Citations

Abstract Background: Combination regimens incorporating bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc), lenalidomide (REVLIMID®, Rev), dexamethasone (Dex) and cyclophosphamide (Cy) (Vc–Dex, Rev–Dex, Vc–Dex–Rev [VDR], and Vc–Dex–Cy [VDC]), have all shown substantial activity in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). A combination of all four agents (VDCR) may result in even greater activity. This randomized multi-center 3-arm phase I/II EVOLUTION study is investigating the efficacy and safety of VDR, VDC, and VDCR as initial therapy in previously untreated MM patients (pts). We now report safety and efficacy results from the phase l dose-escalation portion of the study, which sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the VDCR regimen. These results represent the first clinical data with this novel 4-drug combination that includes bortezomib, lenalidomide, an alkylator, and a corticosteroid. Methods: Pts received Vc 1.3 mg/m2 IV (d 1, 4, 8, 11), Dex 40 mg PO (d 1, 8, 15), Rev 15 mg PO (d 1–14), plus Cy 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mg/m2 PO (d 1, 8) for up to eight 21-d cycles, followed by Vc 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 42-d maintenance cycles. Pts received prophylactic antibiotics, acyclovir, transfusion support and concomitant anticoagulants as required. Eligible pts wishing to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2, and discontinue therapy for ASCT any time after cycle 4. The MTD was defined as the highest dose of Cy in combination with VDR resulting in ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 6 pts. A DLT was defined as: platelet count <25,000/mm3 lasting >7 days or any platelet count <10,000/mm3; grade 4 neutropenia lasting >7 days; any ≥grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity considered to be related to Cy except for inadequately treated nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, or any toxicity resulting in a >2 week treatment delay. Results: Twenty-six pts were enrolled; 1 pt was not dosed due to a heart problem and was excluded (dose level 4) and 4 pts were not evaluable for DLT. In the 25 treated pts, median age was 61 years (range 49–79); 52% were male; 48% had ISS Stage lI and 4% Stage III disease, and 44% had KPS ≤80%. At data cut-off, 11 pts remain on treatment and 9 have undergone successful ASCT. To date, median treatment duration is 4 cycles (range 2–11). Two pts experienced DLT: 1 grade 4 febrile neutropenia at dose level 4 (Cy 400 mg/m2), and 1 grade 3 herpes zoster virus reactivation despite antiviral prophylaxis at dose level 5 (Cy 500 mg/m2). The recommended phase II dose of Cy in the VDCR regimen was the highest planned dose of 500 mg/m2. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were constipation (64%), fatigue (60%), and nausea (52%). Hematologic toxicities were acceptable, with grade 3 neutropenia in 16% of patients, grade 4 in 4%, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 4%. Peripheral neuropathy (56%), included 8% grade 3 but no grade 4; no deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism events were reported. Overall rate of serious AEs was 40%; the only SAE reported in >1 pt was febrile neutropenia (2 pts). Best responses to date by International Uniform Response Criteria are shown in the table. Preliminary response rates are: 100% ≥PR, 68% ≥VGPR, 32% CR/nCR, 28% CR/stringent CR and 20% sCR. Ten pts have undergone stem cell mobilization with median CD34+ yield of 4.95×106/kg. Conclusions: VDCR was well tolerated and hematologic toxicities were manageable. The current study shows that the VDCR regimen is feasible and highly active in newly diagnosed myeloma and merits further testing in clinical trials. Enrollment to the 3 arms (VDR, VDC and VDCR) of the phase ll portion of the study and testing for minimal residual disease by flow cytometry are ongoing. Best unconfirmed response to date with VDCR Dose level 1 2 3 4 5 Cyclophosphamide dose, mg/m2 100 200 300 400 500 Enrolled 3 4 4 8 7 Treated 3 4 4 7 7 Still on treatment – 1 1 2 7 Best unconfirmed response to date CR (sCR) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 1 (1) VGPR (nCR) 1 – 3 (1) 4 2 PR – 3 – 1 4

