Citations

8033 Background: MLN9708 is an oral, reversible 20S proteasome inhibitor. The feasibility of combining a proteasome inhibitor with an immunomodulatory drug and a steroid in previously untreated MM has been demonstrated with the RVD regimen. This is the first study of MLN9708 in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (NCT01217957). Here we report the phase (Ph) 1 MTD and preliminary Ph 2 results. Methods: Pts with previously untreated MM, aged ≥18 yrs with measurable disease received oral MLN9708 (phase 1: 1.68–3.95 mg/m2) days 1, 8, and 15, lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22, for up to twelve 28-day cycles. Primary objectives were determination of safety, MTD, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) (Ph 1), and CR+VGPR rate (Ph 2). Results: At data cut-off (Dec 1, 2011), 29 pts had been enrolled (15 Ph 1, 14 Ph 2). Median age was 64 yrs (range 40–82); 69% ISS stage II/III. In Ph 1, the MLN9708 MTD was determined as 2.97 mg/m2 and the RP2D as 2.23 mg/m2; for Ph 2, the RP2D was converted to a 4.0 mg fixed dose based on population PK results. Ph 1 pts have received a median of 6 treatment cycles (range 1–11), 8 received ≥6 cycles; 6 stopped to receive ASCT, 7 are ongoing. Ph 2 pts received a median of 1 (range 1–2), all are ongoing. Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was reversible and included anemia (n=2) and thrombocytopenia (n=1). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity included erythematous rash, syncope, and vomiting (2 pts each). All-grade drug-related peripheral neuropathy was seen in 6 pts (21%), including grade 2 with pain in 2 (both Ph 1 at doses above the MTD). Two pts discontinued due to AE; there were 5 pts who had serious drug-related AE (all Ph 1). Of 19 response-evaluable pts (Ph 1 + Ph 2), all achieved ≥PR, including 5 CR (1 sCR), 4 VGPR, and 10 PR; all remain in response with duration of confirmed response of up to 9.5 months. Of 4 response-evaluable Ph 2 pts, 1 has achieved VGPR and 3 PR to date. Conclusions: Oral MLN9708 plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone appears well tolerated with manageable toxicity. These data show antitumor activity at the RP2D in pts with previously untreated MM, with ≥PR in all pts to date.

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) <10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p<0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is an effective treatment to achieve deep and durable remission in multiple myeloma (MM). Typically, AHCT is offered to patients <70 years of age, although the median age of diagnosis of MM is 70 years. We compared the outcomes of upfront AHCT across age groups for newly diagnosed MM in the era of novel therapies using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database. Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 15,999 MM patients aged 20 years and older from the USA who received a single AHCT with melphalan conditioning within 12 months of diagnosis between 2013 and 2017 and reported to the CIBMTR. Multivariate analysis was performed for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards model with age at transplant in decades as the main effect. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Because of the large sample size, a p-value of <0.01 was considered significant a priori. Results: Table 1 shows patient, disease and treatment characteristics by age group at diagnosis. All age groups had similar distribution of gender, race, ethnicity, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), comorbidity index (HCT-CI), stage III by Durie-Salmon/International Staging System. There was a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics in patients ≥70 years (30%), compared to age group 40-49 years (24%) and 20-39 years (20%) in this population. Older patients were more likely to be White compared to younger patients: 85% ≥70 compared to 64% 20-39 years. While 82% of the overall population received melphalan 200 mg/m2, 58% of the ≥70% received Mel 140 mg/m2. There were more ASCT performed in the ≥70-year age group in 2017 (28%) compared to 2013 (15%). Univariate outcomes by age groups shown in Table 2 revealed that 100-day NRM was higher in ≥70 years at 1% compared to younger patients (p <0.01) and 2-year OS was lower in ≥70 years at 86 (85-88)% compared to 60-69 years, 89 (88-89)% (p<0.01). When adjusted for other variables (Table 3), compared to reference age group of 60-69 years, patients ≥70 had similar NRM (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1, 1.7, p 0.06), REL (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1, p 0.6), PFS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1, 