Citations

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

PurposeTo clinically implement and comprehensively evaluate two independent methods for beam monitor calibration of scanning proton beam.MethodsSeven proton energies that represent the lowest to highest energy proton beams were selected. Single energy layer circular fields of diameter 15 cm with 2.5 mm spot spacing and 10 times of repainting (FS15cm) were designed for all energies. The effective measurement points of Bragg peak chamber (BPC), advanced Markus chamber (AMC) and farmer chamber (FC) were all aligned to 2 cm depth in water using SSD setup. The BPC and AMC were cross‐calibrated with farmer chamber (FC) using the field FS15cm. In order to evaluate BPC's lateral response uniformity, a collimated narrow proton beam (5.8 mm diameter) was delivered to the active area and edge of the BPC. The dose area product (DAP) was measured using two methods by two BPCs, one AMC and one FC. For method 1, a single spot proton beam was delivered to the geometric center of the BPC. For method 2, the fields FS15cm were delivered to FC and AMC, respectively. Accumulated charges by these chambers were converted to DAPs, and the quantitative difference of DAPs between both methods was calculated. The causes of the uncertainties were discussed, and the advantages of the two methods were compared.ResultsThe two BPCs showed different lateral response uniformity. BPC1 has a uniform response from the center up to a radius of 3.5 cm. BPC2 has a uniform response only to 2 cm and the response dropped 1% to 2% at 3.5 cm from center. BPC2 also has significant over‐response compared to BPC1. A 2.2% systematic error would be transferred to DAP if the over‐response from BPC2 was not considered. The DAPs measured by method 1 with two BPCs and by method 2 with FC and AMC were consistent to 0.5%. The major uncertainty component of method 1 is from the cross‐calibration of the BPC.ConclusionsThe two independent methods for DAP were shown to give consistent results, given the sources of uncertainties were carefully addressed in the measurements. Direct measurement of DAP with BPC is very efficient, but it may be subject to more than 2% systematic error if the BPC lateral response is not carefully evaluated.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have significantly improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Refractoriness to PIs and IMiDs results in poor outcomes with a median survival of about 13 months.Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) with remarkable activity in relapsed and refractory MM. The outcome of MM patients in US clinical practice who becomes refractory to CD38 MoABs is unknown. The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study is to investigate the natural history of patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoABs (Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure: MAMMOTH study). Methods We identified patients from 14 academic institutions in the US with diagnosis of active MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination. Patients were considered refractory to CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. The time when patients met the above criteria of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data including patient-disease characteristics and all therapies administered before and after T0 were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. For survival outcome analysis, patients were classified into three groups: "Penta-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 2 PIs + 2 IMiDs), "Triple-refractory and quad-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 1 PI + 1/2 IMiDs, or 1 CD38 MoAB + 1/2 PIs + 1 IMiD), and "Not triple-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB, and not both of a PI and an IMiD). Responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients were included in this study; median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90). Fifty five percent of patients were males, 52% had IgG isotype, 29% had ISS stage III disease, and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Median interval from diagnosis of MM to T0 was 50.1 months (mo) (range 2.5-230.1). Patients received a median of 4 lines of treatment (1-16) prior to the CD38 MoAB-containing regimen; 72% underwent prior autologous transplant. Daratumumab-refractory patients formed a majority (256, 93.1%) of this cohort. Most of the patients were refractory to lenalidomide (77%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (68%), and carfilzomib (47%). Seventy patients (25.5%) were "penta-refractory" and 148 (53.8%) were "triple-refractory and quad-refractory". Median follow-up from T0 for survivors was 10.6 mo (range 1.9-42.3 mo). The median overall survival (OS) from T0 for the entire cohort was 8.6 mo (95% C.I. 7.2-9.9); OS for the groups based on refractoriness to prior treatments are shown (Figure). Two hundred and forty-nine patients (90.5%) received at least one line of treatment after T0, (median 2, range 1-10). The response rates and depth of responses to each line of treatment post T0 are shown (Table). Among patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent treatment, the median PFS and OS from T0 were 3.4 (95% C.I. 2.8-4.0) mo and 9.3 (95% C.I. 8.1-10.6) mo, respectively; the median OS for the 26 patients who received no further treatment was only 1.3 (95% C.I. 0.6-1.9) mo. By multivariate analysis, penta-refractoriness (HR 2.4, p <0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.5, p=0.01), elevated LDH (HR 2, p<0.001) and creatinine > 2 (HR 2.4, p=0.01) at the onset of CD38-based therapy predicted inferior OS. Conclusions Patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoAB are increasingly less responsive to subsequent therapies. While survival is particularly dismal for penta-refractory patients, the outcomes are poor even for patients who are not refractory to other mainstream MM agents. The MAMMOTH study defines a MM population in urgent need for new therapies, and provides benchmark OS, PFS and response data for subsequent investigational therapies in this setting. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vij: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, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: In multiple myeloma, randomized trials of maintenance therapy using thalidomide or lenalidomide following autologous transplant (ASCT) demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but overall survival benefit was inconsistent. The MY.10 trial (n=332) demonstrated improved PFS with thalidomide-prednisone maintenance therapy, but quality of life was inferior and overall survival was not improved. As a randomized trial with a no-treatment control arm and biospecimen collection, MY.10 provides a unique opportunity to identify predictors of benefit from therapy that could be used to personalize treatment. Immunomodulatory drug action is mediated in part through binding to cereblon (CRBN) and downregulation of IRF4. Candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected from the CRBN/IRF4 pathway and other genes previously associated with myeloma prognosis, drug response and toxicity from literature review. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between candidate SNPs and benefit from immunomodulatory compound-based maintenance therapy, as well as prognostic impact. Methods: Genomic DNA was extracted from samples preserved in Trizol¨. SNPs were genotyped using TaqMan¨ genotyping assays on the ViiA7 qPCR platform. Analysis was performed on 187 patients with available samples and clinical data (86 in treatment arm; 101 in observation arm). Cox regression models were performed using SAS clinical 2.0 for prognostic impact of a single SNP on PFS, assessed with and without adjusted covariates (age, stage, performance status and response to ASCT). In treatment benefit analysis, PFS was modeled with genotype, treatment assignment and their interaction term. Results: SNPs with significant prognostic impact for PFS in all 187 patients were found in CRBN (rs1672753) (HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.4-0.86; p=0.006) and the following SNPs which had been found to be prognostic in prior studies were validated: CYP1A1 (rs1048943) (HR 1.98, 95%CI 1.19-3.27; p=0.008), CYP1B1 (rs1056836) (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.52-0.99; p=0.043), and trend toward significance for SNP in CYP1A2 (rs2069514) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 0.98-4.15; p=0.057). Of these, only the CYP1A1 SNP was found to be possibly predictive of greater benefit from maintenance therapy. A SNP in ABCA1 (rs363717), previously associated with thalidomide-induced neuropathy,‎ was prognostic in this study (HR 1.44, 95%CI 1.03-2.02; p=0.033) but not predictive of treatment benefit. Table 1 lists SNPs associated with a differential level of benefit from maintenance therapy, including SNPs in FAM179a and ICAM1 that were possibly associated with harm from maintenance therapy. Table 1. SNPs and treatment interaction with significant impact on PFS. HR represent hazard ratio of treatment versus observation for a given genotype group. Asterisk Indicates trend toward significance. Wildtype Heterozygote & mutant p-value interaction Gene dbSNP ID SNP HR 95% CI HR 95% CI FAM179A rs1053667 T>C 0.46 0.33, 0.66 2.28 0.78, 6.65 0.003 ICAM1 rs1799969 G>A 0.51 0.36, 0.73 1.75 0.83, 3.70 0.007 CASP3 rs1049216 A>G 0.82 0.54, 1.25 0.41 0.25, 0.69 0.029 IRF4 rs12203592 C>T 0.69 0.47, 1.02 0.38 0.21, 0.69 0.062* CYP1A1 rs1048943 A>G 0.62 0.44, 0.87 0.11 0.02, 0.52 0.079* Conclusion: Previously identified SNPs in drug metabolism and drug efflux genes were validated to be prognostic in this cohort. The prognostic but not predictive significance of a SNP in CRBN suggests a possible role for CRBN in multiple myeloma disease biology independent of immunomodulatory therapy. SNPs predictive of differing degrees of benefit from immunomodulatory maintenance were found in genes involved in immunomodulatory activation, drug action and cell adhesion mediated drug resistance; SNPs in FAM179A and ICAM1 were possibly associated with harm from thalidomide maintenance and could potentially be used to identify patients unsuitable for immunomodulatory maintenance therapy. These results may be applicable to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, since immunomodulatory compounds exhibit similar chemical structures and mechanisms of action. Validation of these SNPs in prospective clinical trials involving other immunomodulatory can test this hypothesis. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: thalidomide and prednisone maintenance for multiple myeloma. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. White:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Seftel:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Howsen-Jan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reece:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shepherd:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Djurfeldt:Celgene: Research Funding. Reiman:Soricimed Biopharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board for Soricimed.

The NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma provide recommendations for diagnosis, workup, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care for patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance, solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight some of the important updates and changes in the 1.2020 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma.

Aims A number of methods have been described to remove a well-fixed humeral implant as part of revision shoulder arthroplasty. These include the use of cortical windows and humeral osteotomies. The router bit extraction technique uses a high-speed router bit to disrupt the bone-implant interface. The implant is then struck in a retrograde fashion with a square-tip impactor and mallet. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics and frequency of the different techniques needed for the removal of a well-fixed humeral stem in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods Between 2010 and 2018, 288 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures requiring removal of a well-fixed humeral component were carried out at a tertiary referral centre by a single surgeon. The patient demographics, indications for surgery, and method of extraction were collected. Results Of the 288 revisions, 284 humeral stems (98.6%) were removed using the router bit extraction technique alone. Four humeral stems (1.39%) required an additional cortical window. Humeral osteotomy was not necessary in any procedure. Most of the humeral stems removed (78.8%) were cementless. Of the four humeral stems that required a cortical window, three involved removal of a hemiarthroplasty. Two were cemented and two were cementless. Conclusion The router bit extraction technique removed a well-fixed humeral component in a very high proportion of patients (98.6%). This method allows surgeons to avoid more invasive approaches involving a cortical window or humeral osteotomy, and their associated complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1280–1284

Abstract Fibroproliferative diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality featuring localized and systematic tissue/organ fibrosis, which account for nearly 45% of all deaths in the developed world, with an unknown etiology and no effective treatment. Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) is a ubiquitous cytokine that contributes to fibroblast activation, myofibroblast differentiation, collagen overproduction and pathological tissue fibrosis. In that mounting evidence indicate that altered glutamine metabolism has critical roles in regulating signaling pathways, maintaining redox balance and macromolecular biosynthesis, we wished to test the general hypothesis that intervention of these metabolic processes could provide novel approaches to developing anti-fibrotic therapies. To that end, in the current work we provide a framework integrating glutamine dysregulation with profibrotic TGF-β signaling. We found that Glutaminase 1 (GLS1), which converts glutamine to glutamate, is induced by TGF-β and is also elevated in (i) fibroblasts isolated from Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) patients; and (ii) the murine bleomycin (i.e., TGF-β driven) model of lung fibrosis. While phosphorylation of Smad2 and Smad3 occurs independently of GLS1, TGF-β stimulated expression of profibrotic targets (i.e., Collagen I, PAI-1, CTGF, α-SMA and fibronectin) as well as biological actions (i.e., cell migration and anchorage independent growth) require GLS1 activity. Moreover, knockdown of Smad2 or Smad3 as well as inhibition of MAPK, PI3K, Akt or mTOR abrogates the induction of GLS1 by TGF-β; documenting that TGF-β regulates GLS1 expression via both Smad and non-Smad signaling. As GLS1 represents a critical component mediating the fibroproliferative actions of TGF-β, in order to identify the operative molecular mechanism(s) we focused on (i) a group of histone deacetylases called sirtuins (SIRT) which are known to elicit antifibrotic effects; and (ii) the Forkhead box protein O4 (FOXO4) transcription factor which has been shown to bind the GLS1 promoter. We found that there is not only a decrease in SIRT7 and FOXO4 coincident with the induction of GLS1 by TGF-β, but TGF-β inhibits SIRT7 deacetylation activity which in turn prevents FOXO4 deacetylation and inhibition of GLS1 expression. Last, consistent with SIRT7 and FOXO4 being negative regulators of profibrotic TGF-β signaling, their levels were also decreased in IPF fibroblasts and bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis. These studies point to an exciting, novel and unexplored connection between sirtuins, FOXOs and glutamine metabolism by elucidating the mechanism(s) by which epigenetic and transcriptional processes cooperate to regulate glutamine metabolism and fibrotic development in a TGF-β dependent manner. Citation Format: Malay Choudhury, Xueqian Yin, Jeong-Han Kang, Mahefatiana Andrianifahanana, Edward B. Leof. Cooperativity between glutaminase 1 and histone deacetylase SIRT7 regulates TGF-β mediated lung fibrosis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1847.