Citations

Abstract Background: Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is associated with multiple myeloma (MM) and often worsened with thalidomide (THAL) and vincristine (VCR) therapy. Bortezomib (BTZ) is a proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of MM that has been also shown to cause PN. An increased risk of BTZ-induced PN has been associated with the presence of both PN and diabetes mellitus (DM) before treatment. However, the incidence and characteristics of BTZ-induced PN among MM patients (pts) retreated with another BTZ-containing regimen is unknown. We analyzed the incidence, severity and risk factors for PN after treatment of MM pts with a second BTZ-containing regimen. Methods: Retrospective chart analysis. MM pts that had progressed from at least one prior BTZ-containing regimen and had received treatment with another BTZ-containing regimen were eligible. Pts had to have experienced PN during the course of the first BTZ regimen and could not have received therapy with THAL or VCR. The protocol was later amended to allow inclusion of pts without PN during their first BTZ treatment and those who had received THAL or VCR. Statistical significance was assessed using Fisher’s or McNemar’s tests as appropriate. The relationship between comorbidities, prior THAL or VCR treatment and PN grade after BTZ treatment and re-treatment was analyzed using a multivariate logistics regression model. All statistical analyses were two-sided and were performed at the 0.05 level of significance. Results: As of July 3, 2014, 83 pts have been accrued to the retrospective analysis, and 58 chart reviews have been completed. The median age of pts included in the analysis was 64 years (range: 31-84 years); 57% of the pts were male and 69% were Caucasian. Pts had received a median of 2 prior regimens (range: 2-10); 43% of the pts had received prior regimens containing THAL and 15% of those had also received therapy with VCR. Prior to the protocol amendment, the eligibility criteria required pts to have experienced PN after the first BTZ treatment; therefore, most pts included in this analysis (88%) had PN.During their first BTZ treatment, the most severe grade of PN experienced by the majority of the pts was grade 1 (N=34), followed by grade 2 (N=13) and grade 3 (N=4). A comparison of the symptoms assessed when pts had their most severe grade of PN during this treatment and the severity reported at its onset showed that PN worsened in only 16% of pts. Nearly half (48%) of pts showed no change in PN whereas symptoms improved or resolved in 15% and 9% of the pts, respectively. During treatment with the second BTZ-containing regimen, a comparable proportion of pts (N=44; 76%) reported having experienced PN. Among those experiencing PN upon re-treatment, the most severe grade of PN experienced by the majority of the pts (N=29) was also grade 1, followed by grade 2 (N=12) and grade 3 (N=3). During the second BTZ treatment, a comparison of the symptoms that pts had when PN was at its worst and those recorded at its onset demonstrated that PN worsened in only 7% of the pts. PN showed no change in 47%, improved in 15%, or resolved in 7% of the pts.Interestingly, 17% of the pts (N=10) who had reported PN while receiving their first BTZ-containing regimen did not report this complication during their second BTZ treatment, while 7% of the pts (N=4) experienced PN only upon re-exposure. There was no association between the incidence of PN during the first BTZ treatment and its incidence during re-treatment (p=0.1213) or between the severity of PN (defined as worsening vs. not worsening) after first BTZ treatment and its severity after BTZ re-exposure (p=0.1306). Fifty-four percent of the pts presented with comorbidities, including DM (26%), hypertension (HTN, 22%) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD, 13%). There were no associations between PN grade after BTZ treatment and prior THAL or VCR exposure (p=0.5569) or between PN grade and comorbidities (DM, p=0.6657; HTN, p=0.9966; PVD, p=0.9966). Similar results were found for BTZ re-exposure (THAL or VCR, p=0.8672; DM, p=0.4137; HTN, p=0.2033; PVD, p=0.9954). Conclusions: Results from this retrospective study show that the severity and incidence of PN did not change with a second BTZ-containing regimen. Comorbidities or prior therapy with other PN-inducing agents such as THAL or VCR did not significantly increase the risk of PN after BTZ re-treatment. Enrollment into the study continues and updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Berenson: Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Tabbara:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Lutzky:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Consultancy. Moezi:Millennium: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Several new agents and regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Comparison of all these is not feasible, yet therapeutic selections need to be made for optimal patient care. Both the MM-002 (Richardson et al., 2014) and MM-003 (San Miguel et al., 2013) trials have demonstrated the clinical benefits of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) in improving survival outcomes for patients with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Daratumumab (DARA) monotherapy was approved in the US for the treatment of RRMM patients, based on the results of a single-arm trial (SIRIUS) (Lonial et al., 2016). To date, there are no head-to-head studies comparing POM+LoDEX with DARA. We performed an indirect comparison of the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between POM+LoDEX and DARA in RRMM patients with ≥2 (median of 5) prior lines of therapy. