Citations

Abstract Abstract 813FN2 Introduction: Carfilzomib is a next-generation proteasome inhibitor that selectively and irreversibly binds to its target, resulting in sustained inhibition absent of off-target effects relative to bortezomib. Carfilzomib has demonstrated durable anti-tumor activity and an acceptable tolerability profile in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Final results will be presented for the bortezomib-naïve group of PX-171-004, a phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Herein we report the most recent data analysis available at time of abstract submission. Updated final results for the bortezomib-naïve group of PX-171-004, including OS data, will be presented at the meeting. Methods: Patients received either 20 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles (Cohort 1) or a stepped-up dose-escalating regimen of 20 mg/m2 for Cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 for all treatment cycles thereafter (Cohort 2). Carfilzomib was administered over 2–10 minutes on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of every 28-day cycle, for a maximum of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was the best overall response rate (ORR; [CR + VGPR + PR]) determined according to the IMWG Uniform Response Criteria. Secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit response rate (CBR; [ORR + MR per EBMT criteria]), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), OS, and safety. The result of efficacy analysis from disease assessment by the Independent Review Committee is presented in this abstract. Results: 127 of 129 enrolled bortezomib-naïve patients were evaluable for response. Prior therapies included thalidomide (59%), lenalidomide (59%), alkylating agents (81%), and stem cell transplant (73%). Patients had received a median of 2 prior regimens (1 in 54 patients, 2 in 40 patients, 3 in 28 patients, and ≥4 in 7 patients). 84 patients (65%) were disease refractory to their most recent therapy, defined as ≤25% response or progression during or within 60 days after completion of therapy. The median duration of carfilzomib treatment is 7 cycles (range 1−12) in Cohort 1; 8 patients were receiving drug as of February 2011 in Cohort 2 with a median treatment of 6.5 cycles (range 1−13) at that time. Best ORR was 42% in Cohort 1 and 52% in Cohort 2. Median TTP was 8.3 months and median DOR was 13.1 months in Cohort 1. The median TTP and DOR for Cohort 2 have not been reached at the time of this interim analysis; the lower bound of the 95% CI for the median TTP was 10.2 months, and 84% were estimated to have DOR ≥1 year at the time of data cutoff. Higher response rates for Cohort 2 compared with Cohort 1 do not appear to be associated with higher toxicities. Patients with unfavorable cytogenetic characteristics (≥1 abnormality) per mSMART criteria had an ORR of 37% and CBR of 42% compared with 50% and 65%, respectively, for patients with no abnormality. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), regardless of relationship to carfilzomib in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively, were fatigue (71%, 54%), nausea (54%, 43%), anemia (46%, 37%), and dyspnea (49%, 33%). These were primarily ≤Grade 2 in severity. The most common Grade 3/4 AEs were anemia (15%), lymphopenia (15%), thrombocytopenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and neutropenia (12%). Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) was mild and infrequent (16%). Only 1 case of Grade 3 PN (0.8%) was observed. Overall, 38 patients (30%) completed 12 cycles and 22 of these patients continued to receive carfilzomib therapy under a safety extension protocol (PX-171-010), an ongoing, multicenter, open-label phase 2 study to monitor long-term use of single-agent carfilzomib. Conclusions: To date we have seen robust and durable single-agent activity for carfilzomib in bortezomib-naïve patients with relapsed and often refractory MM with an ORR of 42−52% and a CBR of 59−63% from 2 separate dose cohorts in a population wherein 92% received an immunomodulatry drug and 73% had undergone an autologous stem cell transplant previously. These data are suggestive of a dose–response relationship and are being further evaluated in the exploratory phase 1b/2 study PX-171-007. Carfilzomib was associated with minimal PN and excellent long-term tolerability, with nearly one-third of patients completing 12 cycles and 22 of these continuing treatment beyond 1 year in the extension protocol PX-171-010. Disclosures: Vij: Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Keryx: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; OrthoBiotec.Imedex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medicom World Wide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Optum Health Education: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allergan: Research Funding. Belch:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Gabrail:Millennium: Research Funding. Matous:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Orlowski:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kunkel:VLST biothech: Consultancy; Threshold: Consultancy; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract The JAK2V617F mutation is present in the majority of cases of myeloproliferative disease, including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), and is an attractive candidate for molecularly targeted therapy. However, the potential toxicities of JAK2 inhibition in vivo, and identification of appropriate surrogate endpoints for response, are challenges that may limit clinical usefulness in treatment of these relatively indolent diseases. We report efficacy and assessment of surrogate endpoints for response of a small molecule JAK2 inhibitor, TG101348 in a murine model of polycythemia vera. TG101348 is selective for JAK2 with an in vitro IC50 of ∼3 nM that is ∼334 fold more potent than for inhibition of JAK3. TG101348 showed therapeutic efficacy in the murine model of PV that included a statistically significant reduction in hematocrit, normalization of white blood cell count, a dose dependent reduction/elimination of extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen and liver, and marked attenuation of myelofibrosis. Consistent with its selective inhibition of JAK2 and not JAK3, there was no significant change in T-cell number in treated animals. These clinical responses correlated with surrogate endpoints for response, including reduction or elimination of JAK2V617F expressing clones based on quantitative genomic PCR, suppression of JAK2V617F positive endogenous erythroid colony growth of JAK2V617F MPD bone marrow, and inhibition of JAK-STAT signal transduction as assessed by phosphoflow cytometry for phosphorylated STAT5. Thus, TG101348 is efficacious in treatment of a murine model of PV, and surrogate endpoints have been identified that may be of value in clinical trials in humans.

