Citations

Abstract Background : Thirty to 50% of patients with myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia display detectable bone marrow cytogenetic abnormalities at diagnosis with some(Demory et al. Blood1988;72:855, Dupriez et al. Blood1996;88:1013, Reilly et al. BJH1997;98:96) but not other studies (Cervantes et al. BJH1998;102:684, Okamura et al. Int J Hematol2001;73:194) suggesting a detrimental effect on survival. Methods : The current prospective study was conducted as a follow-up of the observations from an antecedent retrospective study that identified sole abnormalities of either 13q- or 20q- as ‘favorable’ to survival (Tefferi et al. BJH2001;113:763). All clinical and laboratory measurements, including bone marrow examination and karyotype analysis, were performed concurrently in consecutive cases of histologically confirmed MMM regardless of either duration of disease or presence of active therapy. Survival, leukemic transformation rate, and clinical progression were determined from the time of cytogenetic analysis. Results : Karyotypic analysis was successfully performed in a total of 88 patients (median age 61 years; 31 females) and the results were normal in 49 (56%) and abnormal in the remaining 39 patients with 9 (10%) displaying ‘favorable’, and 30 (34%) ‘other’ clonal abnormalities. At the time of study entry, 57 patients were not recieving any form of therapy, 18 were newly diagnosed, and the Dupriez prognostic score distributions were ‘0’ in 33 patients, ‘1’ in 35 and ‘2’ in 20 (Dupriez et al. Blood1996;88:1013). All patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years and a median of 42 months. The 3 cytogenetic categories were similar in age and gender distribution. Survival in the favorable cytogenetic group was similar to that of the normal group and significantly better than the group with other cytogenetic abnormalities (p=0.02). Figure Figure Similarly, no patient (0%) in the ‘favorable’ group transformed into acute leukemia while 6 of 30 (20%) in the ‘other’ and 5 of 49 (10%) in the normal groups did (p=0.21). In a Cox regression analysis, cytogenetic lesions other than the ‘favorable’ kind, hemoglobin below 10 g/dL, leukocytosis, hypercatabolic symptoms, increased blood blast %, blood CD 34 count above 100 x 106/L were individually associated with shortened survival. In a multivariate analysis, only hemoglobin level and leukocyte count retained their significance. Conclusion : Single chromosomal abnormalities of either 13q- or 20q- should be considered as ‘favorable’ cytogenetic lesions in MMM while other abnormalities are associated with an adverse prognosis. The current observation explains the discrepancy in the literature regarding the prognostic relevance of cytogenetic findings in MMM and warrants additional studies to determine the value of incorporating the specific information in prognostic scoring systems.

Abstract Background: Both MM specific and patient specific parameters place patients at risk for death. Patient frailty has been delineated primarily by age and ECOG performance score (PS) and secondarily with creatinine, eGFR, and the International Staging System (ISS), which reflect both renal function and disease burden. In an attempt to improve upon these commonly used measures, a frailty score for elderly patients that combines functional status [Activity of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activity of Daily living scores], comorbidities [Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)] and age has been developed by the IMWG. Incorporation of these tools into a busy clinical practice is challenging due to time constraints. Therefore, the identification of frail patients with an easily applicable, rapid and objective tool remains a challenge and an unmet need. A reliable, non-invasively assessable, biochemical marker of frailty would be an ideal tool to identify patients at higher risk of death. It was our goal to determine the role of NT-proBNP, a well-established cardiovascular risk biomarker, as a marker of frailty in patients with MM and in predicting overall survival (OS). Methods: Patients were elegible for this retrospective study if they were seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN within 30 days of their myeloma diagnosis during the interval between 1/1/2007 and 12/31/2011. As part of the Mayo Clinic registration, all patients complete forms containing their past medical history, symptoms, and ADLs. Data from that first visit was abstracted and used to calculate a CCI. We excluded all patients with a concomitant diagnosis of light-chain AL amyloidosis. NT-proBNP concentration was measured in frozen sera collected within 30 days of diagnosis. NT-proBNP assay was run on the E170 Modular analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany). We evaluated the prognostic role of NT-proBNP and these indices on OS