Alegria, Victoria R.

Background: Survival of patients with MM has improved significantly over recent years due to therapeutic advancements. Population-level data has shown that a substantial proportion of MM patients may die early after their diagnosis and real-world evidence regarding early mortality (≤6 months after MM diagnosis) has been conflicting. We evaluated the trends, causes and predictors of early mortality among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the real world. Methods: We used Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, to identify all adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who were diagnosed of MM from 1975 to 2015. Data on age, gender, geographical regions, year of diagnosis, survival time, vital status at 6 months after diagnosis and cause of death (COD) were extracted. Ages were categorized as quartiles while period of diagnosis for multivariate analysis were categorized by running a joinpoint analysis separately for the all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality. To look at trends in early mortality, we estimated proportion of deaths for each year and plotted it as a scatterplot against the year of diagnosis and fitted it in the join point regression model by applying the NCI's Join point Regression Program, Version 4.5.0.1. By this method we identified the year(s) when a trend change was produced, calculated the annual percentage change (APC) in rates between trend-change points, and the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in the whole period studied. To correct for known errors with COD attribution, we applied a special COD variable which has been recently developed by the SEER program to indicate if the death was due to the primary cancer diagnosis or other causes. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze the predictors of all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality within 6 months by fitting into logistic regression model. Results: Of 90,975 NDMM patients, early mortality due to any cause was noted in 18,810 (20.7%). For the whole cohort, median age was 68 years, majority of the patients were males (53.1%), of non-Hispanic white (NHW) race/ethnicity (65.5%) and were diagnosed in SEER registries in the western region (53.9%). An overall survival (OS) of ≤6 months was seen for approximately 22% of NHW but 18% of non-Hispanic blacks (NHB) and Hispanics. OS of ≤6 months was seen in 10% of patients in the first quartile of age (<60 years) as compared to 36% of patients in the 4th quartile (≥78 years). By geographical regions, 23.3% of MM patients in the Midwest had ≤6-month OS as compared to only 18.4% in the Northeast. The most common early mortality COD was MM in 74.7% of the patients, followed by cardiovascular (11.9%), other (8.8%) and infectious causes (3.1%). The overall pattern of COD at 6 months was similar to COD at any time in the whole cohort. Joinpoint regression analysis of trends data resulted in 1 joinpoint for all-cause 6-month mortality while 2 joinpoints were noticed for myeloma-specific mortality (Figure 1). A steep decline in mortality was noticed in the more recent time periods for both, all-cause (2006-2015) and myeloma-specific (2003-2015) mortality rates with an AAPC of 3.93 (95%CI p<0.001) for all-cause and 3.95 (95%CI p<0.001) for myeloma-specific mortality. Prior to 2006, the decrease in all-cause mortality was only modest whereas decrease in myeloma-specific mortality witnessed a sharp decline from 1975-1987 as well. On MVA, advanced age (p<0.001), NHW race/ethnicity and Midwest geographic region (p<0.001) were associated with higher likelihood of mortality while female gender (p<0.001), more recent period of diagnosis (p<0.001), and "other" races (not NHW, NHB or Hispanics) (p<0.001) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Conclusion: Our results show that early mortality due to MM remains high despite therapeutic improvements and there are significant gender, racial and geographic disparities for this phenomenon. However, significant declines in all-cause and MM-specific early mortality in the more recent times are promising. The risk of early mortality is higher among men, older patients, NHW and Midwest region. A focus on interventions to reduce early mortality, including early diagnosis, use of efficacious anti-MM therapy and aggressive supportive care should be directed at groups with high-risk for early mortality from MM. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Millennium: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced significantly over the last 2 decades. In most patients, the disease course has been altered from early fatality to chronic morbidity with multiple lines of treatment. The MM treatment paradigm has shifted toward treating patients before end-organ damage occurs. Thus, timeliness of treatment initiation in this era might improve patient outcomes. This is the first report to our knowledge analyzing disparities and trends in treatment timeliness of patients with MM using the National Cancer Database. Multiple factors affected the timing of treatment initiation in MM and disparities were found. We noted that initiation of treatment was delayed in women (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.2) and blacks (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.28; reference, whites) and in patients diagnosed in more recent years (2012-2015; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.22; reference, 2004-2007). Patients were likely to start treatment earlier if they were age ≥ 80 years (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.9; reference, age < 60 years), were uninsured (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; reference, private insurance), had Medicaid (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; reference, private insurance), were treated in a comprehensive community cancer program (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77; reference, community cancer program), lived in a location other than the US Northeast, or had a higher Charlson comorbidity score. Patient education and income levels did not affect time to treatment initiation. Particular aspects of these disparities could be explained by our current health care system and insurance rules, whereas others need to be investigated more deeply.

