Rosenzweig, Michael

Nonspecific symptoms and other diagnostic challenges lead to underdiagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Artificial intelligence (AI) could help address these challenges, but a summary of the performance of these tools is lacking. This narrative review of published literature describes the performance of AI tools that use data from ECGs and echocardiography to improve identification of CA and challenges that hinder adoption of these tools. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria with sample sizes ranging from 50 to 2451 patients. Four studies used ECG data, 8 used echocardiography data, and 1 used both. The CA gold standard was typically defined as a CA diagnosis in an institutional or other database but the requirements for these diagnoses were heterogenous across studies, and many did not distinguish among CA subtypes. AI model development varied considerably, and only 4 studies included external validation. The ability of models to predict CA ranged from 0.71 to 1.00, sensitivity ranged from 16% to 100%, and specificity from 75% to 100%. Only 1 study reported model performance across strata of sex, age, race, and CA type. Persistent challenges to AI adoption include usability, cost, value added, electronic health record/information technology interoperability, patient‐related factors, regulation, and privacy and liability. Published studies on AI for improved identification of CA show favorable performance measures but numerous methodologic and other challenges must be addressed before these tools are more widely adopted.

Introduction: Systemic amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease with severe sequelae, including cardiac and renal dysfunction and failure. Various biomarker-based staging systems have been established to inform prognosis and treatment. However, a single International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis code collectively applies to all stages of the disease, and while several studies have reported disease costs using healthcare claims data, stage-specific costs are not well understood. The current study aimed to estimate the healthcare utilization and costs of prevalent patients with AL amyloidosis by Mayo 2012 stage (I, II, III, IV). Methods: A multi-center medical chart review of patients with AL amyloidosis was conducted across six hematology clinics in the United States. Enrolled patients were ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis, documentation of Mayo 2012 stage at diagnosis, ≥1 office visit during the 6 months prior to the site's IRB approval date, and ≥1 year of available medical records. We collected 1 year of healthcare utilization data for each patient, in addition to clinical characteristics at diagnosis, which was prior to the 1-year observation period for most patients. Observation periods ranged from 11/2020 to 6/2023. Demographics, AL amyloidosis clinical history (e.g., organ involvement, lines of therapy, treatment response), laboratory values, and AL amyloidosis-related healthcare utilization (e.g., office visits, laboratory tests, procedures, medications, emergency department visits, inpatient stays) were collected. Patients were stratified by Mayo 2012 stage at diagnosis. Patients' 1-year healthcare costs were calculated by combining abstracted utilization data with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2023 Physician Fee Schedule for procedures, Medi-Span® Price Rx® Pro for pharmacy and drug administration costs, and published literature for costs unavailable in these sources. Costs were adjusted to 2023 USD using the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Results: The study included 61 patients: 15 stage I, 16 stage II, 17 stage III, and 13 stage IV. Overall, patients had a mean age at diagnosis of 62.4 years (standard deviation ([SD] 10.1), 39.3% were female (n=24), and 67.2% (n=41) of patients were non-Hispanic White, 14.8 % (n=9) Non-Hispanic Black, 6.6% (n=4) Asian, 1.6% (n=1) Hispanic, and 9.8% (n=6) other race/ethnicity. Most patients had Medicare (45.9%, n=28) or private health insurance (34.4%, n=21). The average duration of disease (i.e., time from diagnosis to date of last office visit prior to their site's IRB approval date) was 4.5 years (SD 3.5). All patients had involvement of ≥1 organ system and 45.9% (n=28) had involvement of ≥2 organ systems at diagnosis. More than half of patients had renal (55.7%, n=34) or cardiac (52.5%, n=32) involvement. Nearly all patients completed first-line therapy at any point prior to their last office visit (93.4%, n=57); a minority of patients (9.8%, n=6) initiated first-line therapy, and 3 patients (4.9%) had a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, one each in stages I, II, and III, during the study period. The median estimated AL amyloidosis-related healthcare costs (USD) during the 1-year study period were $95,253 (interquartile range [IQR] $2,869-497,504) for stage I, $190,796 ($5,249-499,470) for stage II, $414,677 ($28,365-533,081) for stage III, and $523,504 ($191,830-526,596) for stage IV. Discussion: This is the first study of AL amyloidosis that reports costs of care stratified by Mayo 2012 stage. In a prevalent population with AL amyloidosis, we found that overall, patients with AL amyloidosis have significant ongoing costs of care after completion of initial therapy at each Mayo 2012 stage, with stage IV patients having the highest AL amyloidosis-related costs. The percent of patients with cardiac or renal organ involvement is possibly higher than represented in this study; given the rapid progression and high early mortality rate seen with stage III and IV disease, some of these patients may not have fulfilled the 1-year observation period requirement and thus were excluded from the study. These data describe the significant and continued burden faced by patients with AL amyloidosis and the health care system for the years beyond initial diagnosis and completion of front-line treatment.

