Fraser, Raphael

AbstractBackgroundLenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression‐free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high‐risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard‐risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib‐based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.MethodsIn total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel‐agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.ResultsThree hundred fifty‐seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib‐based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib‐based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high‐risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression‐free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).ConclusionsNo superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post‐transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

8057 Background: Following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto HCT), maintenance therapies improve survival, reduce relapse risk in multiple myeloma (MM), and are the de facto standard-of-care. However, clinical trials have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM) with maintenance therapy, including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We examined data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to evaluate the impact of SPM on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and the utilization of allogeneic HCT in patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with MM who underwent first auto HCT in the United States with a melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011-2018 and subsequently received maintenance therapy were included (N=3948). The primary endpoint of interest was the impact of SPM and SHM on OS. Multivariate analytic (MVA) modelling was applied, accounting for competing risks while integrating significant covariates to determine the impact of SPM on PFS and OS. Finally, we studied the utilization and survival following allogeneic HCT for SHM. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Maintenance regimens used were lenalidomide (2836, 72%), bortezomib (370,9 %) or lenalidomide + bortezomib (372, 9%) based combinations. At a median follow up of 37 months, 175 (5%) pts developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid 36 (21%) myeloid, and 27 (15%) lymphoid cancers. In MVA, the development of SPM and SHM was associated with an inferior PFS (HR 2.62, P<0.001 and HR 5.01, P<0.001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P<0.001 and 8.13, P<0.001, respectively). The two commonest causes of death were MM (42%) and SPM (30%) for those developing SPM. Similarly, MM (53%) and SHM (18%) were the two commonest causes of death for those developing SHM. Nine (14%,5 t-MDS and 4 t-AML) of 63 patients with SHM underwent an allogeneic HCT. Patients undergoing allogeneic HCT were more likely to have Karnofsky score ≥90 (100% vs. 50%, P=0.02) compared to those who did not. One year survival from allo SCT was 66.7% (CI 34.6-92%). Conclusions: The three-year cumulative incidence of SPM was 3.3 (2.6-4)% in this large contemporaneous CIBMTR cohort. Disease relapse remains the primary cause of death in MM patients who develop SPM or SHM. Given the median OS for MM is now > 10 years, longer follow-up is needed to assess the SPM and SHM risks with maintenance therapy post-auto HCT.

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score &lt;90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: 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; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

8022 Background: Maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) after first autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT1) is considered standard of care. Data regarding maintenance therapy after a salvage AHCT (AHCT2) in the setting of relapsed MM are scarce. Therefore, we used data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to examine the use of maintenance therapy after AHCT2 in MM patients and its effect on post-transplant patient outcomes. Methods: We included US adult MM patients who underwent AHCT2 after melphalan conditioning regimen from 2010-2018, and excluded patients who underwent tandem transplants. Outcomes of interest included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). Cox proportional hazards models were developed to study the main effect (maintenance use) with other covariates of interest including age, sex, race, performance status, HCT-comorbidity index, MM subtype, stage, creatinine, cytogenetic, conditioning melphalan dose, disease status at transplant, and time from AHCT1 to AHCT2. Results: Of 522 patients, 342 received maintenance therapy and 180 did not after AHCT2. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Median follow up was 58 months in the maintenance group and 61.5 months in the no-maintenance group. Common maintenance regimens included immunomodulatory drugs (IMID)-lenalidomide (N = 145, 42%) or pomalidomide (N = 46, 13%) and proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (N = 45, 13%). Univariate analysis showed superior outcomes at 5 years in maintenance compared to the no-maintenance group: NRM 2 (0.7-3.9)% vs 9.9 (5.9-14.9)%, p < 0.001, REL 70.2 (64.4-75.8)% vs 80.3 (73.6-86.3)%, p 0.003, PFS 27.8% (22.4-33.5) vs. 9.8% (5.5-15.2), p < 0.001, and OS 54% (47.5-60.5) vs 30.9% (23.2-39.2) p < 0.001, respectively. IMID-containing maintenance regimens were associated with an improved 5-year PFS and OS compared to other maintenance regimens. Use of maintenance therapy retained its association with improved outcomes in multivariate analysis, including NRM: hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 (0.08-0.44), p 0.0001, REL: HR 0.58 (0.47-0.72), p < 0.0001, PFS HR 0.52 (0.43-0.64), p < 0.0001, and OS HR 0.46 (0.36-0.60), p < 0.0001. We conducted additional analyses to investigate a possible selection bias in the maintenance group including landmark analysis at 100-days and 6-months post-AHCT2 as well as a subgroup analysis of patients who received melphalan 200mg/m2 as conditioning for AHCT2 (as a surrogate for fitness)- all these analyses also showed improved outcomes in the maintenance group. Second cancers were reported in 17 (5%) patients in the maintenance group and 6 (3%) patients and no-maintenance group (p 0.39). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy after AHCT2 is associated with superior outcomes in MM patients.

