Citations

Abstract Background: Immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E4A03 demonstrated the superiority of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEX; Ld) over LEN and high dose DEX (LD) in newly diagnosed MM (Rajkumar SV, Lancet Oncol, 2010). This led to the universal acceptance of Ld as a standard induction regimen. More recently, the FIRST study demonstrated the superiority of Ld as continuous therapy vs Ld given x 18 cycles and melphalan-thalidomide-prednisone x 12 cycles proving continuous Ld should be considered standard of care (Benboubker L, NEJM, 2014). Upon completion of four cycles of therapy, patients enrolled in E4A03 had the option of proceeding to ASCT or continuing on their assigned Ld or LD. A prior post-hoc retrospective landmark analysis (Siegel DS, Abstract, Blood 2010) comparing outcomes of early ASCT vs. no early ASCT showed that in patients <65, 65-70, and >70, the survival with early ASCT at 3 years appeared higher, supporting the role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. This analysis is the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned study. Methods: A post hoc, retrospective landmark analysis was performed evaluating overall survival (OS) by early ASCT vs. no early ASCT overall and within age subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival distributions and Cox regression for hazard ratio (HR) estimates. The landmark analysis included only patients surviving the first four cycles of therapy. Results: 21% of patients opted for early ASCT (n=90). At baseline (four cycles prior), early ASCT patients were younger (median 57.5y vs 66y), more fit (ECOG PS 0 45% vs 56%) and with less aggressive disease (ISS Stage 3 12% vs 28%). Median treatment duration was 7.6m for no early ASCT patients. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year survival probability estimates were higher for early ASCT vs. no early ASCT at 99%, 93%, 91%, 85%, and 80% vs. 94%, 84%, 75%, 65%, and 57%. The median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 5.8 years, respectively (Table 1). The survival hazard ratio (HR) for early ASCT was 0.55 [95%CI (0.38-0.80)]. In a further subgroup analysis of patients </= 65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 79% [95%CI (67-87)] vs. 62% [95%CI (54-69)], respectively. In patients </= 65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 7.4 years and the survival HR was 0.74 [95%CI (0.48-1.15)]. For patients >65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 83% [95%CI (56-94)] vs. 52% [95%CI (45-59)], respectively. In patients >65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached versus 5.2 years and the survival HR was 0.38 [95%CI (0.17-0.87)]. In all age groups, overall response rate was similar prior to the decision of proceeding with ASCT vs. no early ASCT. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, early ASCT retained marginal significance. Conclusions: The landmark analysis demonstrated that patients opting for ASCT after induction Ld/LD had a higher 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5- year survival probability and improvement in median OS regardless of DEX dose density. Results were stronger within the older age cohort and upheld in adjusted models. Limitations include lack of randomization and data on salvage therapy. At a time when lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction is gaining worldwide acceptance in all age groups, early ASCT is safe and efficacious and should remain a standard of care for newly diagnosed MM even in the era of novel therapies. Table 1. Survival Probabilities (Time from Registration) for all Patients Included in the Landmark Analysis Median 1 year 2-year 3-year 4-year 5-year N Events Median (Yrs)(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) No Early ASCT All 341 195 5.78(5.11 - 6.59) 22 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96) 53 0.84 (0.80-0.88) 84 0.75 (0.70-0.79) 119 0.65 (0.59-0.69) 144 0.57 (0.51 - 0.62) Early ASCT All 90 34 NR 1 0.99 (0.92 - 1.00) 6 0.93 (0.86 - 0.97) 8 0.91 (0.83 - 0.95) 13 0.85 (0.76 - 0.91) 18 0.80 (0.69 - 0.87) NR = not reached Disclosures Biran: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Vesole:Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 4079 The treatment and natural history of asymptomatic or smoldering myeloma has been an area of intense preclinical and clinical study. Historical attempts to treat these patients have not demonstrated significant benefit, likely as a consequence of limited therapeutic options as well lack of attention to the vast heterogeneity contained within the diagnosis of smoldering myeloma. More recent risk criteria from both US and Spanish investigators have identified a cohort of smoldering myeloma patients at high risk for progression to myeloma in a short time. Recently the PETHEMA group has conducted a randomized clinical trial testing lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs observation among high risk smoldering patients and has demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of progression free survival and hints towards improvement in overall survival favoring early intervention. To further evaluate the potential benefit of early intervention