Citations

Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL Amyloidosis) is a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder that is characterized by tissue deposits of misfolded insoluble κ or λ light chain derived amyloid fibrils, leading to organ dysfunction. The prognosis of patients depends on the number and severity of organ involvement, especially cardiac involvement. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), if eligible, alkylator (melphalan) and novel drugs like proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulators (IMiD) have improved the overall survival (OS) during the past decades. But still, nearly half of the patients die within a year of diagnosis. We analyzed the factors predicting early relapse / progression or death (within 12 months) after first line therapy for systemic AL amyloidosis. Methods Clinical and laboratory data of all consecutive patients with systemic AL amyloidosis seen at Mayo Clinic within 90 days of their diagnosis, between 2006 and 2015, was collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Patients who died within 3 months of starting the first line treatment were excluded from analysis. Early relapse (ER) was defined as relapse / progression requiring treatment change / re-institution or death within 12 months of starting first line treatment. Patients in the cohort with ER were compared with patients with a follow up of more than 12 months who had a relapse / progression beyond 12 months or had continuing response at the time of analysis. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi - square and Fisher's exact test and continuous variables using Kruskal- Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Multivariate analysis was done using logistic regression model. Results Seven hundred and eighty six patients with newly diagnosed systemic AL amyloidosis met the study criteria and were included in the analysis. Among these, 230 (29.3%) patients had ER within 12 months of starting initial therapy while 556 (70.7%) patients either relapsed after 1 year or had continuing response at the time of analysis. Baseline demographics, organ involvement and type of first line therapy are presented in Table1. The median estimated follow up for the entire cohort from start of initial therapy was 62.9 months (95% CI; 59.9, 67.3). The variables included in the univariate and multivariate analyses for factors predicting ER were age at diagnosis (≤ vs > 70 years ), revised mayo stage (I and II vs III and IV), bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC; ≤ 10% vs > 10%), presence of any chromosomal abnormalities, trisomies or IgH translocations by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), multiorgan involvement [(>1 vs 1) (heart, liver, kidney, gastrointestinal tract, autonomic neuropathy), incorporation of ASCT in initial therapy. In univariate analysis, mayo stage (p<0.0001), multiorgan involvement (p=0.0008) and inclusion of ASCT as part of initial therapy (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with ER, while age (p=0.06), BMPC(p=0.9), FISH abnormalities (p=0.2) were not. However, in multivariate analysis, only mayo stage (III + IV vs I + II; p=0.01) and non-inclusion of ASCT in first line treatment (p=0.0001) were significantly predictive of ER. Conclusions Despite the introduction of ASCT and novel drugs, the early mortality in systemic AL amyloidosis remains high. This study demonstrates that patients with ER are older with higher prevalence of cardiac involvement and multiorgan involvement and higher Mayo stage (III and IV). Incorporation of ASCT as part of the initial therapy was associated with reduced early relapse, but it is difficult to separate the influence of the eligibility for ASCT from the effect of ASCT itself. This will help us in characterizing these patients to better understand their mechanisms of resistance to therapy and gives an insight to the type of initial therapy that benefits them. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; Prothena: 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; Alnylam: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL Amyloidosis) is a plasma cell disorder characterized by deposition of misfolded insoluble protein fibrils (composed of monoclonal κ or λ light chains) in tissues causing progressive organ dysfunction. Chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), when eligible, are standard treatment options but relapses remain inevitable for most patients. However, there is a paucity of literature describing relapsed or refractory patients. We performed a retrospective study to analyze the outcomes upon relapse and the impact of type of therapy and retreatment with the same therapy at relapse. Methods Clinical and laboratory data of 1327 consecutive patients with systemic AL amyloidosis seen at Mayo Clinic within 90 days of their diagnosis, between 2006 and 2015, was collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients, 219 (16.5%) were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1108 patients, 366 patients experienced a documented hematological or organ relapse or progression requiring change of first line or start of second line therapy and form the current study population. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of second line treatment or progression mandating therapy until death from any cause or the date of last follow up. The OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test was used to estimate the difference in survival curves. Results The median age was 62.8 years (36.1 - 85.3); 63.1% were males; 64.7% / 59.3% / 11.4% had cardiac / renal / hepatic involvement and 24.2% / 32.1% / 23.3% / 20.3% had MS I/II/III/IV. The median estimated follow up for this cohort was 69.4 months (95% CI; 64.4, 76.8) from the start of first line therapy and 45.2 months (95% CI; 36.5, 50.6) from the start of second line therapy or progression requiring treatment. The median time to second line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 16.2 months (1-93) from the start of first line therapy. At relapse, 14 patients underwent ASCT, 165 were treated with proteasome inhibitor (PI) based therapy, 83 with immunomodulator (IMiD) based therapy, 33 with alkylator based therapy, 15 with a combination of PI and IMiD, 10 with steroids, 8 with other therapies and 38 did not receive treatment. Among the 366 patients, 124 (33.9%) required change or reinstitution of therapy during follow up at the time of analysis. The median time to third line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 31 months (95% CI; 24, 40.5) from the start of second line treatment. The median overall survival (OS) was 76.4 months (95% CI; 65.2, 83.6) from the start of first line therapy and 38.8 months (95% CI; 29.6, 52.6) from the start of second line therapy. The type of therapy at relapse (ASCT vs PI vs IMiD vs melphalan vs steroids and others) did not alter the time to next therapy (ASCT, 43.1m; PI, 31m; IMiD, 37m; melphalan, 20.8m; steroids and others, 20m; p=0.3) and OS (ASCT, 66.9m; PI, 51.1m; IMiD, 51.3m; melphalan, 37.2m; steroids and others, 80.7m; p=0.9) from the start of the second line treatment; as depicted in Figure 1. Retreatment with a different drug class (as the first line treatment) at relapse significantly reduced the time to next treatment (32.3m vs 22 m; p= 0.01) as compared to same therapy; but did not have any impact on survival (30.8m vs 51.1m; p = 0.5); as presented in Figure 2. Conclusion This study provides novel information about outcomes of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who relapse or progress after first line therapy which could be useful in planning salvage therapies and designing clinical trials. Retreatment with a different therapy at relapse improves time to next therapy but does not impact OS. Hence, we conclude that the patients can fare well post relapse/ progression and can benefit from various treatment regimens including retreatment with the same agent. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND Light-chain amyloidosis (AL) is the most common form of systemic amyloidosis, with an incidence of approximately 1 case/100,000 person-years. Clinically relevant data with regard to the very young (≤ 40 years) patients (pts) are scant. We present a case-control study of very young pts with AL seen at a single institution. METHODS We reviewed the medical records of all pts with AL who were consecutively evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 01/01/1995 and 12/31/2015. The clinical characteristics and survival outcomes of very young pts at the time of AL diagnosis (cases) were compared to a 2:1 matched cohort of pts (controls) with AL who were 65 years or older and matched by the time of diagnosis. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was defined as transplantation within 6 months of the diagnosis of AL. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to all time-to-event analyses. The average years of life lost was computed by subtracting the mean survival from diagnosis observed in the cohort from the mean survival expected in the population based on life-tables. RESULTS Of 3433 pts with AL, 50 (1.5%) pts were ≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis (cases). Fatigue, peripheral edema, dyspnea and bleeding were less common at presentation in cases compared to controls (table A). The cases were also more likely to have liver or GI involvement (OR= 3.45, 95% CI: 1.6-7.2). Unusual initial clinical features in the cases included unprovoked splenic rupture (2%) and erectile dysfunction (4%) observed 6-15 months prior to the diagnosis of AL in cases; no such features were observed in the control group. The median time between the onset of symptoms and definitive diagnosis was 0.4 years (95% CI: 0.3-0.7) for the cases and 1 year (95% CI: 0.8-1.2) for controls (p<0.0001). The ECOG performance score at diagnosis was ≥2 in 51% of cases compared to 78% of the controls (OR= 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.63). The involvement by 3 or more organs at diagnosis was comparable [24 (48%) cases compared to 34 (34%) controls (p=0.11)]. Concomitant myelomatous (AL-CRAB) features were evident in 12% of each group and 27 (54%) cases and 37 (41%) controls had >10% BMPCs without active myeloma (AL-PCMM) (p=0.16). Monoclonal light chain involvement without involvement of heavy chain was seen in 23 cases (50%) and 31 controls (32%), (OR= 2.1, 95% CI: 1.04-4.37). The median follow-up was similar for cases and controls, [10.9 years (95% CI: 7.6-12) vs 9.9 years (95% CI 8-14)], respectively. The estimated average years-of-life lost was 8.6 years over 20 years of follow-up in cases, (Figure 1a). In cases, 1 and 10-year overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 73% and 51%, respectively (median OS 12.7 years; 