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (Ishak et al., 2015; Signorovitch et al., 2012) is a method used to conduct indirect comparisons between relative efficacies of treatments after adjusting for imbalances across trials where the study populations were roughly similar. To perform a MAIC, it is necessary that the selected studies are compatible. Both MM-002 and SIRIUS were phase II trials and included mainly patients from North America, while other geographic regions were more widely represented in the phase III MM-003 trial. Thus, the MAIC was conducted using individual patient data from the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of POM+LoDEX from MM-002 and published aggregate data on patient characteristics and outcomes for the ITT population of DARA from SIRIUS. A propensity-score logistic regression equation was used to re-weight the POM+LoDEX patients such that their aggregate characteristics matched exactly those in SIRIUS for all prognostic factors (i.e., full set) which were available in both studies. These factors included age, gender, race, disease duration, immunoglobulin heavy chain type, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, plasmacytoma, creatinine clearance, number of prior therapy lines, prior stem cell transplantation, and refractoriness to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The relative treatment effects were estimated with a weighted logistic regression model for ORR and weighted Cox regression models for PFS and OS. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted by matching on only important prognostic factors (i.e., reduced set), identified from multivariate regression analyses for each endpoint. RESULTS: MM-002 and SIRIUS were generally similar in design and had sufficient overlap in baseline characteristics to allow adjustment for potential confounding. Most prognostic factors were similar between the two arms. However, patients on POM+LoDEX had worse ECOG status, while more patients on DARA had a plasmacytoma and creatinine clearance <60 mL/min and were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both. After re-weighting, the aggregate patient characteristics for patients receiving POM+LoDEX matched those reported for DARA. The results from the analyses adjusting for all available characteristics showed no statistically significant differences in ORR, PFS, or OS between the two treatments. Similar findings were obtained by adjusting for important prognostic factors only (Table 1). OS results should be interpreted with caution as subsequent treatments cannot be adjusted for in a MAIC analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that POM+LoDEX and DARA have similar clinical benefits with respect to ORR, PFS, and OS in RRMM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Treatment choice may be made between these two based on factors other than efficacy alone. MAIC analysis may be helpful in therapeutic decisions where direct comparative trials are not available, however as with any non-randomized study potential for residual confounding may still exist. Disclosures Parikh: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Proskorovsky:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Abouzaid:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Krotneva:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Page:Evidera: Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Pelligra:Evidera: Employment, Other: As a salaried Evidera employee, I am not allowed to accept any remuneration or honoraria. Evidera received funding from Celgene.. Guo:Celgene: Consultancy. Mouro:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide has demonstrated excellent activity in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, multiple myeloma (MM). Between November 2007 and March 2012, we enrolled 285 patients with relapsed MM on 5 sequential phase 2 trials; patients received pomalidomide at 2mg or 4 mg daily with weekly dexamethasone (Pom/dex). The approved dose of pomalidomide is 4 mg for 21 of 28 days. We wished to compare efficacy, tolerability and long-term outcomes between cohorts treated with 2 mg or 4mg daily continuously and 4mg daily for 21/28 days. Methods: After excluding two ineligible patients, 283 patients with lenalidomide refractory, relapsed MM from 5 sequential cohorts were analyzed. These patients were divided into 3 groups: Group1 received Pom 2mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 69), Group 2 received Pom 4 mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 95) and Group 3 received Pom 4mg for 21/28 day cycle (N= 119). All patients received oral dexamethasone given 40 mg daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Response was assessed by the IMWG Uniform Response criteria. All patients received aspirin 325 mg daily for DVT prophylaxis or full dose anticoagulation. Results: The median age was 63 years (32-85); 35% were female. The median time from diagnosis was 53 months and the median number of prior regimens was 4. 