Citations

AbstractFirst‐degree relatives of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (SZ‐FDRs) show similar patterns of brain abnormalities and cognitive alterations to patients, albeit with smaller effect sizes. First‐degree relatives of patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BD‐FDRs) show divergent patterns; on average, intracranial volume is larger compared to controls, and findings on cognitive alterations in BD‐FDRs are inconsistent. Here, we performed a meta‐analysis of global and regional brain measures (cortical and subcortical), current IQ, and educational attainment in 5,795 individuals (1,103 SZ‐FDRs, 867 BD‐FDRs, 2,190 controls, 942 schizophrenia patients, 693 bipolar patients) from 36 schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder family cohorts, with standardized methods. Compared to controls, SZ‐FDRs showed a pattern of widespread thinner cortex, while BD‐FDRs had widespread larger cortical surface area. IQ was lower in SZ‐FDRs (d = −0.42,p = 3 × 10−5), with weak evidence of IQ reductions among BD‐FDRs (d = −0.23,p = .045). Both relative groups had similar educational attainment compared to controls. When adjusting for IQ or educational attainment, the group‐effects on brain measures changed, albeit modestly. Changes were in the expected direction, with less pronounced brain abnormalities in SZ‐FDRs and more pronounced effects in BD‐FDRs. To conclude, SZ‐FDRs and BD‐FDRs show a differential pattern of structural brain abnormalities. In contrast, both had lower IQ scores and similar school achievements compared to controls. Given that brain differences between SZ‐FDRs and BD‐FDRs remain after adjusting for IQ or educational attainment, we suggest that differential brain developmental processes underlying predisposition for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are likely independent of general cognitive impairment.

Abstract Objectives The association of bipolar disorder with early and excessive cardiovascular disease was identified over a century ago. Nonetheless, the vascular‐bipolar link remains underrecognized, particularly with regard to how this link can contribute to our understanding of pathogenesis and treatment. Methods An international group of experts completed a selective review of the literature, distilling core themes, identifying limitations and gaps in the literature, and highlighting future directions to bridge these gaps. Results The association between bipolar disorder and vascular disease is large in magnitude, consistent across studies, and independent of confounding variables where assessed. The vascular‐bipolar link is multifactorial and is difficult to study given the latency between the onset of bipolar disorder, often in adolescence or early adulthood, and subsequent vascular disease, which usually occurs decades later. As a result, studies have often focused on risk factors for vascular disease or intermediate phenotypes, such as structural and functional vascular imaging measures. There is interest in identifying the most relevant mediators of this relationship, including lifestyle (eg, smoking, diet, exercise), medications, and systemic biological mediators (eg, inflammation). Nonetheless, there is a paucity of treatment studies that deliberately engage these mediators, and thus far no treatment studies have focused on engaging vascular imaging targets. Conclusions Further research focused on the vascular‐bipolar link holds promise for gleaning insights regarding the underlying causes of bipolar disorder, identifying novel treatment approaches, and mitigating disparities in cardiovascular outcomes for people with bipolar disorder.

8000 Background: The diagnostic criteria for MM were revised in 2014, recategorizing ultra-high risk (i.e., 80% at two years) as active myeloma requiring therapy. The removal of patients at the highest risk of progression from the smoldering group requires reassessment of current risk stratification models. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study of SMM patients to develop a risk stratification model. Patients diagnosed with SMM on/after January 1, 2004 were included if they had no disease progression within 6 months, had baseline data from diagnosis (+/- 3 months), had a follow up of ≥1 year, and did not participate in a therapeutic trial of SMM. Various clinical and laboratory factors were explored to identify factors that predicted progression at 2 years. Univariate Cox regressions were run for each factor. For factors with p-values ≤ 0.25, optimal cut points were identified using Youden’s index. Binary factors were used in stepwise regression to fit multivariable Cox model and significant risk factors were determined (F-test). Results: Overall, 2004 patients were included (ages 26-93, 51% female). Factors independently associated with progression (optimal cutoffs) included: Serum M protein (2 g/dL), involved to uninvolved serum-free light chain ratio (20), and marrow plasma cell % (20%). Patients were stratified using the risk factors: Low- (0 factors), Intermediate- (1), and High-Risk (≥2). Previously used high risk markers such as Bence Jones proteinuria (≥500 mg/24 hours) and severe immunoparesis (50% decrease in uninvolved immunoglobulin levels) were both significant in univariate analysis, but were eliminated on step wise selection. Compared to the low risk group, intermediate- and high-risk groups had significantly higher rate of progression (Table). Within the high-risk group, having all 3 risk factors (n=61) versus 2 did not add to the model, with insufficient separation between 2 and 3 factors. Conclusions: We have developed a risk stratification model for SMM that incorporates revised cutoffs for previously used parameters (20/2/20) that can be universally applied. Additonal analysis are being conducted to develop models that utilize common cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as those without FLC given lack of availability of all tests across the world. [Table: see text]

