Siddiqui, Mustaqeem

Abstract Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is an effective treatment that has transformed hematologic malignancy management. However, its significant short-term toxicities, mainly cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity, require frequent monitoring almost universally achieved via prolonged inpatient admissions. We have reported our institution's specialized, multi-disciplinary hospital-based outpatient (HBO) CAR-T service and experience (Bansal et.al, ASCO 2021). To enhance the HBO practice, we implemented a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program, comprised of in-home, electronic health record-integrated technology to monitor vital signs and neurologic symptoms for 30 days post CAR-T infusion. The RPM program's triaging algorithm generates alerts based on predetermined parameters to guide escalation of care if needed. In this report, we describe the characteristics of RPM program patients (pts), focusing on the alerts received within 48 hours (h) of first hospitalization in the post-CAR-T setting. Methods: Pts undergoing commercial CAR-T cell therapy at Mayo Clinic Rochester were enrolled in the RPM program as part of our standard of care from 06/2020 to 05/2021. Pts with detailed RPM data available were included in this analysis. Patient characteristics, health care utilization, inpatient interventions, and RPM alert data were reviewed. Wilcoxon test was used for continuous variables, chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Of 20 pts in this analysis, 13 had RPM alerts in the 48h preceding the first hospitalization post CAR-T. For the remaining 7 pts without RPM alerts, 3 were hospitalized within 24h of CAR-T infusion without significant RPM data, 1 patient hospitalized with acute pancreatitis (day +8 post CAR-T infusion), 1 for doubling of CRP (day +10), 1 for acute pain crisis (day +5), and 1 with neutropenic fever (day +5) with not reporting RPM data. The median RPM program duration was 18 days (range 3-32) which accounts for interruptions in the RPM monitoring while pts are hospitalized. The median number of data points per patient was 231 (range 22-532), with a median of 20 alerts per patient (range 2-81). The median missing data points per patient were 20 (10%) (range 0-95). Of the 13 pts with RPM alerts within 48h of first hospitalization, alerts met our definition of urgent criteria in 6 pts [temperature (temp) > 100F (n=3), temp > 100F + tachycardia (n=1), temp > 100F + hypoxia (n=1), and hypoxia (n=1)]. In the remaining 7 pts, the RPM alerts met our routine criteria definition [temp 99-100 (n=2), tachycardia + hypertension + weight loss (n=2), hypertension (n=2), new incontinence (n=1)]. CRS was reported in 12 pts [grade 1-2 (n=11), grade 3-4 (n=1)] and neurotoxicity in 8 pts [grade 1-2 (n=7), grade 3-4 (n=1)]. The median post CAR-T first hospitalization day was day +4 (range day +2-10), Figure 1. The median time from the last RPM alert to hospitalization was 5.8h for pts meeting urgent criteria vs 10.8h for those meeting routine criteria (p=0.13). Tocilizumab was used in 5 pts during the first hospitalization [3 (50%) in the urgent criteria group and 2 (28%) in the routine criteria group], with a median time from admission to tocilizumab of 12h in the urgent criteria group vs 43h in the routine criteria group (p=0.05). Early hospitalization (≤ 3 days) post CAR-T infusion was associated with later need for tocilizumab [median 51h (range 30-57) vs. 11.5h (range 6-33) from admission, p=0.03] than late hospitalization (> 4 days post CAR-T). Upon admission, oxygen supplementation was started on both pts with hypoxia noted in the RPM alerts. Only 1 patient (routine criteria group) required use of vasopressors while hospitalized, initiated more than 48h after admission. Conclusion: A CAR-T RPM program can identify adverse symptoms and vital sign changes in CAR-T pts managed in the outpatient setting. In this pilot implementation, the CAR-T RPM triaging algorithm identified pts requiring expedited hospitalization and facilitated early initiation of tocilizumab. The intermittent monitoring and proportion of missing data are the main limitations of the RPM in the acute care setting post-CAR-T infusion. Incorporation of wearable devices for continuous remote monitoring is being explored as a mitigating strategy to these limitations. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Kapoor: Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Wang: InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