127 (46%) had high-risk molecular markers. Prior therapies (% received) included lenalidomide (100%), thalidomide (46%), bortezomib (78%), autologous stem cell transplant (71%), and allogeneic transplant (4%). The median follow-up is 16.4 months (3.2-64.4). Forty eight percent are alive and 26% remain progression free; 15 patients are continuing to receive treatment. Frequency of AEs by groups are shown in Table 1. The most notable difference is grade 3+ neutropenia seen in 39% of group 1 and 56% and 57% of groups 2 and 3. Confirmed responses of PR or better were seen in 29% (group1), 35% (group2) and 24% (group3). Median duration of response (DOR) was 14.1 months (group1), 14.5 months (group2) and 10.2 months (group3). Median PFS was 5.5 months (group1), 6.9 months (group2) and 4.3 months (group3). Although the dose level cohorts were sequential rather than randomized, we compared OS between the dose levels in an exploratory manner. There was no significant difference in OS between dose levels (p=0.26). Median overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months (group1), 21.9 months (group2) and 16.0 months (group3). Conclusions: Pom/dex is active and well tolerated even in heavily pretreated patients Responses are durable. Response rates and overall toxicity are similar between the 2 mg and 4 mg doses. Neutropenia is more common in those receiving doses of 4mg daily or for 21/28 days compared to those receiving 2 mg daily. Table 1. All Grades Grade 3+ 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day Anemia 68% 58% 74% 14% 15% 27% Lymphopenia 22% 51% 11% 16% 32% 8% Neutropenia 71% 82% 77% 39% 57% 56% Thrombocytopenia 51% 61% 63% 10% 9% 23% Leukopenia 59% 77% 72% 26% 38% 39% Pneumonia 7% 11% 12% 6% 7% 11% Fatigue 51% 65% 60% 9% 5% 8% Neuropathy 28% 32% 28% 0% 3% 0% Elevated Blood Glucose 10% 21% 8% 4% 6% 3% Pneumonitis 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% VTE (Thrombosis) 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% Secondary Malignancy 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Bergsagel:Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; OncoEthix: Research Funding; MundiPharma: Research Funding. Stewart:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: As a single agent, rituximab produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 20-50% in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Acquired resistance occurs, however, partially due to defective host immune effector mechanisms. Efforts to augment immune function have included combining rituximab with immune modulators such as IL-2, IL-12, interferonand lenalidomide. These efforts have resulted in improved efficacy of rituximab. Ipilimumab is a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4, CD152) expressed on activated T cells. CTLA-4 is a negative regulator of T-cell responses. Ipilimumab augments the immune response by disrupting the interaction of CTLA-4 with its ligands, B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86). We therefore hypothesize that ipilimumab will augment the efficacy of rituximab. This phase I with an expansion cohort was designed to assess the safety of this combined therapy. Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old with r/r CD20+ NHL, measurable disease, KPS ≥ 70%, neutrophils ≥ 1000, platelets ≥ 50,000 and adequate kidney and liver function were eligible. In this phase I with an expansion cohort, after establishing the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), study patients would be randomized to differing treatment schedules of rituximab and ipilimumab. For induction in phase I, rituximab was given every week for four weeks and ipilimumab was administered every 3 weeks for 4 doses. Primary endpoints included toxicity and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D during the first 7 weeks of induction of ipilimumab (2 doses) when given in combination with rituximab (4 doses, 375mg/m2 per dose). Secondary end points included immune response, ORR and progression free survival (PFS). In the phase I component, a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the MTD/RP2D. After the RP2D was established, 20 more patients would be randomized to one of two schedules: Arm A - ipilimumab on Day 1 together with the first dose of rituximab, or Arm B - ipilimumab on Day 15 together with the third rituximab dose. After induction in both the Phase I and the expansion cohorts, ipilimumab and rituximab were given every 12 weeks (+/- 1 week) on the same day for 1 year. Results: As of August 1 2015, 21 patients