Citations

Abstract Background: The observation that B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling play a critical role in the survival of malignant Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) cells is highlighted by clinical efficacy of the BTK-inhibitor, ibrutinib in WM patients. BCR signaling leads to downstream activation of several intermediary components whose activity results in increased cell proliferation. Although disruption of this axis at the proximal end (BCR) has proved successful in WM, the exact role and impact of targeting the distal intermediaries remains unknown, particularly in aggressive forms of the disease. This is important as induction of resistance to ibrutinib is clearly documented which can either be mediated through mutational changes in BTK or other members within the BCR signalosome. Using a novel simulation-based approach, we reverse-engineered the WM cell molecular architecture to uncover the role of oncogenic intermediaries distal to the BCR complex in advanced-stage WM and conducted a virtual drug-screen targeting these pathways with in vitro validation. Methods: The human WM cell line, RPCI-WM1, was used in simulation and validation experiments. RPCI-WM1 was established from a highly drug-refractory advanced disease stage patient refractory to both rituximab and bortezomib. Publically available as well as proprietary genomic and cytogenetic data was utilized for the creation of the RPCI-WM1 patient avatar, which through simulation identified the salient and prominently dysregulated cellular pathways. Importantly, illustrating these pathways highlights common convergence points on increased proliferation and viability. These convergence points were then directly and indirectly targeted by simulated testing of a library of FDA approved drugs and those impacting these dysregulated pathways were shortlisted. A standardized library of equations models all the biological reactions such as enzymatic reactions, allosteric binding and protein modulation by phosphorylation, de-phosphorylation, ubiquitination, acetylation, prenylation and others. A library of FDA approved drug agents (n~150) and those in clinical study has been developed and was simulated individually and in combination on the RPCI-WM1 (advanced stage WM patient) avatar. Results: MYD88L265P mutation, absence of CXCR4 mutations and additional chromosomal aberrations (derivatives, translocations, deletions and amplifications of chromosomes 3, 6, 9, 13, 18 and 19), which are notable features of RPCI-WM1 cells were configured and modeled in silico. The RPCI-WM1 patient avatar was predicted to have increased IRAK1/4 engagement due to MYD88 mutation and high copy number (CN) of IL18. Downregulation of DUSP1 through MYD88-mediated signaling was noted to result in high ERK activity. Increase gene copy number of both FOS and ETS1, which are downstream of ERK, were noted. Notably, FOS is a key regulator of the AP1 complex, whose activity is regulated upstream by ERK. The transcription factor, ETS1 was also predicted as over expressed and ERK-mediated phosphorylation of ETS1 regulates the activity of ETS1. The RPCI-WM1 patient avatar model also indicated high AKT due to indirect convergence of multiple aberrations. Drug screening revealed sensitivity to the MEK inhibitor, binimetinib. Although no copy number variation in MEK-ERK pathway genes were detected, per simulation, MYD88 mutation through inactivation of DUSP1 activated ERK and downstream associated survival pathways. The simulation predictions were experimentally validated. As predicted, binimetinib significantly inhibited proliferation and viability of RPCI-WM1 cells (IC50 <100nM). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the functional role and impact of MEK1/2 - an oncogenic component distal to the BCR, and whose activity can be targeted with binimetinib to elicit a lethal effect in advanced-stage WM cells. We also show the utility of a novel technology, which is capable of integrating genome-wide molecular data points to emulate the salient genomic drivers of a given tumor cell and test its sensitivity to numerous drugs in a high-throughput manner for truly personalized therapy. Disclosures Vali: Cellworks Group, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kumar:Cellworks Group, Inc.: Employment. Singh:Cellworks Group, Inc.: Employment. Usmani:3Cellworks Research India Limited: Employment. Grover:3Cellworks Research India Limited: Employment. Abbasi:Cellworks Group, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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 Abstract 2973 Eukaryotic translation initiation Factor 5A (eIF5A) has been implicated in the regulation of apoptosis and is the only known protein to be modified by hypusination. Hypusinated eIF5A is the predominant form of eIF5A in cancer cells. However, in its unhypusinated form, eIF5A is