Citations

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have become refractory to bortezomib (BORT) and refractory or otherwise ineligible for thalidomide or lenalidomide (LEN) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 9 months (Kumar. Leukemia. 2012). There is no standard treatment available for these patients. Pomalidomide (POM) is a novel immunomodulatory drug that has shown activity in LEN- and BORT-refractory patients (Vij. ASCO 2012). MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) vs high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in a population of patients who are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Here we present the final progression-free survival (PFS) and interim OS analysis of MM-003. Methods: Eligible patients with primary refractory or relapsed and refractory disease were enrolled. All patients with documented disease progression during treatment or within 60 days of completing their last myeloma therapy (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of LEN and BORT either alone or in combination), were randomized 2:1 to receive either POM + LoDEX (arm A) or HiDEX alone (arm B). Patients progressing on HiDEX had the opportunity to receive POM in the companion trial, MM-003C. Patients in arm A received POM 4 mg on days 1–21 and DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Patients in arm B received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by age (≤ 75 vs > 75 years), disease population (refractory vs refractory and relapsed vs refractory and intolerant [intolerant to BORT only]), and number of prior therapies (2 vs > 2). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included safety, OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response) by IMWG and EBMT criteria, duration of response, time to progression, and quality of life. OS was to be tested only if PFS would be statistically significant; therefore, alpha was controlled at 0.05 2-sided for both PFS and OS. Results: The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the protocol-specified final analysis results. 455 patients were randomized from March 2011 to Sept 2012. 302 patients received POM + LoDEX, and 153 patients received HiDEX. At the time of analysis, 45% of patients in arm A and 25% of patients in arm B remained on study. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1–17). 72% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BORT. At the PFS final analysis, with a median follow-up of 18 weeks, PFS was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median 15.7 vs 8.0 weeks; 267 total events; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P <.001). OS interim analysis was performed as planned; OS also was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median not reached vs 34 weeks; 134 events; HR, 0.53; P<.001), crossing the prespecified O’brien-Fleming superiority boundary. This includes 45 pts who received POM after progressing on HiDEX. Median duration of treatment was 12.4 weeks in arm A and 8 weeks in arm B. Following DSMB review of the data, immediate crossover of arm B patients to arm A was recommended. Overall, 25% of patients in arm A and 38% in arm B died, with progressive disease and infections as the primary reasons. Frequent grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (42% in arm A vs 15% in arm B), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 24%), and febrile neutropenia (7% vs 0%). Other toxicities (grade 3/4) were predominantly infections (24% vs 23%), hemorrhage (3% vs 5%), glucose intolerance (3% vs 7%), neuropathy (1% vs 1%), and venous thromboembolism (1% vs 0%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 35% arm A and 49% arm B. Complete results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly increased PFS and OS compared with HiDEX in patients who are refractory to LEN and BORT, a population with limited treatment options. The OS superiority boundary was crossed. Based on these data, POM + LoDEX should become the new standard of care in patients who have exhausted the novel agents, LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlin:Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 747 Background: Light chain amyloidosis is a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder characterized by multiorgan deposition of monoclonal light chain derived amyloid fibrils. The diffuse organ infiltration by the amyloid fibrils leads to various AL related clinical features. Therapy of AL has been primarily aimed at elimination or control of the monoclonal plasma cells, thus decreasing the light chain available for amyloid formation. Assessment of response to therapy has been grouped into hematological response demonstrating elimination or reduction of the monoclonal population and organ response demonstrating actual improvement in its structure or function. Given the potentially long delay in observing organ improvement, hematological response has been the surrogate short term marker for long term outcome given the relatively rapid decline seen in the monoclonal protein with effective therapy, as well as studies showing improved long term outcome with a hematological response, especially complete response. However, conventional hematological response criteria give priority to the intact monoclonal protein rather than the light chain, which is the amyloidogenic protein. We hypothesized that a light chain response will correlate better with outcome than changes in the intact monoclonal protein levels. Methods: We identified 348 patients who had undergone stem cell transplant (SCT) for AL from among a large group of patients undergoing different treatments for AL, and in whom serial tests results were available. We identified the lowest value attained following SCT for various hematological response parameters (intact serum M-protein [MP], the difference between involved and uninvolved serum free light chain [FLC-diff], and urine M-protein [UP]) before an alternate therapy was instituted. We first estimated the best cutoff for the degree of change in each parameter that predicted 5-year survival from SCT. Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis of factors influencing overall survival (OS). Results: We first examined the relative contribution of the MP and the FLC-diff on the overall survival following transplant. The best cutoff for reduction in FLC-diff to predict OS at 5 years from SCT was 88% if all patients were considered and 90% if only those with a baseline FLC diff > 7.5 mg/dL were considered. The best cutoff for MP reduction was 40% for 5 year survival for all patients and 67% for those with a baseline MP > 1.0 gm/dL. We then looked at the impact of FLC reduction and MP reduction in a multivariable analysis using OS as endpoint. For all patients, FLC reduction, but not MP reduction significantly impacted outcome, and results were similar when considering patients with MP>1.0 gm/dl and FLC-diff > 7.5 mg/dl at baseline. Among those with a baseline FLC-diff >7.5 mg/dL (n=125), the overall survival was 35 mos from SCT for those with less than 90% decrease in FLC-diff (45 pts) compared to not reached for those with at least 90% decrease (80 pts); P < 0.001 (Figure). Conclusions: The current study supports the notion that reductions in the free light chain parameters represent a more useful measure of hematological response that translates into better overall survival and possible better chance at organ improvement. A reduction in the FLC difference of 90% appears to correlate best with prolonged survival. Disclosures: Kumar: CELGENE: Research Funding; MILLENNIUM: Research Funding; BAYER: Research Funding; GENZYME: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding.