have been enrolled (1SLL, 9FL, 6DLCL, 1MCL, 4 indeterminate): 15 are evaluable for toxicity assessment at 7 weeks. The median age was 62 (32-71) and the median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-6). The RP2D of ipilimumab when given with rituximab (375 mg/m2) was 3 mg/kg, which was the highest dose tested. The most common grade 1-2 AEs (>20%) were:anemia (33%); diarrhea (20%); constipation (27%); nausea/vomiting (33%); fatigue (40%); anorexia (33%); low albumin (53%); hypocalcemia (33%); hyponatremia (27%). The most common grade 3-4 AEs (≥ 5%) were: anemia (20%); diarrhea (13%); leukopenia (13%); and hyponatremia (27%). There were no study related deaths. Twelve patients remain on treatment, 6 came off due to progression, 2 due to toxicity, and there was one death (unrelated). Conclusion: The RP2D of ipilimumab when given in combination with rituximab is 3 mg/kg. This dose is safe and moderately well tolerated. Enrollment continues in the expansion cohort to assess efficacy and the ability of ipilimumab to augment the rituximab-mediated immune response. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ipilimumab to augment rituxan in treating lymphoma. Chen:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 2-3-fold higher risk of multiple myeloma (MM) than persons of European ancestry (EA). Like other B-cell malignancies, genome-wide association scans (GWAS) have identified MM risk variants in the HLA region in persons of EA. We conducted a case-control analysis with data from the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)1comprising MM patients typed for bone marrow transplant to donor controls matched by race-ethnicity, and found associations between specific HLA alleles/haplotypes and MM risk that varied by race and ethnicity. To confirm our results and identify additional novel signals, we have now investigated associations between HLA alleles and haplotypes and MM risk in the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) Cohort. Methods: The source of subjects was the AAMMS, in which AA MM patients were identified from 10 cancer centers and 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) Program cancer registries in order to identify genetic risk factors for MM among AAs. A GWAS was conducted using the Illumina Human Core BeadChip array on DNA samples from 1,305 AA MM patients in the AAMMS comparing results to those from 7,078 AA controls with GWAS data generated from the Illumina 1MDuo2. The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were imputed to classical HLA variants using HIBAG. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate HLA associations, adjusting for sex, age and the first 2 principal components. P-values were adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR) for each locus group. Results: We did not identify any single HLA alleles associated with MM risk among AAs. However, several B*07:02-containing haplotypes were associated with MM risk (odds ratios [OR] ranging from 2.38 to 2.64 and FDR P-values ranging from 1.43 x 10-6 to 3.57 x 10-8). We found associations between MM risk and genotypes containing DRB3*02:02, including DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01+ DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01 (OR=1.93, PFDR= 9.36 x 10-5) similar to those observed in the NMDP study1. Novel findings included associations between MM risk and HLA Class I haplotypes B*53:01+ B*57:01 (OR=1.94, PFDR= 0.003) and C04:01~B*53:01+C*06:02~B*57:01 (OR=1.96, PFDR= 0.0050). Results from an ongoing meta-analysis between the two data sets (one based on an imputed GWAS and one based on NMDP HLA typing) will be presented. Conclusions: This study is the second to examine HLA alleles and risk of MM among AA's and is by far the largest. We confirmed a previously observed association between an HLA Class II DRB3 variant and MM risk and confirmed an association with B*07 haplotypes previously observed among EAs1. We also identified novel associations between other HLA Class I haplotypes and MM risk in AA's. Because HLA is highly polymorphic, many HLA alleles are rare variants for which genetic associations are difficult to detect without very large sample sizes. Further investigation with large sample sizes will be necessary to refine these associations in order to better identify the underlying causal alleles and determine the functional significance of these HLA associations. 1Beksac M, Gragert L, Fingerson S, et al.: HLA polymorphism and risk of multiple myeloma.Leukemia. 2016 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.199. 2Rand KA, Song C, Hwang AE, et al. Genetic susceptibility markers of multiple myeloma in African-Americans. Abstract # 2030, 56th Annual American Society of Hematology Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2014. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Nooka:Spectrum, Novartis, Onyx pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Zonder:Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Cancer diagnosis and treatment are important risk factors for developing clinical depression. Validated tools for screening distress and depression, such as Cancer Distress Thermometer (DT) and PHQ9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), are underutilized, despite endorsement by NCCN and Institute of Medicine. We investigated patient and treatment characteristics as well as patient endorsement of depression or anhedonia to predict those at risk of having depression. Methods: The PHQ9 and/or DT were administered prospectively to patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) before they started antineoplastic therapy at Mayo Clinic in Florida. Patient endorsement of depression or anhedonia was collected from the current visit information survey. Patient demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, chronic medication burden, Charlson comorbidity index, living situation, clinic/hospital visit burden in the month prior to screening and number of psychiatric medications for every patient were recorded. Intergroup comparison of categorical and continuous variables was done by Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Linear or logistic regression models were used to compare PHQ9 score with DT (continuous) or endorsing depression or anhedonia (categorical) respectively. Multivariate models were constructed using the stepwise selection technique using all potential variables in the models. All analyses were completed using SAS v9.3. Results: Final analysis included 246 patients with a median age at diagnosis 64.5 (range: 18-94) years, diagnosed between 6/30/93-10/9/14 and screened between 1/13/11-2/13/15. PHQ9 score of ≥9 and DT score ≥5 suggested a high risk of depression and distress, respectively, as per published literature. Patient characteristics at time of survey and analysis are noted in table 1. PHQ9, DT and answers to two questions about depression and anhedonia were available on 129, 129 and 246 patients, respectively. 63% of patients were chemotherapy naïve. In multivariate analysis, PHQ9 score ≥9 was associated with living alone (p=0.003) (Fig.1a) and non-White race (p=0.043) (Fig.1b), while a DT score ≥5 was associated with being currently married (p=0.048) and female gender (p=0.02). The only characteristic significant on univariate but not on multivariate analysis being chemotherapy naive, associated with a DT score ≥5 (p=0.049). Answering "no" to both the questions regarding depression or anhedonia was significantly associated with a low score on PHQ9 (p=0.007). Age at diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity score, chronic medication or visit burden, daily psychiatric medication use or type of malignancy were not associated with scores on any screen. Conclusions: Causes of depression in patients with HM have not been fully explored. We validated previously known risk factors for depression, such as living alone. We also reported for the first time that non-White race independently predicts depression in these patients. Female patients and those currently married are at a higher risk of psychological distress, possibly due to fear of abandoning family. We also found that simply asking a patient two questions about feelings of depression or anhedonia significantly correlates with the well-established PHQ9. Our analysis provides simple tools and reveals at-risk patient subgroups with HM where depression and distress screening should be aggressively instituted for better resource utilization and survivorship. Table 1. Patient Characteristic N % Gender Male Female 146 100 59.4 40.6 Race White Non-White 216 30 87.8 12.2 Marital Status Married Not married* 180 66 73.2 26.8 Living Situation Alone With others 37 209 15 85 Type of Malignancy Aggressive lymphoid Indolent lymphoid Aggressive myeloid Indolent myeloid 124 94 25 3 50.4 38.2 10.2 1.2 Prior Cancer Treatment Yes No 91 155 37 63 Daily Psych Meds Yes No 52 194 21.1 78.9 Patient Status Alive Dead 191 55 77.6 22.4 *Not currently married=single, divorced, widowed or unknown Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, a 39% increase from 2010. Several factors including psychiatric (psych) comorbidities contribute to this increase. Within the oncology setting, 29-38% of the patients (pts) are reported to have mood disorders and 15% have major depression. Depression alone is associated with increased healthcare utilization in pts with breast, colon, lung and prostate cancers. A 2015 report noted that the presence of at least one psychiatric comorbidity in 300 Leukemia pts was associated with an extra $55,000 per pt in just one year. Similarly, in pts treated with systemic steroids, the incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders can be as high as 75%. However, no such data is available for MM, where more than 90% of pts are treated with steroids, likely increasing risk for mood problems and impacting treatment cost. As such, the aim of our study was to analyze the SEER-Medicare database for healthcare utilization trends and acute cost of care (cost incurred during 6 months after MM diagnosis) in MM pts with or without psych comorbidities. Methods: Pts diagnosed with MM between 1991-2010 with continuous Medicare coverage (1 year prior to diagnosis-date of death/end of 2012) were included. Pts were categorized as: MM with any psych disorder (MM+P), MM with depression (MM+D) and MM only. Presence of ³1 inpatient (ipt) or ³2 outpatient (opt) ICD9 diagnosis codes were used to assign pts to the psych categories. Within MM+P and MM+D groups were subdivided by presence of psych or depression diagnosis prior to MM (MM+P PRE or MM+D PRE). Medicare claims adjusted for inflation (2013) within the first 6 months (mth)/total MM care were summed by drug and total charges. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models (adjusted for age, year, sex, race, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index; CCI) were performed to determine associations with ipt, opt, and any emergency department (ED) charges after MM diagnosis. Associations between psych conditions prior to MM diagnosis and costs of care after MM diagnosis were assessed using univariate and multivariate proportional odds models. Results: The study population included 36,007 eligible MM pts with a median follow-up of 1.8 years. 15168 (42%) pts had a psych condition at any time (MM+P), while 9355 (26%) were diagnosed prior to MM diagnosis (MM+P PRE). Depression was present in 8421 pts (23%), 4546 (13%) of those occurring prior to MM diagnosis. In comparison to MM pts, MM+P and MM+D pts tended to be female, White, and had a higher CCI (all p<0.001). When compared to MM pts, those with MM+P PRE and MM+D PRE had significantly higher incidence of MM-related complications (hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, anemia, fractures and dialysis) at the time of or after MM diagnosis and also required increased overall care (all p<0.001). Both, MM+P and MM+D had higher odds of ipt visits (OR 1.48 and 1.41, resp., p<0.001), ED care (OR 1.48 and 1.37, resp., p<0.001) and opt visits (OR 1.25 and 1.22, resp., p<0.001) as compared to MM only pts. Cost of care analysis showed that MM+P and MM+D pts had a significantly higher cost of opt (OR 1.36 and 1.39, resp., p<0.001), ipt (OR 1.49 and 1.54, resp., p<0.001) and total care (OR 1.52 and 1.55, resp., p<0.001) as compared to MM only pts during first 6 mth after MM diagnosis (Figure 1). Total costs of care for MM+P and MM+D were also higher than MM only but the differences were less significant. Cost of care differences existed within first 6 mth of MM diagnosis by pt race as well with MM+P among Hispanic and Asian pts being more strongly associated with higher costs than Whites and African-Americans (AA) (p<0.001). MM+D had similar trends but not significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Conclusion: Psych comorbidities are associated with significant increase in healthcare utilization and cost of care in MM pts and may contribute to higher MM-related complications. More research is needed to study whether a multidisciplinary approach to identify and manage MM pts with psych conditions may help mitigate these trends. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Patient (Pt) outcomes have improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) due to widespread use of novel therapeutic agents and stem cell transplant (SCT) butoutcome disparities among racial/ethnic groups exist. Differences in access to and utilization of novel therapeutics are likely contributing factors. We performed an analysis of the SEER-Medicare database to explore such differences. Methods: Pts with a confirmed MM diagnosis between 2007-2009 and continuous Medicare coverage from 1 year prior to diagnosis through end of 2012 were included. Medicare Part D data (oral medications) is not available prior to 2007 so utilization analysis of lenalidomide (LEN), thalidomide (THAL) and bortezomib (BORT) was performed from 2007-2009. Demographic/survival data (PEDSAF files) and drug/SCT utilization (NCH, OUTSAF, PDESAF files) were obtained (HCPCS/NCH codes). Categorical and continuous variables were compared using /Fisher tests and Wilcoxon tests, respectively. Gender, age, and year-adjusted p-values were calculated using logistic regression. A proportional odds model was used to detect time-dependent trends in drug usage within 12 months of MM diagnosis across year of diagnosis by race. Separate multivariate models were fit for each drug adjusting for gender, age, drug use and race. Associations between drug use and overall survival (OS) were examined using a time dependent proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 5358 MM pts were included (any Medicare claims) with 2733 (51%) males. Mutually exclusive race categories were White (W; 67%), African-American (AA; 18%), Hispanic (H; 10%) and Asian (A; 5%). Median follow up was 2.4 yrs. Baseline pt characteristics were significantly different for age with AA being the youngest at diagnosis (p<0.001) and for gender (p<0.001) with W having the largest (53.4%) and AA the smallest (45.2%) proportion of males. Medicare claims capture only pts without any supplemental insurance and so drug utilization in this database was much lower than expected for all subgroups. Year-wise comparison