AbstractGain of 1q22 at diagnosis portends poorer outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM), but the prognostic significance of acquired 1q22 gain is unknown. We identified 63 MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic from 1/2004 to 12/2019 without 1q22 gain at diagnosis who acquired it during follow up and compared them to 63 control patients who did not acquire 1q22 gain with similar follow up. We also compared outcomes in the acquired 1q22 gain group with outcomes in 126 patients with 1q22 gain present at diagnosis. The incidence of acquired 1q22 gain was 6.1% (median follow‐up 6.8 years); median time to acquisition was 5.0 years (range: 0.7–11.5 years). Abnormalities on baseline fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) included trisomies (54%) and monosomy 13 (39%); 16 (25%) had high‐risk (HR) translocations or del(17p). Median progression‐free survival with front line therapy was 29.5 months in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 31.4 months in control patients (p = .34) and 31.2 months in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .04). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 10.9 years in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 13.0 years in control patients (p = .03) and 6.3 years in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .01). Presence of HR FISH at baseline increased risk of 1q22 gain acquisition. We demonstrate that acquisition of 1q22 gain is a significant molecular event in MM, associated with reduced OS. Among HR patients for whom this clonal evolution is determined, a risk‐adapted approach and/or clinical trial should be considered.

e20016 Background: An elevated serum LDH level is an adverse prognostic factor in NDMM. However, this category includes quantitative serum LDH levels that range from just over the upper limit of normal (ULN) to levels that may be 2 or more-fold higher than the ULN. This binary classification of serum LDH level of “normal versus elevated” fails to discriminate between the different disease biology that exists among NDMM patients with elevated serum LDH levels. Thus, we attempted to further stratify NDMM patients by the level of their serum LDH and determine its impact on OS. Methods: The cohort included patients diagnosed with NDMM from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 2003 - 2017 who were treated with novel agent induction therapy and had serum LDH levels measured at the time of diagnosis. The serum LDH levels were stratified into three levels: Normal (LDH < 222 U/L), Elevated (LDH 223-444 U/L), and Very Elevated (LDH >444 U/L or >2x upper limit of normal). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared via the log-rank method. Results: The cohort consists of 1,196 NDMM patients with a median age of 65 (22 – 95). R-ISS classification and cytogenetic risk were available for 968 and 970 patients respectively. The median serum LDH level was (162 U/L (3- 1260)) and an elevated LDH was present in 199 patients (17%). The median OS for patients with normal (N = 997; 83%), elevated (N = 170; 13%) and very elevated (N = 29; 3%) LDH levels were 76 months, 57 months and 23 months respectively (P < 0.001). The impact of these different levels of LDH on OS by R-ISS stage and cytogenetic risk is shown in the Table. Conclusions: A very small subset of NDMM patients has very elevated LDH levels that confer an exceptionally poor OS irrespective of R-ISS stage and cytogenetic risk. Future studies elucidating their disease biology responsible for such poor OS outcomes are warranted.[Table: see text]

Previous studies show that patient complaints can identify gaps in quality of care, but it is difficult to identify trends without categorization. We conducted a review of complaints relating to admissions on hospital internal medicine (HIM) services over a 26-month period. Data were collected on person characteristics and key features of the complaint. The complaints were also categorized into a previously published taxonomy. Seventy-six unsolicited complaints were identified, (3.5 per 1000 hospital admissions). Complaints were more likely on resident services. The mean duration between encounter and complaint was 18 days, and it took an average of 12 days to resolve the complaint. Most patients (59%) had a complaint in the Relationship domain. Thirty-nine percent of complaints mentioned a specific clinician. When a clinician was mentioned, complaints regarding communication and humaneness predominated (68%). The results indicate that the efforts to reduce patient complaints in HIM should focus on the Relationships domain.