Abstract Background Myeloid neoplasms (MN) occurring secondary to treatment of non-malignant disease, especially autoimmune diseases (AID), and the overlap between them, is an increasing clinically important observation. Confounding variables for myeloid transformation include the nature of autoimmune disease as an incessant, chronically activated inflammatory cascade that has been associated with an increased risk of myeloid malignancy, and disease modifying therapies, often with cytotoxic and immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, the addition of therapeutic agents for treatment of AID theoretically amplifies the opportunity for MN to develop in genetically susceptible individuals. To our knowledge, there is no large study evaluating a comprehensive primary AID population that developed MDS or AML with detailed assessment of therapeutic interventions for AID. The presented study queries the association of cytotoxic, anti-inflammatory, and immune-modulating agents to treat AID as risk factors for developing myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Methods In a 10-year period from 2004-2014, a total of 40,011 patients with an ICD-9 coded diagnosis of AID were seen at Mayo Clinic Arizona and Florida campuses; 311 patients from this population had a concomitant coded diagnosis of MDS and/or AML. In an IRB approved, retrospective chart review, we confirmed 86 cases meeting strict inclusion criteria for AID and confirmed MDS or AML. We performed a case-control match from the same primary autoimmune population for age, gender, and autoimmune specific diagnosis at a 2:1 ratio querying for therapeutic interventions. Results Myeloid neoplasm specifics in our case cohort of 86 patients were 55 MDS, 21 de novo AML, and 10 AML with history of MDS. Average age was 72 years with a slight male predominance (57%). Rheumatoid arthritis (26.4%), psoriasis (20.7%), systemic lupus (13.8%), was the most common autoimmune profiles. Median onset of autoimmune disease to diagnosis of myeloid neoplasm was 6 years (range 1-54 years). Up to 26% controls documented no systemic agent for treatment of autoimmune disease and similarly 12.8% of the case cohort (p=0.142). Case and control populations treated with systemic therapies had similar exposures by category for immune-modulating agents (33.7% and 37.8% respectively) and cytotoxic therapies (47.7 and 44.8% respectively). A total of 57/86 cases (66.3%) received either a cytotoxic or immune-modulating agent. In comparison, 105/172 (61.1%) controls received either agent; p=0.495. Azathioprine was the only statistically significant agent exposure observed more frequently in the study cohort than controls with an OR of 7.05 (p= < 0.001). There was no increased incidence of MDS or AML in TNF-antagonist treated patients. No significant correlation for duration of agent exposure by drug category was observed. Discussion In a large primary AID population, azathioprine exposure was associated with a 7 fold risk of MDS or AML (p=< 0.001). Notable, but not statistically significant case cohort trends among cytotoxic agents was exposure to cyclophosphamide (OR 3.58) followed by mitoxantrone (OR 2.73). Methotrexate, mercaptopurine, and mycophenolate had favorable odd ratios, but these were not statistically significant. No association was found for TNF-inhibitory agents. Finally, there was no association of drug exposure time to the incidence in development of MDS or AML. Disclosures Dueck: Bayer: Honoraria. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Foran:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; karyopharm: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 621 Background: Two- and three-drug regimens incorporating bortezomib (Velcade®, V), lenalidomide (Revlimid®, R), dexamethasone (D), or cyclophosphamide (C) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Combining all four drugs in a single regimen (VDCR) may further enhance efficacy. Published results from the phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the non-comparative, multi-center EVOLUTION study showed that the VDCR regimen was highly active and generally well tolerated (Kumar et al Leukemia 2010). Here we present updated results from the phase 2 portion of the trial, focusing on efficacy and safety of the VDCR, VDR, and VDC regimens. Methods: Previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to one of four treatment groups receiving up to eight 21-d cycles of VDCR (V 1.3 mg/m2 d 1, 4, 8, 11; D 40 mg d 1, 8, 15; R 15 mg d 1–14; C 500 mg/m2 d 1, 8), VDR (VD as in VDCR but with R 25 mg d 1–14), VDC (VDC as in VDCR), or VDC-mod (as for VDC but with an additional dose of C on d 15) as induction therapy, followed by four 42-d maintenance cycles of V 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) (all treatment arms). Patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2 and SCT any time after cycle 4. The primary endpoint was the combined complete response (CR) + very good partial response (VGPR) rate; secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Responses were assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform criteria using an automated computer algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the CTCAE v3.0. Results: Patient characteristics were similar among the groups with respect to age, performance status, ISS stage, and proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetic features. Patients received a median of 5, 6, 6, and 6 treatment cycles in the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively; 65%, 60%, 52%, and 47% of patients had dose reductions of any drug. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively, 52%, 62%, 58%, and 65% of patients completed treatment; 31%, 43%, 24%, and 41%, respectively, underwent SCT. In the phase 2 response-evaluable patients (n=132), all treatment regimens showed substantial efficacy, with CR+VGPR rates of 59% (VDCR), 50% (VDR), 41% (VDC), and 59% (VDC-mod) (Table) (includes pre-transplant responses only in SCT patients). Of MRD-assessed patients, 46% (21/46) of those who achieved CR (including sCR) or nCR were MRD-negative; 48% (10/21), 75% (9/12), 0% (0/7) and 33% (2/6) in the VDCR, VDR, VDC and VDC-mod arms, respectively. Median time to first response was similar across arms (range 1.6–1.8 months); median time to best response of CR+VGPR was 4.0 months (VDCR), 3.4 months (VDR), 5.1 months (VDC), and 3.1 months (VDC-mod). Median duration of response has not been reached in any arm to date. All treatment regimens were generally well tolerated. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, at least one grade ≥3 AE was observed in 81%, 76%, 79%, and 88% of enrolled patients, respectively; serious AEs were experienced by 42%, 40%, 21%, and 41% of patients, and AEs resulting in study discontinuation were reported for 19%, 17%, 12%, and 6% of patients. The five most common all-grade AEs across all treatment groups were fatigue (range 47–67%), nausea (36–67%), constipation (40–62%), diarrhea NOS (42–65%), and neutropenia (19–52%). The incidence of grade ≥3 (grade ≥2) peripheral neuropathy (PN) was 13% (40%) in the VDCR arm, 14% (45%) VDR, 9% (48%) VDC, and 18% (41%) VDC-mod; there was no grade 4 PN. Rates of grade ≥3 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia were 42%/10% for VDCR, 7%/7% VDR, 36%/12% VDC, and 65%/18% VDC-mod. Conclusions: All regimens appear highly active and generally well tolerated in previously untreated MM patients. The four-drug combination did not result in a substantial increase in response rate and was associated with a modest increase in the incidence of hematologic toxicities. Continuous weekly C in the VDC regimen was associated with high response rates and rapid responses, comparable to the VDR and VDCR arms. Outcome data will be presented following longer follow-up. Disclosures: Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Celgene: Research Funding. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Noga:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ortho-Centicor: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stewart:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Rifkin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau; Dendreon: Speakers Bureau. Wolf:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech and Multiple Myeloma Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; OrthoBiotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Estevam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Mulligan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Shi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Webb:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 38 INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide and bortezomib have moved into the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma leading to dramatically improved outcomes. As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG E4A03 clinical trial randomized newly diagnosed MM patients to lenalidomide with high-dose dexamethasone (LD) vs lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone (Ld) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). Upon completing four cycles of therapy, pts had the option of ASCT or continuing on the assigned therapy. The purpose of this abstract is to determine the outcome of patients on this trial pursuing early ASCT according to various age-groups. MATERIALS and METHODS: This is a post hoc, retrospective analysis of overall survival within age subgroups stratified by early ASCT status. This is a landmark analysis including only pts surviving the first 4 cycles of therapy. RESULTS: In all three age-groups studied, 1, 2, and 3-year survival probability estimates with ASCT were excellent (Tables 1, 2, and 3). For patients under the age of 65 who survived the first 4 cycles of therapy, overall survival at 3-years was 94% with early ASCT, 78% in pts continuing protocol therapy. Although direct comparison with patients not going to early transplant is not possible because the assignment to early ASCT versus no early ASCT was not randomized, survival with ASCT at 3-years appeared higher. While we attempt to correct for age, the differences may be influenced by other factors such as performance status, comorbidities, response to therapy, etc. The presumption that treatment related mortality (TRM) should be more problematic for older pts undergoing ASCT is addressed by looking at the >65 and >70yo cohorts. In the >65 age group, one-year mortality is similar between the early ASCT population and the no early ASCT population. In the >70 age group, no adverse impact of early ASCT was seen in the first year on overall survival but the sample size is extremely small. In all age groups early ASCT seemed to mitigate some of the survival disadvantage associated with randomization to the LD arm. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the strategy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone induction followed by early ASCT has a remarkably good outcome in terms of overall survival in all age groups studied and supports the continued role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. The risk of early mortality was notably low in the first year in all age groups. The risk of early mortality seems to increase at 2 years for the LD pts not choosing early ASCT and at 3 years for the Ld pts not choosing early ASCT. Selection bias makes it difficult to compare results for pts that chose early ASCT directly to the patients who did not receive early ASCT in this trial. As such, these results emphasize the need for randomized trials investigating the timing of ASCT in myeloma in the era of novel therapy. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front line therapy. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background Cytotoxic agents are a well-established risk factor for therapy related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). The incidence of t-MN in patients (pts) with autoimmune diseases (AID) treated with cytotoxic and immuno-modulatory agents are not well described in the literature. Most case series assess an MDS/AML population and co-occurrence with an AID. To our knowledge, there exists no large case-control studies evaluating a primary AID population that developed therapy-related MDS or AML, and the relationship to detailed therapeutic intervention for AID. Our study queries the association of cytotoxic and immune-modulating agents to treat AID as risk factor for developing MDS or AML. Methods Between 2004-2014, 23,671 pts with an ICD-9 coded AID were seen at Mayo Clinic Arizona; 148 pts from this population had a concomitant coded diagnosis of MDS/AML. In an IRB approved, retrospective chart review we confirmed 61 cases meeting strict inclusion criteria. We performed a case-control match from the same primary AID population for age, gender, and autoimmune specific diagnosis at a 2:1 ratio. AML/MDS cases were compared to controls by use of chi-square test for frequency data. Odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were constructed using conditional logistic regression. Case incidence was compared to SEER data for the general population Results Of 61 cases 33 were MDS, 20 de-novo AML, and 8 MDS transformed to AML. Psoriasis 16 (26.2%) and rheumatoid arthritis 14 (23.0%) were the most common autoimmune diagnoses, followed by systemic lupus 11 (18%), Crohn's disease 7 (11.5%), and ulcerative colitis 5 (8.2%). 39 out of 61 cases (63.9%) received either a cytotoxic or immune modulating agent for AID, compared to 64/122 (52.5%) in the control group; p=0.140. 7/61 cases (11.5%) received both a cytotoxic and immune modulating agent as compared to 16/122 (13.1%) in controls; p=0.753. Overall, the case population received more agents than controls. No cytotoxic or immune-modulating treatment was documented in 16% of cases and 36% controls. Exposures to cytotoxic and immune-modulating agents were similar in both case and control cohorts. Exposure time was not statistically significant. Azathioprine was the only statistically significant agent exposure observed more often in the case cohort than control. Per SEER data, over a 10-year period in a general age-matched population that is comparable to our AID population cohort, we would expect 54 MDS and 35 AML cases. Table 1. Exposures and Timeline Cases (n=61) Controls (n=122) P value * Number of Systemic Agents, Total None 1 2 3 4+ - 10 (16.4%) 26 (42.6%) 12 (19.7%) 7 (11.5%) 6 (9.8%) - 44 (36.1%) 32 (26.2%) 31 (25.4%) 9 (7.4%) 6 (4.9%) 0.020 Exposure to Cytotoxic agent < 1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more Unknown (n=26) 7 (26.9%) 6 (23.1%) 5 (19.2%) 3 (11.5%) 5 (19.2%) (n=43) 5 (11.6%) 8 (18.6%) 6 (13.9%) 12 (27.9%) 12 (27.9%) 0.276 Exposure to Immune modulating agent < 1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11 years or more Unknown (n=20) 6 (30%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%) 4 (20%) (n=37) 6 (16.2%) 10 (27.0%) 5 (13.5%) 3 (8.1%) 13 (35.1%) 0.661 Table 2. Treatments and Odds Ratio Odds Ratio 95% CI for OR P value * Cytotoxic OVERALLAzathioprine Cyclophosphamide Methotrexate Mitoxantrone 6-MP Mycophenolate 