95% CI: 4.0-NR) while, in controls, 1 year and 10 year OS was 62% and 15% respectively (median OS 2.1 years; 95% CI (1.0-3.6), p<0.001), (Figure 1b). Cardiac involvement was associated with a worse OS in both cohorts, (cases: median OS was 3.2 years with cardiac involvement (95% CI: 0.6-8.7) vs NR (95% CI: 8.0-NR) in those without; p=0.003; controls: median OS was 1.1 years with cardiac involvement (95% CI: 0.53-1.6) vs 4.8 years (95% CI: 3.7-8.1) in those without; p=0.02. Thirty one of 47 (66%) cases were eligible and 20 of 79 (25%) controls were eligible for upfront ASCT. In cases, upfront ASCT was associated with a longer OS. Median OS was NR (95% CI: NR-NR) in pts who underwent upfront ASCT (n=25) vs 4.0 years (95% CI: 0.5-8) in pts who did not, p≤0.0001. For controls, the median OS was 9 years (95% CI: 0.5-11) for pts who underwent upfront ASCT (n=7) vs 1.6 years (95% CI: 1.0-2.8) for pts who did not (n=93), p=0.26. In cases, six (12%) pts underwent solid organ transplantation (kidney 5, heart 1) and none in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS AL amyloidosis is infrequently encountered at the age of ≤40 years, but the loss of productive years of life and the disease burden are substantial in this cohort. A substantial delay in diagnosis from the onset of symptoms was noted in our study in the control population. Cardiac involvement remains a primary determinant of prognosis irrespective to age. Although over one-half of young pts are alive 10 years after the diagnosis (contrast ≈15% ≥ 65 years), early mortality remains substantial irrespective of age. An ASCT-based approach is associated with superior outcome in the young. A greater proportion of the young pts is fitter and ASCT-eligible at diagnosis, and should therefore be offered this approach. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Jannsen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kumar:Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is approved by the US FDA, in combination with Rd, for the treatment of MM patients (pts) who have received at least 1 prior therapy. Approval was based on the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study (NCT01564537) in 722 pts with RRMM (Moreau et al, N Engl J Med 2016), in which IRd showed superior PFS versus placebo-Rd (HR 0.74) at the final prespecified analysis, with limited additional toxicity. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed a consistent PFS benefit with IRd, but with a differential treatment effect according to prior therapy exposure. An exploratory study objective was to evaluate potential relationships between treatment outcomes and tumor gene expression patterns. c-MYC is a proto-oncogene that encodes a transcription factor regulating cell proliferation, growth, protein translation, metabolism, and apoptosis, and increased c-MYC expression is involved in MM pathogenesis/progression. We analyzed the impact of c-MYC expression on PFS in RRMM pts treated with IRd or placebo-Rd. Methods Pts with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive oral ixazomib or placebo, plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3), proteasome inhibitor exposure, and ISS disease stage. The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review committee assessment. Data reported here are from the final prespecified statistical analysis of PFS (median follow-up ~15 months). Bone marrow aspirate samples were collected at screening for tumor gene expression analysis. Whole transcriptome sequencing (RNAseq) of bone marrow-sorted CD138+ cells was performed using the Illumina Truseq protocol on the Illumina HiSeq platform; this generated a median of 50 million paired-end reads (100 bp length) per sample. c-MYC expression was evaluated by treatment arm and according to number of prior therapies (1 vs 2-3). PFS was analyzed in subgroups dichotomized according to median c-MYC expression (c-MYC-high/c-MYC-low). Results RNAseq data were available for 59% (427/722) of enrolled pts; 213 (50%) had high and 219 (50%) had low c-MYC expression (dichotomized according to the median). Impact of c-MYC expression (high vs low) on PFS, irrespective of treatment arm, was not significant (p=0.98). However, a significant treatment effect of IRd vs placebo-Rd was only seen in pts with high c-MYC expression (interaction p=0.024); in these pts (IRd: n=109; placebo-Rd: n=104) a significant PFS benefit was seen with IRd (HR 0.41; 95% CI: 0.26-0.65, p=0.00011). Impact of c-MYC expression was then analyzed by number of prior therapies. In the overall TOURMALINE-MM1 population, per stratification, 212/213 pts in the IRd/placebo-Rd arms had 1 prior therapy, and 148/149 had 2-3 prior therapies. After median follow-up of ~15 months, median PFS in pts with 1 prior therapy was 20.6 vs 16.6 months with IRd vs placebo-Rd (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.65-1.20), and in pts with 2-3 prior therapies was not reached vs 12.9 months (HR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.40-0.84, p=0.0033). The level of c-MYC expression was shown to be significantly higher in pts with 2-3 prior therapies vs 1 prior therapy, with median expression of 6.94 (SD=1.71, n=177) vs 6.52 (SD=1.74, n=250) (log2 scale), t-test p-value 0.0153. In pts with 1 prior therapy, no differences in PFS were observed between pts with low c-MYC expression (HR 1; 95% CI: 0.59-1.8, p=0.934), while a prolonged PFS benefit was