Introduction: VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) are the two most commonly used triplet induction regimens in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). VCD is commonly used in patients with renal dysfunction at diagnosis. Given the variable results seen in head to head comparison of these (or similar) regimens to date, no definitive conclusion can be made on whether they are equivalent. This large CIBMTR registry study compares the outcomes with VRD vs. VCD induction therapy in patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Patients were included if they underwent upfront ASCT for MM from January 2013 to December 2018 within 6 months of diagnosis, received VRD or VCD induction therapy and achieved at least a partial response pre-transplant. Of 1,135 patients, 914 patients received VRD and 221 received VCD therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were created for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The following covariates were adjusted in the models: induction regimen (main effect), age, sex, race, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at diagnosis, immunoglobulin subtype, cytogenetics, ISS stage, response status at transplant, melphalan dose, and maintenance therapy. Results: As shown in Table 1, patients in the VRD and VCD cohorts had similar age at transplant, adjusted HCT-CI scores, and distribution of high-risk cytogenetics. Patients in the VCD group were more likely to have renal impairment and ISS stage III disease. An eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) at diagnosis &lt; 60 was seen in 26% of VRD patients vs. 48% of VCD patients. ISS stage III was seen in 17% vs. 34% of patients, respectively. Treatment and Response: Pre-transplant response in the VRD cohort was: complete response (CR)- 17%, very good partial response (VGPR)- 48% and partial response (PR)- 35%. Response in the VCD cohort was: CR- 17%, VGPR- 42% and PR- 41%. Conditioning dose was melphalan 200 mg/m2 in 80% of patients receiving VRD vs. 69% in the VCD group. Post-transplant response was at least VGPR in 74% vs. 75% of patients, respectively. Maintenance in the VRD group was: lenalidomide based (+/- bortezomib)- 80%, bortezomib based- 5%, other-3% and none- 12% of patients. In the VCD group, maintenance was: lenalidomide based- 63%, bortezomib based- 11%, other- 1% and none- 24%. Survival: Patients receiving VRD induction had superior outcomes compared to VCD induction with median PFS from transplant of 44.6 (38.0-55.8) months vs 34.1 (25.8-44.7) months, p 0.004 respectively. Median OS was not reached for either group, with 5-year OS 79 (74-83)% for VRD and 60 (50-69)% for VCD, p &lt;0.001. Univariate PFS and OS outcomes by induction regimen and eGFR at diagnosis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Multivariate analysis is shown in Table 3. After adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no statistically significant difference between the two induction regimens, with hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the VCD vs VRD group being 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96-1.55, p=0.10). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Similarly, on multivariate analysis for OS, there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups, with HR for OS in VCD vs VRD group being 1.33 (95% CI: 0.93-1.92, p=0.12). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: In patients with MM undergoing upfront transplant after VRD or VCD induction, no difference in outcomes was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. As several MM patients with renal dysfunction are started on VCD, it is reassuring to see that VCD was not associated with inferior PFS, likely due to the eventual transition to maintenance therapy in the majority due to subsequent improvement of renal function. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: 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; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; 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; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Giralt:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Actinuum: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OMEROS: Research Funding; SPECTRUM Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensenn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. D'Souza:Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) with the translocation t(11;14) may have inferior outcomes in comparison with other standard‐risk MM, and it has been suggested to portend a worse prognosis in African Americans in comparison with Whites. This study used the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to examine the impact of t(11;14) on the clinical outcomes of patients with MM of African American and White descent.MethodsThis study evaluated 3538 patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) for MM from 2008 to 2016 and were reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups: African Americans with t(11;14) (n = 117), African Americans without t(11;14) (n = 968), Whites with t(11;14) (n = 266), and Whites without t(11;14) (n = 2187).ResultsAfrican Americans with t(11;14) were younger, had lower Karnofsky scores, and had more advanced stage MM with a higher Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation–Comorbidity Index (HCT‐CI). Fewer African Americans with t(11;14) (21%) had a coexistent high‐risk marker in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (27%). In a multivariate analysis, race and t(11;14) had no association with progression‐free survival. However, overall survival was superior among African Americans with t(11;14) in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30‐0.93; P = .03). Survival was also associated with female sex, stage, time from diagnosis to transplant, a low HCT‐CI, and receipt of maintenance.ConclusionsRace may have a differential impact on the survival of patients with t(11;14) MM who undergo autoHCT and needs to be further studied.

8515 Background: AL is a clonal plasma cell (PC) disorder causing multiorgan dysfunction from amyloid fibril deposition. While bortezomib (B) induction has been used prior to AHCT recently, AHCT without prior induction has been a common practice. The primary objective of this study was to compare outcomes of AL patients who proceeded to AHCT without induction to those receiving pre-AHCT induction with B. Methods: Outcomes of 426 systemic AL AHCT recipients between 2014-2018 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were reviewed. Patients receiving induction with therapy other than B, AHCT occurring > 9 months after diagnosis, no documented AL end-organ involvement, myeloma-defining events and conditioning other than melphalan (MEL) monotherapy were excluded. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with relapse, PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: 286 patients received B induction therapy vs 140 patients receiving no induction. Age, gender, number and type of organs involved, and AL AHCT center volume were similar between the groups. Patients receiving induction had greater PC burden compared with no induction (PC ≥ 10%, 41% vs 11%, p < 0.01). Induction was B, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (D) in 83% followed by B, lenalidomide and D (10%) or B+D (7%). Median follow-up was 24.9 months. At 2 years, B induction vs. no induction was associated with 13% (95% CI 10-17%) vs 22% (95% CI 15-30%) relapse risk (p = 0.03); 83% (95% CI 79-87%) vs 74% (95% CI 66-81%) PFS (p = 0.04); 93% (95% CI 90-95%) vs 94% (95% CI 89-97%) OS (p = 0.7). On MVA, the B induction group had improved PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p < 0.001) with similar OS (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.2, p = 0.1) compared with no induction. Creatinine < 2 mg/dl (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02) and Karnofsky score ≥90 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.78, p < 0.01) were also associated with improved PFS. MEL dose < 180 mg/m2 was associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.31-3.61, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5-8.6, p < 0.01). No deaths were seen in the first 100 days post-AHCT. At last follow-up, 32 deaths occurred, 26 (81%) due to AL. Conclusions: Compared with prior CIBMTR analyses, B induction use has increased in AL AHCT recipients and a higher PC burden was the only clinical determinant. Furthermore, B induction was associated with lower relapse and improved PFS at 2 years with no OS difference despite higher proportion of patients with > 10% PC, which has been associated with poor outcomes.

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) &lt;10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p&lt;0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.