Background: Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has shown efficacy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed light chain (AL) amyloidosis, and the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is a commonly used regimen in AL. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved, and the combination of ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is an all oral effective regimen for the treatment of multiple myeloma. This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen in patients with AL, who have not received any therapy. Patients and methods: Newly diagnosed patients with biopsy proven AL amyloidosis, with organ involvement requiring therapy, were enrolled if they had measurable disease (Serum immunoglobulin free light chain ≥5 mg/dL AND abnormal serum free light chain ratio) and adequate organ function. Patients with severe organ involvement were excluded (Alkaline phosphatase &gt;750 U/L, creatinine clearance &lt;30 mL/min or NT-ProBNP ≥ 7500 ng/dL). Treatment consisted of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; cyclophosphamide 500 mg PO weekly and dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly for twelve 28-day cycles, followed by ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15) at the last tolerated dose till progression. The primary objective was to determine the hematologic response rate of ixazomib, used in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated AL. A one-stage binomial design was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the hematologic response rate is at most 30% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 50%, with 85% power and 9% type I error. Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, median age was 67 (range 38-78) years; 69% were male. Organ involvement included cardiac in 23 (65.7%), renal in 19 (54.3%), and nervous system involvement in 5 (14.3%). At data cutoff 8 patients still remain on study with a median follow up of 4.4 months for those who are alive. Across the trial a median of 4 cycles (range 0-23) of treatment have been completed; the most common reason for going off study was institution of alternate therapy in 17 patients (63%). The overall hematologic response was 57% (20/35) and included amyloid CR in 5 (14%), VGPR in 9 (26%) and a PR in 6 (17%) patients. Confirmed organ responses have been observed in 5 patients so far, 2 each for cardiac and renal and 1 hepatic. The median PFS and OS have not been reached; 4 patients had hematological progression; 6 patients (17%) have died. Across 193 cycles of treatment administered, dose modification was required in 5, 3, and 10 patients, respectively, for ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. A grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE), at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 41% of patients. The figure shows the maximum grade of adverse events for individual patients seen in more than one patient across the study. Conclusions: The all-oral regimen of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone is active in patients with previously untreated AL amyloidosis with hematologic responses observed in 57% of patients, including complete responses. Organ response has been observed but will likely need longer follow up for accurate assessment, given the delay in organ responses in this disease. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted. Disclosures Gertz: Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: 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. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding.

Background: The absence of residual monoclonal protein in the serum and urine by IFE using specific antibodies to individual heavy and light chains has been an important part of response assessment and is required for categorizing patients as in complete response. MASS FIX has been shown to be more sensitive in picking up small amounts of monoclonal protein and represents an advancement in the field. Ongoing studies are examining the clinical significance of this increased sensitivity. We designed the following study using clinically obtained test results to examine this question. Patients and methods: The clinical laboratory at Mayo Clinic changed the process from IFE to MASS FIX in July 2018. We identified patients who had sequential testing before and after this date and collected test results from the last IFE prior to the date of transition and the first MASS FIX after the date of transition. Patients were grouped based on the paired results and outcomes compared between groups. Time to next therapy (TTNT) was defined as the time from the first MASS FIX date to the start of next therapy. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and these curves were compared using log rank test. Results: Overall, 739 patients with MM, who had a MASS FIX within 12 months of the IFE were studied; 380 (51%) patients had a negative IFE prior to implementation of MASS FIX. These patients had a MASS FIX test performed at a median of 3.7 (0.03-12) months from the last available IFE. The gap between IFE and MASS FIX was &lt;6 months and &lt; 3 months in 71% and 54% of the patients. Among the patients with a negative IFE, 130 (34%) tested positive on the subsequent MASS FIX. Limiting the analysis to those with a MASS FIX within 6 and 3 months yielded 32% in each group that turned positive from previous negative IFE. The median TTNT from the MASS FIX date was significantly shorter for those who became positive on MASSFIX; median was not reached for either group (P=0.002) (Figure). We then limited the analysis to those patients with a gap of &lt;6 months and &lt;3 months between the tests. The results were consistent: P= 0.012 for those with a gap of &lt; 6 months and P=0.01 for those with a gap &lt; 3 months. Conclusion: The results suggest that the additional sensitivity offered by MASS FIX have clinical significance in patients with MM, given that patients with residual disease identified by MASS FIX have an earlier relapse. The data supports the use of the more sensitive MASS FIX in the laboratory compared to the conventional IFE approaches. The study has the disadvantage that the samples were not tested simultaneously and some of the samples turning positive may reflect an early evidence of relapse, but the relative consistency of the finding irrespective of the gap between the tests argues against that. Ongoing studies are examining MASS FIX on the samples that were called to be negative by IFE initially. Figure Disclosures Murray: The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Gertz:Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Background: Newly diagnosed patients with AL Amyloidosis are a heterogeneous population, ranging from incidentally found nephrotic syndrome to delayed advanced cardiac disease. For the purposes of trials, patients with the highest-risk disease are often excluded from trial participation. An NT-proBNP of 8500 or higher is the criterion most often used for exclusion from clinical trials due to high rates of early death. It is well documented that overall survival is improving over time, in part due to earlier diagnosis and in part due to more effective therapies. It is our aim to describe outcomes of patients with very high (NT-proBNP &gt;=8500) and advanced stage amyloidosis excluding very high (VH) NT-proBNP. Methods: To address this need, we examined the outcomes of AL patients diagnosed between 1/2012 and 7/2020 and seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis. Of the 1290 patients, 291 were seen beyond the 90 day threshold and were thus excluded. Another 170 patients were excluded due to missing biomarkers to calculate stage, leaving 829 patients for our analysis. Thresholds for troponins and BNPs were used according to Muchtar Blood 133(7):2019 to correct for assay used. The vast majority of patients had troponin T measured, and for them the 0.025 mcg/L and the 0.035 mcg/L cut-points were used for the 2012 and 2004 staging systems. A minority of patients did not have troponin T, but rather high sensitivity troponin T (n=129) or troponin I (n=23). For patients with high sensitivity troponin T, cut-points of 41 and 50 ng/L were used, respectively, for the 2012 and 2004 systems, and for patients with troponin I only, a cut-point of 0.1 mcg/L was used for both systems. In the 3 patients with no NT-proBNP but with BNP, 400 and 81 ng/L were used respectively for the 2012 and 2004 systems; otherwise, the 1800 ng/L and 332 ng/L cut-offs were used. A BNP of &gt; 700 ng/L was considered equivalent to NT-proBNP greater than or equal to 8500 ng/L. For the 2012 system, the dFLC of 18 mg/dL was used as a cut-off. Survival estimates were done using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival were by determined by Log-Rank. Results: The median age of patients was 65 (range 29, 89), and 65% were male. 148 (17%) of these newly diagnosed patients had a VH (&gt;=8500) NT-proBNP. Patients with VH NT-proBNP were older (67 versus 64 years, p=0.004). Only 4% of the VH NT-proBNP patients received an ASCT in contrast to 34% without VH NT-proBNP. With a median follow-up of 30 months for surviving patients, median OS for VH NT-proBNP patients was 3.3 months in contrast to patients without VH NT-proBNP at 68.4 months (Figure). Breakdown of early death for patients with VH NT-proBNP by stage is shown in Table. Of Mayo 2012 patients staged I, II, III, and IV, the percent of patients with VH NT-proBNP was 0, 3, 20, and 45%. In contrast, for the European modification of the Mayo 2004 system, the percent with VH NT-proBNP by stage was 0, 6, 0, 100 for stages I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Among the VH NT-proBNP patients, there was stage discrimination using the Mayo 2012 system (6-month death rates were 17, 45, and 66% for patients with stages II, III, and IV, respectively, p=0.02). In contrast, using the Mayo 2004 system in the patients with VH NT-proBNP, 6-month death rates were 45 and 60% for stage II and IIIb patients, respectively (p= 0.12). Among patients without VH NT-proBNP, rates of death in the first year were 21% including stage I patients whose death rates were well under 10%. Patients without VH NT-proBNP but Mayo 2012 Stage III and IV had 1-year mortalities of 28 and 43% respectively. Using the modified Mayo 2004 system, excluding the VH NT-proBNP 1-year mortality was 19 and 37% for patients with stage II and IIIa, respectively. Discussion: Establishing expected outcomes for the sickest AL amyloidosis patients is a means by which trials can be designed for these patients with an unmet need. Patients with VH NT-proBNP should be considered for specially designed trials, and patients without VH NT-proBNP and advanced stage should be included in trials for newly diagnosed patients regardless of stage as long as there is appropriate stratification. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Gertz:Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy.