Abstract Abstract 87 Background: The International Prognostic Index (IPI) remains the most powerful predictor of clinical outcome in DLBCL in the R-CHOP era, serving as a useful surrogate for the biology we are just beginning to understand. With a follow-up of more than 9 years, its uniformly staged and treated patients and its prospectively collected unstained slides for correlative studies, the clinical data set from E4494, the US Intergroup trial comparing CHOP and RCHOP in patients >60 years with DLBCL, stands as a valuable resource for investigating prognosis in DLBCL. Based on immunohistochemistry, we previously showed that rituximab modulates the prognostic significance of some biomarkers in DLBCL. With these same specimens, the quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA), a methodology for measuring mRNA levels in FFPET, was used to develop separate prognostic signatures for the CHOP and RCHOP arms that can be simply applied using stored unstained slides. Methods: Five micron unstained FFPET sections from 183 eligible and evaluable cases enrolled on E4494 and submitted for prospective immunohistochemical correlative studies more than ten years ago were used for this analysis. Tissue was scraped from slides and a multiplexed qNPA was performed in triplicate using a customized Array Plate assay (HTG, Inc) for 43 genes of interest. TBP served as a housekeeping gene. Association between standardized log gene expression and patient failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) was obtained using the Cox proportional hazards model. A weighted analysis was used to eliminate the confounding effect of maintenance rituximab. Genes that showed at least marginal significance in the univariate analysis were used to perform LASSO (penalized method to select best subset) to select a final list of genes in the multivariate analysis. Using the predictive model for either CHOP or R-CHOP induction, individual risk scores were calculated based on the multivariable model, and cases were dichotomized into low and high risk groups based on the median risk score. The model was then validated using the Lenz dataset (NEJM, 2008). Results: In six cases, tissue from slides prepared >10 years ago was compared to freshly cut sections from corresponding blocks, and showed excellent concordance (corr=0.86). On-study characteristics for the 176 cases with analyzable data were representative of the greater E4494 patient population. Six gene predictors were developed for each arm of the trial: RCHOP: FN1, LMO2, AKT1, HIF1a, AKT3, BCL2; and CHOP: PDCD4, HLADRB1, COL3A1, LMO2, ROBO4, TP53. Both signatures proved powerful predictors of FFS and OS among CHOP (FFS: p=0.0031; OS: p=0.0013) and RCHOP (FFS: p=0.001; OS=p=0.0015) treated patients. When adjusted for the clinically-based IPI, the gene-risk score retained its significance (CHOP: FFS p=0.0007; OS p=0.0011; RCHOP: FFS p=0.003; OS, p=0.001) while the IPI became only marginally significant (CHOP: FFS: p=0.06, OS p=0.06; R-CHOP: FFS p=0.09, OS p=0.02), suggesting that the gene predictor accounted for much of the predictive power of the IPI. The predictive model was then validated using the Lenz dataset for OS. The predictor models for CHOP and R-CHOP-treated patients effectively dichotomized patients into prognostic subgroups (CHOP: p<0.0001; RCHOP: p=0.0014; see figure below) and this difference was maintained when the subset over age 60 was analyzed (CHOP: p=0.0008; RCHOP: p=0.017). When adjusted for the IPI, the molecular predictor developed for CHOP treated patients remained robust (OS: P=.0001; HR 2.39), while the molecular predictor for RCHOP predicted OS marginally (p=.06; HR 1.82), with shorter followup than the CHOP cohort. Conclusions: Unstained slides from FFPET stored for many years may be used to investigate gene expression in lymphoma biopsy specimens for which there is mature followup. Gene risk scores based on the expression of a limited number of genes are powerful predictors of clinical outcome. Disclosures: Pollock: HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Botros:HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Horning:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract Abstract 1875 Introduction: Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a next-generation proteasome inhibitor that has demonstrated durable single-agent antitumor activity in patients (pts) with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). Previously we have shown that unfavorable cytogenetic features, defined as presence of any of del 13 or hypodiploidy by metaphase cytogenetic analysis and/or del 17p13, t(4;14), t (14;16) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), did not appreciably affect overall (≥PR) and clinical benefit (≥MR) response rates (ORR and CBR) in PX-171-003-A1, a large phase 2 study of single-agent CFZ in pts with R/R MM (Jakubowiak et al. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(S4): Abstract 117). The objectives of the present analysis were to evaluate the impact of specific cytogenetic abnormalities on efficacy and treatment outcomes. Methods: Pts with unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities (defined above) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. All pts received CFZ at 20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles (C) and were dose-escalated to 27 mg/m2 at C2. Pts were treated for up to 12 C. Responses were assessed by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with minimal response (MR) by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria. Assessments were confirmed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Results: A total of 234 pts were included in this analysis. Metaphase cytogenetic data were available for 203 pts (87%), and FISH data were available for 210 pts (90%); 178 pts had both (76%). Seventy-five of 234 pts (32%) had ≥1 abnormality and represented the unfavorable group in this analysis. Of these, 49 (65%) had abnormalities detected via metaphase cytogenetics, 47 (63%) by FISH, and 21 (28%) by both methods. Characteristics of pts in the unfavorable and normal/favorable groups were comparable overall, with the exception of a higher proportion of pts with International Staging System stage II/III in the unfavorable group (83% vs 64%). Response rates per the IRC, presented previously, included an ORR of 30% for pts with ≥1 abnormality compared with 23% for pts with none. The corresponding CBRs were 34% and 40%, respectively. Duration of response (DOR) and time to progression (TTP) values were 7 months (mo) (95% CI 4–9) and 4 mo (95% CI 3–6), respectively, for pts with ≥1 abnormality and 8 mo (95% CI 6–12) and 5 mo (95% CI 3–6), respectively, for pts with none. The ORRs, CBRs, and disease control rates (DCRs) according to specific cytogenetic abnormalities are presented below. Response rates were largely unaffected by the presence of specific unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities, with the possible exceptions of trends toward a higher response rate for t(4;14) and a lower rate for t(14;16), although the latter abnormality was only noted in 3 pts. The trend for better response rates in pts with t(4;14) corresponded to a DOR of 5.6 mo (95% CI 2.8–10.2). In contrast, the DOR appeared shorter for the subgroup of pts with del 17p13 (4.6 mo, 95% CI: 3.7–Not reached). Time-to-event endpoints including TTP are being analyzed for these and the other subpopulations, and data on these will be presented, along with overall survival stratified by cytogenetic abnormality. Conclusions: CFZ demonstrated comparable response rates in pts with relapsed/refractory MM in both the absence and presence of unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities in the 003-A1 study. Similarly, in the phase 2 PX-171-004 study, no significant difference in response rates between unfavorable and normal/favorable groups has been observed in a population of less heavily-pretreated pts with relapsed or R/R MM. Taken together, the results of these and other analyses to date suggest that responses to single-agent CFZ can be achieved in heavily pretreated pts and that overall, these responses appear not to be significantly influenced by poor prognostic cytogenetic features. Further analyses from studies with CFZ in newly diagnosed MM and in less heavily-pretreated pts are needed to determine whether a trend toward lower response rates and DOR for pts with del 17p13 is consistently observed in other populations. Disclosures: Jakubowiak: Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of the investigational agent carfilzomib, proteasome inhibitor, in the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Siegel:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Singhal:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Lonial:Onyx: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allergan: Research Funding. Kunkel:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Threshold: Consultancy; VLST biothech: Consultancy. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Orlowski:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; OrthoBiotec. Imedex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medicom World Wide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Optum Health Education: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1603 Background: We have previously reported similar outcomes for patients with bulky stage I or II mediastinal HL treated with combined modality therapy either with ABVD + radiotherapy or the Stanford V regimen in the North American Intergroup trial E2496 (Advani et al, ASH 2010 abstract 416). In the current analysis, we compare the patterns of failure between the two groups. Methods: Patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL (maximum mediastinal mass width > 1/3 of intrathoracic diameter) were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD x 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy all patients received modified involved field radiotherapy (RT) (36 Gy) delivered to the mediastinum, hila, and supraclavicular regions. Patients on Stanford V arm also received involved field RT to any other sites ≥ 5 cm at diagnosis. Patients were assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after completing RT with computed tomography scanning and then every 6 months for 5 years. The primary end points were failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was defined as 'in-field', 'distant' or both relative to the radiation fields prescribed in the E2496 