in a high risk smoldering cohort, the ECOG myeloma group designed a phase II trial testing the safety and efficacy of single agent lenalidomide with the intent of broadening to a randomized phase III trial if toxicity was acceptable. We report here on the safety portion of the phase II trial. The phase II group of patients received lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg days 1–21 every 28 days to evaluate the early toxicity and tolerance of this dosing. The dose of lenalidomide could be adjusted based on toxicity using a defined dose-modification guideline in the protocol. The primary endpoint for the safety study was the rate of any treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity plus grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) observed within 6 cycles of treatment. The goal was to enroll 34 patients; if 9 or more patients experience toxicity as defined, then the study would not continue. In terms of eligibility, patients were to be diagnosed with asymptomatic high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) within the past 12 months, as confirmed by both of the following: bone marrow plasmacytosis with >= 10% plasma cells or sheets of plasma cells and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio (<0.125 or >8.0) by serum FLC assay. Further, patients must have measurable levels of monoclonal protein (M-protein): >=1g/dL on serum protein electrophoresis or >=200 mg of monoclonal protein on a 24 hour urine protein electrophoresis. Patients must have no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia. Among the 36 patients enrolled in the phase II study, 56% were female, and 44% were 65 years and older. Treatment and toxicity data at a minimum through cycle 6 is complete as of August 2, 2102. The last patient enrolled completed cycle 6 treatment on June 7, 2012. The median treatment duration of the entire cohort is 9 cycles (range 1–18 cycles), with 86% of patients completing at least 6 cycles of treatment. Ten patients are off treatment for the following reasons: disease progression (n=1), AE/complication (n=5), death (n=1) and patient withdrawal/refusal (n=3); 5 of the 10 patients ended treatment before completing 6 cycles. Of 36 patients assessed for toxicity, 8 patients [22.2%, 90% CI: (11.6%-36.5%)] experienced worst grade treatment-related non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Separately, 6 patients experienced unrelated non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Three patients [8.3%, 90% CI: (2.3%-20.2%)] experienced a serious adverse event as defined for the purposes of the phase II toxicity analysis (treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity or grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events). Based upon this analysis of the study, the phase II portion of the trial met the prespecified safety benchmark established to allow for phase III expansion, and accrual to the phase III portion of this study will begin. Efficacy data will be presented at the time of presentation. Disclosures: Lonial: Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corp: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for treatment of smoldering MM. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Binding site: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene : Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties. Dhodapkar:Celgene: Research Funding; KHK: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Predicting surgical outcome could improve individualizing treatment strategies for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. It has been suggested earlier that gene expression signatures (GES) might harbor the potential to predict surgical outcome. Experimental Design: Data derived from high-grade serous tumor tissue of FIGO stage IIIC/IV patients of AGO-OVAR11 trial were used to generate a transcriptome profiling. Previously identified molecular signatures were tested. A theoretical model was implemented to evaluate the impact of medically associated factors for residual disease (RD) on the performance of GES that predicts RD status. Results: A total of 266 patients met inclusion criteria, of those, 39.1% underwent complete resection. Previously reported GES did not predict RD in this cohort. Similarly, The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, an independent de novo signature and the total gene expression dataset using all 21,000 genes were not able to predict RD status. Medical reasons for RD were identified as potential limiting factors that impact the ability to use GES to predict RD. In a center with high complete resection rates, a GES which would perfectly predict tumor biological RD would have a performance of only AUC 0.83, due to reasons other than tumor biology. Conclusions: Previously identified GES cannot be generalized. Medically associated factors for RD may be the main obstacle to predict surgical outcome in an all-comer population of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If biomarkers derived from tumor tissue are used to predict outcome of patients with cancer, selection bias should be focused on to prevent overestimation of the power of such a biomarker. See related commentary by Handley and Sood, p. 9