AbstractThree sets of criteria (International Society of Amyloidosis [ISA], Palladini and Kastritis) were independently developed for staging, progression and response criteria to predict renal survival in patients with AL amyloidosis. We evaluated these criteria using a cohort of 495 newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients with renal involvement using time to event competing risk analysis at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Only Palladini and Kastritis had a staging system and both predicted a higher risk of end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the stage III vs stage I patients but only the Palladini model was predictive for stage II patients. At 3 months, risk of ESRD was significantly higher for Palladini and ISA renal progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5–5.3, p = .001] and 2.5 [CI: 1.4–4.6, p = .004, respectively]), but renal response was not significantly protective; conversely, the risk of ESRD was not significantly higher for the Kastritis renal progression, but was significantly protective for the Kastritis renal responders (HR 0.38 [95% CI: 0.17–0.84], p = .017). Both progression and response with ISA, Palladini and Kastritis criteria were predictive of ESRD at 6 months and 12 months. While the Palladini staging criteria at baseline, and the ISA and Palladini criteria for progression at 3 months performed better than the Kastritis criteria at baseline and 3 months post‐treatment, the Kastritis criteria performed better for response 3 months after treatment. All three sets of criteria performed well at and after 6 months post‐treatment. These differences are important when choosing endpoints for clinical trials.