1.2, p 0.2), and OS (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1, 1.4, p 0.02). The leading cause of death across all age groups was primary disease. Among the ≥70 years cohort, melphalan dose was a surrogate for worse outcomes including NRM at 100 days (Mel 140, 1 (1-2)% vs Mel 200 0 (0-1)%, p 0.003, PFS at 2 years Mel 140 64 (60-67)% vs Mel 200 69 (66-73)%, p 0.003, and OS at 2 years (Mel 140 85 (82-87)% vs Mel 200 89 (86-91)%, p 0.01) (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest study of AHCT in older adults with MM. More MM patients ≥70 years are being transplanted in the US over time. While our data may highlight referral and access biases regarding which older patients may be referred for ASCT, our results confirm that patients ≥70 years can undergo transplant safely and achieve similar benefits as 60-69 years' old patients. Our results also suggest that melphalan 200 mg/m2 may be given safely in the ≥70 years population. While melphalan conditioning dose 140 mg/m2 in the ≥70 group is associated with worse outcomes, this is likely a surrogate for higher frailty and comorbidities in this cohort of patients. Our analysis confirms that AHCT has similar benefits in terms of disease control (REL and PFS) in both young and older MM patients. This benefit is seen even in a contemporaneous era where proteasome inhibitors and/or immunomodulator drugs are used in upfront treatment. Thus, AHCT remains a safe consolidation therapy across all age groups of MM patients. Disclosures Hari: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Shah:Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Genzyme: Other: Speaker; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare plasma cell neoplasm with a high mortality rate. There have been improvements in multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes with novel induction agents and use of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with maintenance, but similar progress has not been reported for pPCL. We examined the outcomes of pPCL patients receiving novel agents with autologous (autoHCT) or allogeneic (alloHCT) approaches as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in the modern era. Methods From 2008 to 2015, 348 pPCL pts underwent HCT (N = 277 - autoHCT and 71 - alloHCT) with 45% and 48% having research level data available, respectively. Cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse/progression (REL), and probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Cox multivariate regression was used to model survival after autoHCT only. Median follow-up in autoHCT and alloHCT was 48 and 60 months, respectively. Results AutoHCT Cohort Median age was 60 years and 93% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis with 76% after a single line of induction (Table 1). 35% had high risk cytogenetics. 23% received bortezomib, doxorubicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (VDPACE). Moreover, 40% received bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drug (IMIID)-based triplets. Disease status at HCT was VGPR or better in 47%. 27% received maintenance therapy. At 4 years post-HCT, NRM was 7% (4-11%), REL 76% (69-82%), PFS 17% (13-23%), and OS 28% (22-35%) (Figures 1A, 2A, 2B). Disease status ≥VGPR at HCT and Karnofsky Performance Score >90 significantly predicted superior OS in multivariate analysis. AlloHCT Cohort Median age was 53 years and 89% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis (Table 1). 61% received a single alloHCT, while 39% used auto-alloHCT tandem approach. 42% had high-risk cytogenetics. 61% received total body irradiation with 44% receiving myeloablative conditioning. Use of VDPACE was higher at 41% in this cohort. VGPR status at HCT was similar (48%), while maintenance was used less often (12%). Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 30% and chronic GVHD in 45%. At four years post-HCT, NRM was 12% (5-21%), REL 69% (56-81%), PFS 19% (10-31%), and OS 31% (19-44%) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). There were no differences in outcomes based on type of HCT. A comparison of post-HCT outcomes of CIBMTR pPCL patients from 1995 to 2006 showed that PFS and OS outcomes are inferior despite lower NRM in this modern cohort (Mahindra et al. Leukemia. 