1.39 4.16 1.28 0.74 2.73 1.00 1.21 0.72, 2.67 1.29, 13.44 0.24, 6.89 0.29, 1.88 0.23, 33.0 0.23, 4.35 0.28, 5.21 0.322 0.017 0.773 0.528 0.429 0.999 0.803 Immune modulating agent OVERALLAnti-TNF Leflunomide Plaquenil 1.19 0.73 2.00 2.73 0.52, 2.73 0.24, 2.24 0.40, 9.91 0.80, 8.33 0.672 0.585 0.396 0.077 Discussion Treatment of AID does not seem to increase the incidence of MDS or AML. Furthermore, the incidence of myeloid neoplasm occurring in association with treatment of AID is not higher than expected in the general SEER population. However, the case cohort was exposed to more agents overall and more likely to have exposure to azathioprine than controls. Limitations of our study are associated with its retrospective nature, possible associated underrepresentation of t-MN, and autoimmune population profile. Nevertheless, this is the largest case study with detailed drug exposures with timelines for pts with AID, contributing to a better understanding regarding possible risk of developing MDS/AML in pts treated for AID. Confirmation of the same study at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida are ongoing. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 127 Two- and three-drug regimens incorporating bortezomib (Velcade®, Vc), lenalidomide (Revlimid®, Rev), dexamethasone (Dex), and cyclophosphamide (Cy) (Vc–Dex, Rev–Dex, Vc–Dex–Rev [VDR], and Vc–Dex–Cy [VDC]), have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Combining Vc and Dex with Rev and Cy in a novel four-drug regimen (VDCR) may result in even greater activity with improved quality and duration of response. Results from the phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the multi-center EVOLUTION study showed that the VDCR regimen is a highly active and generally well-tolerated induction therapy in previously untreated MM patients (pts). Here we report the efficacy and safety of VDR, VDC, and VDCR from the non-comparative phase 2 portion of the study. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive up to eight 21-d cycles of VDR (Vc 1.3 mg/m2 d 1, 4, 8, 11; Dex 40 mg d 1, 8, 15; Rev 25 mg d 1–14) or VDC (VD as in VDR, plus Cy 500 mg/m2 d 1, 8) or VDCR (VDC plus Rev 15 mg d 1–14) as induction therapy, followed by Vc 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 42-d maintenance cycles in all treatment arms. Pts received prophylactic antibiotics, acyclovir, transfusion support, and anticoagulants as required. Eligible pts wishing to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2, and undergo ASCT any time after cycle 4. Response categories were based on the IMWG Criteria with the addition of near complete response (nCR). Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the CTCAE v3.0. Results: In the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms 42, 32, and 43 pts (including 6 pts treated at the maximum planned dose of Cy (500 mg/m2) from phase 1) have been treated, and 42, 31, and 33 are evaluable for response, respectively, as of data cut-off (31 July 2009). Median ages in the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms were 60, 62, and 62 years, respectively; 62%, 63%, and 66% had International Staging System stage lI/III disease, and 38%, 25%, and 33% had Karnofsky Performance Status ≤80%, respectively. The median number of VDR, VDC, and VDCR cycles received is 4.5, 6, and 4, respectively (range 1–12). Best unconfirmed response rates are shown in the Table; patients categorized as very good partial response (VGPR) include those who have no measurable M-protein but have not yet had bone marrow assessments to confirm CR/nCR status. The overall rates of treatment-emergent AEs were 95%, 97%, and 88% for the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms, respectively, with ≥grade 3 reported in 67%, 59%, and 65%. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was reported as grade 2/3 in 12%/12% in the VDR, 31%/3% in the VDC, and 12%/9% in the VDCR arms; there was no grade 4 PN reported. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 5%/5%, 28%/13%, and 23%/9% of pts in the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 5%/2%, 9%/0%, and 5%/0% of pts, respectively. One case of grade 3 deep-vein thrombosis was reported in the VDCR arm. Overall rates of serious AEs were 24%, 13%, and 37% in the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms, respectively. Two pts have died in the VDCR arm, both due to renal failure, considered possibly treatment-related. To date, 6 pts have undergone ASCT in the VDR arm, 5 in the VDC arm, and 3 in the VDCR arm. Median CD34+ yield was 4.7, 6.3, and 6.8 × 106/kg in the VDR, VDC, and VDCR arms, respectively. Conclusions: VDR, VDC, and VDCR are highly active and generally well-tolerated regimens in previously untreated MM. Response rates in the VDCR arm appeared somewhat higher than in the VDR and VDC arms at this