Citations

Abstract Introduction: IgM light chain amyloidosis (AL) is a rare complication of IgM associated disorders, with very limited data on biology and outcomes. Our study compares the clinical characteristics, laboratory findings and outcomes in a large cohort of patients with IgM vs. non-IgM AL to delineate the underlying disease biology of this entity. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed AL (2006-15) were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database and grouped by IgM heavy chain. Bone marrow (BM) morphology was reviewed by an expert hematopathologist (RLK). FISH testing included probes for t(11;14) and trisomies of odd numbered chromosomes. MYD88L265P testing was carried out by allele specific PCR and CXCR4WHIM mutation testing was performed by bridged nucleic acid (BNA)-enhanced Sanger sequencing. Results: Patients with IgM AL comprised 6.6% (75/1128) of the study cohort. Baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. IgM AL patients were older and had a higher proportion of males. They had less frequent cardiac involvement (60 vs. 75%) and less frequent involvement of > 1 organ. Light chain burden was lower in this group (dFLC 12.5 vs. 22.7 mg/dL), while there was no difference in BM clonal cell percentage (10% each). Morphology: BM morphology in 71 patients with IgM AL revealed a pure plasma cell disorder (PPCD type) in 25% (n=18); low-grade B-cell lymphoma (LGBCL) with plasmacytic features (LPL type) in 62% (n=44) [well defined LPL: 38% (n=27), LGBCL with plasmacytic features: 24% (n=17)]; LGBCL, other: 6% (n=4). In the remaining 7%, three patients had other diagnoses and no BM disease in two patients. Median clonal cell % in LPL vs. PPCD type IgM AL was 20% vs. 5%, p<0.001. Genetics: In patients with IgM AL vs. non-IgM AL, t(11;14) was present in 27% vs. 49%, p=0.009 and trisomies in 9% vs. 24% of patients, p=0.06, respectively. In the IgM AL cohort, MYD88 mutation was seen in 56% (23/41) & CXCR4 mutation in 15% (5/34; S388 type: 3, other: 2) of patients. Importantly, MYD88 and CXCR4 mutations were found only in patients with LPL morphology, while t(11;14) was found only in the PPCD morphology group. There were no patients with both t(11;14) and MYD88 abnormalities (N=26 for both tested). Mutations seen in the LPL vs. PPCD type IgM AL were: MYD88, 88% (22/25) vs. 0% (0/14), p<0.001 and CXCR4, 26% (5/19) vs. 0% (0/13), p=0.02. Conversely, t(11;14) was seen in 0% (0/18) in LPL type vs. 60% (9/15) in PPCD type IgM AL, p <0.001. Treatment details were known in 63 patients with IgM AL; rituximab-based: 21 (33%), bortezomib/alkylator: 16 (25%), transplant 17 (27%), steroids: one and no treatment: 8 (13%). Treatment in IgM AL LPL type (n=36) was: rituximab based: 16 (44%),bortezomib/alkylator: 5 (14%), transplant: 10 (28%) and none: 5 (14%). In PPCD type [n=17), treatment was rituximab based: 2 (12%), bortezomib/alkylator: 8 (47%), transplant: 7 (41%). At 6 months, very good partial response or better was observed in 26% (10/39) vs. 41% (270/660) of patients with IgM vs. non-IgM AL, p=0.05. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) when all patients with IgM AL were compared to non-IgM AL (Fig 1a). However, when stratified by early (Stage 1/2) or advanced (stage 3/4) 2012 Mayo stage, patients with IgM AL fared worse (Fig 1b-c). On multivariate analysis, IgM AL was an independent predictor for inferior OS [HR with 95% CI: 1.6 (1.1-2.4), p=0.02] after adjusting for age, Mayo 2012 stage and type of therapy (transplant vs. not). However, when OS was adjusted for 6 month VGPR, there was no difference in OS for IgM AL vs. non IgM AL, p=0.2. In the IgM AL cohort, patients with LPL type IgM AL had inferior OS compared with PPCD type IgM AL, 21 vs. 82 months, p=0.01 (Fig 1d). Conclusions: Patients with IgM AL have distinct clinical and genetic features, with lower rates of cardiac involvement and a lower frequency of t(11;14) or trisomies compared with non-IgM AL. Even though IgM AL is a rare entity, we were able to delineate two distinct sub-types of IgM AL: LPL type and PPCD type, with implications for therapy and outcomes. Along with unique morphologic findings, presence of MYD88 and CXCR mutations was only seen in LPL type IgM AL and t(11;14) in PPCD type IgM AL. Despite lower cardiac involvement, IgM AL was associated with inferior OS outcomes, likely due to lower response rates, particularly in LPL IgM AL group, which had the lowest OS. Therapeutic approaches targeted towards disease biology to achieve deep responses are needed in this disorder. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gertz:Abbvie: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Renal impairment (RI) is a classic clinicopathological feature of MM, is associated with poor prognosis and shorter survival (Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou Leuk Lymphoma 2007), and can complicate drug dosing and limit treatment options. In clinical trials, the proteasome inhibitors K and V have demonstrated efficacy in RRMM pts with RI, with superior efficacy observed in K-treated pts (Dimopoulos Blood 2017). K and V have also been observed to improve renal function in RRMM pts (Dimopoulos Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2009; Dimopoulos Blood Advances 2017). However, few studies have investigated the real-world effectiveness of K- and V-based regimens in renal rescue. This study aimed to describe and compare renal response rates in RRMM pts treated with K + dexamethasone (Kd) and V + dexamethasone (Vd) in oncology clinics. Methods: The Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records (OSCER) database (Lau Clin Epidemiol 2011) contains electronic medical records (EMR) from community- and hospital-affiliated oncology clinics in the United States. MM pts aged ≥18 who entered an OSCER clinic Jan 2012‒Feb 2018; initiated Kd or Vd treatment as line 2 (2L), 3L, or 4L; and had baseline renal impairment (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <50 mL/min from the most recent baseline serum creatinine measurement) were included. Index date was the date of Kd or Vd initiation. The baseline period was 60 d prior to index to 30 d post-index. Follow-up was 30 d after index date to 60 d after completion of the same line. Primary outcome was renal response during follow-up. Renal response was defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria (Dimopoulos J Clin Oncol 2016): complete response (RCR; baseline eGFR <50 mL/min and best post-treatment eGFR ≥60 mL/min), partial response (baseline eGFR <15 mL/min and best post-treatment eGFR 30‒59 mL/min), minor response (baseline eGFR <15 mL/min and best post-treatment eGFR 15‒29 mL/min, or baseline eGFR 15‒29 mL/min and best post-treatment eGFR 30‒59 mL/min). Renal response rates in Kd- and Vd-treated pts were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for renal overall response (ROR) and RCR using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline covariates (demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, International Staging System stage, baseline renal function, V use in 1L, time from MM diagnosis to line initiation, use of intravenous bisphosphonates, and baseline serum calcium, serum free light chain ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, and whole blood hemoglobin measurements). Missing baseline values were estimated by multiple imputations. Results: 543 Kd-treated and 1005 Vd-treated pts were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts, with no difference in baseline eGFR stages. More Kd pts were <65 yrs of age at MM diagnosis. Median time from diagnosis to line initiation was longer in Kd pts (Kd: 17.1 mos; Vd 16.1 mos). V-based regimens were the most common therapies in 1L. Median (interquartile range) treatment duration was 4.4 (2.3-8.3) mos for Kd and 4.3 (2.1-8.3) mos for Vd. Pts treated with Kd at 2L were more likely than those treated with Vd to achieve both ROR (51.4% [178/346] vs 39.6% [327/825]; log-rank test p<0.0001) and RCR (26.6% [92/346] vs 22.2% [183/825]; log-rank test p=0.0229). This pattern persisted when 3L and 4L pts were included, (ROR: 48.4% [263/543] vs 39.8% [400/1005]; log-rank p<0.0001; RCR: 26% [141/543] vs 22.1% [222/1005]; log-rank p=0.0084) (Figures 1A and 1B). Following adjustment for potential baseline confounders, 2L Kd pts were 45% more likely to achieve ROR (IRR, 95% CI: 1.45, 1.18‒1.78) and 68% more likely to achieve RCR (1.68, 1.24‒2.28) vs 2L Vd pts (Figure 2). Kd pts in 2‒4L were 36% more likely to achieve ROR (1.36, 1.15‒1.62) and 52% more likely to achieve RCR (1.52, 1.19‒1.94). Conclusions: Using one of the most complete oncology EMR databases available, we found that RRMM pts with baseline RI treated with Kd had higher rates of overall and complete renal response, and were more likely to have a renal response, compared with pts treated with Vd. A limitation of the study is that we could not account for all concomitant medications or comorbidities that affect renal function, as some may not be captured in OSCER. Disclosures Kumar: AbbVie: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fu:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mezzi:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Braunlin:Amgen: Employment. Kim:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Iskander:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Niesvizky:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Boccia:Sandoz: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Raje:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Background The survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved significantly over the past