2012). In addition, analysis of SEER (1995-2009) and CIBMTR databases showed that use of HCT increased from 12% (7-21%) in 1995 to 46% (34-64%) in 2009. Conclusion More newly diagnosed pPCL patients are receiving modern induction regimens translating into a higher proportion receiving HCT, but without significant further benefit post-HCT. Post-HCT relapse remains the biggest challenge and further survival in pPCL will likely need a combination of targeted and cell therapy approaches. This study provides a benchmark for future HCT studies for pPCL. Disclosures Girnius: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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. Dhakal:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Shah:University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Therapies for myelofibrosis (MF) are limited and most are palliative. The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces spleen size and MF-related symptoms and improves survival, but can be limited by dose-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, nearly half of ruxolitinib responders relapse within 5 years. PI3Kd is highly expressed in MF patient samples, independent of ruxolitinib pre-exposure. In JAK2-mutated cell lines, inhibition of PI3K/AKT signaling reduced proliferation and clonogenic potential. The once daily, next generation PI3Kd inhibitor TGR-1202 inhibited PI3K/AKT signaling and led to apoptosis in leukemia and lymphoma cell lines and was well-tolerated in clinical studies, with a toxicity profile distinct from that of ruxolitinib and other PI3Kd inhibitors. We hypothesized that adding TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib could resensitize or augment the response of MF patients with lost or suboptimal response to single-agent ruxolitinib. Objective: To assess safety of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib in MF patients Secondary Objectives: Hematologic response, symptom assessment Methods: MF patients who had sub-optimal responses to ruxolitinib continued their highest tolerated dose of ruxolitinib without change for ≥ 8 weeks, and were assigned to escalating doses of TGR-1202 in a standard 3+3 algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Efficacy was assessed according to IWG-MRT consensus response criteria. Symptoms were assessed by the MPN symptom assessment form total symptom score (TSS). All patients received Pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis after cycle 1. Results: Eleven MF patients were enrolled and received 400 mg (n=3), 800 mg (n=6), or 600 mg TGR-1202 (n=2) daily. Nine were evaluable for response. Median age was 66y, 73% were male. All had ECOG PS 0-1. Five patients had mutations in JAK2, 4 in CALR, and 3 in MPL; these were mutually exclusive with exception of 1 patient with CALR and MPL mutations (Table 1). Median number of cycles of TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib treatment was 5 (1-13). Grade 2 anemia was the most common AE (Table 2). Two patients had asymptomatic Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase that persisted after drug was held, meeting criteria for dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) in 2 separate cohorts (TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 15mg BID and TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 10mg BID). Both patients had peak plasma TGR-1202 concentrations 1.5-2x higher than the other patients receiving 800mg TGR-1202, although steady-state levels were equivalent. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib was not established. Two patients went off-study due to AEs, and 3 due to progressive disease. One of 9 evaluable patients achieved complete remission and 7 had stable disease. Seven of the 9 evaluable patients had improvement in hematologic parameters and 8 had reduced MF symptoms with a median 33% decrease in TSS (Fig. 1). Conclusions: TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Pharmacokinetic data were consistent with single-agent TGR-1202 (unpublished data), indicating that ruxolitinib does not alter absorption or metabolism of TGR-1202. Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase were considered DLTs, per protocol. Although the clinical significance of these asymptomatic laboratory findings is not clear, the protocol was amended to further assay these labs and to exclude concomitant medications with the potential to increase amylase/lipase. Importantly, no grade ≥3 hepatotoxicity, colitis, or thrombocytopenia was seen and no MTD was found. Although only one patient achieved CR, 89% demonstrated clinical benefit with the addition of TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib, supporting further exploration of this combination. Disclosures Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Miskin:TG Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cavers:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sportelli:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Cellgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mesa:CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Savona:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Incyte: 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to a unique epitope on the human CD38 receptor. In the dose escalation part of the Phase I portion of the trial (NCT01749969), isatuximab ≥10 mg/kg IV given every other week (q2w) or 10 mg/kg weekly (qw) induced responses in 6/19 recipients (ORR 32%). Responses were noted at doses as low as 1 mg/kg q2w. The maximum tolerated dose (up to 20 mg/kg IV qw) was not reached. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue and nausea; few serious grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported (pneumonia 6%). The most common category of drug-related TEAE involved infusion-associated reactions (IARs) occurring in half of the patients, with grade 3/4 IARs in <5% of the patients. Based on promising Phase I activity, a Phase II dose finding study was added to investigate single-agent isatuximab in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma (RRMM). Methods: In Phase II, eligible patients were originally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of 3 treatment groups: 3 mg/kg q2w, 10 mg/kg q2w, and 10 mg/kg q2w x 4 doses then q4w. A 4th treatment group was enrolled at a higher isatuximab dose with an optimized schedule of 20 mg/kg qw x 4 doses then q2w. Patient assignment was stratified by prior anti-myeloma therapy (Stratum 1: prior treatment with pomalidomide (POM) and/or carfilzomib (CAR); Stratum 2: no prior POM or CAR). Patients continued therapy until disease progression, unacceptable AEs or physician/patient decision. Eligible patients had measurable disease (serum M-protein >1 g/dL or urine M-protein ≥200 mg/24 h, or serum free light chain ≥10 mg/dL), prior exposure to ≥3 lines of anti-myeloma therapy or were double-refractory to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs), prior treatment with an alkylating agent, and adequate baseline bone marrow reserve and organ function. Enrollment of 24 patients was planned for each treatment group. An interim efficacy analysis is planned when all patients have completed ≥2 disease assessments, with central review of these data currently ongoing. Enrollment has now been completed and all patients who completed at least 1 cycle of isatuximab at the cutoff date (5/29/15) are included in this preliminary analysis. Results: Patient characteristics (n=96): median age 62.5 yrs (range 38-85); median time from initial diagnosis to study treatment 5.85 yrs (1.2-24.1); 76% had IgA/G MM; 24% had light-chain only disease; and 22%, 22%, and 44% had Stage I, II, and III disease, respectively. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (2-14) with 100%, 99%, and 98% having prior exposure to PIs, IMiDs, and alkylator-containing therapy, respectively. Overall, 78% of patients had previously received POM and/or CAR; 55% had been exposed to both of these agents. At data cut-off, 36.5% of patients remained on therapy and 53.1%, 6.3%, and 4.2% had discontinued therapy due to disease progression, AEs, or other reason, respectively. The median number of cycles received was 3 (1-9), with a median duration of treatment of 11.7 wks. Approximately 17% of patients required at least 1 dose delay and 7.3% of isatuximab infusions were interrupted. TEAEs occurred in 93% of patients, with 51% being grade ≥3. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 61% of patients (grade ≥3, 10%). The most common drug-related TEAEs (>5% of patients) were nausea (14.6%), chills (14.6%), dyspnea (13.5%), chest discomfort (10.4%), flushing (7.3%), headache (7.3%), cough (6.3%), and vomiting (5.2%). The majority of the symptoms occurred within 24 h of isatuximab infusion and were attributed to an IAR. IARs occurred in 50% of patients, were predominantly grade 1/2 (grade ≥3, 3.1%), and were mostly limited to Cycle 1 (2 patients had IARs in Cycle 2). Pneumonia (6.3%) and sepsis (5.2%) were the most common serious TEAEs. Six deaths have occurred within 30 days of last dose, 4 due to disease progression, and 2 due to serious AEs unrelated to study therapy (cardiopulmonary arrest and cerebral hemorrhage). Conclusion: Isatuximab administered to heavily pre-treated patients with RRMM appears well tolerated. IARs are common in Cycle 1, but typically do not recur. Results by treatment arm, including interim analysis response data, will be presented. Disclosures Martin: Sanofi: Research Funding. Richter:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vij:Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Zonder:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS, Amgen, Prothena, Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaufman:Spectrum: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy. Bensinger:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Sanofi: 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, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. San Miguel:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Onyx, BMS, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zimmerman:Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, Sanofi, BMS, Skyline: Consultancy; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi: Research Funding. Hsu:Sanofi: Employment. Charpentier:Sanofi: Employment. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Steering Committee and Advisory Board Participation. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Background Multiple myeloma (MM), a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells in the bone marrow, accounts for up to 1.8% of all cancers in the U.S., most frequently affecting people 65-74 years old. A variety of therapies are available to manage MM, including stem cell transplantation (SCT), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI), monoclonal antibodies (mAB), and alkylating agents (alk). Given the heterogeneity of MM and the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, MM contemporaneous real-world treatment patterns are not well described. We examined the patient characteristics and first-line (LT1) treatment patterns in NDMM patients. Methods MM patients (≥18 years), diagnosed in April 30, 2015 - April 29, 2017 (early cohort) or in April 30, 2017 - April 30, 2019 (recent cohort), were followed retrospectively from MM diagnosis to last patient activity in the Flatiron Health database - a geographically-diverse, longitudinal electronic health record spanning over 280 community and academic cancer clinics in the U.S. LT1 regimens were described as: 1) containing an IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide [R], or pomalidomide), PI (bortezomib [V], carfilzomib, or ixazomib), alk (melphalan, cyclophosphamide [C], bendamustine), mAB (daratumumab, elotuzumab), or combinations of these; and 2) doublet/monotherapy (doublets-) vs. triplet or greater agent (triplets+) combinations. Treatment patterns were examined by SCT status and by cytogenetic risk (high: del17p, t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); standard: ≥1 cytogenetic tests without high cytogenetic risk) and age groups (<65, 65-74, ≥75). Duration of therapy (DOT) and time to next therapy (TTNT) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods in the early cohort with longer follow-up. Results Of 4,070 NDMM patients, 3,433 were non-SCT (nSCT: early cohort: n=1,736; recent cohort: n=1,697) and 637 had SCT (early cohort: n=407; recent cohort: n=230). In nSCT patients, mean age at diagnosis was 70 years (SD: 10); 46% were female; 36% had stage III (699/1916, among non-missing), and 15% (392/2574, among non-missing) had high risk MM (25% had unknown cytogenetics). SCT patients were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD]: 61 years [9]); 44% were female; 25% (117/470, in non-missing) had stage III, and 19% (102/547, in non-missing) had high risk MM (14% had unknown cytogenetics). Overall, proportions with known cytogenetic risk were similar within SCT status cohorts over time but were lower in the SCT group (nSCT early vs. recent cohort: 26% vs. 24% had unknown cytogenetics; and in SCT: 15% vs. 13%, respectively). In nSCT and SCT patients, respectively, most common regimens were VRd (d: dexamethasone; 44% and 58%), Rd (16% and 7%), Vd (13% and 1%), and VCd (12% and 4%). In nSCT patients, the use of VRd increased over time (37% [early cohort] to 51% [recent cohort]), while frontline therapy with Rd/Vd doublets (19% to 14%/16% to 9%) and with VCd (13% to 11%) decreased. In the nSCT recent cohort, VRd (51%) frontline therapy dominated, with a slightly higher proportion of patients in the high-risk group vs. standard and unknown risk receiving VRd (56% vs. 53% and 46%); use of doublet therapy with Rd/Vd was lower in the high risk (12%/5%) vs. standard risk group (14%/9%). Irrespective of age, VRd was the most common frontline regimen in the nSCT recent cohort, albeit its use was lower among patients 75+ years of age (43%) vs. younger patients (54% [<65 years] and 59% [65-74 years]); 75+ year old patients had a higher use of Rd/Vd doublets (19%/15%) vs. <65 (10%/5%) or 65-74 (10%/6%) years of age. Triplets+ were more commonly used than doublets- across all cohorts: 59% vs. 41% (nSCT early cohort); 74% vs. 26% (nSCT recent cohort); and 89% vs. 11% (SCT early cohort); 95% vs. 5% (SCT recent cohort). mAB use in the recent cohort was low: 1.4% nSCT and 2.2% SCT patients. In the nSCT early cohort, the median (95% CI) LT1 DOT was 10 months (9-11) and for TTNT was 14 months (13-16). Conclusions PI/IMiD treatment combinations were most commonly observed in both nSCT and SCT patients, with an increase in use from early (40%) to recent (56%) cohort in nSCT patients. Use of triplets, generally, is on the rise from early (60%) to recent cohorts (74%). LT1 TTNT was lower than has been shown in clinical trials. These findings indicate a notable change in treatment patterns over time in nSCT NDMM patients, highlighting the changing landscape of MM management. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Cherepanov:Takeda: Employment. Yin:Takeda: Employment. Cheng:Takeda: Employment. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and the CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (dara) have transformed the management of MM, yet eventual refractoriness to these agents seems inevitable. Relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) which becomes triple class refractory (TCR, i.e. refractory to a PI, an IMiD and Dara) uncommonly responds to further lines of therapy and survival is dismal. Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound targeting exportin 1 (XPO1) which is overexpressed in MM cells and essential for their survival. In the STORM study, selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) demonstrated promising efficacy in TCR, penta-exposed (TCR-PE, i.e. exposed to lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib and dara) MM. Establishing the natural history for outcomes in the TCR-PE population can help provide context to understand the outcomes observed with Sd in STORM. In the retrospective MAMMOTH study, we reported the outcomes of patients with RRMM after they became refractory to dara, including a subset of patients who were TCR. We further analyzed the MAMMOTH dataset to generate a cohort of patients similar to patients in STORM in order to compare conventional care vs. Sd. Methods: We included all patients in STORM who received Sd as the first line therapy after they achieved TCR-PE status (n=64). We extracted from the MAMMOTH dataset all patients who were not exposed to Sd in a subsequent line of therapy, became TCR-PE and who received subsequent MM-directed therapy (n=128). Overall response rate (ORR) was evaluated according to IMWG criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of initiation of next line of therapy after TCR-PE status until death or last follow-up. We compared OS in STORM vs. MAMMOTH utilizing cox-regression analysis with adjustment for covariables potentially influencing the outcome. Results: Baseline patient characteristics and prior therapies are per table. The two cohorts were similar in terms of age, number of prior lines of therapy and presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. STORM patients had longer time between MM diagnosis and post TCR-PE therapy with a higher proportion of refractoriness to carfilzomib. Patients in STORM had ORR to Sd of 32.8% vs 25.0% for patients receiving conventional care in MAMMOTH (P=0.078). In direct comparison, patients in STORM had better OS than patients in MAMMOTH (median 10.4 vs. 6.9 months) (P=0.043, figure). In multivariate analysis, STORM patients had lower risk of death in comparison with MAMMOTH patients (aHR=0.55, 95%C.I. 0.35-0.86, P=0.009). Refractoriness to carfilzomib (aHR=2.20, 95%C.I. 1.16-4.15, P=0.015) and high-risk cytogenetics (aHR-1.66, 95% C.I. 1.13-2.42, P=0.009) were also associated with inferior OS. Conclusion: Despite inherent limitations in comparison of trial enrollees vs. real world patients, this analysis suggests improved OS with Sd vs conventional care in patients with TCR-PE RRMM. Prognosis for these patients remains poor and underscores the need for therapeutic advancements. Disclosures Costa: Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tang:Karyopharm: Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jagannath:BMS: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau. Chari:Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: 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, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Ma:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siegel:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Biran:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malek:Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Medpacto: Research Funding. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant. Kang:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; InCyte Corportation: Research Funding. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy.

Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with rel/ref AML who have failed to achieve complete remission (CR) after standard induction & salvage therapies do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to inability to receive myeloablative conditioning and lack of efficacy. With the advent of recently approved targeted therapies (e.g. venetoclax, IDH inhibitors) more patients achieve CR, however durable responses in heavily pre-treated patient populations remain unsatisfactory with very few patients being transplanted. The SIERRA (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial designed to address this unmet need. We present the preliminary analysis of the first 50% of patients and analyze the proportion of patients who fail standard chemo and targeted therapies that can then successfully undergo HCT with Iomab-B-based conditioning. Study continues to enroll (N=150), primary end-point durable CR of ≥180 days. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years with rel/ref AML (≥5% blasts), adequate organ function, and related/unrelated 8/8 HLA-matched donors. Patients are randomized (1:1) to receive Iomab-B followed 12-14 days later by reduced intensity conditioning (fludarabine(FLU)/TBI) and HCT, or to conventional care (CC). CC patients may receive investigator's choice of salvage therapy, including newly approved targeted agents such as venetoclax, IDH Inhibitors and may proceed to standard HCT if they achieve CR. If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows cross-over (CO) to Iomab-B with HCT. Results: Preliminary data are available from the first 75 patients enrolled on the SIERRA trial. Median age of 64 years (range: 55-77). All patients had active measurable disease (Table 1). Patients in this trial were heavily pretreated with 85% failing ≥2 induction therapies and 33% failing targeted therapies. Molecular and cytogenetics was 68% adverse risk. (NCCN, v1.2018) Following therapeutic dose of Iomab-B as a single agent, there was significant reduction of circulating blasts by day 3 (99%, p<0.0001), and peripheral blasts became undetectable by day 8 prior to FLU. All patients transplanted on the Iomab-B arm with data available showed median days to engraftment of ANC at 14 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 16 (range: 4-30) (Table 1). After randomization, 82% (31/38) patients in the CC arm failed salvage therapy and did not proceed to standard HCT. Significantly, 32% (12/38) of these patients received targeted therapy. 73% (8/11) of the patients receiving venetoclax with HMA or cytarabine did not adequately respond and did not proceed to standard HCT, 45% (5/11) crossed over to Iomab-B and received HCT. Following standard chemotherapies, 85% (22/26) were evaluated for CO. In total, 63% (19/30) received Iomab-B and HCT. The most common reason preventing crossover was disease progression. All crossover (Iomab-B) patients showed similar engraftment (Table 1). CC patients showed increased incidence of febrile neutropenia with grade 3 prior to CO evaluation or HCT, compared to Iomab-B patients prior to HCT (CC: 34%, Iomab-B: 8%). Iomab-B administration was generally well-tolerated with no grade 4 and 1 grade 3 infusion reaction. There were no Iomab-B-related deaths or 100 day non-relapse transplant related mortality deaths in patients on the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Conclusion: 100% of the patients receiving HCT on the Iomab-B arm engrafted, despite a median of 29% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. 82% of the patients on the CC arm failed to be eligible for standard of care transplant, including a high percentage of those receiving targeted therapies. On the CC arm, 63% of eligible patients crossed over to Iomab-B/HCT with robust engraftment despite a median of 35% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. The incidence of grade 3 febrile neutropenia was higher in patients treated on the conventional care arm with salvage therapy vs. those treated on the Iomab-B arm prior to HCT. In conclusion, despite advanced age, active disease and heavily pre-treated patients, 68% (50/74) of all patients enrolled in the SIERRA trial were able to undergo HCT after reinduction and targeted conditioning with Iomab-B. These results show significant improvements in the current rates of transplantation in this patient population. This SIERRA trial is currently enrolling. For full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nath:Astellas: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Stiff:Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tomlinson:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: Travel Support. Abhyankar:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Therakos: Other: Consulting, Speakers Bureau. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Al-Kadhimi:Seattle Genetics: Other: Stocks; Celldex Biotech: Other: Stocks. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Van Besien:Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Sabloff:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASTX: 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; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Canada: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals): Consultancy. Lazarus:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: 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; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Giralt:Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

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.