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.

Abstract Introduction Maintenance therapy has been extensively explored as a strategy for prolonging the duration of disease control and potentially survival following ASCT. To date, only lenalidomide has been approved for this indication. However, lenalidomide maintenance is associated with the development of second primary malignancies and tolerability issues. PIs are a backbone of MM treatment, and bortezomib-based maintenance has shown promising activity post-ASCT, yet the benefit of PI-based maintenance has not been demonstrated in a phase 3 trial vs placebo. Moreover, the feasibility of bortezomib maintenance in routine clinical practice is limited due to tolerability and the need for regular parenteral administration. There is a need for an oral PI maintenance therapy that can be administered for a prolonged period, improve depth of response without cumulative or late-onset toxicity, and improve convenience for patients. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) compared weekly ixazomib vs placebo maintenance in NDMM patients who had at least a partial response (≥PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) followed by single ASCT. Patients were randomized (3:2) to receive ixazomib or matched placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen (PI without IMiD vs IMiD without PI vs PI+IMiD), pre-induction ISS stage (I vs II or III), and post-ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good partial response [VGPR] vs PR). Patients were ineligible if they had received post-ASCT consolidation or tandem ASCT. The ixazomib dose was 3.0 mg during cycles 1-4, increasing to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1-4. The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC), who were blinded to treatment assignment. The key secondary endpoint was OS. Here, we report data from the final analysis for PFS (data cut-off: April 16, 2018). Results 656 patients were randomized (395 ixazomib; 261 placebo). Patient demographics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 57 years (range, 24-73), 37% vs 63% had ISS I vs II or III, 59%/11%/30% had received PI without IMiD / IMiD without PI / PI+IMiD induction therapy, 34%/45%/21% had achieved CR / VGPR / PR following induction/ASCT, and 18% had high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)]. After a median follow-up of 31 months with 54% of PFS events, there was a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib vs placebo (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.582, 0.890; p=0.002; Figure). In a landmark analysis from ASCT, PFS was 30.7 vs 24.9 months (HR 0.684; 95% CI: 0.551, 0.848; p<0.001). Median PFS2 and OS have not yet been reached in either arm. Ixazomib maintenance led to higher rates of deepened response compared with placebo (relative risk 1.41; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.80; p=0.004). Conversion from documented MRD positivity at study entry to MRD negativity occurred at a higher rate with ixazomib compared with placebo (12% vs 7%). PFS benefit was seen broadly across subgroups, including ISS III (HR 0.661), PI-exposed (HR 0.750), PI-naïve (HR 0.497), and patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.625). Discontinuation due to AEs was low (7% ixazomib vs 5% placebo). With ixazomib vs placebo, 42% vs 26% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs; 27% vs 20% had serious AEs; and 1 patient vs 0 died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs were infections (15% vs 8%) including pneumonia (6% vs 4%), gastrointestinal disorders (6% vs 1%), neutropenia (5% vs 3%), and thrombocytopenia (5% vs <1%). Peripheral neuropathy rates were 19% vs 15% (<1% vs 0 grade 3). Rate of second primary malignancies was 3% in both arms. Global Quality of Life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) on ixazomib were similar to placebo. Conclusions This study demonstrated a 28% reduction in the risk of progression/death, corresponding to a 39% improvement in PFS with ixazomib maintenance, with deepening of responses and increased conversions to MRD negativity over control, as well as a favorable safety profile, including an absence of risk of second primary malignancies and low rates of peripheral neuropathy, supporting ixazomib as a valuable option for maintenance therapy in responding patients post-ASCT. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Takeda Celgene, Amgen, BMS, and Roche: Other: Advisor; Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Beksac:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Maisnar:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau: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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chng:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Aslan: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; STA: Honoraria. Iida:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa-Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Toyama Chemical: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Suryanarayan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Department of Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic: Other: Affiliation. Dash:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment.

