Citations

Abstract Background Prognosis is poor for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; median overall survival: <1 year), indicating a clear need to identify agents with novel mechanisms of action. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) has recently emerged as a novel treatment target for MM due to its highly selective expression in plasma cells. TNB-383B, a BCMA x CD3 T-cell engaging bispecific antibody, was designed to overcome the toxicity limitations of existing BCMA therapies and has demonstrated promising results in an ongoing first-in-human phase 1 study in pts with RRMM (Rodriguez C, et al. Blood 2020;136[suppl 1]:43-44). Herein, we report the updated efficacy and safety outcomes of this phase 1 study. Methods This multicenter, phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation/expansion study (NCT03933735) enrolled pts with RRMM (≥3 prior lines of therapy that included a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min as calculated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula, and ECOG performance status ≤2. Prior BCMA-targeted therapy is prohibited. Primary objectives include safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); secondary objectives include assessment of clinical activity (per IMWG criteria 2016). TNB-383B is administered intravenously over 1-2 hours every 3 weeks (Q3W) with the first dose administered inpatient. The study uses a 3+3 design with backfilling for dose and permits intrapatient dose escalation to highest safe dose. Dose expansion was initiated on selection of RP2D. Pts are treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria are met. The efficacy-evaluable population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of TNB-383B and have at least 1 postdose assessment. The safety population includes all pts who received at least 1 dose of study drug; adverse events (AEs) are graded according to NCI CTCAE v5.0. Results As of 10 May 2021, 103 pts (dose escalation, n=73; dose expansion, n=30) have been treated with TNB-383B (0.025-120 mg). The RP2D of 60 mg Q3W was selected on the basis of tolerability, safety, PK, and clinical activity. Pt demographics and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in dose escalation (platelet count decreased: grade [Gr] 4, 60 mg; cytokine release syndrome [CRS]: Gr 3, 90 mg and 120 mg); none were reported as serious. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 79 (77%) pts, with Gr ≥3 and serious AEs occurring in 33 (32%) and 23 (22%) pts, respectively. The most common TRAEs (Table 2) include CRS (n=54, 52%), neutropenia (n=18, 17%), and fatigue (n=14, 14%). At the RP2D (n=39), the Gr ≥3 CRS rate was 3% (n=1). Onset of CRS typically occurred on the same or next day following the first dose and all pts recovered using tocilizumab or standard supportive care measures. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) of infusion-related reactions were reported in 8 (8%) pts and infections occurred in 29 (28%) pts; pneumonia (n=5, 5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (n=4, 4%) were the most common. Five deaths from TEAEs were reported; all were unrelated to study drug. Forty-two (40%) pts discontinued treatment due to disease progression. In the dose-escalation cohorts of ≥40 mg Q3W (n=24), the objective response rate (ORR) was 79% (19/24), with a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate of 63% (15/24), and a complete response (CR) rate of 29% (7/24) at the data cutoff date; these pts have the longest follow-up (ie, mature data) with median time on study of 6.1 months (Figure 1). At doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation and -expansion cohorts (n=44), the observed ORR, ≥VGPR, and CR rates were 64% (28/44), 43% (19/44), and 16% (7/44), respectively; these pts have shorter follow-up (ie, immature data) with median time on study of 3.1 months. Twenty-nine (66%) of the 44 pts administered ≥40 mg were triple-class refractory and reported an ORR of 55% (16/29). Conclusions TNB-383B in pts with RRMM is well tolerated with an ORR of 79% observed at doses ≥40 mg in the dose-escalation cohorts. Despite having a shorter follow-up period, this trend was also observed at doses ≥40 mg in the combined dose-escalation/expansion cohorts (ORR: 64%). Enrollment into the dose-expansion arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. D'Souza: Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy. Shah: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Nektar: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Rodriguez: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Voorhees: AbbVie Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Consulting Agreement: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Committee; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring. Bueno: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Buelow: Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Freise: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Yue: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pothacamury: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Polepally: Abbvie, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria.

