Citations

OBJECTIVEScoliosis is frequently a presenting sign of Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) with syrinx. The authors’ goal was to define scoliosis in this population and describe how radiological characteristics of CM-I and syrinx relate to the presence and severity of scoliosis.METHODSA large multicenter retrospective and prospective registry of pediatric patients with CM-I (tonsils ≥ 5 mm below the foramen magnum) and syrinx (≥ 3 mm in axial width) was reviewed for clinical and radiological characteristics of CM-I, syrinx, and scoliosis (coronal curve ≥ 10°).RESULTSBased on available imaging of patients with CM-I and syrinx, 260 of 825 patients (31%) had a clear diagnosis of scoliosis based on radiographs or coronal MRI. Forty-nine patients (5.9%) did not have scoliosis, and in 516 (63%) patients, a clear determination of the presence or absence of scoliosis could not be made. Comparison of patients with and those without a definite scoliosis diagnosis indicated that scoliosis was associated with wider syrinxes (8.7 vs 6.3 mm, OR 1.25, p < 0.001), longer syrinxes (10.3 vs 6.2 levels, OR 1.18, p < 0.001), syrinxes with their rostral extent located in the cervical spine (94% vs 80%, OR 3.91, p = 0.001), and holocord syrinxes (50% vs 16%, OR 5.61, p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed syrinx length and the presence of holocord syrinx to be independent predictors of scoliosis in this patient cohort. Scoliosis was not associated with sex, age at CM-I diagnosis, tonsil position, pB–C2 distance (measured perpendicular distance from the ventral dura to a line drawn from the basion to the posterior-inferior aspect of C2), clivoaxial angle, or frontal-occipital horn ratio. Average curve magnitude was 29.9°, and 37.7% of patients had a left thoracic curve. Older age at CM-I or syrinx diagnosis (p < 0.0001) was associated with greater curve magnitude whereas there was no association between syrinx dimensions and curve magnitude.CONCLUSIONSSyrinx characteristics, but not tonsil position, were related to the presence of scoliosis in patients with CM-I, and there was an independent association of syrinx length and holocord syrinx with scoliosis. Further study is needed to evaluate the nature of the relationship between syrinx and scoliosis in patients with CM-I.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) complications, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, are dreaded complications of orthopaedic surgical procedures that can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of data examining risk factors for VTE in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to review the rate of symptomatic VTE, determine patient and operative risk factors for VTE, and report on complications associated with VTE following shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: Over a 16-year period, 5,906 patients underwent primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, or hemiarthroplasty. Symptomatic VTE events were identified in 24 shoulders within 90 days of surgery. Patient records were reviewed for surgical indication, patient and operative risk factors, and management of VTE. Results: The rate of symptomatic VTE following shoulder arthroplasty was 0.41%. There were no deaths resulting from VTE events. Compared with patients who did not have VTE, those with symptomatic VTE events were found to be older (74.75 versus 68.51 years; p = 0.0028) and more likely to have had arthroplasty for a traumatic indication (3.31% versus 0.33%; p < 0.001). Age of >70 years and arthroplasty for a traumatic indication were found to be independent risk factors on multivariate nominal logistic regression analysis, whereas body mass index, sex, operative time, and type of arthroplasty performed were not found to be independent risk factors. There were 11 readmissions resulting directly from the VTE events, and patients diagnosed with VTE as inpatients had longer hospital stays than outpatients (13.71 versus 1.94 days; p = 0.0002). Conclusions: The risk of VTE following shoulder arthroplasty is low, and routine use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis may not be necessary. However, VTE complications can lead to substantial morbidity, longer hospital stays, readmission to the hospital, and further complications. Therefore, patients with multiple risk factors for VTE such as prior history of VTE, active malignancy, age of >70 years, or arthroplasty for traumatic indications should be considered for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract Introduction: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are associated with an increased risk of venous (VTE) and arterial (ATE) thromboembolic events (TE). Anticoagulation needs to be balanced between the risk of incident and recurrent TE and risk of hemorrhage. While data on outcomes of anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with MPN are available, data on safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this subgroup are not. Herein, we present outcomes of use of DOACs in patients with MPN at our institution. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we searched the Mayo Clinic clinical databases for patients meeting the WHO criteria for MPN who had been prescribed a DOAC between 2011 and 2017. The MPN diagnosis had to have predated the DOAC prescription. Medical records of consenting patients meeting study criteria were reviewed and data on demographics, diagnosis of MPN, indication for DOAC prescription, and their efficacy (incident or recurrent TE) and safety (hemorrhagic events) were abstracted. Results: Over the study period, 19 patients (female = 10) met inclusion criteria. The median age of patients at MPN diagnosis was 67 years (35-83), and 73 years (53-86) at initiation of DOAC. Prescribed DOACs included rivaroxaban (n=12), apixaban (n=6), and dabigatran (n=2) (one patient received rivaroxaban and was switched to apixaban). MPN diagnoses included polycythemia vera (PV) (n=9), essential thrombocythemia and chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm NOS (3 each), chronic myeloid leukemia and myelofibrosis (2 