Rosenbaum, Cara A.

8038 Background: Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed pre/post therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients (pts) with lymphoma on clinical trials. We evaluated 2 prior data sets and concluded that BMB impact response assessment in a minority of pts with follicular lymphoma (FL) (Rutherford BJH 2017; Rutherford ASH abstract 1605, 2018). We sought to establish if BMB add value in assessing response or identify distinct progression free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in a large, multicenter, multi-trial cohort. Methods: Data were pooled from 7 trials of 580 pts with untreated FL conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and SWOG from 2002-2016. The proportion of pts with positive (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging after treatment, and (+) repeat BMB was calculated using total pts enrolled as the denominator. We tested against the null hypothesis that the proportion was = 10%, the threshold below which BMB would be considered irrelevant for response assessment, versus (vs) the alternative hypothesis that this proportion was < 10%, using 1-sided exact binomial test. Response criteria were CT-based. Imaging was not used to assess BM involvement. Because confirmatory BMB were not completed in all indicated pts, landmark survival analyses compared PFS/OS of pts with CR on imaging and negative (-) BMB vs pts with CR on imaging without repeat BMB. Pts with CR on imaging were categorized as having (-) repeat BMB or no repeat BMB within 60 days of first CR on imaging. PFS and OS were calculated from time of first CR and estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, stage, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, and treatment type (targeted vs chemotherapy plus targeted therapy), and stratified by treatment arm. Results: Median age was 55 with 51% male, 96% stage III-IV, and 88% grade I-II. FLIPI scores were 113 low, 265 intermediate, and 199 high risk. 67% received chemotherapy-based regimens. Baseline BMB was (+) in 321 (55%). Only 5/580 (0.8%) had (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent (+) BMB (p < 0.0001). Of pts with CR on imaging, PFS and OS were not different among pts with (-) BMB vs pts without repeat BMB (PFS: HR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.61-1.93, p = 0.783; OS: HR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.20-1.40, p = 0.199). Conclusions: BMB requirements may discourage pt participation in trials and add pain, expense and time without providing necessary information. We recommend eliminating BMB for response assessment from FL clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00553501, NCT01145495, NCT01190449, NCT01286272, NCT01829568, NCT00822120, and NCT00770224 .

Abstract Objectives Crystal-storing histiocytosis (CSH) is rare in plasma cell dyscrasias, with only 3 cases reported in the setting of amyloid. No cases of crystal-negative histiocytosis coincident with multiple myeloma and amyloidosis have been reported previously. Methods A 58-year-old woman presented with pain due to destructive bone lesions and was found to have plasma cell myeloma (PCM) and marrow amyloid deposition associated with crystal-negative histiocytosis. Differential diagnoses included Langerhans cell histiocytosis, Erdheim-Chester disease, and Rosai Dorfman disease. BRAF mutations were negative, and there was no evidence of paraprotein crystals, arguing against typical CSH. Results The patient was treated with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and she subsequently underwent autologous stem cell transplant and ixazomib maintenance. She achieved complete remission with improvement of her symptoms and preserved remission after following up at 60 months. Conclusions We describe a case of crystal-negative histiocytosis associated with PCM. CSH is a rare disorder associated with paraprotein-producing conditions in which immunoglobulins aggregate as intracellular crystals in the lysosomes of organ-specific phagocytic macrophages. Light chain tropism in PCM can also lead to the development of amyloid deposition in organs and, in rare cases, is associated with light chain aggregation as intracellular crystals in macrophages.

8027 Background: A.R.R.O.W. demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with once-weekly K (70 mg/m2)-dexamethasone (Kd70) vs twice-weekly K (27 mg/m2)-dexamethasone (Kd27) in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) pts, regardless of age. Weekly Kd70 is US-approved for relapsed or refractory MM (1–3 prior therapy lines). For a comprehensive fitness measure, frailty scales were developed incorporating age, comorbidities, and functional status. (Palumbo Blood 2015; Facon Blood 2015). Here we assessed post hoc pt outcomes by frailty status. Methods: PFS and safety were assessed by treatment arm and a frailty algorithm incorporating age, medical history–derived Charlson Comorbidity Index, and ECOG performance status; pts with frailty scores of 0, 1, or ≥2 were classified as fit, intermediate (int), or frail, respectively. PFS was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Safety was assessed in pts who received ≥1 treatment dose. Results: Pt distribution by frailty status was generally balanced between arms (Table). Once-weekly Kd70 vs twice-weekly Kd27 resulted in median PFS for fit, int, and frail pts of 15.7 vs 5.7 (mos; HR 0.53 [95% CI, 0.33–0.86]), 11.1 vs 7.7 mos (HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.55–1.19]), and 10.3 vs 6.6 mos (HR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.49–1.16]), respectively. Rates of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest were similar between treatment arms across frailty subgroups (Table). In the once-weekly Kd70 subgroups, there was no grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy (PN); grade ≥3 cardiac failure rates were ≤4%. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd70 resulted in PFS benefits vs twice-weekly Kd27 with a favorable benefit/risk profile regardless of frailty score as defined. These results support weekly Kd70 as a treatment option for both fit and frail RRMM pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02412878. [Table: see text]