using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among the 351 consecutive patients satisfying entry criteria, median age was 65 years (range 22-95), 33% were ≥70 years, and 56% were male. Twenty-eight percent were ISS stage III, 13% had a creatinine ≥2 mg/dL, 19% had PS ≥2, and 11% had ADL score ≥2, and 30% CCI ≥2. The median value of NT-proBNP was 109 ng/L (interquartile range: 30-375 ng/L). NT-proBNP concentrations differed in the three ISS stages (median: 122 ng/L stage I, 190 ng/L stage II and 1822 ng/L stage III, P<0.0001). Median OS was 5.6 years. The best cutoff of NT-proBNP predicting OS at one year was 301 ng/L (sensitivity: 57.88%, specificity: 74.29%; AUC=0.668) and distinguished two groups with different OS (median not reached vs. 35 months, P<0.0001). Variables predictive for OS are shown in the Table and included PS, age, CCI, ISS, NT-proBNP. On multivariate analysis, ISS and NT-proBNP were independent of each other as long as age, PS and/or CCI were excluded from the model. NT-proBNP withstood these clinical variables better than did ISS (data not shown). We built two different models (table). In model 1, NT-proBNP >301 ng/L was an independent predictor of survival while age ≥70 and PS ≥2 and CCI were not significant. However, if we considered ISS stage instead of NT-proBNP in the same model, ISS stage was not significant. Conclusions: In this unselected cohort of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, NT-proBNP was a useful predictor of survival independent of age and PS. The threshold of 301 ng/L is remarkably similar to the well-established cutoff for heart failure of 300 ng/L. NT-proBNP outperformed the CCI and the ISS as risk factors. NT-proBNP is a widely available biomarker that could be added to the panel of laboratory tests of newly diagnosed MM patients and serve as a simple means of determining patient frailty in a busy clinical practice. Table. Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of various prognostic factors (NS, not significant; NI, not included). Univariate Multivariate Multivariate RR (95% CI) P Model 1 P Model 2 P PS ≥2 3.4 (2.4-4.8) <0.0001 2.5 (1.7-3.6) <0.0001 2.8 (1.9-4.0) <0.0001 Age ≥70 2.7 (1.9-3.6) <0.0001 2.1 (1.5-2.9) <0.0001 1.9 (1.3-2.7) 0.0003 CCI >=2 1.9 (1.4-2.6) <0.0001 NS NS 1.5 (1.0-2.0) 0.03 ISS stage 1.1 (1.1-1.8) 0.0004 NI NI NS NS NT-proBNP >301 ng/L 2.3 (1.7-3.2) <0.0001 1.6 (1.1-2.2) 0.007 NI NI Disclosures Merlini: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Millennium-Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 201 Background: Pomalidomide at doses of 2 or 4 mg/d has demonstrated excellent activity in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Between November 2007 and March 2012, we opened 6 sequential phase 2 trials and treated 345 patients with relapsed MM with pomalidomide at differing doses with weekly dexamethasone (Pom/dex). Results of 164 of these patients have been previously published. Here we describe long term follow up of these patients as well as results of an additional 181 patients with relapsed MM treated with the Pom/dex regimen. Methods: The six cohorts consisted of: Cohort 1 (N=60): relapsed MM with 1–3 prior regimens, 2 mg dose; Cohort 2 (N=34): lenalidomide (LEN) refractory, 2 mg dose; Cohort 3 (N=35): BZ)/LEN refractory, 2 mg dose; Cohort 4 (N=35): BZ/LEN refractory, 4 mg dose; Cohort 5 (N=60) LEN refractory, 1–3 prior regimens, 4 mg dose; and Cohort 6 (N=120) LEN refractory, 4 mg dose. Pomalidomide was given orally 2 mg daily or 4mg daily on days 1–28(cohorts 1–5) or 1–21 (cohort 6) of a 28-day cycle with oral dexamethasone given 40 mg daily on days 1, 8, 15 and 22. Response was assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response criteria. All patients received aspirin 325 mg daily for deep venous thrombosis (VTE) prophylaxis or full dose anticoagulation. Results: A total of 345 patients were enrolled across all 6 cohorts. One patient was ineligible and excluded from analysis. The median age was 64 years (32–88). The median time since diagnosis was 53 months. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (1–14). 147 (44%) had high-risk molecular markers by mSMART criteria. Prior therapies consisted of thalidomide 52%, lenalidomide 87%, bortezomib 75%, autologous stem cell transplant 70% and allogeneic transplant 3%. The median follow-up is 10.4 months (5.4–34 months). Sixty-seven percent are alive and 32% remain progression free. 46 patients are continuing to receive treatment. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or higher) were neutropenia (31%), anemia (16%), thrombocytopenia (12%), pneumonia (8%) and fatigue (8%). VTE was seen in 10 patients (3%). Outcomes are shown in Table 1. Across all 6 cohorts confirmed responses of partial response (PR) or better were seen in 34%. The response rate in all patients with mSMART high risk status was 30.6%. Responses and duration of response (DOR) in those with high risk molecular markers include: 17p– 19 of 56 (34%) DOR 8.2 months; t(4;14) 6 of 24 (25%) and DOR 4.8 months; t(14;16) 7 of 11(64%) and DOR 9.5 months; deletion 13 by cytogenetics 13 of 37 (35%) with DOR 8.2 months. In a multivariate analysis, only LDH > ULN, number of prior regimens, and prior BZ therapy were predictive of a shorter TTP and factors associated with a poor OS following initiation of pomalidomide therapy included B2M > 5.5, LDH > ULN,number of prior regimens, and prior BZ therapy. Conclusions: Pom/dex is active and well tolerated even in heavily pretreated patients and those with high risk molecular markers. Remissions are durable. Response rates and toxicity are similar between the 2 mg and 4 mg doses. Disclosures: Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reeder:Celgene: Mayo Clinic receives funding from Celgene to support clinical trials Other, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 600 Background: Both MM and AL are plasma cell neoplasms. The underlying clone in both diseases appears to be different not only in terms of “tumor burden” but also in terms of their underlying biology. The overall “fitness” of patients with these two diseases is also different, with AL patients having more major organ dysfunction. Therapy for both diseases is directed at killing the underlying clone. ASCT is one method of reducing the clone size and thereby improving overall survival. Post-ASCT outcomes between the two diseases have never been formally compared. Methods: We compiled all patients with a diagnosis of AL or MM who received ASCT at the Mayo Clinic Rochester between June 1996 and January 2011 to compare outcomes. Patients were retrieved from two prospectively maintained clinical transplant data bases (M.A.G.). Differences between groups were compared using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests. Survival was calculated using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences between survival outcomes were calculated by log rank. Cox regression modeling was done to determine how non-disease specific variables—i.e. age, time period of ASCT, number of prior regimens, time to ASCT from diagnosis and acquisition of complete response (CR)—affected outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP (SAS, NC) software. This study was approved by the Mayo IRB. Results: The data set was comprised of 454 patients with AL and 1116 patients with MM. There were significant differences between the two respective groups of patients in terms of number of prior regimens (0 vs 1, p<0.0001), time to ASCT (3.95 months vs 7.20 months, p<0.0001), intensity of conditioning regimen (non-attenuated in 69.4% vs 89.1%, p<0.0001), serum creatinine (1.1mg/dl vs 1mg/dl p<0.0001), creatinine clearance (72.5 ml/minute vs 80 ml/minute p<0.0001), albumin (2.61g/dl vs 3.50g/dl, p<0.0001) CRP (0.40mg/dl vs 0.63mg/dl p<0.0001), LDH (196 U/l vs 182U/l, p<0.0001), and bone marrow plasmacytosis at transplant (6% vs 9%, p<0.0001). Hematologic response rates were also significantly different between the groups, with higher overall hematologic response in the MM group (90.9% vs 79.5%, p<0.0001) and higher complete response (CR) rates (40.1% vs 29.4%, p<0.0001) in the AL group. With a median follow-up of surviving patients of 68 months, the respective median overall survival (OS) for the AL and MM patients was 113 and 59.5 months, p<0.0001. Notably, the 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 91.4% and 57.7%, respectively, p<0.0001. If only those patients who were transplanted within 1 year of their diagnosis are included in the analysis, the respective 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 90.4% and 61.3%, p<0.0001 (Figure 1). To correct for imbalances in non-disease specific parameters, 3 multivariate analyses were performed using: 1) all patients; 2) only those achieving CR; and 3) only those who achieved a CR and were transplanted within 12 months of their diagnosis (Table 1). Among those patients achieving CR, MM patients had nearly a 4-fold risk of death as compared to patients with AL. Conclusion: Although ASCT is not available to all patients with either AL or MM, there is a significant difference in outcomes based on the diagnosis. Patients with AL who undergo ASCT enjoy a superior survival as compared MM patients undergoing the same procedure. This difference is most notable among those patients who achieve CR suggesting very different plasma cell biology between the two diseases. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 599 Purpose: This study was undertaken to develop selection guidelines for transplant centers to determine eligibility for stem cell transplantation in patients with light chain amyloidosis. Patients and Methods: Patients with biopsy-confirmed immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis who underwent stem cell transplantation between March 8, 1996, and December 31, 2011, were reviewed in 2 cohorts: those who underwent transplantation between March 8, 1996, and June 30, 2009, and those who underwent transplantation between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011 (table 1). A second comparison was undertaken among patients who died before posttransplant day 100 to determine features predictive of early death (table 2). Results: A total of 499 patients were identified, 410 in the earlier group and 89 in the later group. After July 1, 2009, significantly fewer transplant recipients had Mayo stage III cardiac involvement. Mortality before posttransplant day 100 was 10.5% (43/410) in the earlier group and 1.1% (1/89) in the later group. In the earlier group, one-quarter of transplant recipients with N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels higher than 5,000 pg/mL died by 10.3 months (fig 1, left). When the serum troponin T level was > 0.06 ng/mL, 25% died at 3.7 months (fig 2, right). Conclusion: The Mayo staging system is highly predictive for overall survival but not useful for selecting transplant recipients. Patients with serum troponin T levels higher than 0.06 ng/mL or NT-proBNP levels >5,000 pg/mL (not on dialysis) should not be considered acceptable candidates for stem cell transplantation because of unacceptable early mortality. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3972 Background: The treatment paradigm for myeloma has undergone a dramatic shift in the past decade with the introduction of the novel agents and their application at every stage of the treatment. We and others had previously shown that survival of patients with myeloma had improved in the earlier half of the last decade and attributed this to a combination of novel therapies as well as increased use of stem cell transplant. It is not clear if this momentum in improving survival has been maintained. We examined the survival trends of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma seen within the past decade to examine this question. Patients and Methods: We studied 1056 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, who were seen at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010; who were seen within 30 days of their diagnosis. For examination of the time trends, we grouped the time interval into two five year periods, 2001–2005 and 2006–2010. Survival was estimated using Kaplan Meier method and survival curves were compared by log rank test. Impact of various prognostic factors was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards test. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 (range; 22–92), and 59% were male. The median estimated follow up for the entire cohort was 4.6 years (95% CI; 4.4, 4.9) and 57% of the patients were alive at last follow up. The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 5.4 years (95% CI; 5, 6.3). The overall survival for patients in the 2001–2005 group was 4.6 years compared with not reached for the 2006–2010 cohort (P< 0.001). The five-year estimated OS was 48% for the earlier group compared with 66% for the latter group. The estimated 1-year survival was 90% for the recent cohort compared with 83% for the earlier cohort, suggesting improvements in the early mortality. Interestingly, the improvement was predominantly seen in the older age group (>65 years; 49%). The 5-year survival of the older patients improved significantly from 31% (2001–2005) to 56% (2006–2010) (P<0.001). In contrast, among younger patients (≤65 years of age), the 5-year survival improved only marginally from 63% (2001–2005) to 73% (2006–2010) (P=NS). One or more novel agents (Lenalidomide, thalidomide or bortezomib) were used as part of initial therapy in 631 (62% of 1021 in whom treatment data was available). The OS among of this group was 7.3 years (95% CI; 5.9, NR) compared with 3.8 years (95% CI; 3.1, 4.6). In a multivariate model that included both use of novel agent and the year group, only the novel agent use was associated with improved survival suggesting that the improvement in the survival is related to the increased use of novel agents in the initial therapy. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of conventional prognostic factors. Conclusions: The current results confirm continued improvement in the overall survival of patients, even within the last 10 year period, and highlight the impact of initial therapy with novel agents. Most importantly, we demonstrate that the improved survival has primarily benefited older patients. Our study highlights that urgent need for additional new agents to provide further survival improvement for younger patients, and in order achieve a cure for this disease. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding. Gertz:Binding Site: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 956 Background: Autologous SCT has been an integral part of myeloma therapy since randomized trials demonstrated improved survival for SCT compared to conventional therapy. However, the conventional treatment of MM has changed with the introduction of novel therapies such as IMiDs and there is an increasing trend towards delaying SCT. While trials in the pre-novel agent area have shown equivalent outcomes with early or delayed SCT, it is not clear if this holds true with novel agent induction. Patients and methods: We reviewed the outcome of patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2001 and 2008, who received initial therapy with thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) or lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LD) (n=410). All patients in whom a stem cell harvest was attempted (started on growth factor irrespective of collection success; n=292, 71%) were included as a method to identify transplant eligible patients. Patients undergoing SCT within 12 months of diagnosis and in whom the SCT was performed within 2 months of stem cell harvest were considered in the early SCT group vs. delayed SCT for the remaining patients irrespective of whether an SCT was actually done (immediate vs. collect and store approach). Variables were compared between the groups using a chi-square or t-test as appropriate. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan Meier method and compared using log rank test. Results: Among the 292 transplant eligible patients, 125 (43%) received TD and 167 (57%) received LD as initial therapy. An early SCT approach was undertaken in 174 patients 60%, with the remaining 118 in the delayed group, 46 of whom have been transplanted to date. The median estimated follow up for the entire group was 54 months from diagnosis, 52 and 61 months respectively for the early and delayed groups. The median estimated time to SCT was 5.3 months among the early group compared to 39 months in the delayed group COMMENTS/* MERGEFORMAT . 83 (66%) patients receiving TD had an early SCT compared to 91 (55%) patients in the LD group; p =0.04. At baseline, the groups were comparable for age and gender. The median overall survival from diagnosis was 86 months for the early SCT compared to NR for the late SCT; P=0.3. The median OS was similar between the Early and Delayed group in the TD group (86 vs. 64 months respectively) as well as in the LD group (NR for either group; 82% vs. 86% at 4 years respectively). Conclusion: In this group of newly diagnosed patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide as initial therapy, an approach of continued initial therapy and delayed transplant at the time of first relapse appears comparable to upfront transplant. This is consistent with the findings of randomized trials in the setting of alkylator based initial therapies. The timing of transplant in the era of novel agents remains the top question on the mind of physicians and patients, and this is the first study to examine this very important question. The rationale governing the decision to go forward with an early SCT or delayed transplant is difficult to ascertain for any particular patient in this retrospective study. These findings should be confirmed in prospective randomized trials. Disclosures: Kumar: celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 1236 Background: Although most patients with early chronic phase CML (ECP-CML) respond to TKI therapy, the depth and speed of response can be different. While it is known that both the Sokal and Hasford scores have an impact on the speed and depth of response, no mechanisms explaining these differences have been identified. Objective: To provide explanations for any potential differences in CML response as a function of the Sokal and Hasford score using a computational model. Methods: We utilize a computational model of hematopoiesis and CML, together with serial quantitative data of disease burden under nilotinib therapy to determine the fraction of CML cells responding to therapy (z) and the impact of TKI on the self-renewal probability of CML cells (e) under therapy. Patients were stratified at diagnosis on both the Sokal and Hasford scoring system. A non-linear least squares method was used to separately fit the model to serial Q-RT-PCR data for BCR-ABL in response to therapy in each cohort. Results: A total of 73 patients were studied. The number of patients with low, intermediate and high risk disease based on the Sokal score was 34, 29 and 10 respectively while the respective distribution of patients on the Hasford score was 29, 43 and 1. Although the impact of nilotinib on the self-renewal probability of CML progenitor cells was similar across all risk groups (there were substantial differences in the fraction of cells responding to therapy: For the Sokal groups, the fraction of cells (z) responding to therapy decreased from 0.09 to 0.086 and 0.069 respectively for low, intermediate