showed that LEN use within the first year of MM diagnosis increased from 2007 to 2009 (16.5% to 27.7%; p<0.001) and there was a significant decrease in median days to first dose (p=0.002). Over the same period, use of THAL decreased (26.6% to 14.6%; p<0.001) while use of BORT (7.8% to 15.4%; p<0.001), SCT (3.3% to 6.2%; p<0.001) and more than 1 novel agent (2.5% to 5.7%; p<0.001) increased significantly. Utilization patterns within first year of MM diagnosis were significantly different among racial subgroups for LEN, THAL, BORT, SCT and >1 novel agent use. (Figure 1) No significant difference was seen for days to first dose of LEN/THAL for any race but for BORT, H got first dose in median 117 days after diagnosis as compared to median 46-51 days for other races (p=0.025). During the first year after diagnosis, W and AA had higher BORT only usage while H and A had a higher LEN/THAL only usage (p<0.001). For drug use by year and race, a significant increase in LEN use was seen from 2007 to 2009 in W (p<0.001), AA (p=0.001) and A (p<0.001) but not H (p=0.26) while THAL use decreased significantly for all races. BORT use increased significantly for all except A (p=0.602) and SCT use increased significantly for all except AA (p=0.068). Inferior OS was significantly associated with older age (p<0.001) and males (p<0.001). LEN/THAL use within the first year of diagnosis did not affect OS while BORT use within the first year of diagnosis increased mortality risk (HR 1.18, p=0.021). SCT use improved OS (HR 0.52, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this comprehensive analysis of MM therapeutics utilization, we noted significant variability among different racial groups. The use of LEN, BORT and SCT has increased while THAL has decreased over time but disparities exist in utilization among different races, with lower use of LEN in AA, lower use of BORT in A and significantly delayed use of BORT in H, which are all notable since racial/ethnic minorities are fast growing in the US population mix and seem to have inequitable utilization and/or access. Inferior survival with early BORT use may represent selection bias of pts with more advanced/aggressive disease. These trends need to be examined in larger sample sizes especially from commercial payers to eliminate drug access and utilization disparities and achieve equitable benefit of therapeutic advances across all racial subgroups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD®) that has been approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combinations of IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors offer the potential for deeper and more durable responses due to enhanced efficacy. Preliminary results of a phase 1 study of twice weekly bortezomib with pomalidomide have been reported with promising results (Richardson, ASH 2012). This phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) as well as safety and efficacy of the combination of pomalidomide, once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVD) in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, MM. Patients and methods: We included patients with relapsed MM who had 1-4 prior lines of therapy and were resistant or refractory to lenalidomide. In the phase I portion of the trial, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide 4 mg days 1-21 PO, bortezomib 1.0mg/m2 days 1,8,15, and 22 IV or SQ and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1,8,15, and 22 PO, given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3mg/m2 for dose level 2 and and was adopted for the phase 2 portion. The primary aim of the phase I cohort was to determine the MTD of the combination, and for the phase II cohort was to evaluate the confirmed response rate (PR, VGPR, or CR) in relapsed refractory MM. Response was assessed by the IMWG criteria and toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Results: 50 patients were accrued between March 2012 and July 2014 (dose level (DL)1: 3, DL 2: 6, Phase II: 41). We describe results in 47 patients treated at MTD and phase II. Median age was 66, 51% were female and median time from diagnosis to study was 46 months (15-142). Twenty five percent had mSMART defined high-risk status. Median number of prior regimens was 3. All patients had prior lenalidomide, 68% had stem cell transplant, 17% received thalidomide, 56% had alkylators and 57% had bortezomib. With median follow up of 9 months, 72% remain progression free, 96% are alive and 66% remain on treatment. The most common AEs at least possibly attributable to the combination were anemia, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia; however, the majority of these were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 AEs (regardless of attribution) that occurred in at least 3 patients included neutropenia (29), leukopenia (15), lung infection (6), lymphopenia (8) dyspnea (3) and syncope (3). DVT/PE occurred in one patient. Among the 42 patients who were evaluable, confirmed responses (PR, VGPR, or CR) were seen in 34 (81%) including sCR (3), CR (5), VGPR (8), PR (18). Confirmed responses were seen in 9 of 11( 82%) high risk patients. Median progression free survival was 17.7 months (95%CI: 9.5-NA). Conclusions: PVD is a highly effective combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide with confirmed responses in over 80%. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced the tolerability and convenience of this regimen. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy or DVT. PVD is a highly attractive option in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Lust:Senesco: PI Other. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The introduction of novel agents and proteasome inhibitors, and advances in high dose therapy administration has made an impact on the survival outcomes for MM patients. However, HRMM still remains a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. Even with aggressive approaches such as the Total Therapy protocols, patients with poor genomic risk have a 2-year event-free survival of ~50% (Nair et al, Blood 2010). A randomized Phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of adding immunotherapy into the first line for HRMM patients, comparing lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) with or without addition of elotuzumab (Elo), a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to SLAMF7/CS1. We are reporting on the Phase I portion of the study. PATIENTS & METHODS: The objective of Phase I was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of RVD-Elo. Both low/standard risk MM and HRMM patients were eligible. HRMM was defined by one or more of the following: (1) poor risk genomics by the Arkansas 70-gene model, (2) translocation (14;16), translocation (14;20) and/or deletion (17p) by florescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), (3) primary plasma cell leukemia and (4) serum LDH > 2 times normal levels. The treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy for 8 cycles with RVD-Elo (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14 of every 21-day cycle; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,4,8,11; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,8,15 cycles 1-2 then days 1,11 cycles 3-8) followed by dose-attenuated RVD-Elo maintenance (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14; bortezomib 1.0 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,8,15; dexamethasone 12 mg orally days 1,8,15; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,15) until disease relapse, progression or intolerance. Adverse events (AE) were recorded as per the NCI CTCAEv4.0. RESULTS: Eight newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled on the Phase I run-in study. Six patients (Figure 1) were evaluable for dose limiting toxicities (DLT) during Cycle 1 as per protocol. The median age of patients was 67 years (range: 56-79 years), with 67% ≥65 years, Hgb was less than 10 g/dL in 50%, creatinine was greater than 2 mg/dL in all patients. ISS stage distribution was 17% (I), 33% (II) and 50% (III). Deletion 13 was observed in 1 patient (17%). The most common AEs (all grades) were fatigue (100%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (83%), edema (83%), lymphopenia (66%) and leukopenia (50%). The most common Grade 3 AEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy (33%), one of which was a DLT, neutropenia (17%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). One Grade 4 lymphopenia was observed. All 6 patients have completed 8 cycles of RVD-Elo induction therapy and 5 patients have completed at least 4 cycles of RVD-Elo maintenance. Overall median days on therapy per cycle were 13 days during induction and 20 days per cycle during maintenance. Dose adjustments were made in 83% of patients for bortezomib, 83% for lenalidomide and 33% for dexamethasone. There were no dose reductions for elotuzumab, although three patients had 1 event each of dose delays/missed dosing attributable to AE/SAE from RVD. Efficacy data will be released at the time that the phase II study of RVD +/- Elo is mature. Discussion/Conclusion: The RVD-Elo is a safe well-tolerated regimen for newly diagnosed MM patients without major additive AE/SAE beyond what is already known about RVD. This is the first report of the only phase I experience combining the triple-drug regimen RVD with the monoclonal antibody Elotuzumab for newly diagnosed MM. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA180821, CA31946, CA21076, CA180799, CA21115, CA180820 and in part by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Disclosures Usmani: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Honoraria. Shah:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenzweig:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Durie:IRC J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corp: Expert Board Committee Other; IRC Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DMC Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; JW Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Array 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, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.