two decades with the introduction of novel treatment agents. However, MM is still largely considered an incurable malignancy with a relapsing-remitting course. A follow-up of at least 10 years from active disease is required to determine whether a plateau in progression-free survival has been attained. Prior literature has used 10 years as a cutoff for "long-term survivorship". In this study, we have assessed the biological disease characteristics and outcomes of long-term survivors with MM (≥10 years from active disease). Methods All patients with active MM evaluated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1, 1999 and July 1, 2008 were included in the study after approval of the Institutional Review Board. Patients with smoldering multiple myeloma were excluded. The overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of symptomatic disease requiring treatment. Patients were then divided into two cohorts: (1) long-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of at least 10 years; and (2) short-term survivors, which included patients who had an overall survival of less than 5 years from the diagnosis of active MM. The baseline characteristics between these two groups were compared using Wilcoxon, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test as applicable. All time-to-event analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the survival curves were compared using Log-Rank test. Results During the time frame of the study, 2,125 patients were identified who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for active MM. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 12.6 years (95% CI: 12.5-13.4).The median OS for the entire cohort was 4.4 years (95% CI: 4.2-4.7 years). Three-hundred and ninety nine (18.7%) patients survived at least 10 years whereas 872 patients (41%) survived less than 5 years from the date of initial diagnosis. The median OS was 14.1 years for the long-term survivors (95% CI: 13.9-14.6 years) and 2.1 years for the short-term survivors (95% CI: 1.8-2.2 years). The clinical features at diagnosis comparing long-term survivors and short-term survivors are shown in Table 1. Among long-term survivors (n=399), based on the available data regarding remission and ongoing treatment status, 331 patients were categorized into 6 cohorts (Table 2). The MM specific survival data of these 6 cohorts is depicted in Table 2.Figure 1 shows survival outcomes from the 10-year landmark. Of the 6 cohorts, 38 patients in Cohort 1 and 19 patients in Cohort 2 (total 57; 17% of long term survivors, ~3% of the entire cohort ) have been off therapy for at least 5 years and remain in remission, representing a distinct group of patients with 100% 15-year survival. Conclusion In our large database with prolonged follow-up, long-term survivors appear to have distinct baseline characteristics, but also constitute a heterogenous group of patients with disparate outcomes. A small subset (17% of long-term survivors) was identified that may represent patients closest to being considered as 'operationally cured'. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Teva: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) plays a central role in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), even in the era of novel therapies (Gonsalves et al, 2018). Given the efficacy of the latter, as well as for logistical reasons, many patients opt to store their stem cells and delay ASCT until the time of progression. Delayed transplant does not appear to affect overall survival (OS) (Attal et al, 2017). However, in the "salvage" setting, the impact of treatment with additional chemotherapy prior to ASCT is unknown. One study, albeit in the front-line, suggested that in patients achieving less than a partial response (PR), additional induction prior to ASCT did not improve survival (Vij et al, 2015). The present study investigates the role of induction therapy prior to salvage ASCT. Methods We identified 380 patients who underwent ASCT >12 months after being diagnosed with MM from January 1, 2006 to July 1, 2017 at Mayo Clinic Rochester. 121 had a delayed ASCT, but no International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) progression prior to ASCT and were excluded. Another 17 patients achieved less than PR prior to ASCT, thus were deemed primary refractory and excluded. Finally, 8 patients were excluded because they received a planned tandem ASCT. Thus, 234 patients were included in the present study, which was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. We refer to the time of progression prior to ASCT, after which we examined the use of pre-ASCT therapy, as T0 to avoid confusion. Time to next therapy (TNT) was defined as the time from ASCT (stem cell infusion, Day +0) to the initiation of a new therapy, not including planned consolidation or maintenance. Patients who were alive and had not received any new therapies, or died before receiving another therapy were censored at the time of last follow up, as of May 15, 2018. OS was defined as the time from Day +0 to death from any cause, with living patients censored at the time of last follow-up. TNT and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazard model was used for univariate and multivariate analysis. High-risk cytogenetics were defined as del(17/17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20). The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's Exact test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Statistical analysis was completed using JMP 13.