Citations

Aims Novel therapies are needed for recurrent pericarditis, particularly when corticosteroid dependent and colchicine resistant. Based on limited data, interleukin-1 blockade with anakinra may be beneficial. The aim of this multicentre registry was to evaluate the broader effectiveness and safety of anakinra in a ‘real world’ population. Methods and results This registry enrolled consecutive patients with recurrent pericarditis who were corticosteroid dependent and colchicine resistant and treated with anakinra. The primary outcome was the pericarditis recurrence rate after treatment. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, hospitalisations, corticosteroid use and adverse events. Among 224 patients (46 ± 14 years old, 63% women, 75% idiopathic), the median duration of disease was 17 months (interquartile range 9–33). Most patients had elevated C-reactive protein (91%) and pericardial effusion (88%). After a median treatment of 6 months (3–12), pericarditis recurrences were reduced six-fold (2.33–0.39 per patient per year), emergency department admissions were reduced 11-fold (1.08–0.10 per patient per year), hospitalisations were reduced seven-fold (0.99–0.13 per patient per year). Corticosteroid use was decreased by anakinra (respectively from 80% to 27%; P < 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred; adverse events consisted mostly of transient skin reactions (38%) at the injection site. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 3%. A full-dose treatment duration of over 3 months followed by a tapering period of over 3 months were the therapeutic schemes associated with a lower risk of recurrence. Conclusion In patients with recurrent pericarditis, anakinra appears efficacious and safe in reducing recurrences, emergency department admissions and hospitalisations.

Abstract Background: Older patients (pts) with AML unfit for intense induction chemotherapy have a poor prognosis with a 5 year survival of <10%. 225Ac-lintuzumab is composed of 225Ac linked to a humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Data were previously presented on the initial 13 pts who received 2.0 µCi/kg/dose on Days 1 and 8 (ASH, 2017, Abstract 616). Although that dose resulted in a high response rate of 69%, there were 6 pts with Grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting >6 weeks and 5 CRi patients did not reach an ANC of ≥ 500/µL. Therefore, the activity level was reduced to 1.5 µCi/kg/dose for further evaluation. Methods: This study enrolled older pts with untreated AML who were considered to be unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. Pts aged 60 to 74 years were required to have significant co-morbidities, while all pts ≥ 75 years were eligible. Other eligibility criteria included ECOG PS 0-2, CD33 expression on > 25% of blasts, and a peripheral blast count <200/µL within 10 days of the first dose to optimize targeting of bone marrow (BM) blasts. Hydroxyurea was used to lower peripheral blast counts. 1.5 µCi/kg of 225Ac-lin were administered IV on Days 1 and 8. G-CSF was given starting 10 days after the 2nd dose and spironolactone was given for up to 1 year to minimize the risk of radiation-induced nephrotoxicity. Pts were evaluated for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419. Results: 18 pts were included in this prespecified Interim Analysis. An additional 9 pts were treated at this dose and will be included in an updated analysis at the ASH meeting. The median age of the 18 pts was 73.5 years (range 60-87) and median ECOG Performance Status was 1 (0 in 3 pts, 1 in 9 pts, & 6 in 2 pts). 11 pts had prior AHDs (6 MDS, 2 CMML, 2 NHL, 1 myelofibrosis), and 9 had prior treatment for AHDs. Of the pts with known cytogenetic and molecular genetic results, 1 had favorable-risk, 3 had intermediate-risk, and 5 had adverse-risk AML using NCCN guidelines. The median baseline BM blast % was 40.5% (range, 22-66%) with a median CD33 expression of 62% (range, 26-100%) of AML cells. Objective responses were seen in 4 pts (22%): 3 complete remissions with incomplete platelet count recovery (CRp) and 1 complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Among the responders with known cytogenetics, 1 pt had adverse genetics and 1 had Intermediate-risk genetics.Of the pts with remission, 3 had CT genotype for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419 (including 2 CRp) and 1 had CC genotype. 3 of the responders are in follow up at Days 59, 169 and 266 without further treatment. Myelosuppression was seen in all pts including Grade 4 thrombocytopenia with marrow aplasia for > 6 weeks after the first dose in 4 pts. 1 pt with prior MDS had pancytopenia for > 4 months. The 3 pts with CRp achieved an ANC ≥ 1000/µL at Days 28, 38, and 40 from the first dose of 225Ac-lin. The pt with CRi did not reach an ANC of 500/µL. Non hematologic Grade ≥3 Treatment-Emergent adverse events (AEs) that were at least possibly related were 4 patients with febrile neutropenia, as well as 1 patient each with fungal pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, chest pain, sepsis, gastric hemorrhage, generalized muscle weakness, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and typhilitis. No pts had an infusion-related reaction requiring dose interruption. Veno-occlusive disease did not occur. The 30-day mortality rate was 16.7% (1 cardiac arrest and 2 with multi organ failure). Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Interim Analysis of 225Ac-lin monotherapy in older AML pts unfit for intensive therapy indicate a lower rate of myelosuppression at 1.5 µCi/kg/dose but also a lower response rate than was seen at 2.0 µCi/kg/dose. Although the study met the prespecified response criteria for continuing enrollment, it will be closed to further accrual in recognition that targeted radiation, like other therapies, will likely have the best outcomes when used in combination with other therapies in pts with active AML. An extensive development program in AML, MDS, and multiple myeloma is planned. One study will utilize 225Ac-lin in combination with salvage chemotherapy and another with venetoclax. 