Abstract The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has evolved considerably over the last 20 years with the development of multiple therapies with novel mechanisms of action and new combination regimens. However, the recent failure of several large phase III trials, coupled with an increased understanding of the mutational landscape of multiple myeloma has provided opportunities to explore optimal strategies for future multiple myeloma drug development. The Office of Oncologic Diseases at the FDA held an educational symposium, “Drug Development in MM-Project 2025,” in November 2019. The symposium brought together select U.S.-based academic thought leaders in the field of multiple myeloma to explore issues relevant to regulatory science in the field, including considerations for trial design, combination strategies, control arms, and precision medicine. This article summarizes the highlights of this educational symposium held at the FDA, including discussions on the future development of novel drugs and drug combinations and biomarker-directed therapies for patients with multiple myeloma.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) includes a group of rare and heterogeneous disorders with characteristic lymph node histopathological abnormalities. CD can occur in a single lymph node station, which is referred to as unicentric CD (UCD). CD can also involve multicentric lymphadenopathy and inflammatory symptoms (multicentric CD [MCD]). MCD includes human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8)–associated MCD, POEMS-associated MCD, and HHV-8−/idiopathic MCD (iMCD). The first-ever diagnostic and treatment guidelines were recently developed for iMCD by an international expert consortium convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN). The focus of this report is to establish similar guidelines for the management of UCD. To this purpose, an international working group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened to establish consensus recommendations based on review of treatment in published cases of UCD, the CDCN ACCELERATE registry, and expert opinion. Complete surgical resection is often curative and is therefore the preferred first-line therapy, if possible. The management of unresectable UCD is more challenging. Existing evidence supports that asymptomatic unresectable UCD may be observed. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab should be considered for unresectable UCD patients with an inflammatory syndrome. Unresectable UCD that is symptomatic as a result of compression of vital neighboring structures may be rendered amenable to resection by medical therapy (eg, rituximab, steroids), radiotherapy, or embolization. Further research is needed in UCD patients with persisting constitutional symptoms despite complete excision and normal laboratory markers. We hope that these guidelines will improve outcomes in UCD and help treating physicians decide the best therapeutic approach for their patients.

Background: BCMA targeted immunotherapy has yielded promising results for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). TNB-383B is a BCMA x CD3 bispecific T-cell redirecting antibody incorporating a unique anti-CD3 moiety that preferentially activates effector over regulatory T-cells and uncouples cytokine release from anti-tumor activity, as well as 2 heavy-chain-only anti-BCMA moieties for a 2:1 tumor associated antigen to CD3 stoichiometry. Results from the ongoing phase 1 dose escalation and expansion First-in-Human (FIH) study of TNB-383B are presented (NCT03933735). Methods: Eligible patients have RRMM and have been exposed to at least 3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Patients have been treated with escalating doses of TNB-383B infused IV over 1-2 hours Q3W (without step-up dosing). The primary objectives are to determine the safety/tolerability and clinical pharmacology of TNB-383B and to identify the MTD/RP2D. The study used a 3+3 design for dose escalation, with additional patients enrolled on cleared dose levels. Patients on earlier dose cohorts were allowed to increase to the highest cleared dose with investigator consensus. Responses were assessed by IMWG criteria and Adverse Events (AEs) were graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment was performed via NGS on bone marrow samples in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Results: As of 13 July 2020, 38 subjects have been dosed with TNB-383B (0.025 - 40 mg). Demographics and disease characteristics at study entry are summarized in Table 1. The most common Gr 3/4 AEs were anemia (6/38; 16%) and thrombocytopenia (5/38; 13%). The most common drug-related AEs were CRS (8/38; 21%) and headache (5/38; 13%). One case of Gr 2 CRS was observed at 0.075 mg; all other CRS events were seen at 5.4 mg and above. Cases of CRS were grade 1 (5/8) or 2 (3/8) and occurred only after the first dose of TNB-383B. All but 3 subjects were managed with fluids and acetaminophen (the other 3 received 1 dose each of tocilizumab). One DLT, Gr3 confusion that resolved within 6 hours without sequelae was seen at the 20 mg dose in an additional patient enrolled on this cohort. No IRRs were observed. Dose modification was necessary in 1 subject for Gr 3 neutropenia associated with CRS; the subject escalated to their full dose after tolerating subsequent doses without incident. 