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.

Abstract Abstract 194 Background: Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are key components of treatment for hematologic malignancies, especially multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, we demonstrated that CRBN expression is the major mediator of IMiD action operating at least in part via interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4), however the clinical significance of this finding remains unclear. Methods: To better understand clinical impact, we retrospectively reviewed 148 MM patients whose tumor cells were tested for CRBN expression by Gene Expression Profiling (GEP) prior to treatment with an IMiD containing therapy. Results: GEP studies show no significant differences in CRBN expression between MGUS, smoldering MM (SMM), untreated symptomatic MM and normal plasma cells. However, differences were observed between MM cell lines of varying drug sensitivity to IMiDs and between other B-cell Neoplasia (eg low grade lymphoma has higher levels). Within the genetic subtypes of MM, levels were significantly higher for hyperdiploid patients (median 1.26) as opposed to significantly lower levels for TC class D2 (median 0.76) and average for the 4p16 (median 0.97). We next screened the University of Arkansas Medical School (UAMS) GEP database of MM patients treated with combination therapies and did not find significant correlation between CRBN expression and survival in this multi-agent regimen. We then focused on patients that received only single agent IMiD therapy with low dose dexamethasone. Review of the twelve lowest expressing patients demonstrated a lack of response to IMiDs in any patient. Finally we analyzed 53 relapsed or relapsed/refractory patients treated homogeneously in a study with pomalidomide 2–4mg daily and weekly dexamethasone 40mg. CRBN levels were assessed prior to therapy initiation. Response rates varied significantly based on gene expression level. The percentage of patients that demonstrated at least a partial response was 0% for CRBN <0.81, 19% for CRBN expression of 0.81–0.90, and 33% for CBN expression >0.9. Significant differences in PFS (3.0 months vs. 8.9 months, p = 0.0006) and in OS (9.1 months vs. 27.2 months, p = 0.01) were observed when the lowest quartile of CRBN expression was compared to the top three quartiles. Values used for the cut offs are as follows: (25%: 0.889687; 50%: 1.026542, 75%: 1.211133). While this study demonstrates a positive correlation between CRBN expression and response to pomalidomide and dexamethasone, an important caveat with respect to PFS and OS is that CRBN mRNA level is primarily a reflection of the number of copies of CRBN. Since focal deletions are uncommon, this mostly reflects chromosome 3p copy number. Since trisomy 3 is common in hyperdiploid, good prognosis disease, CRBN not only is required for IMiD function but higher levels also serve as a surrogate for low risk disease. Optimal gene expression cut offs for survival were determined using the Contal and O'Quigley method. The optimal cut point for PFS was 1.18443 and for OS was 1.17816. Conclusion: In summary, this study demonstrates, for the first time, a clinical correlation between CRBN expression and response to IMiD and dexamethasone therapy. CRBN expression is also predictive of survival outcomes and when quantified prior to therapy could potentially be utilized as a predictive biomarker for response to an IMiD based treatment. Disclosures: Stewart: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 1988 Background With the utilization of novel agent-based combination therapies and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM), the rigorous response category of stringent complete remission (sCR) in the international uniform response criteria is increasingly becoming attainable. In addition to the standard criteria for complete remission (CR), sCR requires normalization of the free light chain ratio and disappearance of clonal cells as determined by the marrow immunofluorescence or immunohistochemistry. We have previously validated the new response category of sCR created in by the International Myeloma Working Group and demonstrated that sCR represents a deeper level of response, translating into a superior OS. Herein we report the survival outcomes of patients attaining sCR or standard CR, from a 2-year landmark after ASCT in a cohort of patients with extended follow-up. Additionally, we report the outcome of patients who remained in sCR for at least 6 months (sustained-sCR) after ASCT. Patients and Methods Maximal response rates of four hundred and forty-five consecutive patients who underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis of MM were determined. The population achieving varying degrees of complete remission (n=237) is the focus of this study. We performed a landmark analysis 2 years after ASCT to ensure that all the patients attaining at least CR had sufficient time to reach the response levels being studied. Patients were categorized as having sustained sCR (sus-sCR) if the duration of sCR was at least 6 months. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by the Kaplan Meier method and the survival curves were compared by log-rank test. Results The median follow-up of the entire cohort was seventy-seven months (95% CI: 73–82 months). The sCR rate after ASCT was 24% (n=109). Median time to progression (TTP) of patients attaining sCR was 50 months from ASCT, and median overall survival (OS) is not reached, in contrast to those attaining standard CR (n=37, TTP=20 months, OS=81 months) or near CR/nCR (n=91; TTP= 19 months, OS=60 months, p<0.0001 for both TTP and OS). OS of patients surviving at least 2 years from ASCT (Figure 1a) continued to remain superior for those attaining sCR (n=105, median: not reached) versus 70 months for the CR group (n=32; p=0.004). Among patients achieving sCR (n=109), OS of patients with sus-sCR (n= 75) at 6 months from ASCT is not reached (5-year OS=91%, 7-year OS=86%) versus median OS of 66 months (5-year OS=49%, 7-year OS=37%; p<0.0001) for those who had non-sustained-sCR (n=34) after ASCT (Figure 1b). Conclusion In our landmark analysis of patients with MM who survived at least 2 years from ASCT, those attaining sCR have a markedly superior outcome compared to those attaining standard CR. However, among patients attaining sCR, those with sustained sCR of 6 months or greater had the best outcome. Myeloma trials reporting response rates should identify patients achieving sCR and CR separately owing to markedly disparate outcomes of the two categories. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.