protocol. Distant sites of failure were further characterized as intra-thoracic, intra-abdominal or other (bone, bone marrow and axillae, if not previously irradiated). Results: Two hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized: 136 on the ABVD arm and 131 on the Stanford V arm. Patient characteristics were well matched with no differences between two arms in overall response rates (ORR), FFS and OS. (Advani et al ASH 2010 abstract 416). At a median follow up of 5.5 years 40 patients have relapsed with no difference in ABVD (n=18, 13%) versus Stanford V (n=22, 17%) (p=0.49). Central review of RT fields available in 37/40 patients found major violations with under treatment of tumor noted in 7/37 (19%). Patterns of failure are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in patterns of relapse for the two study arms. In-field relapses occurred in <10% in both study arms. Conclusion: For patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL, combined modality therapy with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in excellent disease control. In-field relapse was uncommon. These results set a benchmark for assessing ongoing trials omitting RT in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify the small subset of patients who are likely to fail standard upfront therapy. US cooperative group efforts in this subset of patients are ongoing that use interim PET-CT imaging based risk-adapted strategies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 2687 Background: Patients with early stage (Stages I, II) diffuse large B cell (DLBCL) have been traditionally treated with either CHOP x6 alone or with CHOP followed by involved field external beam radiotherapy (IFRT). With the demonstration of the superiority of rituximab CHOP (RCHOP) in advanced stage DLBCL, RCHOP has been adopted as the chemoimmunotherapy standard of care in early stage disease with or without IFRT. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) has the advantage of delivering high-energy, short path length radiation in a targeted approach using an anti-CD20 antibody as the carrier. Thus, radiation is potentially targeted to microscopic sites outside of known disease. Goals: To evaluate the complete response (CR) rate and functional CR rate (CR or CRu/PR and PET negative) to a treatment regimen of RCHOP followed by 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals) radioimmunotherapy (RIT); only patients not achieving PET negative status after RIT were to be given IFRT. The study goal was to achieve a functional CR rate of ≥75%. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were those with new, untreated Stages I or II DLBCL as determined by standard CT scanning, adequate blood counts, creatinine and bilirubin <2.0 mg/dl, cardiac ejection fraction >45%, and a performance status 0–2. Stage I patients were required to have ≥1 adverse risk factor (≥60 years, bulky disease, elevated LDH or PS2). Patients received standard RCHOP21 × 2 cycles and then were restaged. Patients in CR received 2 additional cycles; those in PR or CRu received 4 additional cycles. At end of RCHOP a PET scan was repeated and centrally reviewed; those with a PR or functional CR proceeded to Zevalin RIT 0.4 mCi/kg (maximum 32 mCi) within 12 weeks of the last RCHOP. Patients were restaged 12 weeks post-RIT; PET negative patients were observed without maintenance; PET positive patients received 30Gy involved field radiation and then were restaged. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the patient characteristics, treatment and response. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate failure rates. Results: Between Dec 2004 and Nov 2008, 62 patients were enrolled; after pathology review 53 were considered eligible. 42% (22/53) patients were stage I/IE; 58% (31/53) were stage II/IIE. 57% (30/53) received 6 cycles of RCHOP; 40% (21/53) received 4 cycles; and 2 patients received 1 and 2 cycles, respectively. After immunochemotherapy, 79% (42/53) were in functional CR and 19% (10/53) PR; 1 was unevaluable. Of the 53 eligible patients who completed RCHOP therapy 91% (48/53) proceeded to RIT. After RIT, 87% (46/53; 95% CI: 75–95) were in CR/CRu and 89% (47/53; 95% CI:77–96%) were in functional CR. One patient proceeded to IFRT. The median follow-up is now 4.3 years. Seven (13%) of patients have had tumor progression but only 2 have died (1 of disease). At 4 years, 88% of patients remain progression free and 98% remain alive (Fig 1,2). The median has not been reached for either PFS or OS. There has been one case of myelodysplastic syndrome. Conclusions: Combination immunochemotherapy and RIT is an active regimen for patients with early stage DLBCL. Nearly all patients will achieve functional CR without the requirement of IFRT. The regimen of RCHOP and RIT for early stage DLBCL is worthy of further study. Disclosures: Witzig: Spectrum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, uncompensated Other. Off Label Use: Use of Zevalin in treating patients with Stage I-II DLBCL. Kahl:Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction: The prevalence of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (VTE) increases with age. Definitive VTE diagnosis or exclusion relies on imaging modalities, which are found