Citations

Abstract Abstract 2878 Poster Board II-854 Background: Significant advances have been made in the treatment of myeloma with the introduction of thalidomide, its analogue, lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. While these new drugs have improved the outcome of patients with myeloma, the disease still remains incurable. Effectiveness of upcoming new therapies will need to be assessed in the context of anticipated outcome with the currently available therapies. However, given the rapid pace of development over the past decade, outcome of patients who have relapsed on the new therapies remain unclear. Methods: In order to further study this group of patients, we undertook a study of patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to one of the IMiDs (thalidomide or lenalidomide) as well as bortezomib. A total of 300 cases from 8 sites in the US, 5 sites in Europe and one site in Asia were identified for this study. Enrolled patients had relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, per the EBMT or IMWG response criteria, after at least 2 prior treatments. Patients were refractory to bortezomib, defined as having no response on a prior bortezomib-containing regimen or experiencing disease progression within 60 days of a bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients also should have relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible in the opinion of the investigator, to other therapies, including an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses were obtained from the clinical records. The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero. Results: The current analysis includes the first 119 patients with complete data available. The median age at initial diagnosis was 59 years (range, 31-86 yr); 71% were males. The ISS stage distribution at diagnosis was 33%, 39% and 28% for stages 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 19 patients (37%) had high risk disease by FISH [t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p] or by cytogenetics [del 13, hypodiploidy]. The median time from diagnosis to time zero was 3.8 yrs (range 0.2-18.7 yr) and the median reported lines of therapy before time zero was 2. 74% patients had at least 1 autologous stem cell transplant prior to becoming eligible for the study. Following time zero, 77 (65%) pts had a treatment recorded, including an autologous SCT in 21 (18%), with the treatment regimen starting at a median of 1 month after time zero. A variety of treatment regimens were utilized beyond time zero (median=1; range 0-7). Thirty-two (27%) patients had a response any time following time zero, and only 8 had a subsequent response. Response to the first treatment, or supportive care for patients not treated, recorded following time zero included minor response or stable disease (n=14; 12%), PR (n=17, 14%), and VGPR or better (n=6, 5%). Patients treated with SCT had a higher rate of PR or better compared to patients receiving other treatments (85%; 17/20 vs. 26%; 15/57). In a multivariate analysis, the only significant predictor of a PR or better after time zero was younger age (<60 yrs). The median overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) were 6 mos (95% CI, 4-7 mos) and 1 month (95% CI,1-2 mos) respectively. In a multivariate analysis normal creatinine predicted for a better overall survival and having an IgG M protein type predicted for better EFS. A complete analysis from all 300 patients will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This study confirms the poor outcome of patients once they become relapsed and refractory to agents that have become the mainstay of myeloma therapy. The findings highlight the incurable nature of the disease and urgent need to develop newer effective therapeutic agents for this group of patients, who currently do not have effective treatment options. Disclosures: Kumar: CELGENE: Research Funding; MILLENNIUM: Research Funding; BAYER: Research Funding; GENZYME: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding. Jagannath:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Laubach:Novartis: . Palumbo:Ortho Biotech, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: 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. San Miguel:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, 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. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care used for pts with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391) is comparing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) to Rd in pts with RMM. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by an independent review committee). Secondary end points include overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL), and safety. Methods: Adults with RMM who received 1–3 prior regimens were eligible. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd and were stratified by β2-microglobulin levels (<2.5 vs ≥2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs yes), and prior R (no vs yes). All pts received lenalidomide (25 mg) on days 1–21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, KRd pts received K as a 10-min infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1–12 (20 mg/m2 [days 1 and 2 of cycle 1]; 27 mg/m2 thereafter); K was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13–18 and was not administered beyond 18 cycles. Cycles were repeated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The study had 90% power to detect a 25% reduction in risk for PFS events for KRd vs Rd (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75) at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. A stratified log-rank test was used for the PFS comparison. Results: Data are presented for KRd followed by Rd throughout the abstract. Between July 2010 and March 2012, 792 pts from 20 countries were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. Median age was 64.0 years (range: 31.0‒91.0). Pts received a median of 2 prior regimens in each group. In both the KRd and Rd groups, 66% of pts received prior bortezomib; 20% of pts in each arm received prior R. Median treatment exposure was 22 cycles (KRd) and 14 cycles (Rd). At the time of the prespecified interim analysis, the study met the primary end point for PFS (HR=0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.83; P<.0001), with a longer duration of median PFS in the KRd group (26.3 months [mo]; 95% CI: 23.3–30.5) compared with the Rd group (17.6 mo; 95% CI: 15.0–20.6). Median OS was not reached in either group; however, there was a trend toward longer OS with KRd compared with Rd (HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; P=.018), which did not meet the prespecified statistical boundary at the interim analysis of survival (P=.005). The Kaplan-Meier OS event-free rates at 24 mo were 73.3% (95% CI: 68.6‒77.5) and 65.0% (95% CI: 59.9‒69.5). The ORR was 87.4% (95% CI: 83.7–90.5) with KRd and 66.9% (95% CI: 62.0–71.5) with Rd. Median DOR was 28.6 mo (95% CI: 24.9–31.3) and 21.2 mo (95% CI: 16.7–25.8). In the KRd and Rd groups, 31.8% vs 9.4% achieved a stringent complete response (sCR) or complete response (CR) (sCR: 14.1% vs 4.3%; CR: 17.7% vs 5.1%), and 70.4% and 40.7% achieved ≥very good partial response. KRd consistently improved Global Health Status/QoL compared with Rd over 18 cycles of treatment (P=.0001). Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 15.2% (KRd) and 17.4% (Rd) of pts. In each group, 7.7% and 8.5% of pts died while still on study treatment or within 30 days of receiving the last dose of study treatment. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (≥grade 3) included neutropenia (29.6% vs 26.5%), anemia (17.9% vs 17.2%), and thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 12.3%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (all grade) included diarrhea (42.3% vs 33.7%), fatigue (32.9% vs 30.6%), and cough (28.8% vs 17.2%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (≥grade 3) included pneumonia (12.5% vs 10.5%), hypokalemia (9.4% vs 4.9%), and hypophosphatemia (8.4% vs 4.6%). Other TEAEs of interest (grouped terms; all grade) included dyspnea (22.4% vs 18.0%), hypertension (preferred term; all grade: 14.3% vs 6.9%; grade 3: 4.3% vs 1.8%), acute renal failure (8.4% vs 7.2%), cardiac failure (6.4% vs 4.1%), and ischemic heart disease (5.9% vs 4.6%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grouped terms; all grade) were 17.1% and 17.0%; ≥grade 3 PN was infrequent (2.6% and 3.1%). Conclusion: The addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with RMM resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. KRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and represents a potential new standard of care. Disclosures Stewart: Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. ASPIRE is a randomized, multi-center, phase 3 study investigating the use of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received 1–3 prior regimens.. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Masszi:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Spicka:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hájek:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Onyx Pharmaceticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millinnium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zojwalla:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tonda:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xing:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Inc,: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN) is a potent, selective, orally available small-molecule BCL-2 inhibitor that induces cell death in multiple myeloma (MM) cell lines and primary samples, particularly those with t(11;14), which mostly have a favorable high BCL-2, low BCL-XL, and low MCL-1 profile. Methods: In this Phase 1, open-label study, patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM received VEN monotherapy. Objectives of the study were to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose, and efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], time to progression [TTP], and duration of response [DoR]) of VEN. After a 2-week lead in period with weekly dose escalation, VEN was given daily at final doses of 300, 600, 900, or 1200mg in dose escalation cohorts and 1200mg in the safety expansion. Pts who progressed during VEN monotherapy could receive VEN plus dexamethasone and continue in the study. Results: As of 01July2016, 66 pts were enrolled in the study (30 in dose escalation cohorts and 36 in safety expansion). Median age was 63 years and 39 (62%) pts were ISS stage II/III. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range: 1-15), and 62 (94%) pts had received bortezomib (46 [70%] refractory), 62 (94%) received lenalidomide (51 [77%] refractory), and 50 (76%) had prior autologous stem cell transplant. Thirty (46%) pts had t(11;14) MM. Median time on VEN monotherapy for all pts was 2.5 months (.2-23); 17 (26%) elected to receive VEN and dexamethasone combination after disease progression for a median of 1.4 months (.1-11). Fifty-one (77%) pts discontinued the study for the following primary reasons: 39 related to disease progression, 5 due to AEs/toxicity, 2 withdrew consent, 1 was lost to follow up, and 4 for other reasons not specified. Common adverse events (AEs) in ≥20% of pts were nausea (48%), diarrhea (36%), neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (32%), fatigue (27%), anemia (23%), back pain (21%), and vomiting (21%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% of pts were thrombocytopenia (26%), neutropenia (20%), lymphopenia (15%), anemia (14%), and decreased white blood cells (12%). Serious AEs in ≥2 pts were pneumonia (n=5), sepsis (3), pain, pyrexia, cough, and hypotension (2 each). Two pts experienced dose-limiting toxicities at 600mg of abdominal pain and nausea. Eight deaths were reported: 6 due to disease progression, 1 due to lung disorder, and 1 due to brain hemorrhage following injury; neither were considered by the investigator as related to VEN. Steady state VEN exposures were approximately dose proportional at all doses but 900mg. As of 20July2016, ORR for all pts on VEN monotherapy was 21% (14/66) and 10 (15%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or better (2 stringent complete response [sCR], 2 CR, 6 VGPR) (Figure); median DoR and TTP was 9.7 and 2.6 months, respectively. Most objective responses (12/14 [86%]) were reported in the subset of pts with t(11;14) MM. In this group, ORR was 40% (12/30) and 27% (8/30) achieved a response of ≥VGPR; median DoR for pts with t(11;14) was 9.7 months (95% CI: 6.3, -). Pts who achieved at least minimal response in the t(11;14) group (14/30) had a median of 4 prior therapies and were mostly refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or double refractory (71% [10/14] each). For two pts with response in the non-t(11;14)/undetermined group, 1 had a translocation of chromosome 14 with an unidentified partner, and the other had no cytogenetics data available. DoR was 9.5 and 7.2 months in these pts and both are still ongoing. Median TTP for pts with or without/undetermined t(11;14) was 6.6 and 1.9 months, respectively. The median best percent change in primary M protein for pts with t(11;14) (n=23) was -53% vs +11% in the non-t(11;14)/undetermined group (n=23). Additional biomarker subgroup analyses (n=32) showed that efficacy was primarily observed in pts with myeloma cells expressing a favorable BCL-2 family expression profile (high BCL-2, low BCL-XL, low MCL-1) by immunohistochemistry, which was significantly enriched in the t(11;14) population. Indeed, although high BCL-2 expression was observed in a majority of bone marrow core biopsy samples (88%), the t(11;14) subgroup was enriched (81% vs 25%) for tumors expressing high BCL-2, low BCL-XL, and low MCL-1. Conclusions: VEN monotherapy has an acceptable safety profile and clear anti-myeloma activity in pts with R/R MM, primarily with t(11;14) having a high BCL-2, low BCL-XL and low MCL-1 expression levels. Figure Figure. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Kaufman:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Mikhael:Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Facon:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Benboubker:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Alzate:AbbVie: Employment. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dunbar:AbbVie Inc.: Employment, Other: may own stock. Xu:AbbVie: Employment. Agarwal:AbbVie: Employment. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Shareholder in AbbVie. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment. Verdugo:AbbVie: Employment, Other: may own stock. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: IgM-secreting myeloma is rare, encompassing about 1% of all the myeloma cases. Given its rarity, the characteristics and survival of these patients have not been extensively studied. Therefore, we carried out a multicenter retrospective study in patients with IgM myeloma. Methods: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution. Clinical data were gathered and included age, sex, hemoglobin, calcium, LDH, estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), presence of lytic bone lesions, International Staging System score, cytogenetic abnormalities, final outcome and overall survival (OS) time. OS was defined as the time in months from diagnosis to last follow-up or death. The Chi-square and the rank-sum tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and the log-rank waas used to compare groups. The Cox proportional-hazard regression method was used to fit univariate and multivariate survival models, reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All reported p-values are two-sided, and were considered significant if less than 0.05. Results: A total of 159 patients with IgM myeloma from 20 centers from Europe, USA and Latin America were included in this analysis. Patients were diagnosed between 1996 and 2015. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 37-86 years) with a male predominance (68%). The median serum IgM level was 2510 mg/dl (range 27-12,100 mg/dl) with 25% of patients having a serum IgM within normal limits but an IgM monoclonal spike detectable in serum electrophoresis. Hemoglobin levels <10 g/dl were seen in 49 patients (32%), serum calcium was elevated in 24 (16%), estimated GFR of 60 ml/min or less in 56 (37%), lytic lesions were detected in 86 (58%), and serum LDH was elevated in 28 (24%). ISS scores of 1, 2 and 3 were seen in 53 (36%), 63 (43%) and 31 (21%) of patients, respectively. Although immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry data were limited, CD20 expression was seen in 15/26 (58%) and cyclin D1 in 10/15 (67%) patients. The most common cytogenetic abnormalities were t(11;14) in 26/67 (39%), del13q in 25/76 (33%) and del17p in 6/76 (8%) patients. 149 patients (94%) received at least one line of systemic therapy for myeloma of which 13 (9%) received rituximab as part of initial therapy. After a median follow-up of 47 months, 74 patients (47%) have died. The median OS was 62 months (95% CI 51-79 months). Cause of death was known in 38 patients, and the most common was myeloma progression (74%). IN the univariate analysis, prognostic factors associated with a worse OS were age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06; p=0.01) and ISS score (ISS 2: HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.83-2.48; p=0.2, and ISS 3: HR 3.03, 95% CI 1.54-5.98; p=0.001, using ISS 1 as reference group), while male sex was associated with a better OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.90; p=0.02). Hemoglobin, calcium, estimated GFR and lytic lesions were not associated with OS. In the multivariate analysis, male sex was associated with a better OS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; p=0.03) and ISS with worse OS (ISS 2: HR 1.57, 95% CI 0.89-2.74; p=0.12, and ISS 3: HR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38-5.55; p=0.004, using ISS 1 as reference group). Conclusion: Patients with IgM myeloma apparently present with similar clinical characteristics as patients with non-IgM myeloma. Pathologically, CD20 and cyclin D1 expression is common. The most common cytogenetic abnormalities identified were t(11;14) and del13q. Survival does not appear shorter than non-IgM myeloma patients, and the ISS appears to have similar prognostic value. Disclosures Castillo: Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Otsuka: Consultancy; Biogen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Ghobrial:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Noxxon: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Hájek:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Hungria:International Myeloma Foundation Latin America: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Reagan:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spicka:Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is approved by the US FDA, in combination with Rd, for the treatment of MM patients (pts) who have received at least 1 prior therapy. Approval was based on the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study (NCT01564537) in 722 pts with RRMM (Moreau et al, N Engl J Med 2016), in which IRd showed superior PFS versus placebo-Rd (HR 0.74) at the final prespecified analysis, with limited additional toxicity. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed a consistent PFS benefit with IRd, but with a differential treatment effect according to prior therapy exposure. An exploratory study objective was to evaluate potential relationships between treatment outcomes and tumor gene expression patterns. c-MYC is a proto-oncogene that encodes a transcription factor regulating cell proliferation, growth, protein translation, metabolism, and apoptosis, and increased c-MYC expression is involved in MM pathogenesis/progression. We analyzed the impact of c-MYC expression on PFS in RRMM pts treated with IRd or placebo-Rd. Methods Pts with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive oral ixazomib or placebo, plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3), proteasome inhibitor exposure, and ISS disease stage. The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review committee assessment. Data reported here are from the final prespecified statistical analysis of PFS (median follow-up ~15 months). Bone marrow aspirate samples were collected at screening for tumor gene expression analysis. Whole transcriptome sequencing (RNAseq) of bone marrow-sorted CD138+ cells was performed using the Illumina Truseq protocol on the Illumina HiSeq platform; this generated a median of 50 million paired-end reads (100 bp length) per sample. c-MYC expression was evaluated by treatment arm and according to number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3). PFS was analyzed in subgroups dichotomized according to median c-MYC expression (c-MYC-high/c-MYC-low). Results RNAseq data were available for 59% (427/722) of enrolled pts; 213 (50%) had high and 219 (50%) had low c-MYC expression (dichotomized according to the median). Impact of c-MYC expression (high vs low) on PFS, irrespective of treatment arm, was not significant (p=0.98). However, a significant treatment effect of IRd vs placebo-Rd was only seen in pts with high c-MYC expression (interaction p=0.024); in these pts (IRd: n=109; placebo-Rd: n=104) a significant PFS benefit was seen with IRd (HR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p=0.00011). Impact of c-MYC expression was then analyzed by number of prior therapies. In the overall TOURMALINE-MM1 population, per stratification, 212/213 pts in the IRd/placebo-Rd arms had 1 prior therapy, and 148/149 had 2-3 prior therapies. After median follow-up of ~15 months, median PFS in pts with 1 prior therapy was 20.6 vs 16.6 months with IRd vs placebo-Rd (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.65-1.20), and in pts with 2-3 prior therapies was not reached vs 12.9 months (HR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.40-0.84, p=0.0033). The level of c-MYC expression was shown to be significantly higher in pts with 2-3 prior therapies vs 1 prior therapy, with median expression of 6.94 (SD=1.71, n=177) vs 6.52 (SD=1.74, n=250) (log2 scale), t-test p-value 0.0153. In pts with 1 prior therapy, no differences in PFS were observed between pts with low c-MYC expression (HR 1; 95% CI: 0.59-1.8, p=0.934), while a prolonged PFS benefit was observed in pts with high c-MYC expression (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.88, p=0.0146) (Figure, A and B). In pts with 2-3 prior therapies, both the c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts showed improved PFS with IRd vs placebo-Rd; the difference in PFS was statistically significant only in c-MYC-high pts (HR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18-0.72, p=0.00269) (Figure, C and D). Conclusions In TOURMALINE-MM1, c-MYC expression was higher in MM tumor samples from pts with 2-3 vs 1 prior therapies. The IRd regimen was active in c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts, but its impact on PFS vs placebo-Rd was greater in c-MYC-high pts, thus providing a potential explanation for the enhanced PFS benefit with IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with 2-3 prior therapies. The PFS benefit with IRd in c-MYC-low pts with 2-3 prior lines suggests that, in advanced MM, further genomic alterations may also be contributing to ixazomib sensitivity. Disclosures Di Bacco: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Avet-Loiseau:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ganly:Medipics: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Langer:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kumar:Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Li:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Badola:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Shen:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Zhang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Wang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Esseltine:Takeda: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Johnson and Johnson: Equity Ownership. Luptakova:Takeda Oncology: Employment. van de Velde:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of eighteen 28-day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42-day cycles); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: BCL-2 and MCL-1 promote multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (VEN) is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable small-molecular inhibitor of BCL-2. When combined with bortezomib, which can inhibit MCL-1, VEN can enhance the activity of bortezomib in MM cell lines and xenograft models. Methods: In this Phase 1b, open label, dose escalation study, patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM received daily VEN (50 - 1200 mg per designated dose cohort) with bortezomib and dexamethasone. The objectives of the study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose (R2PD), and efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], time to progression [TTP], and duration of response [DoR]) of combination therapy in this patient population. Results: As of 01July2016, 66 patients were enrolled, with 54 in the dose escalation cohort and 12 in the safety expansion at R2PD of 800 mg. The median age was 64 years and 39 (59%) were ISS stage II/III. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 1 - 13), and 21 (32%) were refractory to prior bortezomib, 37 (56%) were refractory to prior lenalidomide, and 41 (62%) had prior stem cell transplant. Forty-three (65%) patients discontinued the study for the following primary reasons: 33 related to disease progression, 5 due to AEs (1 each: respiratory failure and cardiac failure, lung adenocarcinoma, sepsis, renal impairment, and Guillain-Barre syndrome; none were considered by the investigator as related to VEN), 2 withdrew consent, and 3 for other reasons not specified. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (99%) patients, with common AEs in ≥20% of patients being diarrhea (41%), thrombocytopenia (39%), constipation (38%), nausea (36%), insomnia (32%), peripheral neuropathy (30%), peripheral edema (29%), anemia (27%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (27%), dyspnea (24%), fatigue (24%), and asthenia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (29%), anemia (15%) and neutropenia (14%). Serious AEs in ≥2 patients were febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, cardiac failure, pyrexia, influenza, lower respiratory tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, embolism, and hypotension. One dose-limiting toxicity of lower abdominal pain was reported for a patient who received 1200 mg VEN. Five deaths were reported during the study, 4 due to disease progression and 1 due to respiratory syncytial virus infection (not considered by the investigator as related to VEN). After co-administration with bortezomib and dexamethasone, dose-normalized VEN exposure at steady-state appeared to be within the exposure range observed with VEN monotherapy in patients with MM. The ORR for all evaluable patients was 68% (44/65) and 26 (40%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or better (3 stringent complete response [sCR], 8 CR, 15 VGPR) (Figure). For all patients, median DoR was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.2, 15.8) and TTP was 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.7, 10.2), with a median follow up of 4.9 months (range: .03 - 26.7). High ORR of 89% was seen in patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib (39/45) or who had 1 - 3 prior therapies (31/35). In 31 patients who were non-refractory to bortezomib and had 1 - 3 prior therapies had ORR of 94% (29/31), 68% (21/31) with VGPR or better; median DoR was 10.6 months and TTP was 11.3 months for this subgroup. Moreover, patients who were bortezomib naïve and had 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy had ORR of 100% (12/12), and median DoR was 15.8 months and TTP was 17.1 months. In patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib but who were refractory to lenalidomide, the ORR was 86% (19/22) as compared with 91% (20/22) in those non-refractory to lenalidomide. Clinical responses were comparable in patients with t(11;14) MM (ORR, 78% [7/9]) and without t(11;14) MM (ORR, 66% [37/56]). In the t(11;14) group, 3 patients were bortezomib-refractory, and 2 of them achieved a PR as best response. Also, 4 patients had more than 3 prior lines, with 3 of them achieving PR. Conclusions: VEN in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone has an acceptable safety profile in patients with R/R MM. Efficacy results, including 68% ORR in all patients and 94% ORR in patients not refractory to bortezomib and who received 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy, indicates promising efficacy of this novel combination and supports the ongoing Phase 3 trial with this regimen in patients with R/R MM. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Roberts:Genentech: Patents & Royalties: Employee of Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research which receives milestone payments related to venetoclax; AbbVie: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Agarwal:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Facon:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Kumar:Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Cordero:AbbVie: Employment. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie: Employment. Jia:AbbVie: Employment. Salem:AbbVie: Employment. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Shareholder in AbbVie. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment. Verdugo:AbbVie: Employment, Other: may own stock. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have become refractory to bortezomib (BORT) and refractory or otherwise ineligible for thalidomide or lenalidomide (LEN) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 9 months (Kumar. Leukemia. 2012). There is no standard treatment available for these patients. Pomalidomide (POM) is a novel immunomodulatory drug that has shown activity in LEN- and BORT-refractory patients (Vij. ASCO 2012). MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) vs high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in a population of patients who are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Here we present the final progression-free survival (PFS) and interim OS analysis of MM-003. Methods: Eligible patients with primary refractory or relapsed and refractory disease were enrolled. All patients with documented disease progression during treatment or within 60 days of completing their last myeloma therapy (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of LEN and BORT either alone or in combination), were randomized 2:1 to receive either POM + LoDEX (arm A) or HiDEX alone (arm B). Patients progressing on HiDEX had the opportunity to receive POM in the companion trial, MM-003C. Patients in arm A received POM 4 mg on days 1–21 and DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Patients in arm B received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by age (≤ 75 vs > 75 years), disease population (refractory vs refractory and relapsed vs refractory and intolerant [intolerant to BORT only]), and number of prior therapies (2 vs > 2). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included safety, OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response) by IMWG and EBMT criteria, duration of response, time to progression, and quality of life. OS was to be tested only if PFS would be statistically significant; therefore, alpha was controlled at 0.05 2-sided for both PFS and OS. Results: The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the protocol-specified final analysis results. 455 patients were randomized from March 2011 to Sept 2012. 302 patients received POM + LoDEX, and 153 patients received HiDEX. At the time of analysis, 45% of patients in arm A and 25% of patients in arm B remained on study. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1–17). 72% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BORT. At the PFS final analysis, with a median follow-up of 18 weeks, PFS was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median 15.7 vs 8.0 weeks; 267 total events; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P <.001). OS interim analysis was performed as planned; OS also was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median not reached vs 34 weeks; 134 events; HR, 0.53; P<.001), crossing the prespecified O’brien-Fleming superiority boundary. This includes 45 pts who received POM after progressing on HiDEX. Median duration of treatment was 12.4 weeks in arm A and 8 weeks in arm B. Following DSMB review of the data, immediate crossover of arm B patients to arm A was recommended. Overall, 25% of patients in arm A and 38% in arm B died, with progressive disease and infections as the primary reasons. Frequent grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (42% in arm A vs 15% in arm B), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 24%), and febrile neutropenia (7% vs 0%). Other toxicities (grade 3/4) were predominantly infections (24% vs 23%), hemorrhage (3% vs 5%), glucose intolerance (3% vs 7%), neuropathy (1% vs 1%), and venous thromboembolism (1% vs 0%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 35% arm A and 49% arm B. Complete results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly increased PFS and OS compared with HiDEX in patients who are refractory to LEN and BORT, a population with limited treatment options. The OS superiority boundary was crossed. Based on these data, POM + LoDEX should become the new standard of care in patients who have exhausted the novel agents, LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlin:Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 743 Background There has been considerable recent focus upon the molecular classification of myeloma. However, the prognostic impact of molecular changes has mostly been assessed from small and/or incomplete studies from single institutions or groups. There has been no large scale analysis of molecular features linked to ISS stage. Methods In order to clarify the overall impact of molecular changes we undertook a collective analysis of 9,897 patients through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Within this population 2,295 patients had presence of cytogenetic abnormalities (Any CA); 1,713 hypodiploidy; 1,673 hyperdiploidy; 2,309 cytogenetic deletion 13; 3,226 deletion 13 by FISH; 1,573 FISH t(4;14); 1,486 FISH del p17; 1, 683 FISH t(11:14); and 366 FISH t(4;16). Enrolled patients had complete clinical and treatment details available including baseline standard prognostic factors, ISS stage, as well as both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) information. Data came from 14 sites: 3 from the US and the remainder from Europe, Asia, and Latin America as for the ISS staging system analyses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results Each of the known adverse molecular features had a negative impact upon both PFS and OS (p=002 - <0.0001). Among the deleterious FISH abnormalities the t(4;14) abnormality was the most highly correlated with poorer outcomes by PFS: 4 year estimate: 32% vs. 60% (p<0.0001). The t(4;14) abnormality combined with ISS Stage also significantly enhanced predictive capability: ISS Stage I without t(4;14) OS 81% @ 4 years; ISS Stage III with t(4;14) OS 22% @ 4 years (P<0.0001) [Figure 1]. The best outcomes were for ISS Stage I in the presence of t(11;14): OS 89% @ 4 years. Absence of any one adverse feature correlated with 80-81% OS @ 4 years for Stage I. Presence of any one adverse feature had a more variable impact and correlated with 22%-40% OS at 4 years for Stage III. In univariate correlations the most predictive correlations with OS were presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy, cytogenetic 13q- with R2 values of 6.9%, 4.5%, 4.1% and 3.8% respectively. In multivariate analyses, ISS stage provided the best predictions: R2 values = 13.3%. The added contributions from molecular features were: t(4;14) 3.8%; cytogenetic 13q- 2.9%; Any CA 2.3%; and 17p- 1.0%. The maximum total R2 for OS was 22%. Conclusions This large multicenter analysis confirms the correlations between abnormal molecular findings and outcomes. Combinations with ISS Stage provide the best predictive capability. Presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy and cytogenetic 13q- contribute to poorer outcomes by ISS stage. The presence of hyperdiploidy and/or t(11;14) contribute to better outcomes. There is thus validation of prior molecular studies related to prognosis utilizing this large IMWG database. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.