Abstract Background: Patients (Pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) who relapse within 12 months of autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) have a poor prognosis. As reported by Mahmood et al. (ASCO 2007), of 432 pts who received SCT at the Mayo Clinic between 1994–2005, those with early relapse within 12 months (94/432– 22%) showed poorer median overall survival. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 12-month survival from the date of first relapse were 37% for pts relapsing within 12 months after SCT as compared to 85% for those relapsing after 12 months. In that study, pts had received regimens other than B. In a recent report of a large, phase III study (DOXIL-MMY3001), the combination of PLD+B improved time to progression (TTP) as compared to B alone (Orlowski et al. JCO 2007). The present analysis examined the 12-month post-randomization survival of patients who had early (<12 months) vs. late (≥12 months) relapse following SCT, as well as the effect of PLD+B vs. B alone in pts who had relapsed early. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 646 pts who received intravenous B, 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1,4,8 and 11 of every 21-day cycle ± PLD, 30 mg/m2 on day 4. Results: 359 pts had previously received transplant, 114 (32%) of whom relapsed within 12 months from SCT. The median age, gender distribution, time from diagnosis trial enrollment, measures of disease burden (M-Protein levels and B2M) and renal function were comparable between the early and late relapse groups. There was no difference in overall response rates [complete + partial response (CR+PR)] or very good PR (VGPR) rates between the two groups, or between treatment arms within each group. There was no significant difference in TTP between early vs. late relapse groups (HR=0.94). 12-month survival from randomization was significantly lower in the early relapse group as compared to late relapse (83% vs. 92% respectively, p=0.009). However, within the early relapse group 12-months post-randomization survival rate was significantly superior following treatment with PLD+B as compared to B alone [52/56 patients (93%) vs. 43/58 patients (74%) respectively, p=0.01]. Correspondingly, TTP was better in this group with PLD+B vs. B alone (276 days vs. 205 days respectively, p=0.13). Overall, the toxicity profiles of the combination and B alone were comparable regardless of early or late relapse following SCT. Conclusions: The present analysis of the MMY3001 study corroborates the prior Mayo observation of lower survival in MM pts relapsing within 12 months of SCT. Importantly, it demonstrates that PLD+B may provide a therapeutic advantage for high-risk MM pts with early relapse following SCT.