observed in pts with high c-MYC expression (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.88, p=0.0146) (Figure, A and B). In pts with 2-3 prior therapies, both the c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts showed improved PFS with IRd vs placebo-Rd; the difference in PFS was statistically significant only in c-MYC-high pts (HR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18-0.72, p=0.00269) (Figure, C and D). Conclusions In TOURMALINE-MM1, c-MYC expression was higher in MM tumor samples from pts with 2-3 vs 1 prior therapies. The IRd regimen was active in c-MYC-high and c-MYC-low pts, but its impact on PFS vs placebo-Rd was greater in c-MYC-high pts, thus providing a potential explanation for the enhanced PFS benefit with IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with 2-3 prior therapies. The PFS benefit with IRd in c-MYC-low pts with 2-3 prior lines suggests that, in advanced MM, further genomic alterations may also be contributing to ixazomib sensitivity. Disclosures Di Bacco: Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Avet-Loiseau:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ganly:Medipics: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Langer:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kumar:Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Li:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Badola:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Shen:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Zhang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Wang:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Esseltine:Takeda: Equity Ownership; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; Johnson and Johnson: Equity Ownership. Luptakova:Takeda Oncology: Employment. van de Velde:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

Abstract Background In 2015, the FDA approved 5 new agents and/or combination regimens for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. In addition, new clinical data support using new regimens in the first-line setting. This rapid expansion of available treatment options has greatly increased the complexity of treatment decisions for patients in this disease setting. Clinical practice guidelines list multiple preferred treatment options for MM and can be challenging to apply to specific patients with a mixture of presenting features. Since 2013, we have developed and updated an MM online decision support tool designed to provide clinicians with expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the tool over the years has shown that experts rapidly integrate new data and available agents into practice whereas many tool users do not. Here we report data from the most recent version (2016) of this tool, capturing the impact of the rapid expansion of new therapies on expert treatment recommendations. Methods In June 2016, a panel of 5 experts provided treatment recommendations for 688 case scenarios across 3 settings: induction, maintenance, and R/R disease. These distinct scenarios were defined by key patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation, results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, previous therapy and response, and preexisting comorbidities. To use the tool, these patient and disease factors and the intended treatment for that specific patient were entered through drop-down menus to display the expert choices for that case. Users were then asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on planned treatment. Results We compared expert recommendations from the 2 most recent versions of our MM tool, compiled in March 2015 and June 2016, to assess the impact of the new data and FDA approvals on treatment patterns. The experts are generally not recommending these agents as induction or maintenance therapy. Three out of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone as induction therapy for preexisting peripheral neuropathy (PN) and 1 expert recommended ixazomib-based regimens as induction and maintenance therapy for patients with high-risk cytogenetics and both renal insufficiency and PN. The new agents did have a substantial impact on expert recommendation in the R/R setting. In the 2016 tool, the type of previous therapy was the primary factor affecting expert selections, whereas the number of previous lines of therapy (1-3 vs >3) had minimal impact in the R/R setting. For example, in patients refractory to previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, regimens containing either elotuzumab (30%) or daratumumab (25%) were selected frequently by experts with pomalidomide-containing regimens recommended in another 40% of these specific cases. In the 2016 tool, the use of lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone without a newly approved agent was not recommended by any expert in the R/R setting, although it had been recommended by experts in 25% of R/R case scenarios in the 2015 tool. For patient scenarios refractory to previous immunomodulatory drugs and PIs, the experts recommended daratumumab-based regimens in 67.5% of the cases in the 2016 tool whereas the use of carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone fell from 45% in 2015 to 10% of the cases in 2016. None of the experts recommended regimens with panobinostat as their preferred choice in any patient scenario in either 2015 or 2016. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence and FDA approvals. Our data show that newly approved therapies are having a large impact on expert recommendations for specific case scenarios in the relapsed/refractory MM setting. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data that captures practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Kesios: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Acetylon: Other: Scientific Founder; Sonofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: The presence of circulating plasma cells (CPCs) is associated with an adverse prognosis in multiple myeloma along the entire spectrum of disease. However, the impact of CPCs prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been defined in the era of novel agents. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the presence and number of CPCs before transplant using 6-color multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC). We also explored the additional prognostic implications of CPCs over the current paradigm for risk stratification at transplant, including high-risk (HR) cytogenetics and disease status at transplant by the IMWG criteria. Methods: A total of 1113 consecutive patients transplanted between 2007 and 2015 in Mayo Clinic were included in the study. Flow-cytometry of peripheral blood to identify clonal CPCs is routinely performed in all patients before ASCT in Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The mononuclear cells from peripheral blood samples are isolated by Ficoll gradient and subsequently stained with antibodies to CD19, CD38, CD45, CD138 and cytoplasmic kappa (κ) and lambda (λ) immunoglobulin light chains. Clonality is assessed by light chain restriction (κ:λ expression ratio of 4:1 [κ restricted] or <1:2 [λ restricted]). The target for collection is >150,000 cellular events. For samples where less than 150,000 clonal events are examined, the number of final clonal events is adjusted to 150,000 events. HR cytogenetics by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on bone marrow (BM) plasma cells was defined by one of the following abnormalities: t(4;14), del(17p), t(14;16), t(14;20) or +1q, detected at any time point from diagnosis to transplant. Patients who had insufficient plasma cells for FISH analysis in BM specimens were not included in the denominator to calculate the percentage of patients with HR cytogenetics. The primary end-points of this study were post-transplant response, PFS and OS. Result: CPCs were detected in 238 out of 1113 (21.4%) patients, with the median number of CPCs being 82 (range, 1-102381) per 150,000 events. The median age of patients at transplant was 62 years. A total of 1097 (99%) patients had received novel agent based induction therapy with PIs and IMiDs, including 458 (41%) patients who had received both PIs and IMiDs. 401 (36%) patients had received post-transplant maintenance or consolidation therapy. The frequency of t(4;14) in BMPCs was significantly higher in patients with CPCs compared to those without [15.2 vs 7.0% for t(4;14); P<0.001]. The median follow-up from transplant for survivors was 45 months. The 5-year OS rate in patients with and without CPCs was 34% (95% CI, 27-42) and 70% (95% CI, 66-74) respectively (P<0.001). After exploring several cut-offs for the number of CPCs per 150,000 events, we chose a simple pre-transplant risk stratification model: No CPCs (n=874; 78.5%), 0<CPCs≤400 (n=188; 16.9%) and CPCs>400 (n=51; 4.6%). The number of patients achieving stringent complete response post-transplant in groups with no CPCs, 0<CPCs≤400 and CPCs>400 was 310 (36%), 31 (16%) and 3 (6%) respectively (P<0.001). The median PFS in the 3 groups was 27 months (95% CI, 25-30), 15 months (95% CI, 13-18) and 6 months (95% CI, 4-10) respectively (P<0.001) and 5-year OS rates were 70% (95% CI, 66-74), 42% (95% CI, 34-51) and 12% (95% CI, 5-26) respectively (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS and OS are depicted in Figure I (A and B). In a multivariate model (Table I), the groups with 0<CPCs≤400 and CPCs>400 had an increased risk of death, independent of the presence of HR cytogenetics and disease status at transplant. Conclusion: Our study shows the strong negative prognostic impact of CPCs prior to transplant on post-transplant response and survival in MM in the era of novel agents. The proposed risk stratification model can be easily employed with simple equipment and should be routinely incorporated in the pre-transplant workup. Detailed epigenomic, genomic and transcriptomic analysis of CPCs is urgently needed to uncover the biological basis of resistance to both high-dose cytotoxic therapy and novel agents and identify potential avenues of targeted therapy against CPCs. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ionis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Melphalan based chemotherapy is commonly used for treatment of light chain amyloidosis (AL). Patients with AL often receive chemotherapy before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) if they have high plasma cell burden or while awaiting ASCT. Melphalan is an alkylator and can affect bone marrow stem cells. Limited data is available on the effect of melphalan on stem cell mobilization in patients with amyloidosis. This study aims to identify the impact of melphalan therapy on collection of stem cells and ASCT in amyloidosis. Methods: All patients with AL seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who underwent stem cell harvest were identified from an institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment, stem cell harvest and ASCT was extracted from the electronic medical records. Analysis was carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Results: Three hundred and seventy two patients with AL who met the inclusion criteria were identified, of whom 10% (n=38) received melphalan based chemotherapy prior to harvesting, 28.5% (n=106) received non-melphalan based chemotherapy and 61.3% (n=228) received no chemotherapy prior to stem cell collection. Bortezomib based regimens were the most common (78%, n=83) non-melphalan based chemotherapy. All three groups were similar in terms of median age at diagnosis (59.1 years), median age at collection (59.4 years), gender distribution (59% males, n=221) and type of involved free light chain (FLC), with lambda being more common (72.2%, n=268). Patients who received melphalan-based chemotherapy had more cardiac (73.8% vs. 45.2% vs. 46.4%, p=0.005) and renal (84.2% vs. 50.9% vs. 68%, p=0.0002) involvement compared to other chemotherapy and no chemotherapy groups, respectively. In contrast, patients who received non-melphalan based chemotherapy had higher plasma cell burden (15% vs. 6% vs. 10%, p< 0.0001) and greater difference between involved and uninvolved FLC (44.2 mg/dL vs. 13.3 mg/dL vs. 13.2 mg/dL, p< 0.0001) compared to melphalan and no chemotherapy, respectively. Median duration of melphalan based chemotherapy was shorter at 54 days (34.5 to 79.5) or estimated 2 cycles compared to 101 days (60 to 135.5) or estimated 4 cycles (p=0.0019). Despite shorter duration of chemotherapy, total stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was lower in patients who received melphalan based chemotherapy (5.54) compared to non-melphalan based chemotherapy (8.14) or no prior chemotherapy (7.94); p<0.0001. Similarly, day one stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was the lowest in the melphalan group (2.71), followed by other chemotherapy group (3.63) and highest in no chemotherapy group (4.84); p<0.0001. This trend persisted for average stem cell yield per collection as illustrated in table 1. Filgrastrim (GCSF) alone was the most common mobilizing agent. However, patients with any chemotherapy prior to harvesting had higher utilization of plerixafor; 26.3% (n=10) in the melphalan group and 39.6% (n=42) in the non-melphalan group compared to 11.6% (n=27) if no prior chemotherapy (p<0.0001). However, no statistically significant difference was seen for melphalan vs. non-melphalan chemotherapy groups (p=0.44). In patients who underwent ASCT (85%, n=315), median stem cell dose (million CD34/kg) was different in the melphalan (3.66), non-melphalan (4.2) and no chemotherapy groups (4.44) (p=0.047), though the difference was not statistically significant amongst the 2 chemotherapy groups (p=0.34). There was also no difference in time to engraftment (table 1). Conclusions: Melphalan based chemotherapy, even if used for a short duration of time, significantly decreases both total stem cell yield and the yield on day one. It therefore has the potential to add to resource utilization with more collections needed. As much as possible, limited cycles of melphalan based chemotherapy or non-melphalan based treatment should be utilized in patients who are transplant eligible. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Chemotherapeutic options for patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) who are not transplant candidates include bortezomib based therapy, melphalan with dexamethasone, and less commonly, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). However, prospective clinical trial data comparing these regimens are lacking. This study aims to compare efficacy of bortezomib-based treatment to other therapies. Methods: All patients with AL seen within 90 days of diagnosis at our institution over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who did not undergo a stem cell transplant were identified from our institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were extracted from electronic medical records. Analyses were carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as time to death, progression requiring treatment change or relapse requiring re-institution of treatment. PFS and overall survival was analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Seven hundred and twenty five patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 38% (n=275) received bortezomib containing regimens and 62% (n=450) received non-bortezomib based therapies. Bortezomib was used with dexamethasone in 24% (n=67) patients; and with other drugs, most commonly cyclophosphamide, in 76% (n=208) patients. Non-bortezomib treatment regimens included melphalan-based treatment in the majority (92%, n=414) followed by IMiDs with steroids and other drugs (8%, n=36). Baseline variables similar in both groups and their distribution in the entire cohort was as follows: gender distribution (63.3% males, n=459), median age of diagnosis (66.3 years, range 32.2 to 93.6), type of involved free light chain (FLC) (lambda 73%, n=523) and median plasma cell burden (10%, range 0 to 91). Median difference between the involved and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) was higher in the bortezomib group (29 mg/dL vs. 23 mg/dL; p=0.017). There was