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results Of the 234 patients who underwent salvage ASCT, 188 were treated with additional chemotherapy after T0 (hereafter referred to as "pre-ASCT induction"), whereas 46 patients went directly to ASCT. Baseline characteristics were comparable, however more patients in the pre-ASCT induction group had >1 progression prior to ASCT (28% vs. 9%, p= .0065) and had a trend towards a shorter duration of response (DOR) prior to T0 (14.7 vs. 18.5 months, p= .12). Intuitively, the pre-ASCT induction group had a longer time from T0 to ASCT (5.3 vs. 2.3 months, p< .0001). The median TNT for the entire cohort of 234 patients from Day +0 was 17.2 months (95% CI, 14.8-19.7); median OS was 50.4 months (95% CI, 43.3-60.7). TNT and OS were comparable between the two treatment groups (Figure 1). After adjusting for other significant prognostic factors, such as DOR prior to T0 and the presence of high risk cytogenetics, treatment with pre-ASCT induction did not significantly affect TNT or OS (Table 1). However, among the 188 patients treated with pre-ASCT induction, the subsequent depth of response prior to ASCT significantly affected TNT (Figure 2A) and OS (Figure 2B). TNT at 1-year post ASCT was 79.2% for patients achieving a ≥VGPR, 62.1% in those who achieved a PR or stable disease, and 45.7% for patients who had relapsed/refractory MM at the time of ASCT or received >2 lines of pre-ASCT therapy (p= .0003). Interestingly, the time from diagnosis to T0 was comparable between these 3 groups (27 vs. 28 vs. 26 months, respectively, p= .26). Conclusions Many patients with MM do not undergo ASCT until disease progression. In our cohort of 234 patients who underwent salvage ASCT, outcomes were similar whether patients received pre-ASCT induction or not. However, among the 188 patients treated with pre-ASCT induction, deeper responses correlated with significantly longer TNT and OS after ASCT. Further research into the role of chemotherapy prior to delayed ASCT in the era of novel agents is warranted. Disclosures Gertz: annexon: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Limited data exist with respect to outcome and optimal therapeutic strategies in patients with central nervous system (CNS) involvement in multiple myeloma (MM). We present a single center experience of patients with myelomatous CNS involvement in newly diagnosed and relapsed / refractory MM. Methods Of 4060 patients with MM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between January, 1st 1998 and December, 31st 2012, 26 patients had identifiable CNS involvement confirmed by biopsy / presence of plasma cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and/or identification of intraparenchymal or meningeal involvement by imaging (MRI/CT). Patients were risk stratified by mSMART (Mayo Stratification for Myeloma And Risk-adapted Therapy) criteria. Overall survival (OS) from diagnosis and the time of CNS involvement was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Myelomatous CNS involvement occurred in 26 (0.6%) patients with MM of whom 3 were newly diagnosed. The median time to detection of CNS involvement was 24 months (range: 0-125) from diagnosis of MM. Median age at CNS myeloma diagnosis was 58 years (range 37-80) and 73% were male. Abnormally high LDH was observed in 11 out of 22 patients at the time of CNS involvement. Lumbar puncture was performed on 16 patients, 13 (81%) of whom had plasma cells in the CSF detected by cytology/flow-cytometry. Two patients, without evidence of plasma cells, had abnormally high CSF protein and 1 had normal CSF analysis. Of the 25 patients who underwent MRI, 16 (64%) had at least one of the following significant abnormalities; intraparenchymal disease (37%), leptomeningeal enhancement (68%) or direct extension of MM (31%). The neurological symptoms at or after diagnosis of CNS myeloma included headache (38%), cranial nerve palsy (38%), visual disturbance (38%), gait disturbance (35%), paresthesias (35%), limb weakness (31%), confusion (30%), nausea/vomiting (15%), dysarthria (12%), seizures (8%) and urinary incontinence (4%). Fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH n=7), cytogenetics (n=8) and/or plasma cell labeling index (PCLI n=12) were available in 18 patients prior to the diagnosis of CNS disease. Ten (56%) out of those 18 patients had high-risk features at least by one criterion. At the time of CNS involvement, six additional patients demonstrated high risk features [5 by PCLI (≥ 3%) and 1 by FISH]. Overall, 16 out of 26 (62%) patients were classified as high risk by mSMART criteria prior to or at the time of CNS involvement. Four (27%) out of 15 had a deletion p53 or monosomy 17 chromosomal abnormality. Median OS was 42 (95% CI, 19-55) months from the diagnosis of MM and 3 months (95% CI: 1-7.9) from the time of CNS involvement (Figure). OS of patients with high risk features was significantly worse (27 months) compared to standard risk disease (67 months, p=0.02) from diagnosis of MM. Eighteen patients received radiation therapy for CNS myeloma. Five of those patients also received intrathecal (MTX and ARA-C) therapy. One patient received intrathecal and systemic chemotherapy. Four patients did not receive any treatment. Novel agents, including bortezomib (23%), thalidomide (15%), and pomalidomide (4%) were administered to the patients post diagnosis of CNS disease. Six (23%) patients underwent autologous stem cell transplant post diagnosis of CNS disease with a median OS of 19 months (95% CI: 10-122 months) from the time of CNS involvement. Conclusion CNS involvement is a rare complication of MM that portends a poor survival outcome. It is likely that the rates in this study are an underestimate of the true incidence due the perceived futility of CNS directed therapy in this disease. Among those recognized, high-risk genetic and markers of increased proliferative activity, including deletion p53 / monosomy 17 and elevated PCLI (≥ 3%) appear to cluster in this cohort. Current therapeutic approaches are largely ineffective in managing this aggressive subset of myeloma patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Histone lysine methylation, a reversible event dynamically and reciprocally regulated by lysine methyltransferases (KMTs) and demethylases (KDMs), represents one of the major epigenetic mechanisms for regulation of chromatin remodeling and gene expression re-programming. The KDM4 family, which belongs to the Jumonji C (JmjC)-domain-containing proteins (JMJDs), consists of five members, including KDM4A-E that demethylate H3K9me2/3 and/or H3K36me2/3 in a Fe2+- and α-ketoglutarate-dependent manner. KDM4 proteins are involved in various cellular processes such as gene transcription and translation, DNA replication, DNA repair, apoptosis, and stem cell renewal. Notably, increasing evidence implicates KDM4 dysregulation in promoting genomic instabilities and oncogenesis, thereby which is considered as a potential target for emerging cancer epigenetic therapy. Although KDM4A, a member of the KDM4 family, has been widely studied in many solid tumors including breast, prostate, bladder cancer, its role in hematopoietic malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM), remains unknown. Materials and Methods: Human MM cell lines (U266, RPMI8226, H929, OPM-2) were employed. After exposed to hypoxia (or the chemical hypoxia mimetic lactic acid) and anti-MM agents (e.g., bortezomib/Btz), cells were analyzed by flow cytometry, qPCR, Western blot to monitor apoptosis, cell cycle, proliferation (Ki67), DNA double-strand break/DSB (γH2A.X), expression of 1q21 and anti-apoptotic genes, as well as activation of the NF-κB and HIF pathways. The shRNA approach was used to knock down KDM4A for functional evaluation. The findings from in vitro experiments involving cell lines were then validated in primary MM samples to link KDM4A expression to disease progression and therapeutic response. Results: Analysis of the MM genome-wide GEP databases revealed that KDM4A mRNA was significantly up-regulated in MGUS and MM, but not SMM, compared to normal control, as well as in relapsed MM, compared to newly-diagnosed MM. To our surprise, KDM4A expression rather favored overall survival of MM patients, including those carrying 1q21 gain in whom KDM4A expression was indeed lower than those who did not have this high risk cytogenetic abnormality. Moreover, KDM4A expression correlated adversely with expression of 1q21 genes (e.g., CKS1B, MCL1, PSMD4, ARNT). Whereas basal KDM4A protein level was moderately but clearly higher in MM cell lines carrying 1q21 gain or acquired drug resistance than their counterparts, exposure to hypoxia or lactic acid (but not cobalt chloride) resulted in marked KDM4A up-regulation, accompanied by NF-κB and HIF pathway activation. However, while NF-κB inhibition and to a lesser extent ARNT/HIF-1β knockdown led to a robust increase in hypoxia-induced