Abstract Introduction: Single-agent carfilzomib has shown encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who harbor high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (Jakubowiak et al, Leukemia 2013;27:2351-56). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391; N=792 patients) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (Stewart et al, N Engl J Med 2015;372:142-52). We present a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of KRd vs Rd in the ASPIRE study according to baseline cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Adults with RMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy) were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to KRd or Rd. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the KRd arm received carfilzomib as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose, 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose, 27 mg/m2 thereafter) during cycles 1-12; carfilzomib was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13-18 and was discontinued after 18 cycles. All patients received lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety. Cytogenetic risk status was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. The high-risk group consisted of patients with the genetic subtype t(4;14) or t(14;16) or with deletion 17p in ≥60% of plasma cells, according to central review of bone marrow samples obtained at study entry. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with known baseline cytogenetics. The cutoff value of 60% for the proportion of plasma cells with deletion 17p was used on the basis of recommendations from the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2 (Munshi et al. Blood 2011;117:4696-700). Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized to KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). In patients with known baseline cytogenetics, baseline cytogenetic risk status was similar between the treatment arms (high-risk: KRd, 24.6%; Rd, 23.4%; standard-risk: KRd, 75.4%; Rd, 76.6%). Efficacy outcomes by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Median PFS in the high-risk group (n=100) was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5-24.2) for KRd vs 13.9 months (95% CI: 9.5-16.7) for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.639; 95% CI: 0.369-1.106). Median PFS in the standard-risk group (n=317) was 29.6 months (95% CI: 24.1-not estimable) for KRd vs 19.5 months (95% CI: 14.8-26.0) for Rd (HR: 0.657; 95% CI: 0.480-0.901). ORRs were 79.2% (KRd) vs 59.6% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 91.2% (KRd) vs 73.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 29.2% (KRd) and 5.8% (Rd) of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or better, including 16.7% (KRd) and 3.8% (Rd) with a stringent complete response (sCR). In the standard-risk group, 38.1% (KRd) and 6.5% (Rd) of patients achieved ≥CR, including 15.0% (KRd) and 3.5% (Rd) with an sCR. Median DOR in the high-risk group was 22.2 months for KRd vs 14.9 months for Rd. Median DOR in the standard-risk group was 30.4 months for KRd vs 20.4 months for Rd. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events was 89.1% (KRd) vs 78.4% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 85.6% (KRd) vs 84.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest (dyspnea, hypertension, acute renal failure, cardiac failure, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral neuropathy) by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of nearly 2 years, which was a 9-month improvement relative to that in patients treated with Rd. Treatment with KRd also led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics; similar reductions in the risk of progression or death with Kd vs Vd were observed in both cytogenetics risk groups. Treatment with KRd also led to higher response rates, greater response depth, and a longer DOR compared with Rd in patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMM, irrespective of baseline cytogenetic risk status, and improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Fonseca: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acetylon: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Tonda:Onyx: Employment. Obreja:Amgen Inc: Employment. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is increasingly recognized as a major complication of thalidomide (T; Thal) and lenalidomide (R; Rev) based therapy for multiple myeloma. Estimated incidence varies widely in the literature. There is no consensus on specific risk factors, indications for thromboprophylaxis or the agent of choice for DVT prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus among members of the IMWG. Patients and Methods: A survey was electronically mailed to 67 IMWG members on July 21, 2006 and consisted of 24 multiple-choice questions. Results: Twenty-three IMWG members (34%) sent in their responses by the cut-off date. All (100%) felt that DVT was an important question, but most (95%) did not avoid Thal/Rev based therapy because of the DVT risk. Overall results are summarized in the Table below. A majority of physicians felt that concomitant therapy with high dose dexamethasone (90% of physicians), alkylators (55%), doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin (90%), and erythropoietin (75%) increase the risk of DVT associated with Thal or Rev based therapy. Aspirin (81 mg or 325 mg per day) was the preferred choice of prophylaxis when necessary. However, 65% of respondents preferred warfarin to a therapeutic INR or LMW heparin if either doxorubicin or liposomal doxorubicin was added to the regimens. Most (95–100%) felt that DVT prophylaxis was not indicated for: VAD, MP, bortezomib +/− dexamethasone regimens. Seventy-five percent felt it to be safe to resume therapy with Thal/Rev after therapeutic anticoagulation. Most (95%) believed randomized trials were needed. Conclusion: DVT is recognized as a major clinical problem associated with Thal/Rev containing regimens. Most respondents felt that the DVT risk did not warrant any prophylaxis when either Thal or Rev were used as single agents. Aspirin was the preferred form of DVT prophylaxis for most Thal/Rev containing regimens, except when doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin or melphalan were added. Additional responses will be analyzed both electronically and by conference call prior to the meeting. Therapy Estimated incidence of DVT (% respondents) Choice of thromboprophylaxis (% respondents) Single agent thal <5% (61%) None (65%) Single agent Rev <5% (80%) None (65%) Thal-Dex 10–20% (52%) Aspirin (60%) Rev-Dex 10–20% (48%) Aspirin (60%) MPT 10–20% (65%) Aspirin (40%) R-MP 5–10% (57%) Aspirin (70%)