each). Indications for DOAC included thromboembolism (n=13; 68%) (arterial:2 and venous:11), and atrial fibrillation (afib) (n=6; 31%). The median duration of DOAC therapy was 241.5 days (range 13-1879). Five patients were switched from warfarin to rivaroxaban (n=4) and apixaban (n=1) at patient and/or provider preference; the rest were initiated on the DOAC de novo based on provider preference. Of the 19 patients, one patient each experienced a major hemorrhagic and TE event. One patient with PV who was on rivaroxaban for afib required hospitalization for gastrointestinal hemorrhage due to gastritis; DOAC was discontinued following this episode. One other patient with PV had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction while on rivaroxaban for afib and prior stroke; DOAC was continued. There were no deaths attributable to DOAC use. Discussion: Our limited data suggests that use of DOACs in patients with MPN is feasible with an acceptable balance between risk of hemorrhage and recurrent thrombosis. Additional data on long term outcomes of DOACs in MPNs are needed. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: 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, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; 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; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Selinexor is a novel, oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1). Selinexor treatment results in nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibition of NF-kB, and translational suppression of several oncoprotein mRNAs (e.g., c-myc, cyclin D).Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and most patients (pts) eventually progress through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), anti-CD38 mAbs and others. The increased use of combinations in MM treatment, (PIs/IMiDs/mAbs), has led to a growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM (pts that have been treated with bortezomib (bort), carfilzomib (carfil), lenalidomide (len), pomalidomide (pom) and daratumumab (dara)). Active novel therapies with different mechanisms of actions are needed to address this unmet medical need. Part 1 of STORM enrolled pts with both quad- (bort, carfil, len, pom, treated MM) or penta-refractory MM and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 21% (Vogl et al, JCO 2018). Based on these findings, the Pivotal Part 2 of STORM was initiated, enrolling an additional cohort of 122 patients with penta-refractory MM. Methods: Pts with penta-refractory MM were treated with 80 mg selinexor plus 20 mg dexamethasone (Sd) twice weekly. Pts must have received an alkylator, bort, carfil, len, pom and dara, and had MM refractory to ≥1 PI, ≥1 IMiD, dara, a glucocorticoid, and their last therapy. Pts must have a total ANC ≥1000 mm3,platelets ≥50k/mm3 (or ≥75k if marrow plasma cells <50%), and creatinine clearance ≥20 mL/min. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints: duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) based on IMWG criteria. OS was also compared to a cohort of pts with PI, IMiD, dara refractory MM from the Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD), (ref: ASH 2018 abs ID: 116493),who met all the inclusion criteria for STORM. Results: As of 1-Jun-2018, 122 pts (71 M/ 51 F) were enrolled in 38 sites (US and EU). Pt characteristics were [medians (range)]: age 65 yrs (40-85); 7 (3 - 18) prior treatment regimens, 6.6 yrs (<1 - 23.4) from initial MM diagnosis.65 pts (53%) had high risk cytogenetics, 86 pts (70%) had prior dara in combination, 102 pts (84%) had prior stem cell transplantation, 2 pts had prior CAR-T therapy. All pts enrolled with progressive disease (PD), 72% of pts had increases (3% - 792%) in MM markers from screening to C1D1 (median 11 days). Frequently reported Sd treatment related adverse events (AEs) included (all grades, grades 3/4): thrombocytopenia (67%, 53%), nausea (67%, 10%), fatigue (68%, 21%), anorexia (50%, 2%), anemia (46%, 28%), and weight loss (46%, 0%). Eight pts remain on study and 114 pts discontinued treatment (most commonly for PD). There were 4 deaths on treatment: sepsis, respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, and an unrelated, unspecified cardiac event. IRC determined ORR (≥PR) was 26.2%, with 6.5% ≥ very good partial response, including 2 stringent complete responses (sCRs; MRD negative at 1:10-6 and at 1:10-4sensitivity). Both pts who relapsed after CAR-T achieved PRs. The CBR (≥minimal response, [MR]) was 39.3%, and 79% of pts achieved ≥stable disease (SD). Responses typically occurred within the first month. Medians: DOR 4.4 months (mo) (range <1 - 10 mo), PFS 3.7 mo, and OS 8.0 mo. Pts with ≥MR had significantly longer OS than pts with PD/NE (median not reached vs 1.9 mo, p=<0.0001). Compared to the FHAD cohort, STORM cohort had longer OS (Figure 1, HR 0.41, p=0.0001). Conclusions: Results of the pivotal STORM Part 2 in penta (PI, IMiD, dara)-refractory MM demonstrated that oral selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) was highly active with an ORR of 26.2%. Importantly, responses were rapid and deep with 2 patients achieving sCRs (both MRD negative) in these heavily pre-treated penta-refractory MM pts (median 7 prior regimens, 53% high risk). AEs are a function of dose/schedule/disease severity and can be managed with dose modifications and supportive care. No major organ toxicity was observed and AEs were typically transient and reversible. Sd is an all-oral, first in class mechanism with novel MOA and represents a potential therapeutic option to the growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM who have exhausted approved therapies. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Vogl:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Nooka:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: 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; Celgene: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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. Cole:University of Michigan: Employment; Cancer Support Community myeloma advisory board: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Vij:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raab:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Consultancy. Stewart:Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy; Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Mohty:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sylvain:Gilead: Other: scientific advisor board. Costa:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Picklesimer:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Li:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, compared bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) using a pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02. The stratification factors were International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II or III) and intent to transplant (yes or no), among a total of 6 strata. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary end points. Results of the primary analysis of this trial were published in Lancet (2016, Volume 389, Issue 10068, 519 - 527). Methods: This updated analysis includes 460 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 225 eligible and analyzable patients were randomized to Rd and 235 patients to VRd. Rd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. VRd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-14 and dexamethasone 20/mg/day on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV push on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received aspirin 325 mg/day and VRd patients received VZV prophylaxis per institutional standard. The 6-month induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients until progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Results: Between 2008 and 2012, 525 patients from 48 institutions were randomized. Patient data have been rigorously updated for this analysis based upon a May 15, 2018 datalock. The median follow up is now 84 months (7 years). The median PFS is 41 months for VRd and 29 months for Rd: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.742 (0.594, 0.928) and one-sided stratified log-rank P-value 0.003 (see Figure 1). The median OS for VRd is still not reached with median OS for Rd being 69 months: stratified hazard ratio (96% Wald Confidence Interval) was 0.709 (0.543, 0.926) and stratified two-sided P-value was 0.0114 (see Figure 2). The impact of age was assessed in several ways including using 3 cutoffs (<65 years; 65-75 years; >75 years) and multivariate cox proportional hazards regression analyses adjusted for age. As in prior analyses, both PFS and OS were improved with VRd versus Rd adjusting for age (P-values: 0.013 [PFS]; 0.033 [OS])). Depth of response was assessed incorporating new serial data and additional bone marrow results. The CR plus VGPR was 74.9% for VRd versus CR plus VGPR of 53.7% for Rd (P-value 0.006 for response differences using a stratified Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel analysis). The median duration of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone maintenance was 17.4 months. The number of second cancers was 19/235 (8%) with VRd and 16/225 (7%) with Rd. Conclusion: The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy in previously untreated myeloma results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS with follow up of 7 years. VRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and continues to represent an appropriate standard of care irrespective of age. Disclosures Durie: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Abidi:Millenium Takeda: Research Funding. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Reu:Bristol Myers Squibb: Employment; Millenium Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Barlogie:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have significantly improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Refractoriness to PIs and IMiDs results in poor outcomes with a median survival of about 13 months.Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) with remarkable activity in relapsed and refractory MM. The outcome of MM patients in US clinical practice who becomes refractory to CD38 MoABs is unknown. The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study is to investigate the natural history of patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoABs (Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure: MAMMOTH study). Methods We identified patients from 14 academic institutions in the US with diagnosis of active MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination. Patients were considered refractory to CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. The time when patients met the above criteria of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data including patient-disease characteristics and all therapies administered before and after T0 were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. For survival outcome analysis, patients were classified into three groups: "Penta-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 2 PIs + 2 IMiDs), "Triple-refractory and quad-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 1 PI + 1/2 IMiDs, or 1 CD38 MoAB + 1/2 PIs + 1 IMiD), and "Not triple-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB, and not both of a PI and an IMiD). Responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients were included in this study; median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90). Fifty five percent of patients were males, 52% had IgG isotype, 29% had ISS stage III disease, and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Median interval from diagnosis of MM to T0 was 50.1 months (mo) (range 2.5-230.1). Patients received a median of 4 lines of treatment (1-16) prior to the CD38 MoAB-containing regimen; 72% underwent prior autologous transplant. Daratumumab-refractory patients formed a majority (256, 93.1%) of this cohort. Most of the patients were refractory to lenalidomide (77%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (68%), and carfilzomib (47%). Seventy patients (25.5%) were "penta-refractory" and 148 (53.8%) were "triple-refractory and