Abstract Abstract 2965 Background: Alkylating agents have been the mainstay of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy for decades and despite introduction of several new therapies, it continues to play a significant role in its management as part of various drug combinations. While melphalan has been the most commonly used alkylator in MM, recent studies have suggested significant activity for bendamustine, a bifunctional alkylator. The combination of lenalidomide and melphalan has been associated with high response rates in relapse and newly diagnosed MM. Based on these promising results we designed a trial to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose of lenalidomide and bendamustine when used in combination as well as the efficacy of the combination in relapsed disease. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM and measurable disease were enrolled on this phase 1/2 trial provided they had not more than 4 prior lines of therapy for MM, had adequate performance status and organ and hematological function. Patients refractory to lenalidomide were allowed to enroll. The primary objectives were to (i) to determine the MTD of bendamustine and lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in subjects with relapsed MM (phase 1) and (ii) to evaluate the confirmed response rate of bendamustine in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (phase 2). Bendamustine (B) was administered on days 1 and 2 of a 28-day cycle at doses of 50–100 mg/m2. Lenalidomide (R) was given days 1–21 at doses of 15–25 mg daily. Dexamethasone (D) was administered at 40 mg weekly. Dose escalation was done using a 3+3 design and MTD was defined as one dose level below that resulted in >=2 DLTS among 6 patients. The primary end point for this trial was the proportion of patients with confirmed hematologic response (sCR, CR, VGPR, or PR) over the first 6 cycles of treatment. Results: A total of 72 patients were accrued to this study from March 2010 to May 2012: 21 patients in phase 1 and 51 in phase 2. The 6 patients from the MTD dose level of phase 1 were also included in phase 2. The median age of all 72 patients was 62.1 (range, 40–86) and 57% were male. Majority (75%) of patients had previously been exposed to lenalidomide and 69% had prior exposure to bortezomib. Median # of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1–5) and 74% of patients had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Patients have received a median of 4 cycles (range, 1–25), with 27 patients still continuing on active treatment. Disease progression led to study discontinuation in 22 (49%) and adverse events were the reason for discontinuation in 14 (31%). In phase I, two DLTs (Grade (Gr) 2 neuropathy and Gr 4 neutropenia) were seen at the highest dose level (100 mg/m2 B, 25 mg R), and the MTD was determined as 75 mg/m2 of B given days 1 and 2 and 25 mg of R days 1–21, along with D 40 mg weekly. Overall patients, 12/21 (57%) had a PR or better. In phase 2, 17 (40%) confirmed responses (>=PR) were seen among the 43 patients evaluable for response (received at least 6 cycles of treatment or have gone off study prior to 6 cycles); including 9 (21%) VGPR and 8 (19%) PR. An additional 5 patients had a minor response. Over all dose levels, a gr 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study was seen in 75% of patients. The most common toxicities were all hematological (thrombocytopenia and leukopenia), and most common non-hematological toxicity was infection. Prolonged time to recovery of blood counts was seen in a few patients, but majority of patients were able to tolerate the regimen with adequate dose reductions. Conclusion: The recommended dose of the combination for further studies is bendamustine at 75 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–21 and dexamethasone days 1, 8, 15, 22; with cycles repeated every 28 days. The regimen is well tolerated with hematological toxicity being the most common and manageable with dose reductions. The regimen is effective with high response rates and durable responses seen. Updated results with response rates and time to event analyses will be available for the entire cohort at the time of meeting. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Krishnan:celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Novartis: Expert Testimony, Expert Testimony Other. Vij:Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding.

SummarySelinexor, an oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, targets Exportin 1 (XPO1, also termed CRM1). Non‐clinical studies support combining selinexor with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and corticosteroids to overcome resistance in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We conducted a phase I dose‐escalation trial of twice‐weekly selinexor in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (SKd) to determine maximum tolerated dose in patients with RRMM (N = 21), with an expansion cohort to assess activity in carfilzomib‐refractory disease and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). During dose escalation, there was one dose‐limiting toxicity (cardiac failure). The RP2D of twice‐weekly SKd was selinexor 60 mg, carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 20 mg. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐emergent adverse events included thrombocytopenia (71%), anaemia (33%), lymphopenia (33%), neutropenia (33%) and infections (24%). Rates of ≥minimal response, ≥partial response and very good partial response were 71%, 48% and 14%, respectively; similar response outcomes were observed for dual‐class refractory (PI and immunomodulatory drug)/quad‐exposed (carfilzomib, bortezomib, lenalidomide and pomalidomide) patients (n = 17), and patients refractory to carfilzomib in last line of therapy (n = 13). Median progression‐free survival was 3·7 months, and overall survival was 22·4 months in the overall population. SKd was tolerable and re‐established disease control in RRMM patients, including carfilzomib‐refractory patients.Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02199665)