and high risk disease. In the case of the Hasford score, the difference in z between low and intermediate categories becomes more pronounced, i.e. z is 0.093 for low and 0.08 for intermediate risk disease. Conclusions: The risk score at diagnosis of CML has a direct impact on the dynamics of response to TKI therapy. Patients with a lower risk score respond faster to the same therapy when compared to high risk patients. The impact of TKI on the self renewal of CML cells appears to be the same regardless of the risk score but the fraction of cells responding decreases as the risk score increases. This suggests that subclones that may be less sensitive to TKI therapy may be emerging. Strategies that increase the fraction of cells responding to therapy in patients with higher risk disease may be indicated. Disclosures: Rosti: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 1802 Poster Board I-828 Background Heterogeneity in multiple myeloma (MM) leads to disparate outcomes with a wide variation in overall survival (OS). Based upon the evidence predominantly gathered from newly diagnosed patients treated with standard chemotherapy and/or transplantation, the current Mayo (mSMART) prognostic model uses a combination of metaphase cytogenetics, fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) and plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) for risk-stratification at diagnosis of MM. The objective of our study was to evaluate the significance of this stratification model in the era of novel therapies, and to assess the independent prognostic value of each of the components in the model. Methods Data were abstracted from a cohort of 1556 consecutive patients with MM who presented to our institution between January 1999 and March 2009 within ninety days of diagnosis of MM A total of three hundred and eighty six patients had been evaluated with conventional cytogenetics near diagnosis in addition to interphase FISH. Out of this cohort, three hundred and sixty six patients had availability of all the three tests, including the slide-based PCLI. High-risk MM was defined as presence of any one or more of the following: cytogenetics: hypodiploidy, monosomy of chromosome 13 or deletion 13q ; FISH: deletion of p53 (locus 17p13) or immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) translocations, t(4;14) (p16.3;q32) or t(14;16)(q32;q23); PCLI ≥3%. Survival estimates were created using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank tests. The impact of each of the three tests was assessed by a multivariate (MV) analysis using Cox proportional hazards model. Results The median OS of the cohort of 366 patients was 65 months from presentation. One hundred and twelve (31%) patients were deemed high risk by any one or more of the three tests: Metaphase cytogenetics, FISH or PCLI (current mSMART definition of high-risk MM). The median OS of high risk patients was 52 months versus 71 months for standard-risk (P=0.007). We then studied the prognostic value of the three tests separately. Patients classified as high risk by FISH had a median OS of 35 months versus 65 months for the standard risk, HR= 2.3, P<0.001. Similarly, cytogenetics alone was also able to classify patients into high and standard risk with a comparable HR of 2.1 (P=0.008, median survival 37 vs. 64 months). In contrast, PCLI did not have a significant prognostic value (HR =1.41, P=0.32). This was confirmed on multivariate analysis in a model that included all 3 tests. FISH (HR=2.36, P=0.001) and cytogenetics (HR=1.99; P=0.017) emerged as independent determinants of prognosis in the multivariable analysis, while PCLI (HR=1.03, P=0.93) did not provide additional prognostic value. We then examined whether the prognostic value of FISH contributed additionally in patients classified into high and standard risk by conventional cytogenetics, and vice versa. Those classified as high risk by cytogenetics (n=44, 11 %), were further categorized into 2 groups by additional prognostic information obtained by FISH (median survival 18 vs. 52 months; P=0.005). Similarly, those classified as standard risk by cytogenetics (n=342, 89 %), were further categorized into 2 groups (median survival 52 vs. 71 months; P=0.017) by additional FISH-based stratification. Similarly, high-risk patients defined by FISH (n=65, 17 %) were further classified into 2 groups with significant difference in median OS (18 vs. 52 months, P=0.004), based on the presence or absence of high-risk features on cytogenetics. In contrast, no additional prognostic information was gained by cytogenetics in patients who were stratified as standard risk by FISH alone (n=321, 83%). Conclusion Our study validates high risk features defined by FISH and conventional cytogenetics in the mSMART risk stratification model among patients treated after the introduction of novel therapies. Either test identifies a high risk