quad-refractory". Median follow-up from T0 for survivors was 10.6 mo (range 1.9-42.3 mo). The median overall survival (OS) from T0 for the entire cohort was 8.6 mo (95% C.I. 7.2-9.9); OS for the groups based on refractoriness to prior treatments are shown (Figure). Two hundred and forty-nine patients (90.5%) received at least one line of treatment after T0, (median 2, range 1-10). The response rates and depth of responses to each line of treatment post T0 are shown (Table). Among patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent treatment, the median PFS and OS from T0 were 3.4 (95% C.I. 2.8-4.0) mo and 9.3 (95% C.I. 8.1-10.6) mo, respectively; the median OS for the 26 patients who received no further treatment was only 1.3 (95% C.I. 0.6-1.9) mo. By multivariate analysis, penta-refractoriness (HR 2.4, p <0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.5, p=0.01), elevated LDH (HR 2, p<0.001) and creatinine > 2 (HR 2.4, p=0.01) at the onset of CD38-based therapy predicted inferior OS. Conclusions Patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoAB are increasingly less responsive to subsequent therapies. While survival is particularly dismal for penta-refractory patients, the outcomes are poor even for patients who are not refractory to other mainstream MM agents. The MAMMOTH study defines a MM population in urgent need for new therapies, and provides benchmark OS, PFS and response data for subsequent investigational therapies in this setting. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vij: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, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar: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; 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. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) are screening tests of hemostasis commonly ordered for anticoagulant therapy monitoring, evaluation of bleeding, screening for acquired or inherited deficiencies of coagulation factors, and preoperative screening. Evaluation of a prolonged PT/aPTT is best accomplished in an algorithmic fashion consisting of mixing studies and factors assays or inhibitor testing as indicated. However, there is little data available on frequency of conditions that may result in abnormalities of PT/aPTT. The Special Coagulation Laboratory (SCL) at our institution offers an algorithmic approach termed Prolonged PT/aPTT Profile (PT/aPTT profile). Aim: To review our institutional experience with PT/aPTT profile testing (indications and outcomes), and to provide clinical correlation of abnormal PT/aPTT tests on patients seen at our institution in an effort to explain common causes of altered hemostatic testing in outpatient clinical practice. Methods: In this retrospective study, following IRB approval, we reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent outpatient PT/aPTT profile testing in the SCL at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota between 2010 and 2017. Data abstracted included patient demographics and clinical presentation, indications for testing, use of anticoagulants, medical diagnoses which could potentially influence coagulation, and results of hemostatic testing (Table 1). Statistical analyses were completed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Continuous variables are presented as median (range) while discrete variables are summarized as frequency (percentage). Comparisons of clinical characteristics between groups are made using the rank-sum test for continuous variables. Statistical significance is defined as a 2-tailed P value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 107 patients met our study criteria, 58 (54 %) male, median age 55 years (range 1-89). Indications for testing included prior prolongation of PT (48%), PTT (29%), PT and aPTT (8%) on outside coagulation testing performed in a non-SCL setting, clinical bleeding episodes (10%) and preoperative screening (5%). Patients with established medical diagnoses known to influence coagulation testing including solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, liver disease, renal disease, autoimmune and rheumatologic conditions and pregnancy were documented along with other baseline patient characteristics (Table 1). SCL PT/aPTT profile testing revealed normal results in 29 of 107 (27%) patients on repeat testing while 78 patients warranted further evaluation of which 27 (35%) had an isolated prolonged PT, 28 (36%) had a prolonged APTT and 23 (29%) had prolongations of both PT and aPTT. After further workup and clinical correlation, causes of abnormal outpatient PT/aPTT profile testing were found to be related to an underlying congenital condition in 16 (21%) patients - most commonly factor VII deficiency (9%) and factor VIII deficiency (4%) - acquired conditions in 53 (68%) patients - most commonly anticoagulant therapy effects (31%) and liver disease (21%) - and of unclear etiology in 7 (9%) cases (Table 2). Specifically, the most common cause of an isolated prolonged PT in our study was found to be vitamin K deficiency (37%) whereas elevations in aPTT and both PT/aPTT were most frequently attributed to the effects of anticoagulant therapy (29% and 52% respectively). Other causes of prolongation on PT/aPTT profile testing following clinical correlation were also identified (Table 2). Discussion: While PT and aPTT are commonly ordered tests, there is little evidence regarding epidemiology of testing indications, distribution of test results, and the clinical correlation of test results. Our study demonstrates that abnormalities in hemostatic testing can be attributed to a wide range of causes including artefactual prolongation influenced by pretest variables or marked abnormalities in secondary hemostasis due to inherited and acquired conditions. Strengths of this study include the SCL algorithmic approach to testing to further elucidate coagulation cascade abnormalities to properly characterize conditions that pose severe hemostatic risk while limitations of this study reflect the experience of a single institution and possible referral bias. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.