Background: MM is associated with significant morbidity even at the time of presentation and there is ample data to support that MM treatment improves overall survival (OS) as well as quality of life (QoL) due to effective symptom control. Patient refusal to recommended cancer treatment is not common in clinical practice but has been reported in certain cancers. There is no data on characteristics of MM patients who refuse treatment despite physician recommendation and outcomes of such patients. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004-2015 to extract data on adult MM patients who refused any systemic therapy as part of their initial care despite physician recommendation. Information on patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, year of diagnosis, income, geographical location, comorbidities, systemic treatment, survival time and vital status was obtained. Average annual percent change (AAPC) and average percent change (APC) were calculated to analyze the trends, and periods with similar APC were compared for statistically significant changes by applying join point regression. Multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting refusal to therapy and to assess its impact on OS. Results: Of 75,734 eligible patients who were recommended treatment for MM (chemotherapy and or immunotherapy), 2138 (2.8%) patients did not receive any treatment due to refusal. Significantly higher number of females, patients in older age groups (age groups 60-79 and ³ 80 years), Medicare recipients and with ≥2 comorbidities refused treatment recommendation. On multivariate analysis, advanced age groups 60-79 years (OR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.27-1.31 p&lt;0.001) and ³80 years (OR = 5.02; 95% CI 4.23-5.96, p&lt;0.001), female gender (OR =1.16 ; 95% CI 1.05-1.27, p&lt;0.001), patients with certain primary payor types including Medicaid (OR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.28-1.98, p&lt;0.001), Medicare (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.43-1.87, p&lt;0.001) and uninsured (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.38-2.38, p&lt;0.001), and presence of ³2 comorbidities (OR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.2-1.61, p&lt;0.001) were the independent factors associated with higher likelihood of refusing treatment. Whereas being seen at academic research programs (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8, p&lt;0.001), higher education (OR =0.81 ; 95% CI 0.67-0.98, p=0.03), geographical location (Midwest OR =0.87 ; 95% CI 0.76-0.99, p=0.04), longer distance to facility being at 3rd quartile (10.1-26.2 miles: OR =0.78 ; 95% CI 0.68-0.89, p&lt;0.001) or 4th quartile (&gt;26.2 miles: OR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.68, p&lt;0.001) were associated with lower likelihood of refusing treatment. The overall rate of refusing treatment by MM patients was quite stable during 2004-2015 with an AAPC of 1.1 (95% CI -1.1-3.3 p=0.3). However, on fitting scatter plot into Joinpoint regression model, a concerning trend in the more recent years was noted. While the rate of refusing recommended treatment decreased during 2004-2008, a rising trend was observed during the period 2008-2015 with an APC of 3.8 (95% CI 1.3-6.4, p≤0.001) (Fig 1a). Patients who were recommended treatment but refused had significantly worse survival than those who received treatment (median survival 17.7 vs 52.9 months, Cox hazard ratio 1.21; CI 1.17-1.24, p&lt;0.001) (Fig 1b). Conclusions: The percentage of MM patients refusing any systemic treatment as a part of their initial care despite physician recommendation appears to be increasing in recent years and this needs to be systematically addressed. Disparities in refusal to recommended treatment are independently associated with several variables including age, gender, comorbidities, geographical location, facility and insurance type. These need to be addressed urgently since there are several effective and well-tolerated anti-MM treatments which can potentially benefit patients in case the initial socioeconomic, clinical and psychosocial barriers are overcome. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Median age at diagnosis for MM is 69 years with approximately 33% of the newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients aged ≥80 years (elderly). Yet, outcomes data and clinical trial participation in elderly MM patients are limited due to frailty and frequent comorbidities. Moreover, elderly patients are not candidates for stem cell transplant (SCT) and age is an independent poor prognostic marker, leading to disparate outcomes. The present study evaluated trends in outcomes and predictors of survival among elderly NDMM patients in the United States (U.S.). Methods: Using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, we extracted data on age, gender, geographical regions, year of diagnosis, and vital status for elderly patients (age ≥ 80 years) with MM from 1975 to 2016. Relative survival (RS) was estimated as the ratio of observed survival to the survival expected in the general population in the absence of malignancy. This adjusted for the competing causes of mortality prevalent in elderly patients. Mortality rates were age-adjusted. To estimate trends in mortality, we estimated annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) by fitting the data in the join point regression model using the NCI's Join point Regression Program, Version 4.5.0.1. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze the predictors of overall and myeloma-specific mortality among elderly patients fitting into Cox proportion hazard regression model. Results: A total of 17,265 elderly MM patients were eligible for the study. Majority were females (n=9,487, 55%), were non-Hispanic whites (NHW) (n=12,895, 74.7%) and were diagnosed in the Western region of the U.S. (n=8,541, 49.5%). The median age was 84 years (IQR 81-87). The median RS for the whole period (1975-2016) was 19.8 months with 1- and 5- year RS of 60.1% (95%CI: 58.8-61.3) and 20.9% (95%CI: 19.5-22.3) respectively. The median RS increased from 8.45 months in 1975 to 29.86 months in 2013. One and 5- year RS also increased from 42.7% (95%CI: 32.4-52.5) and 12.9% (95%CI: 5.8-22.7) in 1975 to a 1- and 5-year RS of 72.3% (95%CI: 65.4-78.1) and 31.1% (95%CI: 23.4-39.1) in 2013, respectively (Fig.1). However, the age standardized mortality rate for the whole period showed an increasing trend with an AAPC of 2.3 (0.5-4, P<0.001). On fitting joinpoint regression, 2 distinct joinpoints were identified, calendar years 1977 and 1989 (Fig 2). Most of the increase in mortality rate was noted in the period 1975-1989. Since 1989, the mortality rates have shown a decreasing trend which is marginal but statistically significant, with an APC of -0.41 (95%CI: -0.7- -0.1, p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing age (p<0.001) and non-northeast location (p<0.01) were associated with higher overall and MM-specific mortality. Female gender was associated with lower overall mortality (p<0.001) but not myeloma-specific mortality. While "other" race/ethnicity (not NHW, non-Hispanic black; NHB or Hispanic) was associated with lower risk of overall and myeloma-specific mortality, NHB were associated with a lower MM-specific (p<0.001) but not overall mortality. Conclusions: Our results suggest that although RS has improved significantly in the elderly patients, the mortality rates have not changed drastically over the years. Besides, factors like advancement in diagnosis and treatment which have improved RS, early diagnosis (leading to lead time bias) may also be contributing. Furthermore, there are several gender-specific, geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in outcomes of elderly MM patients, which need to be assessed prospectively. Although, a small decline in mortality rates in the more recent time is promising, further studies are warranted on interventions including aggressive supportive care directed at elderly patients with MM, so that MM survivorship can be improved. There should be strong consideration to increaseenrollment of the elderly in prospective clinical trials so that evidence-based guidelines can be developed. Disclosures Manochakian: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chanan-Khan:Merck: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Do not remove- this information is relevant to Abstract ID 125629: TAK-169 is a dimeric fusion protein of an anti-CD38 antibody single chain variable fragment fused to a modified Shiga-like toxin-A subunit..