225Ac-lin will be used as a single agent for AML postremission therapy. In addition, 225Ac-lin will be used as targeted conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant in pts with MDS with a complex karyotype and as a conditioning agent prior to autologous transplant in MM. Table. Table. Disclosures Atallah: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Craig:Novartis: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Finn:Ochsner Clinic Foundation: Employment. Perl:NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Park:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy. Tse:Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville School of Medicine: Employment; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Mawad:Swedish Cancer Institute: Employment. Rizzieri:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Arog: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Studying gene expression and clinical outcome data from 136 clinical trials for patients with cancer (~21,000 patients with 26 cancer types), we found CD25 as one of the strongest predictors of poor clinical outcome in patients with B-cell malignancies, but not in other cancer types. This was unexpected because CD25 is known as one of three chains of the IL2 receptor on T-cells and NK-cells. Interleukin-2 (IL2) functions as essential T-cell growth factor. IL2 signals through β- and γ-, but not α-chains (CD25) of its heterotrimeric receptor. CD25-deficiency causes lymphoproliferation and autoimmunity, however, its mechanistic role is unclear. Our experiments based on genetic mouse models and engineered patient-derived B-cell leukemia and lymphoma xenografts revealed that CD25 expressed on B-cells is not an IL2 receptor chain, but in fact binds the B-cell receptor (BCR) to regulate its activity. Suggesting IL2-independent functions, defects in CD25-/-B-cells were not replicated in IL2-deficient mice. CD25 bound the BCR but not IL2Rβ- and IL2Rγ-chains. IL2Rβ- and IL2Rγ-chains can pair with other chains to form receptors for different cytokine-ligands. However, CD25 represents the first example of a cytokine receptor chain that binds to the BCR for negative feedback regulation. Likewise, in T-cells, CD25 had a bifunctional role and either functioned as IL2 receptor chain or as negative feedback regulator of T-cell receptor signaling. CD25-function was regulated by cell-membrane translocation, which required phosphorylation of its cytoplasmic tail at S268 (see schematic, left). In a family with monogenic autoimmunity, a mutation immediately preceding S268 compromised CD25-surface translocation, which was restored by homology-directed repair of the S268 motif. CD25-interactome analyses identified PKCd as critical effector molecule downstream of CD25 to mediate B-cell selection during normal B-cell development and calibrate oncogenic BCR signaling in B-cell tumors. In B-cell malignancies, BCR-dependent survival and proliferation signals are often substituted by oncogenic BCR-mimics (e.g. BCR-ABL1, JAK2, BRAFV600E, LMP2A, CD79B mutations; see schematic, right). Accordingly, we identified CD25 surface-expression as biomarker of oncogenic BCR-signaling and predictor of poor clinical outcomes. CD25-/-B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. Owing to imbalances of oncogenic BCR-signaling and p53-checkpoint activation, CD25-/- B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. In patient-derived xenograft models of drug-resistant B-cell malignancies, treatment with a CD25-specific antibody drug-conjugate (ADCT-301) extended survival of transplant recipients or eradicated disease. These findings identified CD25 as previously unrecognized feedback regulator of oncogenic BCR-signaling and provide a rationale for therapeutic targeting of CD25 in refractory B-cell malignancies. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Forman: Mustang Therapeutics: Other: Licensing Agreement, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Weinstock:Genentech/Roche, Monsanto: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Aileron, Surface Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis, Dragonfly, Travera, DxTerity, Travera: Consultancy; Travera: Equity Ownership; Astra Zeneca, JAX, Samumed, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Prescient: Patents & Royalties. Uzel:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 3980 Background: Nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are over 70 years at the time of diagnosis. While the survival of patients with myeloma has improved in the last decade, several studies have suggested no significant change for the elderly patients. These patients often have other comorbidities and are less likely to tolerate standard treatment approaches. We retrospectively studied the treatment patterns, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients over 75 years of age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 212 patients who were older than 75 years from among 1545 patients seen at the Mayo Clinic within 90 days of diagnosis during 1999 to 2008. We only included 139 patients in whom complete treatment details were available. RESULTS: The median age was 80 years (range: 76–94) with 20 (14%) patients older than 85 years; 79 (57%) were male. Thirty-five patients (25%) had a history or coexistence of one or more malignancies. Chromosome analysis and FISH were performed in 65% and 22% respectively. Abnormal cytogenetics were seen in 30 (33%) of the 90 tested patients. The median survival of the 139 elderly patients was 27 months (95% CI: 20∼35) compared to 62 months (56∼68) for 1,290 patients ≤ 75 years of age seen during the same period. Sixty-nine (50%) patients received one or more novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib) and showed longer median survival (40 months vs 13 months) compared with those not receiving these agents (p=0.0008). Age over 85, initial poor performance score > 1, thrombocytopenia, elevated serum LDH or beta2-microglobulin, response more than stable disease to first therapy resulted in inferior survival. Among them, only performance status had the persistent significance in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Older patients receiving newer therapies appear to have a better outcome, which is still lagging behind the younger patients. A poor performance score at diagnosis predicts for eventual poor outcome. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: The initial therapies for multiple myeloma have changed significantly in the recent years with routine incorporation of combinations containing IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. However, patients with MM invariably relapse after their initial treatment and undergo successive therapies for continued control of their disease. The increasing access to new therapies for treatment of relapsed disease has led to improved survival of patients with MM. Many recent phase 3 trials have studied the impact of new agents on outcome of patients with MM who are relapsing after the initial lines of therapy for relapsed disease. However, the natural history of relapsed myeloma earlier in the course of relapsed disease has not been studied in detail. Patients and methods: We designed a global, multicenter, retrospective study to examine the current treatment approaches for initial relapses in MM and patient outcomes following application of successive treatment regimens. Patients with multiple myeloma who experience a first relapse between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011 were identified at participating sites. Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses up to and including the third relapse will be obtained from the clinical records. The first date of treatment with an anti-myeloma regimen for first disease relapse was termed time zero (T0). Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled; median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range: 35 - 86), 59% were male. Patients were enrolled from North America (33%), Europe (35%) or Asia (32%). The patients were diagnosed between 1997 and 2011 and the median time to T0 from diagnosis was 23.9 months (range: 0.8 - 131.9 months). An IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide), bortezomib or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the initial therapy in 63%, 36% and 51% of patients, respectively; 93 (33%) patients had stem cell transplantation as part of initial treatment. The median follow up from the study entry was 56 months; 117 were alive at the time of data extraction. A second line, third line and fourth line of treatment were recorded in 307, 163 and 84 patients respectively. An IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide), proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib) or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the therapy for first relapse in 50%, 59% and 33% of patients, respectively. The responses to the regimens after T0, the TTNT, PFS and OS to each line of therapy are provided in the Table. Conclusion: The current study provides an assessment of the current treatment approaches used for initial treatment of MM and the salvage treatment options utilized. The study again demonstrates the progressively shorter duration of disease control with each successive treatment regimen, reflecting ongoing development of drug resistance. The overall survival of over 3 years from the time of therapy for first relapse highlights the impact of the newer therapies that have been introduced for this disease. Table. Treatment outcomes after initial relapse Endpoint 2nd line therapyN=307 3rd line therapyN=163 4th line therapyN=84 Partial response or better Median in Months (95% Confidence Interval) Overall Survival 36.1 (30.2, 42.4) 18.4 (14.5, 26.8) 12.6 (10.4, 19.0) Progression-Free Survival 13.4 (11.8, 15.8) 8.3 (6.5, 11.2) 6.4 (5.0, 8.1) Time to Next Treatment 15 (12,17) 9.8 (7.4, 12.0) 6.6 (5.8, 8.7) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lahuerta:Janssen Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Takeda, Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Onyx, Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3989 Background: Treatment patterns of multiple myeloma (MM) vary across the globe, mostly dictated by the availability and patient access to different drug therapies. The outcomes of patients with MM, especially relapsed myeloma can be significantly affected by the availability of newer treatments, as well as potential biological differences related to ethnicity. We have previously shown that the outcome of patients relapsing after therapy with bortezomib (Bz) and one or more of the IMiDs remain poor with the currently available treatments and represent a difficult group of patients to treat. We undertook the current analysis on a set of patients from United States, several European countries and South Korea. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study that enrolled 294 patients with relapsed MM, from 14 sites (122 from Europe, 107 from US, and 65 from Korea). Patients were refractory to Bz, defined as no response to prior Bz-containing regimen or disease progression within 60 days of a Bz-containing regimen. Patients were also relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible, to treatment with an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). Clinical and laboratory data from diagnosis and individual relapses were collected along with details of all MM drug therapies before and after T0. Responses were assessed by IMWG or EBMT criteria. The goal of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients who satisfy the above inclusion criteria, the therapies employed prior to and after T0 and clinical outcome among these patients from different parts of the world. Results: The mean (median, range) time to reaching T0 from diagnosis was 4.5 (4.0, 12.8), 4.2 (3.2, 18.6), and 3.2 (2.8, 9.6) years from diagnosis for patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, P=0.021. The mean (median, range) number of therapies for the three groups were 8 (8, 13), 4 (4, 10), 5 (4, 7), respectively; P<0.001. The response rates (>=PR) to the initial therapy at diagnosis were 56%, 77% and 49% respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts. Overall 220 patients had at least one therapy after T0, and 114 (52%) had a novel agent (Bz, len or thal) containing regimen as their first treatment after