5 subjects died from their underlying disease during follow-up. 15 subjects discontinued treatment, all of them for progressive disease. Preliminary PK data support Q3W dosing of TNB-383B. Activity was observed in one patient each at 0.2 mg and 1.8 mg; at doses of 5.4 - 40 mg an ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed. Depth and duration of response are summarized in Table 2. Conclusions: TNB-383B is well tolerated at doses up to 40 mg, without the need for step/split dosing. A preliminary ORR of 52% (12/23) was observed at doses ≥ 5.4 mg, including deep (6 PR / 3 VGPR / 3 CR) and durable (up to 24 weeks) responses despite dosing only every 3 weeks. Enrollment into the dose escalation arm is ongoing; updated data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Rodriguez: BMS, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. D'Souza:Amgen: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Voorhees:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Personal fees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptides: Other: Personal fees; TeneoBio: Other: Personal fees; Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health: Current Employment. Buelow:Teneobio, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Kumar:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

8507 Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but those with high risk MM (HRMM) have a poor long-term prognosis. To date, no trials have addressed optimal treatment for these patients. Methods: S1211 is a randomized phase II trial (NCT01668719) comparing 8 cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance until disease progression with or without elotuzumab. Stem cell collection was allowed, but ASCT was deferred until progression. HRMM was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high-risk (GEPhi), t(14; 16), t(14; 20), del(17p) or amplification 1q21, primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) and elevated serum LDH (> 2X ULN). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.1. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) and OS. Response was assessed using the IMWG 2009 criteria. Results: S1211 enrolled 103 evaluable patients, RVd n = 54, RVd-Elo n = 49. 75% had ISS II/III, 47% amp1q21, 38% del17p, 12% t(14; 16), 9% GEPhi, 7% pPCL, 5% t(14; 20) and 4% elevated serum LDH (18.5% > 1 feature). With median follow-up of 53 months (mos.), no difference in median PFS was observed [RVd-Elo = 31 mos., RVd = 34 mos.,HR = 0.968 (80% CI = 0.697-1.344), p = 0.449]. No difference in OS was observed [RVd-Elo = 68 mos, RVd = not reached, HR = 1.279 (80% CI: 0.819, 2.000), p-value = 0.478]. 72% pts had > Grade 3 AEs, no differences in the safety profile were observed except >Grade 3 infections (RVd 8%, RVd-Elo 16%), >Grade 3 sensory neuropathy (RVd 8%, RVd-Elo 13%). Conclusions: In the first randomized HRMM study reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, the PFS and OS seen in both arms of the study exceeded the original statistical assumptions and support the role for PI/IMiD combination maintenance therapy for this patient population. The S1211 data will serve as an important benchmark for future HRMM clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01668719 .

Abstract Purpose: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved tremendously and optimal utilization of available therapies will ensure maximal patient benefits. Patients and Methods: We report the Southwest Oncology Group randomized phase II trial (S1304) comparing twice weekly low-dose (27 mg/m2; arm 1) to high-dose carfilzomib (56 mg/m2; arm 2), both with dexamethasone, administered for 12 cycles (11 months) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with up to six prior lines of therapy (NCT01903811). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and patients on arm 1 could cross-over to arm 2 after progression on treatment. Results: Among 143 enrolled patients, of whom 121 were eligible and analyzable, the overall response rate was 42.8%, with no significant difference between the arms (P = 0.113). Also, neither the median PFS [5 months and 8 months, respectively; HR, 1.061; 80% Wald confidence interval (CI), 0.821–1.370; P = 0.384] nor the median overall survival were significantly different (26 and 22 months, respectively; HR, 1.149, 80% Wald CI, 0.841–.571; P = 0.284). Sixteen patients crossed over to arm 2 with a median PFS benefit of 3 months. Certain adverse events (AE) were more frequent in arm 2, including fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy, but there was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary AEs. Conclusions: This randomized trial did not support a benefit of fixed duration, twice weekly 56 mg/m2 dosing of carfilzomib over the 27 mg/m2 dose for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. However, treatment to progression in earlier patient populations with high-dose carfilzomib using different schedules should still be considered as part of the standard of care.

