Citations

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Abstract Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF) are clonal hemopathies characterized by burdensome symptom profiles and impaired quality of life. Treatments include pharmacologic approaches, phlebotomy, and bone marrow transplant. Outcome studies have historically focused on hematologic improvement and survival benefit. Few prospective studies have evaluated patient-reported symptoms and quality of life outcomes after standard therapy. The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Quality of Life (MPN-QOL) Study Group aims to objectively quantify symptomatic response to standard treatments. Here we provide updated results for the prospective MPN Experimental Assessment of Symptoms by Utilizing Repetitive Evaluation (MEASURE) trial. Methods: The MEASURE trial is a prospective international cohort study evaluating responsiveness of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS or MPN-10) in an anticipated 480 ET, PV, and MF patients receiving non-experimental medical therapy and/or phlebotomy. Patients complete the MPN-SAF TSS (JCO 2012) for seven consecutive days at enrollment then again for seven days between 90 days and six months later. Patients also complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) instruments at enrollment and on the first day of the second assessment. Physicians report demographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Results: Demographics To date, 340 patients have enrolled and 270 have completed both study visits. Participants include ET (60%), PV (29%), and MF (12%; including 68% primary MF, 12% post-ET, 20% post-PV) patients. Enrolled patients are 51% male. The most common therapies received prior to enrollment were aspirin (34%), phlebotomy (15%), hydroxyurea (14%), and warfarin/clopidogrel/anticoagulation (6%). The most common current MPN therapies were hydroxyurea (67%), aspirin (24%), phlebotomy (9%), and ruxolitinib (8%). Information on mutational analysis was also collected; 77% of patients have a known JAK2 V617F mutation, 3% have an MPL W515 mutation. Symptom Measures On the MPN-SAF TSS, the majority of individual symptoms assessed did not change significantly between the two assessment time points while on standard therapy. Notable exceptions were a significant decrease in weight loss (mean 2.0 vs. 1.7 on a 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable scale, p=0.005) and a significant worsening in quality of life (mean 3.6 vs. 3.8 on a 0=as good as it can be to 10=as bad as it can be scale, p=0.04). No changes were seen in other symptoms including early satiety, abdominal discomfort, night sweats, fatigue, inactivity, poor concentration, bone pain, itching, or fever. Similarly, the cumulative MPN-SAF TSS score remained stable at a mean of 24.4 over the treatment period. These findings were congruent with those observed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument, with no significant changes seen in emotional, physical, role, cognitive, or social functioning. Finally, the MDASI also revealed a lack of change in either symptom severity (mean 2.7) or symptom distress (mean 3.0) scores, which remained stable over the study period. Discussion: Myeloproliferative neoplasms are associated with burdensome symptoms that significantly compromise quality of life. To date, no studies have quantified symptomatic response to standard-of-care treatments. Overall, results from the MEASURE study suggest that standard treatments have limited systematic impact on patient symptomatology over time, with no improvements in overall quality of life. However, we note the relatively low proportion of patients in this cohort treated with ruxolitinib, which has been shown previously to improve symptom burden, and this may have impacted the symptom responses seen in the group as whole; detailed responses by treatment and MPN subtype will be presented. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dueck: Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Ross:BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding. Radia:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Consultancy. Mesa:UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from difficult MPN associated symptoms which impact quality of life (QoL). The impact of initial cytoreduction on ET/PV symptoms, resulting toxicity and QoL have not been prospectively studied. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) randomized 168 therapy-naive (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) high risk ET/PV pts (<5 years of disease) to response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, in depth toxicity assessment, and QoL were measured by two symptom instruments (MPN-SAF, EORTC QLQ-C30: baseline,3, 6, 9, and 12 mo) and toxicity questions. Blinded response review by European Leukemia Net (ELN) hematological responses (HR) was conducted at 12 months. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. Results: Patients: Of 168 randomized pts (86 HU, 82 PEG), 164 (98%) completed the survey package at baseline and 151 (HU 83%; PEG 98%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 61 (range 18-87) with 70 (42%) females; 81 (48%) / 87 (52%) with ET / PV; 46 (27%) had a history of a thrombosis. 119 (71%) received prior HU (up to 3 months). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with the exception of age (median HU 63 vs. PEG 60 yrs; p=0.02). Baseline Symptom Burden /QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS), scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable] was 15.8 (SD 12.6; range 0-62.0) with means of 15.1 (SD 12.6) / 16.5 (SD 12.6) for ET / PV which were slightly lower than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (Scherber RM, JCO 2012). Median number of moderate (defined as score >=3) symptoms in ET patients was 3.0 and PV 4.0. Most common moderate symptoms were fatigue (65.9%), insomnia (37.2%), numbness (33.5%) , itching (29.9%), dizziness (27.4%), early satiety (26.8%) , headache (23.2%), sad mood (23.2%), inactivity (22%), concentration (20.7%). 50.6% of patients had one or more symptom with a score >=6. Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 70.8 (SD 21.9) - comparable to a general population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). At baseline, TSS, symptoms, and QoL were similar between treatment arms. In patients with TSS >20 at baseline (highly symptomatic, n=50; ET:20, PV:30), median TSS was 28.0 (range 20.0 to 62.0); the highest scored symptom was fatigue (median=7.0), itching (median=4.5) and insomnia (median=4.0). Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts experienced worsening QoL (physical, cognitive functioning, HRQoL) and some persistent or transient worsened symptoms (inactivity, concentration (p<0.05) (Table 1)). On PEG, pts experienced worsening of fever, dyspnea, appetite loss and PEG-related symptoms including flu-like symptoms, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and visual changes (all p<0.05), but not sad mood (not corrected for antidepressants). In comparing arms, change in TSS significantly differed (p=0.01) between arms with increasing symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptom burden at 9 and 12 mos (Figure 1). In highly symptomatic pts (with a baseline TSS > 20, n=50), improvements in weight loss, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, itching, fever, early satiety (12 m.) were observed in pts on HU. For PEG, in highly symptomatic pts, improvements were observed for overall TSS score, fatigue, inactivity, night sweats, and itching (with similar toxicities to all PEG patients). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among the 133 pts with 12-mo symptom data, complete hematologic response (CHR) rate was 43%. Inactivity and sad mood were worse in those patient achieving a CHR (inactivity: CHR worsening 0.68 vs PHR/NR better 0.26; p=0.03; sad mood: CHR worsening 0.67 vs PHR/NR better 0.67, p=0.002)). These latter changes were not related to higher doses utilized (in either arm), suggesting obtaining CHR may have negative effects on patient symptoms. Conclusions:In pts with a significant baseline MPN symptom burden, cytoreductive therapy has both a beneficial impact on baseline MPN symptom burden but also leads to therapy associated toxicity, although different patterns of efficacy and toxicity between HU and PEG. Achievement of a CHR in PV/ET may be associated with higher rates of drug related toxicities, and the value of achieving CHR may need further validation. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cara Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx, INC.: Equity Ownership; Inycte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Harrison:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kessler:Sangamo: Research Funding; Octapharma: 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; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment.