early time point, although there also appeared to be higher rates of serious AEs, including possible treatment-related mortality in the VDCR arm. Following an interim analysis, dosing in the VDC arm was modified to include Cy on day 15 to examine if this will improve CR rates. Ten pts have been enrolled to date. Disclosures: Kumar: CELGENE: Research Funding; MILLENNIUM: Research Funding; BAYER: Research Funding; GENZYME: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Milennium Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millenium: Research Funding. Noga:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria. Raje:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Rifkin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau. Shi:Millennium Pharmaceutical Inc.: Employment. Webb:Millennium: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 308 Introduction: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has previously reported the superior 1 and 2 year survival of Ld versus LD as initial therapy in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). The 1 year and 2 year OS for Ld vs LD were 96% and 85% vs 88% and 78%, (p < 0.01), respectively. This despite higher ORR in LD vs Ld (79% vs 68%; p = 0.008). The difference in OS was predominantly due to early death in the LD group (5% vs 0.5%; p = 0.003). As a result of this analysis, Ld is now considered the standard of care. However, it should be noted that the majority of these deaths occurred in pts > 65. In this analysis, we evaluated the impact of age on dexamethasone dose intensity and OS. Methods: 445 pts were randomly assigned: 223 to LD and 222 to Ld. Pts were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis for OS. The pts were analyzed by age in 2 groups: < 65 and > 65 (the age corresponding to transplant eligibility outside the US). The pts > 65 were then further subdivided into >70 and > 75 yrs. Results are expressed as OS probability at 1 and 2 years post randomization. In addition, to eliminate the early death ‘penalty’ in the LD group in the original analysis, a landmark analysis was performed at 4 months. Results: Overall Survival Probability: Intent-to Treat Analysis Overall Survival Probability: 4 month Landmark Analysis Conclusions: As previously reported, OS in the trial at 1 and 2 years was superior with Ld. OS was not superior with LD compared with Ld in any age group despite a higher response rate. This was true even when using a landmark analysis to eliminate the 5% early deaths seen in the first 4 months of treatment. We conclude the following: 1) LD is not definitively superior to Ld in any age group; 2) Given the higher toxicity in the absence of a clear survival benefit with LD, Ld remains the best choice for all ages. This analysis confirms the original opinion that low-dose dexamethasone is the standard of care for all newly diagnosed MM pts, regardless of age. Disclosures: Vesole: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centorcor-Ortho-Biotech: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front-line therapy in multiple myeloma. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Intellikine: Consultancy. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: I-131-CLR1404 is a novel radioiodinated therapeutic that exploits the selective uptake and retention of phospholipid ethers (PLEs) by malignant cells. Based on initial preclinical and clinical experience and the exquisite radiosensitivity of MM, I-131-CLR1404 is being examined in RRMM in an open-label, dose escalation Phase 1 trial (NCT02278315) evaluating up to 5 cohorts and a maximum of 37.5 mCi/m2. Methods: The primary objective is to determine safety and tolerability of I-131-CLR1404 with and without dexamethasone (dex) in RRMM. Secondary objectives are to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) and therapeutic activity in RRMM. Eligibility criteria include progressive, relapsed/refractory MM, and at least one previous exposure to proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory (IMiD) drugs. Prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and external beam radiation therapy are allowed (≤ 20% of total marrow irradiated). There is no limit to the number of prior therapies. I-131-CLR1404 is administered intravenously as a single 30 minute infusion on day 1 with 40 mg dex orally weekly for 12 weeks. Dose-escalation uses a minimally modified, standard 3+3 schema with dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) assessed through day 85 post-infusion. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03; responses are assessed by the International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria. Results: Ten patients have been enrolled in the study with data presented as of 30 Jun 2016 for 8 patients. Accrual is ongoing in the additional cohorts. Five patients were enrolled to cohort 1 (12.5 mCi/m2 + dex); 4 were evaluable and 1 patient was taken off study for rapid disease progression. Five patients have been enrolled to cohort 2 (18.75 mCi/m2 + dex), with data presented on 3 enrolled prior to data cutoff. The median age was 68.5 (range 55-85) and included 5 males and 3 females. All patients were standard risk (karyotyping) and median bone marrow plasma cell involvement was 25% (range 4-50%). Median number of prior therapies was 4 (range 2-12) (Table 1). Four of 8 patients previously underwent ASCT and 25% were previously treated with radiation therapy. Hematologic AEs (grade 3+) and non-hematologic AEs (grade 2+) potentially related to study drug are shown in Table 1. No difference in the toxicity profile was noted for patients with previous radiation therapy. Two serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported, both in patients treated with 18.75 mCi/m2 I-131-CLR1404. One patient was hospitalized for a seizure (Day 62), assessed as unrelated to study drug and another patient was hospitalized for a grade 1 upper GI bleed in the setting of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (Day 23). This is believed to be the result of rapidly progressive disease, however relationship to I-131-CLR1404 could not be ruled out. Stable disease was achieved in 100% of evaluable patients (n=7). One subject in cohort 1 demonstrated a > 30% reduction in serum m-protein. Figure 1 provides a summary of percent change in serum free light chain assay (FLC) from baseline. Three patients had a reduction in FLC > 50%, 2 in cohort 1 and 1, to date, in cohort 2. Three patients had a stable FLC response through at least 22 days following treatment and 1 subject was unresponsive with regard to FLC. Median follow-up is 6.8 months (range 1.2-14.2). Patients did not receive subsequent systemic therapy for a median of 3.5 months (range 0.6-4.7). Furthermore, 1 subject in cohort 2 maintains stable disease and has not initiated subsequent treatment. Median progression free survival (PFS) is 3 months and included 4 patients with stable disease at the end of the 85 day study follow-up. In patients with progression after I-131-CLR1404, treatment included daratumumab (n=4), ASCT (n=1), and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dex (VRD) (n=1). Conclusions: I-131-CLR1404 represents a unique, first in class targeted radiotherapeutic for MM. Preliminary data from this trial show an acceptable and expected safety profile with an efficacy signal in the initial 2 of a potential 5 cohorts. All evaluable patients, despite extensive previous therapy and refractoriness to new therapies, achieved disease stabilization. The study is ongoing to determine the RP2D and long term efficacy. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Oliver:Cellectar Biosciences: Employment.

Abstract Aim: A phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 months, with the null hypothesis being that the response rates in the two 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. All analysis were performed on an intent to treat basis. An independent DMC recommended release of study results. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 17 months. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities, including DVT/PE and infections, were significantly higher in the high dose dex arm (see Table). Overall survival (OS) at the second pre-planned interim analysis was significantly superior with lenalidomide plus low dose dex, P<0.001; one year survival 96% (Rd) versus 87% (RD). The 18 month survival rate is 91% versus 80%, respectively. OS differences in favor of the low dose dex arm were seen in pts <65 (P=0.022; one year rate 97% vs 92%) as well as pts 65 and older (P=0.002; one year rate 94% vs 83%), respectively. Sixty-one patients have died; 42 in the RD arm and 16 in Rd arm. The cause of death has been verified by detailed chart review in 38 patients. Of 29 verified deaths in the RD arm, 13 were due to disease progression, 6 thrombosis/embolism, 3 infection, 3 cardiac ischemia, 1 stroke, and 1 respiratory failure. Of 9 verified deaths in the Rd arm, 5 were due to disease progression, 2 infection, 1 thrombosis/embolism, and 1 cardiac arrest. Response rate data are expected to be available at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM. The increased mortality in Arm A is due to disease progression (myeloma deaths) as well as increased toxicity. This study has major implications for the use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM. Major Grade 3 or Higher Adverse Events Toxicity Arm A % Arm B % P value Neutropenia 10 19 0.01 DVT/PE 25 9 <0.001 Infections 16 6 <0.001 Any grade 3 or higher non-hematologic 49 32 <0.001 Any grade 4 or higher non-hematologic 20 9 <0.001 Deaths in first 4 months 5 0.5 0.006

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.