T0. Patients in US were more likely to receive additional therapies after the first post-T0 therapy; 62%, 32%, and 12% of patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, began a second post-T0 regimen within 2 years following time zero. The median number of therapies post T0 was 2, 1, and 1 for patients in US, Europe and Korea respectively. The response rates to the first regimen after T0 were 15%, 33% and 19% for the US, European and Korean cohorts, and were similar between those receiving a regimen with one of the novel drugs compared to rest. Patients younger than 60 years and those with prior transplants were more likely to respond to post T0 regimens. The median time to progression or death from T0was similar for the three patient cohorts, 5 months (Figure 1A). The median overall survival (95% CI) from T0 was 13 months (10, 16), 7 (5,9) and 8 (4,9) respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts (Figure 1B). Conventional prognostic factors, especially the ISS stage was predictive of OS post T0. Additionally, presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a shorter overall survival. Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrate significant differences between different parts of the world in terms of the treatment patterns both in the setting of initial therapy as well as treatment of relapsed disease. Patients in the US were more likely to receive multiple regimens both before and after T0. This is likely a reflection of increasing numbers of new drugs that have gone into clinical trials and thus enhancing options. The study further highlights the poor outcome of patients who have relapsed after the new drugs, irrespective of the geographical location. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Millennium: ; Celgene: ; Johnson & Johnson: ; Novartis: ; Bristol Myers Squibb:. Moreau:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory board, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Siegel:Merck: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P&lt;0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P&lt;0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P&lt;0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The study of rare diseases is limited by the uncommon nature of the conditions as well as the widely dispersed patient populations. Current rare disease registries such as the National Organization of Rare Diseases utilize centralized platforms for data collection; however because of their broad nature, these do not always capture unique, disease specific elements. Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) is a rare leukemia globally with approximately 900 new cases diagnosed in the US each year. The HCL Foundation undertook creation of a Patient Data Registry that collects data from multiple HCL Centers of Excellence (COE) around the globe to better understand the complications, treatment outcomes, disease subtypes, comorbid conditions, epidemiology, and quality of life of patients with HCL. METHODS: Investigators at The Ohio State University Department of Biomedical Informatics and Division of Hematology in collaboration with the HCL Foundation developed a Patient Data Registry (PDR) for the longitudinal capture of high quality research data. This system differs from other registries in that it uses a federated( rather than centralized) architecture, wherein data is queried and integrated in an on-demand manner from local registry databases at each participating site. Further, the data collected for use in the registry combines both automated exports from existing electronic health records (EHRs) as well as additional data entered via a set of web-based forms. All manually entered data comes from source documents, and data provenance spanning electronic and manually entered data is maintained via multiple technical measures. Patients may be enrolled at HCL COE, or, if they do not have access to a COE they may enroll via a web-based portal (www.hairycellleukemia.org). At this time due to regulatory requirements the web-based portal is available to US patients only. All data are de-identified (see Figure 1: De-Identification Workflow) which reduces regulatory burden and increases opportunities for data access and re-use. End users have access to data via a project-specific query portal. RESULTS: The Patient Data Registry has been deployed at The Ohio State University, Royal Marsden Hospital, and MD Anderson Cancer Center, and is undergoing deployment at the University of Rochester. Up to 25 international HCL COE may participate. In addition, US patients are actively entering the registry via the web-based portal. To date, 227 patients have been consented to the registry with 119 of these being via the web-based entry point. CONCLUSION: We created an international and web-based patient data registry which will enable researchers to study outcomes in HCL in ways not previously possible given the rarity of the disease. This work was made possible by research funding from the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation. Figure De-Identification Workflow Figure. De-Identification Workflow Disclosures Andritsos: Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Anghelina:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Lele:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Burger:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Delgado:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis/GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Jones:AbbVie: 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; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Montserrat:Morphosys: Other: Expert Testimony; Vivia Biotech: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Expert Testimony; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Parikh:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Park:Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Robak:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: 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. Heckler:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding. Payne:Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation: Research Funding.