cohort with a hazard ratio of approximately 2 (median survival ∼37 versus ∼65 months). In patients known to have high risk disease by one of the two tests, knowledge of the other appears to add additional prognostic value. Disclosures Fonseca: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Otsuka, Genzyme and Medtronic: Consultancy. Gertz:celgene, millennium: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:celgene, genzyme, millennium, novartis, bayer: Research Funding; genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 946 Background: The emerging therapies directed at the plasma cell clone have dramatically increased overall survival (OS) for both myeloma and amyloidosis patient populations. As more treatment trials are done in patients (pts) with AL, benchmarks for outcomes among previously treated AL pts are required, especially for those pts who are not candidates for high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Inadequate information is available about the number of non-transplant pts who go on to receive second line treatment for AL amyloidosis. Methods: To ascertain the outcomes of pts who did not receive ASCT as primary therapy but who required a second line of therapy, we reviewed the experience of pts seen at Mayo Rochester between 1990 and 2010 according to an IRB approved retrospective review protocol. 1828 pts had their first Mayo visit for AL during this time period. Pts were excluded from this study for the following reasons: 571 had upfront transplant; 907 pts had received only one line of treatment for their amyloid; 91 had longstanding other associated malignancy [Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (8), lymphoma (15), CLL (6), multiple myeloma (62)]; and 93 had inadequate follow-up information. One-hundred and sixty-six pts received 2 or more lines of therapy for their AL amyloid and are the subject of these analyses. Statistical analyses were done using JMP statistical software (SAS, Carey, NC). Results: Of the 166 pts, the median age was 64 years (range 34, 84). 49% were male. Baseline organ involvement was as follows: cardiac 84/166 (50%); renal 118/166 (71); liver 23/166 (13.8%); peripheral nerves 19/166 (11.4%); and gastrointestinal 14/166(8.4%). Thirty-one percent (52/16) had both cardiac and renal involvement. Only 73 pts had cardiac biomarkers (NT pro BNP and Troponin T) done at baseline. Of these pts, 26% were stage 1, 49.3% were stage 2, and 24.6% were stage 3 according to original Mayo cardiac biomarker staging system. By inclusion criteria definition, all 166 pts received 1st and 2nd line therapies; 53 (32%) pts received 3rd line of treatment; 20 (12%) received 4th line of treatment; and 10 (6%) received 5th line of treatment. For first line therapy, the most common drugs given either singly or in combination were corticosteroid (147/166; 88.5 %), alkylator (99/166; 59.6%), IMID (34/166; 20.4 %), and bortezomib (19/166; 11.4%). The median time from diagnosis to 2nd line therapy was 10.3 months. Second line regimens received included: corticosteroid, 108/166 (65.1%); alkylator, 76/166 (45.8 %); IMID, 46/166 (27.7%); and bortezomib, 46/166 (27.8%). The median time from diagnosis to 3rd line therapy was 19.8 months. For the 53 pts who received 3rd line treatment, regimens included: corticosteroid, 41/53 (77.3%); IMIDs, 17/53 (32.1%); alkylator, 17/53 (32.1%); bortezomib, 12/53 (22.6%). The median time from diagnosis to 4th line therapy was 31.8 months. For the 20 pts receiving 4th line treatment, regimens included: corticosteroids, 15/20(75%); alkylator, 12/20 (60%), bortezomib, 7/20 (35%); and IMIDs, 4/20(20%). Eighty-three pts have died. The 1 year mortality of our study population was only 8%. The median follow-up of surviving pts was 47.6 months. Figure 1 demonstrates Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) from initiation of each successive therapy. The median OS from initiation of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines of treatment were 65, 49.5 and 36.7 months respectively. The median OS after the 4th line of treatment was not reached. The 4 year OS rates from initiation of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines of therapy were 58%, 50.8 %, 50 % and 53.4% respectively. Conclusion: Outcomes among relapsed or refractory AL pts are better than what one might expect. Multiple publications have demonstrated that the 1 year mortality of newly diagnosed AL is in the vicinity of 40%. Thereafter, the rate at which pts die dramatically decreases. Our study provides explicit data characterizing the fate of pts unfortunate enough to require additional therapy but fortunate enough to survive past the exceedingly high risk period of death that occurs within 6–12 months of diagnosis. These data provide useful information for benchmarking future trials for treatments of AL amyloidosis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.