TPS8057 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most prevalent blood cancer, representing approximately 1% of all cancers. Although overall survival has improved in recent years due to new approved agents, the vast majority of MM patients (pts) ultimately stop responding to treatment. Moreover, about a quarter of MM pts characterized as “high risk” experience limited benefit from existing treatments. Seminal genomic sequencing research efforts, such as the MMRF CoMMpass study, have highlighted that a large number of MM cases harbor potentially actionable oncogenic molecular alterations and published reports on small numbers of cases suggest that Precision Medicine (PM) interventions clinically targeting such actionable drivers may benefit MM pts. These results suggest that PM approaches in MM are possible and should be further studied clinically. To that end, we have launched MyDRUG, a master protocol aimed at developing new myeloma regimens based on individual pt’s genomics. Methods: This study is a Phase I-II, multicenter master protocol in functional high risk MM patients (i.e patients having progressed from baseline treatment within 18 months without maintenance or 3 years on maintenance) with 1-3 prior lines of therapy. Patients are screened for actionable genomic alterations on the CLIA-grade MI-ONCOSEQ platform. Patients with actionable alterations are assigned to the appropriate targeted agent used in combination with a backbone regimen ixazomib, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IPd), whereas patients without such alterations go on an immune arm (see Table). Inclusion criteria include measurable disease (as measured by M-protein and FLC) and acceptable hematologic and metabolic functions. A maximum of 12 evaluable pts will be accrued onto the phase I portion of each arm and an additional 21 evaluable phase II pts will be accrued onto each arm for a total of 27 evaluable pts at the MTD combination dose. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate ORR per IMWG consensus criteria. Secondary objectives are to assess adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Experimental correlative aims include assessing molecular or clonal response, molecular and immune signatures of resistance/response, MRD. Clinical trial information: NCT03732703. [Table: see text]

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) represents an important therapeutic advance for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Nonetheless, patients with lenalidomide (Len) and bortezomib (double) refractory disease have a median progression-free survival of only 3.7 months with the combination, thus highlighting the need for further progress. Ixazomib, a novel, oral proteasome inhibitor, has pharmacodynamic properties that may allow for improved proteasome inhibition at the tumoral level and has synergistic activity in combination with IMiDs in preclinical MM models. Clinical studies have demonstrated activity as a single agent in relapsed/refractory MM and in combination with Len-Dex in newly diagnosed patients. We therefore evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of Pom, ixazomib and Dex in patients with Len and proteasome inhibitor (PI) refractory MM in the phase I portion of Alliance study A061202. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included: relapsed or relapsed/refractory disease; ≥2 prior lines of therapy; double refractory disease (progression on or ≤60 days from the last dose of a Len- and PI-based therapy); ECOG performance status (PS) ≤2; absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109/L, platelets ≥50 x 109/L, creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min; and ≤grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. Patients were treated with escalating doses of Pom and ixazomib utilizing a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with standard dose Dex (Table 1). Patients received 2 - 4 mg of Pom on days 1 - 21; ixazomib 3 - 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15; and Dex 40 mg (20 mg for those >75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Out of 17 evaluable patients, the median age was 64 (range 47 - 77) and the median time from diagnosis 5.5 years (range 3.3 - 8.3). Sixty-five percent, 24% and 12% had ISS stage 1, 2 and 3 disease at the start of treatment, respectively, and 65% had high-risk cytogenetics (gain of 1q, del[17p] and/or high-risk IgH translocation). All patients had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 (59% and 41%, respectively). Of 14 patients with complete prior treatment data available, 100% had received prior Len, bortezomib and Dex, 71% alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide or low dose melphalan), 71% autologous stem cell transplant and 29% carfilzomib. Eighty-two percent were refractory to sequential Len- and bortezomib regimens, whereas 6% were refractory to a prior Len/proteasome inhibitor combination (12% not reported). Two dose limiting toxicities have occurred to date, 1 each at dose levels 3 and 4 (Table 1). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia attributable to protocol therapy have been seen in 29%/6%, 12%/6% and 29%/0% of patients, respectively. Twelve percent of patients have experienced grade 3 infection, regardless of attribution, but none have experienced ≥grade 4 infection. The incidence of therapy-related peripheral neuropathy was 24%, none of which was ≥grade 3 in severity. Other common, therapy-related adverse events have included fatigue (53%), nausea (24%), constipation (18%), diarrhea (29%), rash (18%), tremor (24%), anxiety (18%), insomnia (29%) and edema (24%), all of which were ≤grade 2 in severity. Fifty-three percent of patients had at least 1 of the 3 medications dose reduced, and 35% experienced dose delays. To date, 1 patient has discontinued therapy due to adverse events and 1 due to refusal of further therapy. Of 13 patients receiving >1 cycle of therapy, the best overall response rate was 62% (7 partial responses, 1 very good partial response). CONCLUSIONS: The Pom, ixazomib and Dex combination has demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile thus far with encouraging preliminary efficacy. Updated results of the phase I portion of the study will be presented at the meeting, including the maximum tolerated dose that will be used in the randomized, phase II portion of the study, in which the 3-drug combination will be compared with Pom-Dex in double refractory MM patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004275. Supported by U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Table 1. Dose Level Pomalidomide Dose (mg) Ixazomib Dose (mg) DLT Evaluable DLTs 1 2 3 3 None 2 3 3 3 None 3 4 3 6 1 febrile neutropenia 4‡ 4 4 4 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting 8 days ‡enrollment into dose level 4 is complete. Disclosures Voorhees: Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: We will discuss the use of Ixazomib, an agent that is not FDA approved, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma.. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:It has been well documented that each additional line of treatment is associated with lower rates of deeper responses, shorter duration of treatment, and increased rates of toxicities/comorbidities in patients with multiple myeloma (MM; Yong K, et al. Br J Haematol 2016. 175[2]:252–264). These factors contribute to treatment discontinuation and impact the proportion of patients reaching subsequent lines of therapy.Aims:To characterize the rate of therapy attrition at relapse for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) who are transplant eligible in the United States.Methods:Patients with NDMM were identified from 3 US patient‐level data sources: the OPTUM™ Commercial Claims database (period: January 2000–March 2017), the OPTUM™ Electronic Medical Records (EMR) database (period: January 2007–March 2016), and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare Linked database (period: January 2007–December 2014). Patients had 1) an index MM diagnosis on or after 1 January 2007, 2) medical prescription coverage in place at diagnosis, 3) no prior malignancies in the one‐year period prior to index diagnosis, 4) a one‐year look‐back period prior to index diagnosis, and 5) received ≥1 lines of therapy. Patients were considered transplant eligible if they received stem cell transplantation anytime during the follow‐up period. Baseline characteristics including comorbidities, index age, frontline treatment regimens and attrition rates at each subsequent line of therapy were characterized. Attrition was defined as the percentage of patients who did not have any recorded subsequent MM treatments as a result of death or lost to follow‐up in the database for any reason, including end of the database.Results:A total of 1,599 patients were included in this analysis. Baseline patient characteristics and pre‐existing comorbidities are summarized in Table 1. The induction regimens used as frontline treatments included bortezomib/dexamethasone (22%), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (13%), bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (25%), all other bortezomib combinations (20%), and other (20%). The proportions of patients observed to progress to each subsequent line of therapy are summarized in Table 2. In total, 77% of patients received a second line of therapy, and only 55% received a third line treatment. The proportion of patients not receiving a subsequent line of therapy due to death is also summarized by lines of therapy in Table 2.Summary/Conclusion:A substantial number of patients with NDMM who are transplant eligible did not receive subsequent lines of therapy, with attrition by lines of therapy ranging from 23–40%. The increase in attrition rates with each additional line of therapy underscores the need to utilize upfront therapy associated with optimal progression‐free survival. Further studies evaluating the etiologic basis for this unexpectedly high attrition rate are warranted.image