Lonial, Sagar

Abstract Background: Triplet regimens combining a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and a steroid have been shown to be active and well tolerated in previously untreated MM pts. Extended treatment represents an alternative paradigm to induction followed by ASCT in this setting; however, agents for continuous therapy need to be convenient and well tolerated. The investigational agent ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be studied clinically. Phase 1 studies have indicated single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory MM and shown ixazomib to be well tolerated with a manageable safety profile, including limited peripheral neuropathy (PN) (Richardson PG et al, Blood 2014; Kumar SK, et al, Blood 2014). Weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone has been investigated in a phase 1/2 study in previously untreated MM pts (NCT01217957); treatment comprised triplet induction therapy followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance therapy. Results of induction therapy have been previously reported (Kumar SK, et al, ASH 2012). Here we report phase 2 efficacy and safety data in pts receiving ixazomib maintenance. Methods: In phase 2, pts aged ≥18 yrs with measurable disease and no grade ≥2 PN received oral ixazomib 4.0 mg on d 1, 8, 15, lenalidomide 25 mg on d 1–21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on d 1, 8, 15, 22, for up to twelve 28-d induction cycles, followed by maintenance ixazomib on d 1, 8, 15 every 28 d until progression at the dose last tolerated during induction. Transplant-eligible pts could discontinue from study for ASCT after 6 cycles. The primary objective was CR+VGPR rate. Responses were assessed by IMWG criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.02. Results: Fifty pts were enrolled in phase 2; 29 discontinued during induction (cycles 1–12), primarily to undergo ASCT (n=14) or due to AEs (n=6) or pt withdrawal (n=4). Twenty-one pts received ixazomib maintenance therapy (cycle ≥13); 13 (62%) were male, and median age was 68 (range 34–77) years. At data cut-off (June 11, 2014), pts had received a median of 27 treatment cycles (range 15–32), including both induction and maintenance, with a median treatment duration of 26.6 mos (range 13.4–29.6). Mean ixazomib relative dose intensity was 95% and 89% in the induction and maintenance phases, respectively. The mean ixazomib dose administered during maintenance was 3.6 mg weekly. At data cut-off, 11 (52%) pts remained on ixazomib maintenance. Among 49 evaluable phase 2 pts, 44 (90%) achieved ≥PR, including 29 (59%) ≥VGPR. All 21 pts who received ixazomib maintenance had responded to induction therapy. Overall best confirmed/unconfirmed responses in the 21 pts included ≥CR in 11 (52%, of which 4 [19%] were stringent CRs [sCR]), ≥near-CR in 13 (62%), and ≥VGPR in 15 (71%), plus 6 (29%) PR. Responses were rapid and improved during treatment. Median time to first response (≥PR) was 0.99 mos (range 0.92–5.78) and to best response was 7.46 mos (range 1.02–24.74); 33% of pts improved their response during maintenance, including 2 VGPR to near-CR, 3 VGPR to CR, 1 VGPR to sCR, and 1 CR to sCR. At data cut-off, median duration of response was 26.5 mos (range 5.6–26.6+). Among 15 pts achieving ≥VGPR, 5 (33%) had progressed; median duration of ≥VGPR was 23.0 mos (range 3.7–26.1+). All pts were alive after follow-up of 24.6–30.3 mos, including a median follow-up from start of maintenance of 16.9 mos (range 12.9–18.9). Ixazomib maintenance was well tolerated; 15 (71%) pts had drug-related AEs, with only 2 (10%) pts with grade 3 drug-related AEs (hypokalemia, thrombocytopenia) and no grade 4 AEs. The most common (>1 pt) grade 1–2 drug-related AEs were diarrhea (n=8, 38%), nausea, pain in extremity (each n=3, 14%), anemia, and headache (each n=2, 10%). No PN was reported. Serious AEs were reported in 3 (14%) pts during maintenance, including grade 3 acute myocardial infarction, grade 3 pneumonia, and grade 3 orthostatic hypotension; all were considered not related to treatment. Only 1 pt required an ixazomib dose reduction due to an AE (neuralgia). Conclusions: These data indicate that single-agent ixazomib maintenance for up to 1.5 yrs was feasible and generally well tolerated, improved responses following ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction, and contributed to durable responses (median >2 yrs) in previously untreated MM pts not undergoing ASCT. The results support the ongoing phase 3 trial of ixazomib in the maintenance setting (NCT02181413). Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline Diagnostics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone and as maintenance therapy for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma.. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hamadani:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding. Stewart:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Vescio:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Berg:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Liao:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Hui:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Richardson:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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: p38a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) mediates production of proinflammatory cytokines and other factors including PGE-2 induced RANKL and IL-1 induced IL-6. SCIO-469 inhibits p38a MAPK blocking synthesis of Il-1ß, PGE2, VEGF, MIP-1α and TNFα thus reducing in vitro MM tumor growth and survival, and drug resistance. Objectives: Assess efficacy, safety, tolerability of SCIO-469 as M or MB in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: Pts were treated with SCIO-469 alone (60 mg po tid)and assessed on Days 15, 30, 52 and 73. Bortezomib (1.0–1.3mg/m2 d 1,4,8,11 q21d) was added to M for PD or SD. Pts who had clinical benefit on either M or MB at Day 73 were allowed to continue on extension study for up to a total of 168 d, to further evaluate efficacy and saftey of M or MB. Results: 62 pts were enrolled: 39 M, 23 F, median age was 63 years (range 48–84), D-S stage at Dx: I (6%), II (32), III (60%%); median time from diagnosis to treatment 3.1 years; median # prior Rx = 5; including 29% with > 6; 71% prior transplant. 27 had received prior bortezomib and 17 were considered refractory. All 62 pts received study drug; 34 pts received MB at some time during the treatment period. 