Background: The development of novel treatment strategies has extended the median survival of MM to nearly a decade but the disease remains incurable and relapse is inevitable. The Bcl-2 pathway is highly relevant to MM cell survival and can be mitigated therapeutically. AT-101 is a novel, orally available pan Bcl-2 inhibitor (Bcl-2, Bcl-xl, Mcl-1, and Bcl-w). Preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies showed that AT-101 enhanced cytotoxicity of lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd). We conducted a phase I study in RRMM patients to establish the effective dose of AT-101 with Ld as well as record safety and preliminary efficacy of this combination (NCT02697344). Methods: Key eligibility criteria included: RRMM with measurable disease (serum monoclonal protein ≥1.0 g/dL or urine monoclonal protein >200mg/24 hour or serum immunoglobulin free light chain >10mg/dL AND abnormal serum free light chain ratio). Patients must have received 1-3 prior treatment regimens and have an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109, platelets 75 x 109, creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min, and ECOG performance status ≤2. AT-101 dosing was designed to reach a maximum daily target of 20mg (Cohort 1; 10 mg PO QD, Cohort 2; 20 mg PO QD) utilizing a standard 3 +3 dose escalation design in combination with standard doses of Rd. Treatment was given as outpatient for a maximum of 12, 28-day cycles. For pharmacodynamic studies, AT-101 alone was given in cycle 1, with R (25 mg on days 1-21) and d (40 mg weekly) added cycle 2 onwards. Results: Enrolled patients (n=10) included 60% males with median age 68.5 years (range 55-75) and median time since MM diagnosis 4.5 years (range 0.6-8.3). MM ISS stage was II/III in 7 patients and 8/10 had high-risk cytogenetics with 4 each having del17p and 1q+. Only 1 patient had t(11;14).Patients had received median 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-3), with 7 having had prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and the initial induction regimen being bortezomib (V), R and dexamethasone (d) (VRd) in 8, Rd in 1 and cyclophosphamide (C) with Vd (VCd) in 1 patient. At the time of study entry, 3 patients were R refractory while 2 were refractory to both, V and daratumumab (Dara). Median duration of treatment was 7.5 cycles (range 2-12) and 3 patients completed all planned 12 cycles of treatment. Among the evaluable patients, dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) at 20 mg daily dose of AT-101 with 25 mg of R and 40 mg weekly included one patient with grade 4 febrile neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia lasting 9 days and one patient with grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting 8 days. G3/4 adverse events (AEs) included atrial flutter (n=1), white blood cell count decrease (n=3), neutropenia (n=5), febrile neutropenia (n=1) and thrombocytopenia (n=2), and back pain (n=1) . No G3/4 non-hematological AEs were noted. Any grade non-hematologic AEs seen in at least 20% (n=2) patients included fatigue (n=9), neuropathy (n=6), nausea (n=3), diarrhea (n=5), constipation (n=3), and creatinine increased (n=2). No patients experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Overall response rate (ORR) was 44% (2 each with very good partial response, VGPR and PR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 89% with 2 additional patients showing minor response (MR) and 2 experiencing stable disease (SD) (Fig 1). Patients with high-risk disease had an ORR of 43% and a CBR of 100%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 8.1 months. Correlative analysis from patients who showed an objective response to treatment revealed a significant increase in bone marrow Th-effector cells, NK cells and cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells along with a significant decrease in immunosuppressive T-regulatory and B-regulatory cells was noted after 1 complete cycle of the combination therapy (p<0.05, Fig 2). Conclusions: This is the first reported clinical trial combining a Bcl-2 inhibitor with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in MM. AT-101-Rd is a clinically active regimen with an ORR of 40% in predominantly high-risk RRMM patients with an acceptable toxicity profile. Additional patients with MM experienced clinical benefit despite refractory status to prior therapy in this early phase clinical trial. These early findings support the further investigation of AT-101 specifically, and Bcl-2 inhibitors in general, with IMiDs in patients with MM. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Chanan-Khan:Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: AT-101 is not currently FDA-approved for treatment of any condition.

Background: Ibrutinib (ibr) is a small-molecular inhibitor of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK), active in the treatment of various B-cell malignancies. B-cell receptor signaling blockade by BTK inhibition using ibr down regulates IRF4 (survival transcription factor) which is down regulated by lenalidomide (R) as well, suggesting possible synergistic effect on cell death. Higher doses of ibr (560-840 mg daily) have been used in combination regimens for MM with no significant dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) but the combination of ibr and len has not been previously tested. We present safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination ibr, R, and dexamethasone (d) in RRMM patients. Methods: This is a phase I dose escalation study (NCT03015792) of 28-day cycles of ibr (420 mg daily, 560 mg daily, 700 mg daily or 840 mg daily) days 1-28 in combination with R 25 mg PO days 1-21, and d 40 mg PO weekly utilizing