applied. Results: Among the 1136 patients enrolled in the three studies, 625 patients who have documented disease relapse have been included in the current study. Of these, 471 patients had responded to the treatment before relapse. Only 33 patients are alive as of Dec., 2007. For all 625 patients, the time to progression (continuous variable) was significantly associated with overall survival from the time of relapse/progression (P&lt;0.0001), with hazard ratio of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72~0.81) at time to progression increasing by 1 year (i.e., the later the progression/relapse, the lower the risk). The best cutoff point of the time to progression is 3 yrs (the 75th percentile). The hazard ratio of patients progressing within 3 yrs since randomization vs. after 3 yrs is 2.4 (95% CI: 1.9 ~ 2.9) and P-value&lt;0.0001. The median OS from relapse was 0.96 years for the former vs. 2.43 years in the latter group (Figure). Among the 471 relapsed responders, the response duration (continuous variable) was also significantly associated with overall survival since relapse (P&lt;0.0001), with hazard ratio of 0.76 (95%CI: 0.70~0.81) at response duration increasing by 1 year (i.e., the longer the response duration, the lower the risk). The effects seen with each regimen are detailed in the table. The best cutoff point of the response duration is 2 yrs (median). The hazard ratio of patients with response duration less than or equal to 2 yrs vs. more than 2 yrs is 2.1 (95% CI: 1.7 ~ 2.6) and P-value&lt;0.0001. Conclusions: Among patients treated with alkylator based therapy, the duration of response from the initial therapy is an important predictor of the subsequent outcome among patients with myeloma. Given the heterogeneity of the disease and imprecise predictive ability of the known baseline prognostic factors, the duration of response to initial therapy should be taken into account, to deliver risk and response-adapted therapy. The prognostic value of this feature across different clinical trials, points towards the role of underlying disease biology, both disease aggressiveness and ability to rapidly develop resistance to therapies as two important determinants of outcome. Table 1: Hazard ratio of overall survival since relapse for patients progressed within 3 yrs since randomization vs. after 3 yrs in each treatment arm Treatment arm Treatment arm HR (95% CI) P-value TTP&lt;=3yrs vs. &gt;3 yrs Thal/Dex N/A N/A Dex 0.4 (0.05, 3.9) 0.46 VBMCP(E5A93+ E9486) 1.9 (1.4, 2.7) 0.0001 VBMCP+alpha2IFN (E5A93+ E9486) 3.0 (2.2, 4.1) &lt;0.0001 VBMCP+CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE 2.3 (1.5, 3.6) 0.0001 Response duration &lt;=2 yrs vs. &gt;2 yrs Thal/Dex 0.2 (0.003, 18.5) 0.51 Dex 0.15 (0.02, 0.98) 0.048 VBMCP(E5A93+ E9486) 1.7 (1.2, 2.3) 0.0009 VBMCP+alpha2IFN (E5A93+ E9486) 3.0(2.1, 4.3) &lt;0.0001 VBMCP+CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE 2.1 (1.4, 3.3) 0.006 Figure 1: Overall survival since relapse between patients progressed within 3 yrs since randomization vs. after 3 yrs. Figure 1:. Overall survival since relapse between patients progressed within 3 yrs since randomization vs. after 3 yrs.