Abstract Background Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterised by the frequent presence of driver mutations in genes causing activation of JAK2 signalling pathways (JAK2, CALR and MPL). Additional mutations affecting epigenetic regulators and splicing machinery are common. Anaemia with RBC-transfusion-dependence is common in patients with advanced myelofibrosis and represents a major unmet need. The RESUME study assessed the rates of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) after therapy with Pomalidomide (POM) vs placebo in persons with MPN-associated myelofibrosis and RBC-transfusion dependence. 16% of patients in both the POM and placebo arms became TI. Aims The genetic landscape of strictly confirmed transfusion dependent MF is not fully characterised. Our aim was to analyse the genetics of transfusion-dependent myelofibrosis patients in the RESUME trial and correlate with clinical characteristics, outcome and therapy response. Methods DNA samples were available from 207 of 252 patients and analysed by targeted re-sequencing using a Fluidigm Access Array gene panel followed by next generation sequencing. The panel included JAK2, CALR, MPL, TET2, ASXL1, EZH2, DNMT3A, IDH1/2, CBL, IKZF1, U2AF1, CHEK2, TP53, SF3B1, SRSF2, SH2B3, BARD1, DAP3, HRAS, IRF4, KRAS, KIT, Mir662, NFE2, POLG, SCRIB, SETBP1, TCF12 and VPS45. Results 97% (95-99%) of subjects had a mutation in ≥1 targeted gene. 2 mutations were detected in 41% (34-48%) and ≥3 in 27% (21-33%). 7 had no detectable mutation. Mutations in JAK2V617F, CALR and MPL were identified in 66% (59-72%), 14% (8-19%) and 7% (4-11%) of subjects (Figure 1), with no driver mutation in 27 patients (13%; 9-18%) (triple-negative). 68% (61-74%) had additional non-driver mutations. 42% (35-48%) (N=86) had spliceosome mutations (U2AF1 [21%]; SF3B1 [11%]; SRSF2 [8%]; ZRSR2; [6%]). More spliceosome mutations were detected in men than women (47% [39-55%] vs 27% [15-40%]; p=0.009). Spliceosome mutations were mutually exclusive in 83 subjects and were less common in subjects with prior polycythaemia vera (17% [5-37%]) compared with prior essential thrombocythaemia (39% [22-58%]) and primary MF (46% [38-54%]; p=0.024). Mutations in epigenetic regulators (ASXL1, 28%; TET2, 8%; DNMT3A 5%; EZH2 4%) were detected at similar rates to those previously reported. High molecular risk (HMR) mutations (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, SRSF2) were detected in 36% [29-43%] of subjects. Only 10 of 105 subjects with an epigenetic regulator gene mutation had ≥1 related mutation. Subjects with JAK2V617F were significantly more likely than subjects with a CALR mutation to have: (1) ≥1 additional mutation (72% [64-79%] vs. 35% [18-54%], p=0.0001); (2) a spliceosome mutation (44% [36-53%] vs. 17% [6-36%], p=0.07), in particular a U2AF1 mutation (24% [17-32%] vs. 0%; p=0.004) and (3) a HMR mutation (38% [30-47%] vs. 21% [8-40%]; p=0.07). Survival at 1.5 years was 62% (55-67%) and was not significantly associated with the presence or number of mutations in this uniformly high-risk cohort. Survival in subjects without an SF3B1 mutation was better than those SF3B1-mutated (80% [56-91%]) vs. 59% [52-65%]; p=0.07). Driver mutation status did not influence the probability of achieving red blood cell (RBC) TI, regardless of therapy. Additional non-driver mutations were more often detected in those failing to achieve RBC-TI than those achieving RBC-TI (70% [63-77%] vs 56% [40-71%], p=0.07). Furthermore, those with additional non-driver mutations were less likely to achieve ≥50% reduction in RBC transfusions (24% [17-32%] vs. 39% [27-51%]; p=0.03). A significant correlation persisted in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. There was also a significant correlation between U2AF1 mutations and RBC-TI in POM treated subjects compared with controls; U2AF1-mutated subjects were less likely to achieve RBC-TI (3% [1, 17%]) than U2AF1-unmutated subjects (25% [17, 34%], p=0.008). No other mutations were significantly correlated with response. Conclusion We found a high incidence of spliceosome mutations in persons with MPN-associated MF and RBC-transfusion-dependence. Mutation of U2AF1 correlated with response in subjects receiving POM but not in those receiving placebo. Incorporation of mutation profiling into clinical trial design may help to inform subgroups of patients that may benefit from the intervention. Disclosures Devos: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gisslinger:Shire: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kiladjian:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: 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. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Schiller:Celator/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ITALFARMACO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Reiser:Celgene: Employment. Zhong:Celgene: Employment. Mead:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Elstar: Research Funding; Evotek: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction HU is the treatment of choice for patients (pts) with high risk ET/PV, however, PEG has been proposed as an alternative option due to its proposed potential to modify disease course. An interim analysis of MPN-RC 112 (Blood 2016 128:479;) did not reveal a difference in PR/CR rates between HU and PEG therapy after 12 months in the first evaluable 75 pts treated. Here we present the results and long-term follow-up of all pts participating in this pivotal study [NCT01259856]. Methods MPN-RC 112 was a randomized, open label, phase 3 clinical trial comparing HU and PEG in pts with high risk ET/PV. Pts were treated for up to 12 months to achieve PR or CR (ELN/IWG-MRT response criteria). Pts who achieved a PR/CR continued therapy for up to a maximum of 6 years. Minimum follow up was 1 year from the time the last pt was randomized. The primary objective was to compare the CR rate following HU vs. PEG at 12 months with 3 month confirmation. Secondary objectives included a comparison of toxicity and tolerability; PR rates; incidence of specific pre-defined toxicities and tolerance to therapy; impact of therapy on key biomarkers; survival and incidence of myelodysplastic syndrome, myelofibrosis, or leukemic transformation; and incidence of major cardiovascular events. Bone marrow pathologic responses were evaluated by central blinded expert review at baseline, 12, 24 months and end of study. Results The study accrued 168 pts; 86 were randomized to HU and 82 to PEG. A summary of pt baseline characteristics by treatment arm is shown in Table 1 and were well balanced between the treatment arms except for median age which was higher in the HU arm (p=0.02). Median duration of follow up was 89.9 weeks (range, 0 to 292.3) and the median treatment duration was 86.0 weeks (range, 0 to 287.3). At 12 months, the overall response rate (ORR= PR+CR) was 69.8% and 78% for HU and PEG, respectively (p=0.22). Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses stratified by disease type. At 24 months, 59 pts were on treatment with an ORR of 22/25 (88%) for HU and 31/34 (91%) for PEG. When considering all 106 pts who were eligible to receive treatment for 24 months (due to study closure), the ORR was 22/54 (40.7%, PR: 11 (20.4%), CR: 11 (20.4%)) for HU and 31/52 (59.6%, (PR: 15 (28.9%), CR: 16 (30.8%)) for PEG, p=0.04. Best ORR at any time on study was seen in 70.9% and 81.7% of HU and PEG treated pts, respectively, p=0.10. The median maximum change from baseline spleen volume was -6% (-100.0 - +53.8) in 112 evaluable pts and was similar between arms, p=0.99. Bone marrow morphologic responses are shown in Table 2 and the best response (CR) seen at any time on study for ET treated with HU was 52% (12/23) vs PEG 32% (8/25) and for PV treated with HU 19% (6/31) vs PEG 6% (2/34). Cytogenetic analyses at diagnosis were available in 86% (144/168). An abnormal karyotype was seen in 15% (22/144). Five PV and one ET pt lost their chromosomal abnormalities: 3 after one year (HU=1, PEG=2) and three after two years of therapy (HU=2, PEG=1). AE information is available for 162 pts (HU: 80; PEG: 82) (Table 3). Six pts randomized to HU never received treatment due to study withdrawal prior to initiation of treatment. Sixty pts had a grade 3 or higher event [HU: 22 (27.5%) and PEG: 38 (46.3%)]. 28 PV pts had a grade 3/4 [HU: 10 (24.4%) and PEG: 18 (41.9%)]. Four pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU: 3 (7.3%) and PEG: 1 (2.3%)]. 32 ET pts had a grade 3/4 [HU:12 (30.8%) and PEG:20 (51.3%)]. Two pts had a grade 4/5 event [HU:1 (2.6%), PEG:1 (2.6%)]. Additional outcomes of interest on study include one death attributed to new diagnosis of lung cancer (HU:1), progression to myelofibrosis (HU:1), vertebral artery occlusion (HU:1), and cerebral vascular accident (PEG:1). Reasons for study discontinuation are shown in Table 4. The effect of therapy on symptom burden and quality of life will be presented in a companion abstract (Mesa et al). The impact of mutation status on therapeutic outcome as well as the molecular responses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion The final analysis of MPN-RC 112 revealed that the CR rates in pts with high risk ET/PV treated with PEG and HU at 12 and 24 months were similar. PEG was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 toxicity. Each drug appeared equally capable of modifying the natural history of high risk ET/PV based upon their effects on spleen size, karyotypic abnormalities, histopathological parameters and the low incidence of thrombotic complications and disease evolution in both arms. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Novartis: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rambaldi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mead:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elstar: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Evotek: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kessler:Genentech: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bayer: 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; Biomarin: Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DSMB: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dimension Advisory boards: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Rampal:Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mesa:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Dueck:Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 2818 Background: Pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peg INF2a) has been demonstrated to be active therapy for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV), as well as treatment for early myelofibrosis (MF). We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of Peg INF2a therapy in MPN patients treated outside the constraints of a clinical trial in the USA and EU. Methods: Clinical records of MPN patients treated at the participating centers, receiving Peg INF2a outside of the context of a clinical trial, were analyzed for response (ET and PV by ELN criteria; MF by EUNMET and IWG-MRT criteria), toxicity, and duration of response. Results: Patients: 115 patients were identified (54 PV (47%), 44 ET (38%), 17 MF (15%)) with a median age at diagnosis (48) and gender distribution (59% females) typical for the disorders. The patients had been diagnosed with the MPN a median of 44 months (0.0–312 months) prior to initiation of the Peg IFN2a and 64% harbored the JAK2-V617F mutation. The majority of patients (81%) had received at least one prior cytoreductive therapy for their disease (73 hydroxyurea, 39 anagrelide, 37 aspirin, 21 prior interferon (non pegylated), 3 phlebotomy alone). Therapy: Median starting dose of Peg INF2a was 45 micrograms/week (range: 22.5–180) with peak starting doses ranging from 30 to 300 micrograms/week. A total of 84 patients (73%) remain on Peg IFN2a with median duration of treatment of 17 months (range: 1.0–92). Toxicity: Overall the Peg INF2a was well tolerated. Hematological toxicity was Gr 3 or lower. There were 6 cases with anemia (5%), 10 with thrombocytopenia (9%) and 8 had leukopenia (7%). Most common non-hematologic toxicities were Gr 1–3 fatigue in 27 (23%), Gr 1 LFT elevation in 6 (5%), Gr 2–3 skin/allergic reaction in 6 (5%), Gr 1–2 nausea in 5 (4%), and Gr 2 mood disorder in 5 (4%) patients. Twenty patients (17%) discontinued therapy secondary to toxicity. Response: ET-PV: By ELN criteria, 30 PV patients achieved CR (55%), 17 achieved PR (31%), 4 achieved NR (7%), and 3 patients (5%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. In ET, the responses were CR in 27 (61%), PR in 7 (16%), NR in 4 (9%), and 6 patients (14%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. MF: The responses by IWG criteria were 1 CR (6%), 2 PR (12%), 2 CI (12%) and 9 SD (53%). By EUNMET, there were 2 CR (12%), 4 major responses (24%), 4 moderate responses (24%), 1 minor response (6%), 2 no response (12%), and 3 patients (17%) were lost to follow up or were too early to evaluate for response. Conclusions: Peg INF2a used at doses consistent with published clinical trials is active and well-tolerated when administered in a clinical setting outside of the support of a clinical trial. Given the majority of patients had previously failed cytoreductive therapy these results substantiate prior reports of efficacy of Peg INF2a in MPNs. Upcoming randomized clinical trials through the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium will help further define the role of Peg INF2a as first line therapy in high-risk MPNs. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 813FN2 Introduction: Carfilzomib is a next-generation proteasome inhibitor that selectively and irreversibly binds to its target, resulting in sustained inhibition absent of off-target effects relative to bortezomib. Carfilzomib has demonstrated durable anti-tumor activity and an acceptable tolerability profile in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Final results will be presented for the bortezomib-naïve group of PX-171-004, a phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Herein we report the most recent data analysis available at time of abstract submission. Updated final results for the bortezomib-naïve group of PX-171-004, including OS data, will be presented at the meeting. Methods: Patients received either 20 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles (Cohort 1) or a stepped-up dose-escalating regimen of 20 mg/m2 for Cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles thereafter (Cohort 2). Carfilzomib was administered over 2–10 minutes on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of every 28-day cycle, for a maximum of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (ORR; [CR + VGPR + PR]) determined according to the IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit response rate (CBR; [ORR + MR per EBMT criteria]), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), OS, and safety. The result of efficacy analysis from disease assessment by the Independent Review Committee is presented in this abstract. Results: 127 of 129 enrolled bortezomib-naïve patients were evaluable for response. Prior therapies included thalidomide (59%), lenalidomide (59%), alkylating agents (81%), and stem cell transplant (73%). Patients had received a median of 2 prior regimens (1 in 54 patients, 2 in 40 patients, 3 in 28 patients, and ≥4 in 7 patients). 84 patients (65%) were disease refractory to their most recent therapy, defined as ≤25% response or progression during or within 60 days after completion of therapy. The median duration of carfilzomib treatment is 7 cycles (range 1−12) in Cohort 1; 8 patients were receiving drug as of February 2011 in Cohort 2 with a median treatment of 6.5 cycles (range 1−13) at that time. Best ORR was 42% in Cohort 1 and 52% in Cohort 2. Median TTP was 8.3 months and median DOR was 13.1 months in Cohort 1. The median TTP and DOR for Cohort 2 have not been reached at the time of this interim analysis; the lower bound of the 95% CI for the median TTP was 10.2 months, and 84% were estimated to have DOR ≥1 year at the time of data cutoff. Higher response rates for Cohort 2 compared with Cohort 1 do not appear to be associated with higher toxicities. Patients with unfavorable cytogenetic characteristics (≥1 abnormality) per mSMART criteria had an ORR of 37% and CBR of 42% compared with 50% and 65%, respectively, for patients with no abnormality. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), regardless of relationship to carfilzomib in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively, were fatigue (71%, 54%), nausea (54%, 43%), anemia (46%, 37%), and dyspnea (49%, 33%). These were primarily ≤Grade 2 in severity. The most common Grade 3/4 AEs were anemia (15%), lymphopenia (15%), thrombocytopenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and neutropenia (12%). Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) was mild and infrequent (16%). Only 1 case of Grade 3 PN (0.8%) was observed. Overall, 38 patients (30%) completed 12 cycles and 22 of these patients continued to receive carfilzomib therapy under a safety extension protocol (PX-171-010), an ongoing, multicenter, open-label phase 2 study to monitor long-term use of single-agent carfilzomib. Conclusions: To date we have seen robust and durable single-agent activity for carfilzomib in bortezomib-naïve patients with relapsed and often refractory MM with an ORR of 42−52% and a CBR of 59−63% from 2 separate dose cohorts in a population wherein 92% received an immunomodulatry drug and 73% had undergone an autologous stem cell transplant previously. These data are suggestive of a dose–response relationship and are being further evaluated in the exploratory phase 1b/2 study PX-171-007. Carfilzomib was associated with minimal PN and excellent long-term tolerability, with nearly one-third of patients completing 12 cycles and 22 of these continuing treatment beyond 1 year in the extension protocol PX-171-010. Disclosures: Vij: Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Keryx: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, 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; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; OrthoBiotec.Imedex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medicom World Wide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Optum Health Education: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allergan: Research Funding. Belch:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Gabrail:Millennium: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Orlowski:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kunkel:VLST biothech: Consultancy; Threshold: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: 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; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 430 Background: Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a feature of multiple myeloma (MM) itself as well as a debilitating side effect and major dose-limiting toxicity of thalidomide (THAL) and bortezomib (BTZ) (Chaudry et al, J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2008). Although the mechanism of BTZ-induced PN (BIPN) is unknown, PN may not be a proteasome inhibitor class effect. Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a highly selective proteasome inhibitor with activity in relapsed or refractory MM. CFZ overcomes BTZ-resistance in vitro (Kuhn et al, Blood 2007), lacks the off-target activities of BTZ (Kapur et al, Blood 2008), and does not cause neurotoxicity in long-term chronic (e.g. up to 9 months) animal toxicology studies (Kirk et al, Blood 2008). In Phase I and 1b/2 trials (total n=138), CFZ was not associated with dose-limiting PN. Here we report on the experience of CFZ treatment from two ongoing Phase 2 trials in relapsed or refractory MM. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MM received CFZ, 20 mg/m2 IV, Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in a 28-day cycle for up to 12 cycles on studies PX-171-003 and PX-171-004. Neuropathy history, neurological physical exam and PN-related quality of life data (FACT-GOG/NTx v 4.0 scores) were collected at screening. Prospective neurological exams and subjective reporting of PN using the FACT-GOG/Ntx subscale v.4 questionnaire occurred every 2 cycles until study discontinuation to proactively assess for PN. Adverse Event (AE) data were also collected. AEs reported as ‘neuropathy peripheral', ‘neuropathic pain', ‘neuropathy', and ‘peripheral sensory neuropathy' were included as PN. AE reports of ‘paraesthesias' and ‘dysesthesias' were counted separately. Results: To date, baseline data are availabel for 136 patients. At screening, 73 (54%) patients had active PN, including 64 (47%) with Grade (G) 1 and 9 (7%) with G2. 111 (82%) patients had a history of PN which was attributed to prior chemotherapy, 86 cases of which were attributed to either THAL or BTZ. THAL was implicated in 57 cases, BTZ in 45 cases, and both THAL and BTZ in 17 cases. For 27 of these patients, PN was the primary reason for THAL or BTZ discontinuation. The mean number of CFZ doses was 27 (4.5 four-week cycles) and 27 (20%) patients completed at least 8 cycles. Peripheral neuropathy AEs (all grades) were reported in 21 (15%) patients; 12 (9%) cases were considered possibly related to CFZ. Grade ≥ 3 PN was reported in only 3 (2%) patients. In one patient, the Grade 3 neuropathy lasted from treatment days 2 to 3 (i.e., < 36 hours) and resolved; the patient continued on CFZ at full dose for 30 days before discontinuing study due to progressive MM. In a second patient, Grade 3 neuropathy occurred on study day 91. The dose was reduced from 20 mg/m2 to 15 mg/m2, at the same twice-weekly frequency; the PN resolved to G1 and the patient continued on therapy until day 133. The third patient had G3 PN that occurred from days 260-281 and resolved to G1 while still on full dose CFZ. This patient completed the full 12-cycle protocol (∼1 year CFZ treatment). Paraesthesias and dysesthesia were reported in 10 (7%) patients; all were G1 or 2. There were no missed doses or CFZ treatment discontinuations due to PN, paraesthesias or dysesthesias. Comparative FACT-GOG/Ntx subscale scores were availabel for 95 patients. There was no statistically significant change in FACT-GOG/NTx scores from baseline to the end of the study. Neurological exams did not identify any additional peripheral neuropathy beyond those reported as AEs. Conclusions: In MM patients receiving CFZ therapy, reports of PN, paraesthesias and dysesthesia are generally mild and do not result in missed doses or CFZ discontinuation, allowing long-term treatment and prolonged disease control. These data, along with the experience from other clinical trials, indicate that PN is not a class effect of proteasome inhibitors. Disclosures: Vij: Proteolix: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang:Proteolix, Inc.: Research Funding. Stewart:Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: 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, Speakers Bureau. Belch:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Le:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment. Cruickshank:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment. Bennett:Proteolix: Employment. Molineaux:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.