a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Eligible RRMM patients had progression after ≥2 prior lines of treatment, measurable disease as per International Myeloma Working Group criteria, ECOG performance status ≤2, adequate bone marrow (BM) (absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109, platelets ≥50,000 cells/mm3 for patients with BM plasmacytosis <50% or ≥30,000 cells/mm3 for patients with BM plasmacytosis ≥50%), kidney (creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min), and liver function [total bilirubin ≤1.5 x upper limit of normal (ULN), aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase ≤3 x ULN], and PT/INR ≤1.5 X ULN. Treatment was to be continued till progressive disease (PD) or any unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ibr+Rd in RRMM and secondary objective was to evaluate safety profile of this regimen. Results: As of July 26 2019, 18 patients had been enrolled in the trial. Three patients had to be replaced (2 at 700 mg cohort, 1 each due to withdrawal and ineligibility, and 1 at 840 mg due to withdrawal). Median age of all patients was 67 years (range 49-79) with 9 of the 15 evaluable patients being females. Evaluable patients as per ibr dose level included 3 at 420 mg, 3 at 560 mg, 3 at 700 mg, and 6 at 840 mg. Four out of 15 patients had high-risk cytogenetics. Median prior lines of treatment were 4 (range 2-13) and prior treatments included bortezomib in 87% (n=13), carfilzomib in 47% (n=7), ixazomib in 47% (n=7), lenalidomide in 87% (n=13), pomalidomide in 40% (n=6), thalidomide in 40% (n=6), daratumumab in 60% (n=9), and stem cell transplant in 53% (n=8). High risk cytogenetics [del 17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20)] were noted in 4 of the 15 evaluable patients (27%). Median follow up for alive patients was 8.6 months (range 1.1-25.1 months) and the median number of treatment cycles was 2 (range 1-5). Most common reason for treatment discontinuation was PD (40%) followed by adverse events (AEs) (26.7%). Only 1 DLT possibly related to ibr was a grade 3 rash at the 840 mg dose. Grade 3/4 AEs at least possibly related to study treatment included anemia (n=3), thrombocytopenia (n=3), neutropenia (n=3), leucopenia (n=3), lymphopenia (n=2), febrile neutropenia (n=1), and rash (n=2). Overall, the most common all grade AEs included anemia (n=12), thrombocytopenia (n=10), fatigue (n=10), neutropenia (n=8), leucopenia (n=5), and diarrhea (n=5). (Figure 1) No treatment-related deaths were noted. Overall response rate (ORR) was 7% with partial response (PR) noted in 1 patient. Additionally, 1 patient achieved a minor response (MR) and 10 patients had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 80%. (Figure 2) PD was noted in 1 patient and 2 patients did not get response assessment. Ibr 840 mg (daily) with R 25 mg (days 1-21) and d 40 mg weekly was considered the MTD of this regimen. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for the 15 evaluable patients was 4.5 months (95% CI: 1.8-not reached). Conclusions: We report the first phase 1 trial of combining a BTK inhibitor with Rd in RRMM patients. MTD of ibr was determined as 840 mg (daily) in combination with R 25 mg (days 1-21) and d 40 mg weekly. This dose of ibr is consistent with some other trials showing the benefit of a higher dose of ibr in various regimens for treatment of B-cell malignancies. We noted this regimen to be well-tolerated without much high-grade AEs. Disease stabilization was noted in majority of patients. These data lay the basis for a larger trial in a more uniform cohort of patients to better define the efficacy of this regimen. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibrutinib is not FDA-approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The regimen of ibrutinib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone is not FDA-approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Abstract Background: Therapeutic advancements have led to significant improvement in outcomes for MM patients. Revised diagnostic criteria from International Myeloma Working Group focus on initiating treatment before the onset of end-organ damage. Thus, timeliness of initial therapy can significantly improve patient morbidity and outcomes. Such an analysis has not been reported for MM. Methods: We analyzed patients diagnosed with MM between 2004-2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients who received systemic treatment any time within the first year of diagnosis were included; those treated later than one year were considered possibly initially diagnosed with smoldering myeloma and hence, excluded. Time to initial treatment was divided into centiles with the 4 centiles analyzed being 0-7 days, 8-18 days, 19-37 days and >37 days. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing patient distribution across these timeliness categories and trends over time. Results: A total of 53,665 patients were included with 15,282 in 0-7 days, 12,462 in 8-18 days, 12,723 in 19-37 days and 13,198 in the >37 days treatment categories. Distribution across these centiles over time is shown in Figure. Univariate analyses showed a significant difference in distribution across the timeliness categories by year of diagnosis, patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, insurance type, comorbidity score, treatment facility type, geographical location and distance to treating facility (all p<0.001) but no effect of income level. Multivariate analysis showed that there was a significantly higher likelihood of being in 4th centile (>37 days to treatment) for women (p<0.001), African Americans (p<0.001) or Hispanics (p=0.03; reference: Whites) or diagnosed in more recent years (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to