Abstract Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a low-grade lymphoplasmacytic disorder associated with an IgM monoclonal protein that may present with anemia, lymphadenopathy, and hepatosplenomegaly. Since combination chemotherapy and Rituximab are both active in this disease, it is possible the response rate can be enhanced by using a combined modality of Rituximab and CHOP. This approach has been used in indolent lymphoma with remarkable results and limited toxicity. Objective: To determine the response rate in previously untreated patients with Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia receiving rituximab and CHOP. Methods: This was a phase II study of standard R-CHOP in symptomatic WM patients. The study was activated on June 15, 2004 and closed on April 26, 2007 due to poor accrual. The median age of the sixteen patients enrolled was 60 (44–79 years), β2M 3 ug/ml (2.1–7.6), median hemoglobulin was 9 g/dl (7.7–10.9), Viscosity 3.4(1.6–10), and IgM 6389 (3229–13300 mg/dl). The most common symptoms were Fatigue (13/16), visual disturbance (7/16) and parasthesias or painful/numb feet (6/16). Only one patient had bulky adenopathy (6.3%). Results: Of 16 patients treated, 5 patients have no response data available (it will be presented at the meeting). Objective response was 91% (90% CI: 63.5% ∼ 99.5%) and 1 patient had a minor response with an overall response rate of 100%. Median time to response was 1.6 months from registration and median time to maximum response was 2.1 months. Median duration of response has not been reached. The median follow up time of the 16 patients was 18.3 months with a range of 3.6–24.8 months. Among the 16 treated patients, there were 8 (50%, 90% exact binomial CI: 27.9%∼72.1%) grade 4 neutropenia. 8 patients experienced grade 3 lymphopenia (50%, 90% exact binomial CI: 27.9%∼72.1%). Only 2 grade 3 febrile neutropenia were noted. As of August 4, 2007, none of the 16 patients has died. R-CHOP is a promising regimen in the treatment of patients with Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia. To succeed in completing clinical trials in this rare disease better international collaboration and involvement in advocacy groups are required.

Abstract CXCR4, the chemokine receptor for stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1) plays an important role in the homing and migration of hematopoietic stem cells. Selective inhibition of the binding of the CXCR4 receptor by the molecule AMD3100 leads to the mobilization of hematopoietic progenitors, including CD34+ cells into the circulation, even in the steady state. Preliminary studies have indicated that AMD3100 given 10–11 hours before each apheresis along with standard doses of G-CSF mobilizes more CD34+ cells per kilogram than does G-CSF alone. A Phase II study of this combination in patients with NHL and myeloma is underway. G-CSF at 10μg/kg/day for a duration of up to 9 days is administered with AMD3100 at 240 μg/kg/day starting on the evening of day 4 of G-CSF therapy, (10–11 hours prior to first and subsequent daily aphereses) until 5 x 106 CD34/kg are collected, or for a maximum of 5 days of a standard 3 blood volume apheresis. Both agents are administered subcutaneously. To date 20 patients (myeloma-6, NHL-14) have been enrolled and analyzed. Of these 20, 14 are considered to have been ‘heavily pre-treated’ using standard definitions (≥ 10 cycles of chemotherapy, platinum based salvage chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy to bone marrow sites). Blood CD34 assays (cells/μl) were performed before and after each AMD 3100 dose and on each apheresis product. After the first dose of AMD3100 there was a 2.6 fold increase in CD34/μl in blood (23 → 60 CD34+ cells/μl). The median number of apheresis performed was 2 (range 1–5); the median total CD34 collected for all 20 patients was 5.7 x 106/kg (range 2.32–14.58 x 106/kg). All patients had collections of &gt; 2.0 x106 CD34/kg, and in 12 of 20 the 5 x 106 CD34/kg cell dose goal was collected, including 8 of 14 in the heavily pre-treated group. In fact in 6, the 5 x 106 CD34/kg cell dose was collected in a single apheresis. The median CD34/kg cell dose collected for the 14 heavily pre-treated patients was 5.7 x 106/kg (2.32–6.48 x 106/kg). There were no serious AE’s related to the use of AMD3100. Transient GI toxicity (mostly diarrhea) occurred in 10 of 20 patients shortly after the injections of AMD3100, but only 3 required therapy. Engraftment data is available for the first 12 patients treated. Time to ANC &gt;500/μl and platelets &gt; 20,000/μl was 9 (range 8–10) and 12 (range 9–19) days respectively. This novel combination of AMD3100 and G-CSF appears to be effective in mobilizing large numbers of CD34+ cells, even in patients considered to be heavily pre-treated, and is an effective alternative to chemotherapy/cytokine mobilization. Compared to studies of G-CSF alone, this combination may reduce the number of apheresis procedures needed to collect an adequate graft for rapid hematopoietic engraftment. The study is ongoing with accrual to date of 40 patients.