8054 Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but those with high risk MM (HRMM) have a poor long-term prognosis. Herein we provide survival outcomes on the first randomized trial in newly diagnosed HRMM, S1211, to follow-up on the previously reported progression-free survival (PFS) (NCT01668719, Usmani SZ et al, Lancet Haem 2021). Methods: S1211 is a randomized phase II trial comparing 8 cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (RVd-Elo). Stem cell collection was allowed, but ASCT was deferred until progression. HRMM was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high-risk (GEPhi), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p), amplification 1q21, primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL), or elevated serum LDH (> 2X ULN). Median PFS was the primary endpoint, using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.1. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) and OS. Response was assessed using the IMWG 2009 criteria. Results: S1211 enrolled 103 evaluable patients, RVd n=54, RVd-Elo n=49. 74% had ISS II/III, 48% amp1q21, 38% del(17p), 11% t(14;16), 9% GEPhi, 7% pPCL, 5% t(14;20) and 4% elevated LDH (17% >1 feature). With median follow-up of 72 months (mos.), no difference in median PFS was observed [RVd-Elo=29 mos., RVd= 34 mos., HR = 1.11 (80% CI=0.82, 1.49, p=0.66]. No difference in OS was observed [RVd-Elo = median not reached (NR), RVd= 68 mos., HR = 0.85 (80% CI: 0.59, 1.23), p-value = 0.58]. 76% pts had >Grade 3 AEs, no differences in the safety profile were observed. Amongst patients with gain/amp 1q21, median PFS was [RVd-Elo=31 mos., RVd= 37 mos., HR = 1.48 (80% CI= 0.95, 2.31), p=0.25], median OS was [RVd-Elo = 61 mos., RVd= 68 mos., HR = 1.23 (80% CI: 0.72, 2.10), p-value = 0.63]. In patients with del(17p), median PFS was RVd-Elo=41 mos., RVd= 30 mos.[HR = 0.98 (80% CI= 0.60, 1.58), p=0.95], median OS RVd-Elo = NR, RVd= 72 mos., [HR = 0.77 (80% CI: 0.40, 1.48), p-value = 0.61]. Conclusions: In the first randomized HRMM study reported to date, the addition of Elo to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve PFS and OS with a median follow-up of 6 years. Although the median PFS for Del17p subgroup on RVd-Elo arm is higher than RVd, it did not achieve statistical significance. The PFS and OS observed for gain/amp 1q21 and del17p in the RVd control arm may serve as important benchmarks for future enrichment design HRMM clinical trials. The PFS and OS in both arms of the study exceeded the original statistical assumptions and support the role for PI/IMiD combination induction/maintenance therapy for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT01668719.

Abstract Introduction: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disease characterized by the deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils into organs leading to organ dysfunction and death. The analysis at 6 and 12 months of the ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) showed that the addition of subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab to the standard of care combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) was superior to VCd alone, with higher rates of hematologic complete response (CR) and an acceptable safety profile. Based on these findings daratumumab with VCd (D-VCd) was approved for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis in January 2021 in the US and June 2021 in the EU. Here, we present data from the analysis at 18 months of the ANDROMEDA study. Methods: ANDROMEDA is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 study including patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with measurable hematologic disease, ≥1 involved organ, cardiac stage I-IIIA, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 mL/min, and absence of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized (1:1) to D-VCd or VCd for 6 28-day cycles. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2), cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 up to 500 mg per week), and dexamethasone (20-40 mg) were administered weekly. SC daratumumab (1800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in 15 mL) was administered once weekly in cycles 1 and 2 and every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6. Patients in the D-VCd arm received only SC daratumumab after cycle 6, every 4 weeks (up to a total of 24 cycles from first dose). The primary endpoint was overall (ie, at any time) hematologic CR rate, defined here as normalization of free light chain (FLC) levels and ratio (FLCr) and negative serum and urine immunofixation, confirmed at a subsequent visit; normalization of uninvolved FLC level and FLCr were not required if involved FLC was lower than the upper limit of normal. Secondary endpoints included major organ deterioration progression-free survival (PFS), organ response rate, time to hematologic response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 388 patients were randomized to receive D-VCd (N=195) or VCd alone (N=193). At the May 2021 clinical cutoff, the median duration of treatment for D-VCd and VCd arms was 21.3 and 5.3 months, respectively. In the D-VCd arm, 149 patients (77.2%) received daratumumab monotherapy after completing 6 cycles of D-VCd; of those, 17 (11.4%) were still receiving treatment. The rates of deep hematological responses favored the D-VCd treatment arm (Table). At a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the rate of hematologic CR was significantly