be in the 4th centile if they were ≥80 years (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98, p=0.02), had >0 Charlson comorbidity score (p<0.001), were uninsured (p=0.02) or had Medicaid (p=0.03) as compared to having private insurance, were in non-community treatment facilities or geographical location other than Northeast (p<0.001). Patient education, income level or distance from treating facility was no longer significant. Conclusions: Several factors were found to affect timeliness of treatment in MM. We noted relatively faster time to initial treatment in elderly, uninsured or those who were treated in academic/comprehensive cancer programs but a delay in treatment for women and racial/ethnic minorities among other factors. These factors need to be addressed for equitable access and treatment practices and to realize improved outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in outcomes of cancer patients have been reported. Access to comprehensive cancer centers is associated with improved overall survival (OS) but racial/ethnic minorities may have a disparate access to such care. While the impact of treatment facility volume on outcomes has been evaluated, outcomes of centers with minority-predominant patient population have not been studied. We compared demographic profiles, facility level data and OS of patients treated at minority-predominant facilities to facilities that treated predominantly non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) with non-DLBCL. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify all non-DLBCL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. "Minority-treating facilities" were defined as facilities in the top decile by proportion for initial treatment of non-Hispanic African-Americans (NHAA), Hispanics and other races. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing outcomes between minority treating and non-minority treating facilities. A subgroup analysis stratified by race/ethnicity was also conducted to study the effect of treating facilities on the outcome of NHWs and minorities separately. Results: Of 1339 total facilities, 123 (9.1%) qualified as minority treating. Of 207,239 eligible patients in NCDB, 18,719 (9.03%) received treatment at the minority-treating facilities and of these, 11,190 (~60%) belonged to the minority races. Overall, 4.5% (6,988/156,664) NHWs and 30% (11,190/37,639) minorities received treatment at the minority-treating facilities. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different among the patients treated at minority-treating facilities as compared to non-minority treating facilities. Overall, significantly higher number of patients in minority-treating hospitals had lower income and education, had Medicaid coverage or lack of insurance. The OS of patients in minority treating facilities was significantly worse as compared to non-minority facilities (Figures). On multivariate analysis, patients who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 10% (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14 p<0.001) higher risk of mortality as compared to those treated at the non-minority treating facilities. On multivariate analysis, NHAA (30% increased risk) and 'other races' (9% increased risk) were at significantly higher risk of mortality as compared to the NHW (Table 2). To study the effect of treatment at minority-treating facilities on OS among the patients of same race/ethnicity group, a multivariate analysis was also run separately for NHW and racial minorities. The NHWs who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 13% higher risk of death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.08-1.19 p<0.001) as compared to NHWs who were treated at non-minority treating facilities. Similarly, the racial minorities who received treatment at minority treating facilities were at 8% higher risk of death (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19 p=0.003) as compared to those who received treatment at the nonminority treating facilities. Conclusions:Outcomes of patients who received treatment at minority treating facilities was significantly worse than those at non-minority treating facilities. This was true for NHWs and racial minorities separately as well. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different in the two groups however OS remained worse after adjusting for them. Causes of poor outcomes at minority-treating facilities must be analyzed to mitigate them and improve outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The treatment of NHL has witnessed a paradigm shift over time, with targeted immunotherapy, stem cell transplant (SCT) among others. Historically, XRT was used quite frequently for the management of NHL but with advent of better systemic therapy, its utilization has changed. Trends and patterns of care for XRT use have never been formally reported. Methods: We identified patients with NHL diagnosis in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between years 2004 and 2015. Demographic, clinical, facility level, initial treatment and outcome data were collected. The utilization of XRT in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and non-DLBCL NHL were analyzed separately by univariate and multivariate analyses. To analyze the trends in the rates of XRT, we applied segmented linear regression to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) and 95% confidence Interval (CI) with a 'p' value. AAPC and CIs were calculated using the segmented package in R studio v1.1.49. Rest of the analyses was conducted using StataCorp version 15.1. Results: A total of 133,182 DLBCL and 204,933 non-DLBCL patients were identified. Among patients with DLBCL, 27,895 (20.9%) patients received RT. The rate of