KDM4A expression, shRNA knockdown or pharmacological inhibition of KDM4A triggered NF-κB activation and HIF expression, as well as up-regulated anti-apoptotic proteins (e.g., Mcl-1, TNFAIP3/A20, CKS1B), in association with increased H3K36me3 rather than H3K9me3. Furthermore, KDM4A knockdown or inhibition sharply diminished Btz lethality and overrode hypoxia-mediated cytoprotection. Interestingly, KDM4A knockdown also increased MM cell proliferation, promoted S phase entry, and attenuated Btz-induced DSB. Last, IHC of sequential bone marrow biopsies revealed that while KDM4A protein was relatively low at diagnosis, its level was markedly increased when patients achieved CR and then fell to the baseline low level at relapse. Conclusion: KDM4A/JMJD2A, a lysine demethylase that has been recognized as an pro-oncogenic protein via its epigenetic and/or non-epigenetic properties, is identified for the first time as a potential tumor suppressor in MM, particularly in a high risk subtype carrying 1q21 gain. Whereas KDM4A is expressed in MM and can be further induced by hypoxia that naturally exists in bone marrow niche, it seems to play multiple inhibitory roles in cell growth, cell cycle, DNA repair, and drug resistance by suppressing expression of oncogenic and anti-apoptotic genes (especially 1q21 genes), likely via H3K36me3 demethylation, and antagonizing NF-κB and HIF activation. These findings suggest that in contrast to its pro-oncogenic role in certain solid tumors, KDM4A might instead act as a tumor suppressor in MM. This work was supported by NNSFC (81471165, 81670189, and 81670190). Disclosures Kumar: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract History of prior cancer is a widespread exclusion criterion in cancer trials. Up to 80% of NCI-sponsored and 80% of industry-sponsored lung cancer trials exclude patients with a prior cancer. We suspect this exclusion is commonly applied in other cancer trials, although no definitive data exist. Prior cancer is especially common among older patients and those with certain cancer types. Among patients >65 years, 15.1% overall have prior cancer. In Multiple Myeloma, the most common plasma cell disorder (PCD), prevalence of prior cancer is as high as 17.4%. Examining the prior cancer exclusion criterion is important because the number of US cancer survivors is large and rapidly growing. Arbitrarily excluding cancer survivors from trials is not evidence-based and exclusion presumably arises from assumptions that higher mortality of patients with prior cancer could hinder study conduct and bias trial outcomes. However, few data exist to support this assumption of higher mortality. In fact, we demonstrated that lung cancer patients with a prior cancer have similar or lower mortality risk, compared to those without prior cancer. In this abstract, we reviewed prior cancer related eligibility criteria in three of the most common PCD (Multiple Myeloma, Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia) clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by 5 major Co-Operative groups in North America (Table 1). We use descriptive statistics (n, %) and Fisher's exact tests to describe characteristics of trials with and without exclusion criteria. Of 33 trials, 26 (79%) excluded patients with prior cancer as follows - active cancer (12%), within 2-3 years of PCD diagnosis (9%), or within 5 years of PCD diagnosis (55%). Many trials had exceptions to prior cancer exclusion. Specifically, 67% of trials allowed non-melanoma skin cancer, 58% allowed in-situ cervical cancer, 12% allowed early stage prostate cancer. Table 2 shows the association between clinical trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion. There was no association between prior cancer exclusion and phase of study, transplant studies, or survival end point. Exclusion criteria varied across year of activation (p=0.01); for example, 75% of studies activated 1990-1999 excluded prior cancer, compared to 100% of studies activated after 2010. Type of PCD was marginally associated with exclusion criteria (p=0.08); 74% of Multiple Myeloma trials excluded patients with prior cancer compared to 100% of the Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia trials. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of potential participants may be excluded from PCD clinical trials because of a history of prior cancer. This practice impacts accrual, generalizability, and fair access to cutting-edge treatments and the highest level of clinical care. As treatment outcomes for other cancers continue to improve, it is likely that the prevalence of multiple primary cancers will increase. This exclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of those with non-survival endpoints. Our study is the first to examine the prevalence and potential impact of prior cancer exclusion in PCD clinical trials. Using population-based cancer registry data, we plan to undertake further research to understand the appropriateness and ramifications of this standard exclusion policy in PCD cancer trials. Disclosures Collins: Agios: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Anderson:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Traditional cytometry methods have been unable to capture the immense heterogeneity of the tumor immune microenvironment in various malignancies including multiple myeloma (MM). Cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF) can, to some extent, overcome this limitation. However, the computational challenges that come with analyzing these complex datasets in a reproducible manner remain. In this study, using a large cohort of patients, we compare the bone marrow immunomes from patients with MGUS, multiple myeloma (MM), smoldering MM (SMM) and light chain amyloidosis (AL) at diagnosis, after induction therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone and after autologous transplant (ASCT). METHODS: We studied a total of 118 cryopreserved samples as follows: 14 healthy donors, 43 AL (27 newly diagnosed-ND, of which 13 with <10% bone marrow plasma cells, 16 matched samples post ASCT), 12 with ND MGUS, 11 with SMM (of which 6 were ND), 14 with ND MM, 13 paired MM samples post induction therapy and 11 paired MM samples post ASCT. Our CyTOF surface staining panel included the following 33 markers: CD45, HLA-DR, CD19, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD14, CCR6, CD11a, Cd123, CCR5, CD7, ICOS, CD25, CD57, CD45RA, CD163, PD-1, PDL-1, CXCR3, CCR4, CCR7, CD28, CTLA4, CD11c, CD56, CD45RO, CD44, CD27, CD138, CD38, CD-127 and CD16. Data processing and analysis was performed using Cytobank. Live cells were identified based on Pt195 and Ir193 staining. Myeloma cells and CD45- cells were excluded and only CD45+ cells were used for subsequent analyses. Single-cell data were downsampled using VisNE, a permutation of t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (tSNE) and clustered using CITRUS (using 10,000 events per sample with a minimum cluster size of 1%). A Significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) analysis was performed to ascertain differences between groups. Significance was inferred for a false discovery rate <1% . All CITRUS analyses were repeated at least 3 times and only clusters found to differ consistently across runs were considered. RESULTS: The proportions of immune subsets identified to vary by CITRUS before and after induction therapy and ASCT for MM and AL are shown in the table. No differences were identified between MGUS, SMM and NDMM. The proportion of a subset (369850) of CD14+/C16- monocytes, a group of cells shown to correlate positively with survival and response to therapy in solid malignancies, increased after induction therapy in MM. Naïve B cells increased dramatically post ASCT in both AL (429918) and MM (369948), consistent with expected immune reconstitution patterns, although a CCR6+ B Cell subset (429940) shown to mediate effective antibody responses, decreased (in grey). A subset (369980) of functionally exhausted (PD1/CTLA4+) central memory (CM) CD4 T cells decreased after induction therapy in MM but recovered early post ASCT whereas a CM CD4+ subset (369986) lacking major activation markers (CD28, CD25) decreased gradually with therapy and post ASCT. A subset (369953) of naïve CD8 T cells shown to be actively recruited in tumor sites (CXCR3+) decreased after ASCT. CD57+ senescent effector memory (EM) CD8 T cells (369962) decreased with induction therapy but recovered post ASCT. EM CD8 T cells associated with long term immune memory (CCR5+, CD127+, cluster 369959), also decreased after ASCT. LIMITATIONS: Include a) No barcoding b) batch effects were difficult to avoid when processing large number of samples c) use of cryopreserved samples d) need for downsampling to cope with the computational burden. The latter could have been one of the reasons we did not identify any differences between MGUS, SMM and MM. At the time of the meeting we will present confirmatory analyses using conceptually different methods of clustering and of performing across group comparisons as well as analyses that do not include downsampling. CONCLUSIONS: Mass cytometry can provide a more granular view of the bone marrow immunome in plasma cell dyscrasias. Novel agent induction therapy can create an immunologically favorable anti-tumor microenvironment although, in some cases, these favorable immunomic shifts are temporarily reversed by ASCT. Confirmatory analyses, baseline immune profiles, comparisons with healthy donors and correlation with other clinically relevant patient characteristics and outcomes will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.