no difference in organ involvement. In the bortezomib group, organ involvement was as follows: cardiac (81%, n=219), renal (62%, n=168) and hepatic (18%, n=48). In the non-bortezomib group, the rates of organ involvement were similar: cardiac (78%, n=346), renal (57%, n=247) and hepatic (19%, n=85). Median duration of first line treatment was similar in the 2 groups, with 178 days in the bortezomib cohort and 187 days in the non-bortezomib cohort. Response rates are illustrated in Table 1. Rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better response were higher in the bortezomib group (64 % vs. 54%, p=0.0002). Patients treated with bortezomib achieved VGPR faster with higher rates of VGPR or better response seen at 3 months (48% vs. 27%, p <0.0001) and 6 months (57% vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) after initiation of therapy compared to non-bortezomib treatment. Rates of organ response were similar amongst the 2 groups as shown in Table 1. However, median time taken to achieve a cardiac response was shorter in the bortezomib group (23 vs. 38 weeks, p=0.0026). In a multivariable model, bortezomib-based treatment and dFLC at diagnosis were predictors of VGPR. Relapse or progression requiring change in therapy was more common in patients treated with non-bortezomib based therapy (38%, n=143/372) compared to bortezomib-based treatment (28%, n=67/236); p =0.01). However, no difference in overall survival was observed in patients treated with bortezomib (2.2 years; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 3.3) vs. non-bortezomib therapies (1.7 years; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.5). Conclusion: Treatment with bortezomib-based regimens results in a deeper response including higher rates of early VGPR at 3 and 6 months from starting therapy. Moreover, these patients achieve cardiac response faster and have lower rate of relapse. However, no difference in overall survival was seen, which may be explained by subsequent use of bortezomib-based therapies in this population. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Plasmacytomas comprise approximately 3% of all plasma cell malignancies. There is a paucity of large studies assessing clinical features and outcomes of this relatively uncommon disease. Our objective was to describe the patterns of clinical presentation and survival of plasmacytomas using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of plasmacytoma from 2000-2011 using International Classification of Diseases for Oncology version 3 (ICD-0-3) code: 9930. Patients who had bone marrow involvement were excluded from the analysis. Plasmacytomas were grouped into two broad categories: extramedullary plasmacytoma (P-EM) and bone plasmacytoma (P-bone) based on their anatomical locations. Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results A total of 6,939 patients were included in the study (median age 64 years; range 18-90 years). Approximately 62% of these patients were males and 46% patients were ≥ 70 years. Racial/ethnic distribution of the disease was as follows: 76% Whites, 13% Blacks, 7% Hispanics, and 4% others. The anatomical distribution and survival of patients is depicted in the Table. P-EM comprised 30% of the patients, with remaining 70% presenting as P-bone. Among P-EM, most common sites of presentation were upper aero-digestive tract (41%) and connective/soft tissue (20%). After a median follow up of 65 months, the overall survival of P-EM was significantly better than P-bone (113 vs. 78 months; Figure). Based on outcomes, we can categorize the P-EM patients into 3 groups: good (median overall survival > 120 months: upper aero-digestive tract, lymph nodes, endocrine and digestive system), intermediate (median overall survival 90-120 months: nervous system, eye/orbit, pulmonary), and poor (median overall survival <90 months: connective/soft tissue, cardiac/mediastinum, genitourinary, and hepatobiliary system). Males had better overall survival than females in P-bone (84 vs. 67 months; p<0.0001), but had no significant survival difference in P-EM (109 vs. 116 months; p=0.7). In the P-EM group, median overall survival was worst for Blacks (98 months vs. Whites- 108 months, Hispanics- not reached, others-145 months). Conversely, for P-bone, Blacks had a better overall survival than Whites (Blacks- 99 months, Whites- 72 months, Hispanics- 156, others-84 months). Patients who were treated at an academic center had better overall survival than patients treated at other/community centers both in case of P-EM (130 vs. 108 months) and P-bone (107 vs. 69 months). Conclusions This is the largest registry-based study on plasmacytoma in the United States. Plasmacytomas have varied clinical presentation, along with significantly different survival based on sites of presentation, race, sex, and treatment facility. Our study results point toward important differences in disease biology based on location and may aid in assessing prognosis for planning treatment. Table. Anatomical distribution and median overall survival of plasmacytomas. Table Overall survival based on location (P-EM: extramedullary plasmacytoma; P-bone: bone plasmacytoma) Table. Overall survival based on location (P-EM: extramedullary plasmacytoma; P-bone: bone plasmacytoma) Figure Figure. Disclosures Kumar: Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: BCL-2 and MCL-1 promote multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (VEN) is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable small-molecular inhibitor of BCL-2. When combined with bortezomib, which can inhibit MCL-1, VEN can enhance the activity of bortezomib in MM cell lines and xenograft models. Methods: In this Phase 1b, open label, dose escalation study, patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM received daily VEN (50 - 1200 mg per designated dose cohort) with bortezomib and dexamethasone. The objectives of the study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose (R2PD), and efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], time to progression [TTP], and duration of response [DoR]) of combination therapy in this patient population. Results: As of 01July2016, 66 patients were enrolled, with 54 in the dose escalation cohort and 12 in the safety expansion at R2PD of 800 mg. The median age was 64 years and 39 (59%) were ISS stage II/III. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 1 - 13), and 21 (32%) were refractory to prior bortezomib, 37 (56%) were refractory to prior lenalidomide, and 41 (62%) had prior stem cell transplant. Forty-three (65%) patients discontinued the study for the following primary reasons: 33 related to disease progression, 5 due to AEs (1 each: respiratory failure and cardiac failure, lung adenocarcinoma, sepsis, renal impairment, and Guillain-Barre syndrome; none were considered by the investigator as related to VEN), 2 withdrew consent, and 3 for other reasons not specified. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (99%) patients, with common AEs in ≥20% of patients being diarrhea (41%), thrombocytopenia (39%), constipation (38%), nausea (36%), insomnia (32%), peripheral neuropathy (30%), peripheral edema (29%), anemia (27%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (27%), dyspnea (24%), fatigue (24%), and asthenia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (29%), anemia (15%) and neutropenia (14%). Serious AEs in ≥2 patients were febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, cardiac failure, pyrexia, influenza, lower respiratory tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, embolism, and hypotension. One dose-limiting toxicity of lower abdominal pain was reported for a patient who received 1200 mg VEN. Five deaths were reported during the study, 4 due to disease progression and 1 due to respiratory syncytial virus infection (not considered by the investigator as related to VEN). After co-administration with bortezomib and dexamethasone, dose-normalized VEN exposure at steady-state appeared to be within the exposure range observed with VEN monotherapy in patients with MM. The ORR for all evaluable patients was 68% (44/65) and 26 (40%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or better (3 stringent complete response [sCR], 8 CR, 15 VGPR) (Figure). For all patients, median DoR was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.2, 15.8) and TTP was 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.7, 10.2), with a median follow up of 4.9 months (range: .03 - 26.7). High ORR of 89% was seen in patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib (39/45) or who had 1 - 3 prior therapies (31/35). In 31 patients who were non-refractory to bortezomib and had 1 - 3 prior therapies had ORR of 94% (29/31), 68% (21/31) with VGPR or better; median DoR was 10.6 months and TTP was 11.3 months for this subgroup. Moreover, patients who were bortezomib naïve and had 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy had ORR of 100% (12/12), and median DoR was 15.8 months and TTP was 17.1 months. In patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib but who were refractory to lenalidomide, the ORR was 86% (19/22) as compared with 91% (20/22) in those non-refractory to lenalidomide. Clinical responses were comparable in patients with t(11;14) MM (ORR, 78% [7/9]) and without t(11;14) MM (ORR, 66% [37/56]). In the t(11;14) group, 3 patients were bortezomib-refractory, and 2 of them achieved a PR as best response. Also, 4 patients had more than 3 prior lines, with 3 of them achieving PR. Conclusions: VEN in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone has an acceptable safety profile in patients with R/R MM. Efficacy results, including 68% ORR in all patients and 94% ORR in patients not refractory to bortezomib and who received 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy, indicates promising efficacy of this novel combination and supports the ongoing Phase 3 trial with this regimen in patients with R/R MM. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Roberts:Genentech: Patents & Royalties: Employee of Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research which receives milestone payments related to venetoclax; AbbVie: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Agarwal:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Facon:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Kumar:Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Cordero:AbbVie: Employment. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie: Employment. Jia:AbbVie: Employment. Salem:AbbVie: Employment. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Shareholder in AbbVie. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment. Verdugo:AbbVie: Employment, Other: may own stock. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Research Funding.