pro-apoptotic. SNS01-T, designed to treat B-cell cancers, consists of two active components: a plasmid DNA expressing eIF5AK50R (human eIF5A containing a lysine to arginine substitution at position 50) which remains pro-apoptotic because it cannot be hypusinated, and an siRNA against an untranslated region of native eIF5A mRNA. When these two components are combined with linear polyethyleneimine (PEI), the nucleic acids are condensed into nanoparticles for protection from degradation in the blood and enhanced delivery to tissues. The eIF5AK50R transgene is under the control of the B29 promoter and enhancer, which restricts expression to B cells. The mode of action of SNS01-T is to use an eIF5A-specific siRNA to deplete the pool of hypusinated eIF5A in myeloma cells while simultaneously adding pro-apoptotic eIF5AK50R. In vitro cell studies and in vivo xenograft studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this approach. Eligible patients are enrolled sequentially into four cohorts of increasingly higher doses. Each cohort will receive SNS01-T by intravenous infusion twice weekly for 6 consecutive weeks and then be observed every 4 weeks during a 24-week follow-up period. Eligible patients must have been diagnosed with multiple myeloma according to IMWG criteria, have measurable disease, have relapsed disease after two or more prior treatment regimens, have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, and not be eligible to receive any other standard therapy known to extend life expectancy. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple ascending doses of SNS01-T. Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity studies, proinflammatory cytokine quantitation, and therapeutic efficacy. The required number of 3 patients completed the dosing schedule in Cohort 1 from a total of 6 patients enrolled. Two of three patients had not progressed on treatment, based on standard response criteria including the monoclonal protein, and were considered stable at week 3 and week 6 the end of the dosing regimen. Three patients were withdrawn from the study by their physicians due to disease progression before completing treatment. One of the responding patients has continued to have stable disease at week 10, a month after the end of treatment with SNS01-T. The first group of patients received 0.0125 mg/kg, approximately 1 mg per patient by intravenous infusion. The planned dose levels for the second, third and fourth groups are 0.05, 0.2 and 0.375 mg/kg, respectively. The results to date of this first in man clinical trial indicate that SNS01-T was safely administered without dose-limiting toxicities in the first group of multiple myeloma patients. The MTD has not yet been reached. (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01435720.) Disclosures: Hamadani: Celgene Corp: Speakers Bureau; American Cancer Society 116837-IRG-09–061–01: Research Funding; ASBMT & Millennium New Investigator Award: Research Funding; Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO: Research Funding. Barranco:Senesco Technologies: Employment. Thompson:Senesco Technologies Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Taylor:Senesco Technologies Inc.: stock options Other. Dondero:Senesco Technologies Inc.: Employment.

Abstract Background: Isatuximab (ISA) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody with multiple modes of action for killing tumor cells through immune cell engagement and direct tumor targeting. In preclinical studies, pomalidomide (Pom) enhanced both the direct and indirect anti-tumor activity of ISA to a greater degree than lenalidomide (Len) (Jiang et al. Leukemia 2016). Here, we report the preliminary results of an ongoing Phase Ib dose-escalation study of ISA plus Pom and dexamethasone (Dex) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (NCT02283775). Methods: Patients with RRMM (≥2 prior MM therapies, including Len and a proteasome inhibitor) with adequate bone marrow reserve/organ function were sequentially enrolled to receive ISA 5, 10 or 20 mg/kg (weekly × 4 doses, then every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity) in combination with Pom 4 mg (days 1-21) and Dex 40 mg (days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg if ≥75 years old), in 28-day cycles. Pom or Dex dose reductions were permitted after Cycle 1, or during Cycle 1 in response to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose, based on the occurrence of treatment-related DLTs. Secondary objectives included evaluation of efficacy (by objective response assessment according to IMWG criteria), safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: At data cut-off (May 11, 2016), 14 patients had been treated in the first 2 dose-escalation cohorts: 8 patients at 5 mg/kg and 6 patients at 10 mg/kg. Overall, median age was 65.5 (range, 42-77) years and median time from diagnosis was 4.25 (1.0-12.5) years. Half of the patients (7/14) had received at least 5 prior regimens (median 4.5 [2-11]; prior carfilzomib in 50% of patients). Ten patients (71%) had received at least one prior stem cell transplant. Median duration of dosing was 21.2 (4-42) and 8.1 (4-12) weeks in the 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg cohorts, respectively, with the latter cohort also having the shortest follow-up. Three patients discontinued treatment, all in the 5 mg/kg cohort: 2 due to confirmed disease progression (discontinuation after 2 and 4 treatment cycles, respectively) and 1 due to patient withdrawal (discontinuation in Cycle 1 and patient not evaluable for response). There were no discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in either cohort. Two DLTs were reported: one in the 5 mg/kg cohort (prolonged grade [Gr] 4 neutropenia), and the other in the 10 mg/kg cohort (Gr 4 neutropenic infection); both DLTs resolved with Pom dose delay/reduction. MTD has not yet been reached; the 20 mg/kg dose level is under enrollment. Overall, Gr 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 10 (71%) patients; serious TEAEs in 6 (43%) patients. The most frequent TEAEs were fatigue (64%), upper respiratory tract infection, tremor, dyspnea, and cough (29% each). The most common Gr 3/4 hematologic abnormality (laboratory assessment) was neutropenia (Gr 1, 0%; Gr 2, 7%; Gr 3, 43%; Gr 4, 43%). Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 4 (29%) patients (Gr 3, n=2; Gr 4, n=2). Infusion-associated reactions (IARs) occurred in 8 (57%) patients, with all cases Gr 1/2 in severity. IARs occurred during the first infusion in most patients; 3/14 (21%) patients experienced IARs at a subsequent infusion, of whom only one had IARs after Cycle 1. Of the patients evaluable for confirmed response, 8/13 (62%) achieved at least partial response (PR), and 10/13 (77%) at least minimal response (MR). At 5 mg/kg, 1 patient achieved complete response (CR), 2 very good partial response (VGPR) and 2 PR. At 10 mg/kg, 2 patients achieved VGPR, 1 PR, and 2 MR. Of the eight patients who achieved at least PR, all continued to respond without confirmed disease progression at data cut-off. The PK parameters of ISA were not affected by co-administration with Pom/Dex. Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that the combination of ISA and Pom/Dex is generally well tolerated and clinically active in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM. Enrollment continues and longer term follow-up from this study, including data from the 20 mg/kg cohort, will be presented. A Phase III trial to evaluate ISA plus Pom/Dex is planned. Disclosures Richardson: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Usmani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Raje:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Bensinger:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Campana:Sanofi: Employment. Gao:Sanofi: Employment. Dubin:Sanofi Oncology: Employment. Wack:Sanofi: Employment. Anderson:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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.

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.

Abstract Background: Whether associations between circulating metabolites and prostate cancer are causal is unknown. We report on the largest study of metabolites and prostate cancer (2,291 cases and 2,661 controls) and appraise causality for a subset of the prostate cancer–metabolite associations using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR). Methods: The case–control portion of the study was conducted in nine UK centers with men ages 50–69 years who underwent prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Two data sources were used to appraise causality: a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of metabolites in 24,925 participants and a GWAS of prostate cancer in 44,825 cases and 27,904 controls within the Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL) consortium. Results: Thirty-five metabolites were strongly associated with prostate cancer (P &lt; 0.0014, multiple-testing threshold). These fell into four classes: (i) lipids and lipoprotein subclass characteristics (total cholesterol and ratios, cholesterol esters and ratios, free cholesterol and ratios, phospholipids and ratios, and triglyceride ratios); (ii) fatty acids and ratios; (iii) amino acids; (iv) and fluid balance. Fourteen top metabolites were proxied by genetic variables, but MR indicated these were not causal. Conclusions: We identified 35 circulating metabolites associated with prostate cancer presence, but found no evidence of causality for those 14 testable with MR. Thus, the 14 MR-tested metabolites are unlikely to be mechanistically important in prostate cancer risk. Impact: The metabolome provides a promising set of biomarkers that may aid prostate cancer classification.