to be negative in a high proportion of tested patients. Algorithms based on pretest clinical probability (low and intermediate) in conjunction with negative d-dimer test results have reliably excluded VTE sparing the need for additional imaging studies. Currently, the cutoff for a negative d-dimer is based on reference ranges regardless of age of the donor population. Since baseline d-dimer increases with aging, an age-adjusted d-dimer (AADD) cutoff for patients older than 50 years (age*10 ng/mL FEU) has been shown to improve specificity of diagnosis while still maintaining a high sensitivity (>97%) of detecting VTE/PE (Righini, et al. JAMA, 2014). Due to FDA restrictions, clinical laboratories cannot implement and report such AADD cutoffs. Major hurdles include: AADD cutoffs are assay-dependent, and there is a lack of feasible strategy for laboratories to verify the AADD cutoffs. We hypothesize that an adequate study of age-distribution of baseline d-dimer levels of healthy donors can assist the verification of AADD cutoffs and ultimately ensure patient safety in the VTE patient population. Objective: Establish an age dependent reference range for patients 50 years or older with the HemosIL HS 500 D-dimer reagent on the ACL TOP 700 (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford MA, USA); and compare this range with the manufacturer provided and literature recommended AADD cutoffs. Methods: D-dimer assay was performed on plasma samples from normal adult donors per the manufacturers' instructions. D-Dimer age, gender distribution and association were analyzed using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and quantile regression methods to estimate the 95th percentile to establish a reference range. Results: We studied 241 healthy donors, ranging from 21-91 years of age. Statistically significant differences between males and females (100 [42%] male) were detected (p-value <0.001; p-value =0.0009). Using CLSI guidelines, these statistical differences (median d-dimer for men = 200, while median d-dimer for women = 300) are not considered clinically significant, since only 6% of women would be outside an overall reference range (CLSI guideline states to partition if over 8% for either group would be outside the overall reference range). Using the quantile regression method, a significant association between d-dimer and age was found at the median (P<0.0001). We then established a reference range (95th percentile) for donors younger than age 50 at 635 ng/mL FEU for both men and women and AADD reference range for patients 50 and older (635 + (age - 50)*10 ng/mL) (Figure 1). This reference range was verified with our sample set, with only 6.2% of donors higher than the established reference limit. If we used the non-AADD cutoff provided by the manufacturer for donors younger than 50 (500 ng/mL FEU) and the literature recommended AADD cutoffs for older donors (age*10 ng/mL FEU), 13.3% of our normal donors were above the limits, resulting in not validating this literature reference range per CLSI guidelines in EP28-A3c. These data imply that if both manufacturer and literature recommended AADD cutoffs were adopted, HemosIL HS 500 D-dimer assay should have sufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value, although with slightly lower specificity than those reported by Righini, et al. for detecting VTE/PE. Conclusion: Our study verifies the association between d-dimer level and age and for the first time, to our knowledge, determined AADD normal range for the HemosIL HS 500 D-dimer assay. The manufacturer and literature recommended AADD cutoffs should provide sufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value for VTE/PE exclusion. Figure 1 Age distribution of D-Dimer values (n=241). Figure 1. Age distribution of D-Dimer values (n=241). Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; 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; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass > 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or >/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had <6 C) + 36 Gy (only in pts with BMD) or Stanford V × 12 weeks (95% had 12 weeks) + 36 Gy (for sites >5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was <1% in both groups. There was, however, more Grade 3 lymphopenia in Stanford V (78% vs. 42%, p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 +4 sensory neuropathy in Stanford V (10%) than in ABVD (3%) (p< 0.0001). A total of 26 second primary cancers developed, 12 after ABVD and 14 after Stanford V (p=NS). FFS and OS. For 812 eligible patients, with a median follow up of 5.25 years, 5-year FFS was 73% for ABVD and 71% for Stanford V (p=0.29 by log rank) (Figure left); 5-year OS was 88% for ABVD and 87% for Stanford V (p=0.87 by log-rank, HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.44) (Figure right) indicating no significant difference in either FFS or OS between the 2 arms. Conclusion: In the largest Phase III intergroup trial of HL in North America, there was no significant difference in RR, FFS, OS, and 5-year toxicity when ABVD (+ RT for BMD) is compared with Stanford V (+RT for nodal sites >5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p< 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.