XRT declined from 25% in 2004 to 18.4% in 2015 with estimated AAPC of -0.59% (95%CI: -0.70- -0.49), p= 0.03 (Figure 1). In a subgroup analysis, a similar decline in the rate of XRT was evident across all the age groups, combined stages I and II vs stages III and IV and nodal vs extra nodal DLBCL (Table 1). Among non DLBCL, 33,369 (16.3%) patients received XRT. There was a statistically significant decline in the rate of XRT from 18.03% in 2004 to 16.3% in 2014 with an AAPC of -0.26 (95%CI: -0.38- -0.14) p <0.001 (Figure 1). On the subgroup analysis, the utilization of XRT declined across all the studied subgroups except among patients aged 80 years and above (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, several demographic, clinical and facility level factors were found to be significantly associated with XRT utilization in NHL (Table 2). In particular, older age groups, racial/ethnic minorities, advanced stages, higher Charlson comorbidity scores and diagnosis in the more recent calendar years were associated with lesser chances of receiving RT. Extranodal DLBCL had lower utilization while extranodal non-DLBCL had increased XRT utilization. Conclusion: There has been a significant decline in the utilization of XRT among patients with NHL (DLBCL and non-DLBCL) in the US since 2004, likely due to introduction of practice changing systemic therapeutics. There is still significant heterogeneity noted in practice patterns regarding utilization of XRT across the US. Having more standardized guidelines will help streamline delivery of evidence-based patient care. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: CLL is the most common leukemia diagnosis in adults and its treatment has undergone significant change from chemotherapy, to immunotherapy and now targeted kinase inhibitors, leading to improved overall survival (OS). With improving survivorship, SPMs can occur but an in-depth analysis of risks and trends of SPMs in CLL survivors is lacking. We performed a population-based analysis to evaluate this. Methods: Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed with CLL between 1973-2015 were included. Due to variation in management techniques over time, the cohort was divided in four time periods: 1973-1982, 1983-1992, 1993-2002 and 2003-2015. We evaluated differences in risk for SPMs among CLL survivors compared to risk of individual malignancies expected in the general population during these time periods and studied the effect of demographics and time since CLL diagnosis. Results: Over a nearly 270,000 person-year follow up, 6,467 new SPMs were diagnosed with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.2 (95% CI 1.17-1.23), which resulted in a 39 excess cancers per 10,000 population. The CLL survivors had a 20% overall increased risk of developing SPMs (excluding non-squamous skin cancer) compared to the general population. The risks for both solid (SIR 1.15 CI 95% 1.12-1.18) and hematological malignancies (SIR 1.61 95% CI 1.5-1.73) was higher than the expected in the general population. However, the risk for individual cancers was heterogeneous. The tumors associated with the highest risk were Hodgkin lymphoma (almost 8 times higher), Kaposi Sarcoma (4 times), non-epithelial skin cancers (4 times), salivary gland cancer (3 times) and acute lymphocytic leukemia (3 times). In contrast, tumors in the hepatobiliary system, female breast and female genital system were associated with a lower risk than the general population. The highest SIR across the study periods was observed in the younger population (ages 15-49). Although the risk increased in all ethnicities, it was statistically significant only in Caucasians. There was no gender-wise difference in SIR during any of the four time periods. A statistically significant increase in SIR was observed for both men and women from 1973-1982 to 2003-2015. This was mostly due to an increase in risk of hematological malignancies from 1.08 early in the study to 2.56 in the most recent study period. The SIR in solid tumors did not change significantly over time; in absolute terms, however, lung carcinoma contributed the most to the excess risk, followed by non-epithelial skin cancers and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The risk of developing a SPM was higher for the CLL survivors during most of the latency periods, but it was statistically significant during the 2-5 months and 12-59 months after diagnosis. A multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of period of diagnosis on the development of SPMs among these patients. After adjusting for gender, ethnicity, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and age at diagnosis of CLL, patients diagnosed with CLL in the most recent time period were at 45% higher risk of developing SPMs as compared to the patient diagnosed during 1973-1982 (Hazard ratio(HR) =1.45 95%CI:1.34-1.6, p<0.001). Moreover increased HRs were also observed for 1983-1992 and 1993-2002 time periods (Fig. 1) Conclusions: With improving therapeutics for cancer treatment, survivorship is improving as well and the risk of SPMs needs to be better understood and addressed. This is truer for CLL, where majority of patients have a favorable survival. The risk of SPMs was 20% higher in CLL survivors than in the general population and was most prominent in the survivors aged 15-49 years at the time of CLL diagnosis. The risk of individual malignancies may be heterogenous but there has been an increase in risk of SPMs over time, mainly due to an increase of secondary hematological malignancies in recent years. Active survivorship plans and long-term surveillance for SPMs is crucial for improved outcomes of patients with a history of CLL. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.