higher in the D-VCd arm vs the VCd arm (59.5% vs 19.2%; odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 6.03 [3.80-9.58]; P<0.0001). Similarly, more patients achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) (D-VCd vs VCd, 79.0% vs 50.3%; odds ratio [95% CI], 3.74 [2.39-5.86]; P<0.0001). Among patients who responded, the median time from randomization to ≥VGPR was shorter in the D-VCd arm (0.56 months) vs the VCd arm (0.82 months). Comparable to the cardiac response analysis at 6 months (D-VCd vs VCd, 42% vs 22%), greater cardiac response rates were achieved with D-VCd compared with VCd at 18 months (53% vs 24%). Similarly, renal response rates remained superior with D-VCd vs VCd alone at 18 months (58% vs 26% compared with 6 months [54% vs 27%]). A total of 79 deaths occurred (D-VCd, N=34; VCd, N=45). In the D-VCd arm, only 1 additional grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event occurred over 18 months vs 12 months (119 [61.7%] vs 118 [61.1%] patients) and no additional infusion-related reactions were reported. OS will be analyzed and major organ deterioration PFS will be updated after approximately 200 events have occurred. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the sustained clinical benefits of D-VCd vs VCd in terms of hematologic and organ responses with longer follow-up, although it should be noted that many patients in the D-VCd arm received daratumumab monotherapy following 6 cycles of D-VCd, while patients in the VCd group stopped study treatment. Nevertheless, the study continues to support the use of D-VCd over VCd alone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Following its recent approval, D-VCd represents a new SOC for patients with AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Comenzo: Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding. Palladini: Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Kastritis: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria. Minnema: Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Alnylam: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Wechalekar: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Jaccard: Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Lee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gibbs: AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS and Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mollee: Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Caelum, EUSA, Pfizer, SkylineDx, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: No personal fees received. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Suzuki: Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Libby: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Valent: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hungria: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel ; Takeda: Honoraria. Wong: Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GloxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Dren Biosciences: Consultancy; Caelum: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenzweig: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Akcea: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Onocopeptides: Speakers Bureau. Bumma: Amgen, Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Oncopeptides, Sanofi: Consultancy. Tran: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qin: Janssen: Current Employment. Khaled: Jazz: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Honoraria; Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Abstract Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and a steroid are used to treat newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Although ixazomib (Ix), an oral PI with single agent activity, can be combined with lenalidomide (LEN), patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM are often LEN-refractory. Pomalidomide (POM) has single agent activity in LEN-refractory disease, and both POM and Ix also show activity in poor cytogenetic risk pts. Methods: Primary objectives: 1) determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Ix in combination with standard dose POM and dexamethasone (DEX), and 2) evaluate the anti-tumor activity of the triplet. The treatment regimen included two dose levels (3 mg and 4 mg) of Ix on days 1, 8, 15; POM 4 mg days 1-21; and DEX 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22, of a 28 day cycle. Eligibility: R/R MM after >1 prior therapy, LEN-refractory, and ≤ grade(gr) 1 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Design: Phase I study utilizing a standard 3+3 design; dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) defined during cycle 1. Results: 32 pts treated, 31 evaluable for toxicity and response. Pts received a median 4 cycles (range 1-13); median follow-up is 5.5 months (range 1.8-21.1). Six pts treated on DL1, 25 treated on DL2, the MTD/Phase II dose (P2D). Median age: 62 years (range 38-84); median time from diagnosis: 3.7 years (range 1.0-8.9); median number prior therapies: 3 (range 1-5); prior transplant: n = 23 (74%); double (LEN/Bortezomib[BOR]) or triple (LEN/BOR/Carfilzomib[CFZ]) refractory: 19 (61%). Phase I: DL1 expanded to n=6 after 1/3 pts experienced DLT (gr3 lung infection); no further DLT seen on DL 1 or 2. Adverse events (AEs) related to POM and/or Ix: ANC decrease Gr1/2 n=11 (35%), Gr3/4 n=10 (32%), platelet decrease Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), lymphocyte decrease Gr1/2 n=8 (26%), Gr3/4 n=11 (35%), PN Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), no Gr3/4. Response: Phase I and II, n=31 pts treated. ORR: 45% (6 VGPR, 8 PR); Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR): 81% (6 VGPR, 8 PR, 3 MR, 8 SD). In the pts with high risk cytogenetics (7[23%] 1q, 3[10%] 17p, 2[6%] t(4;14)) an ORR of 58% (3 VGPR, 4 PR) was seen, and the CBR was 83%. In the double or triple refractory pts, an ORR of 26% and CBR of 79% (1 VGPR, 4 PR, 3 MR, 7 SD) were observed. Conclusions: Ix/POM/DEX is a well-tolerated oral combination therapy, and responses were seen even at DL1 and in high risk patients, including those with poor-risk cytogenetics or advanced refractory disease. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Nathwani:Carevive Systems, Inc.: Research Funding. Forman:Mustang Therpapeutics: Other: Construct licensed by City of Hope. Berdeja:Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Bluebird, BMS, Calithera, Celgene, Constellation, Curis, Epizyme, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kesios, Novartis, Onyx, Takeda, Tragara: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The introduction of novel agents and proteasome inhibitors, and advances in high dose therapy administration has made an impact on the survival outcomes for MM patients. However, HRMM still remains a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. Even with aggressive approaches such as the Total Therapy protocols, patients with poor genomic risk have a 2-year event-free survival of ~50% (Nair et al, Blood 2010). A randomized Phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of adding immunotherapy into the first line for HRMM patients, comparing lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) with or without addition of elotuzumab (Elo), a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to SLAMF7/CS1. We are reporting on the Phase I portion of the study. PATIENTS & METHODS: The objective of Phase I was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of RVD-Elo. Both low/standard risk MM and HRMM patients were eligible. HRMM was defined by one or more of the following: (1) poor risk genomics by the Arkansas 70-gene model, (2) translocation (14;16), translocation (14;20) and/or deletion (17p) by florescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), (3) primary plasma cell leukemia and (4) serum LDH > 2 times normal levels. The treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy for 8 cycles with RVD-Elo (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14 of every 21-day cycle; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,4,8,11; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,8,15 cycles 1-2 then days 1,11 cycles 3-8) followed by dose-attenuated RVD-Elo maintenance (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14; bortezomib 1.0 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,8,15; dexamethasone 12 mg orally days 1,8,15; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,15) until disease relapse, progression or intolerance. Adverse events (AE) were recorded as per the NCI CTCAEv4.0. RESULTS: Eight newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled on the Phase I run-in study. Six patients (Figure 1) were evaluable for dose limiting toxicities (DLT) during Cycle 1 as per protocol. The median age of patients was 67 years (range: 56-79 years), with 67% ≥65 years, Hgb was less than 10 g/dL in 50%, creatinine was greater than 2 mg/dL in all patients. ISS stage distribution was 17% (I), 33% (II) and 50% (III). Deletion 13 was observed in 1 patient (17%). The most common AEs (all grades) were fatigue (100%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (83%), edema (83%), lymphopenia (66%) and leukopenia (50%). The most common Grade 3 AEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy (33%), one of which was a DLT, neutropenia (17%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). One Grade 4 lymphopenia was observed. All 6 patients have completed 8 cycles of RVD-Elo induction therapy and 5 patients have completed at least 4 cycles of RVD-Elo maintenance. Overall median days on therapy per cycle were 13 days during induction and 20 days per cycle during maintenance. Dose adjustments were made in 83% of patients for bortezomib, 83% for lenalidomide and 33% for dexamethasone. There were no dose reductions for elotuzumab, although three patients had 1 event each of dose delays/missed dosing attributable to AE/SAE from RVD. Efficacy data will be released at the time that the phase II study of RVD +/- Elo is mature. Discussion/Conclusion: The RVD-Elo is a safe well-tolerated regimen for newly diagnosed MM patients without major additive AE/SAE beyond what is already known about RVD. This is the first report of the only phase I experience combining the triple-drug regimen RVD with the monoclonal antibody Elotuzumab for newly diagnosed MM. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA180821, CA31946, CA21076, CA180799, CA21115, CA180820 and in part by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Disclosures Usmani: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Honoraria. Shah:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenzweig:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Durie:IRC J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corp: Expert Board Committee Other; IRC Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DMC Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; JW Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.