5 of the 28 (18%) pts treated with M and 25 of 34 (74%) pts treated with MB continued on the extension study. Median time on study was 77.5 d (range 7–304) for M and 180.5 d (range 34–275) for MB. Best response (EBMT; Blade 1998) to M was stable disease in 24% of pts; the best response to MB was 9/34 PR (26%), 2/34 MR (6%),3/34 SD (9%). Median time to progression (TTP) was 50 days for M compared to 140 days for MB. Safety/Tolerability: Adverse events on M were tabulated separately from those on MB. Neutropenia was minimal, < 3% with either regimen; anemia (47 vs 29%) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 16%) were more prevalent with MB vs M, respectively. Epistaxis, fatigue and diarrhea were seen in > 15% of pts receiving M. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain, fatigue, pyrexia, anorexia, URI, arthralgia, muscle cramp, dizziness, peripheral neuropathy and headache occurred in > 15% pts receiving MB. 10 pts died on study, 9 during primary phase and 1 during extension phase. 3 deaths were the result of sepsis, the remaining 7 were due to progressive disease. Conclusions: SCIO-469, 60 mg tid, as monotherapy or in combination with Bortezomib was well tolerated. Although there were no objective responses in M (compared to 32% (11/34) in MB-including 4 patients who had failed prior bortezomib), 24% had stable disease at the end of monotherapy. Further studies to refine the dose of SCIO-469 as monotherapy and of SCIO-469 in combination with other agents are warranted.

Abstract Background: BT062 (Biotest AG, Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a CD138-binding chimerized antibody and the cytotoxic maytansinoid, DM4. It is designed to target and kill CD138-positive cancer cells. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly expressed on a number of solid tumors and hematological malignancies and is one of the most reliable markers for multiple myeloma (MM) cells. BT062 was previously evaluated as a monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM and found to have an acceptable tolerability profile with preliminary evidence of activity (Heffner et al, Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042). Phase I/IIa testing was initiated with BT062 in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex). The combination was well tolerated at BT062 doses up to 100 mg/m², defined to be the recommended Phase 2 dose (RPTD), and induced meaningful responses, including in patients previously treated with both Len and bortezomib (Bort) (Kelly et al, Blood. 2014; 124: Abstract 4736). Based on these promising results, further investigation of BT062 in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and dex was initiated in patients with prior Len and Bort exposure, a patient population known to have a poor outcome. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and activity of BT062 (on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 4-week cycle) used in combination with dex (20-40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) or Pom (4 mg, daily on days 1-21) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: This is a prospective, open label, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The RPTD of BT062 in combination with Len/dex was defined to be 100 mg/m², and 38 patients were treated with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD. An additional 17 patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex at the BT062 RPTD. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory MM were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len, Pom, and/or dexamethasone (any dose) was allowed. To qualify for treatment with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD, patients must have received at least one but no more than six prior therapies.To qualify for treatment with BT062/Pom/dex, patients must have received at least two prior therapies, including both Len and Bort, and progressed on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy, with no limit on number of prior therapies. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of disease progression) without unacceptable toxicities were eligible to receive additional treatment cycles. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4. Clinical response was assessed by the investigator according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: Sixty-four patients have received BT062 in combination with dex and Len or Pom in this ongoing study. The combinations have been generally well tolerated, with approximately 90% of adverse events (AEs) reported CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs reported are diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Forty-seven patients have received BT062 with Len/Dex (3 at 80 mg/m², 38 at 100 mg/m², 6 at 120 mg/m²), with 8 patients still on treatment. Among these 47 patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months. Forty-three patients completed at least two treatment cycles and were evaluable for response. Of these patients 33 achieved a partial response (PR) or better, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 77% and a median duration of response (DOR) of 21.0 months. Thirteen of the evaluable BT062/Len/dex-treated patients had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 54% among these patients, including 1 complete response (CR), 4 very good partial responses (VGPR) and 2 PRs. Seventeen patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex, all had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 79%, with 4 VGPR and 7 PR among the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy. Median PFS has not been reached after 7.5 months median follow up, with 7 patients still on treatment. Updated safety and activity data will be presented. Conclusion: BT062 has been found to be well tolerated when used in combination with Len/dex or Pom/dex, with encouraging activity even in patients with Len- and Bort-pretreated disease progressing on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy. Disclosures Kelly: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Somlo:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heffner:Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Madan:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Barmaki-Rad:Biotest AG: Employment. Rühle:Biotest AG: Employment. Herrmann:Biotest AG: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction Tumor specific somatic mutations can potentially influence patient response to targeted immunotherapies. Since somatic mutations generate neoantigens, novel tumor-specific peptides can be processed, loaded into MHC class I molecules, and presented to T-cells as potentially immunogenic targets. Indeed, both somatic mutation burden and neoantigen burden have been correlated with responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitor blockade in highly mutagenic advanced melanoma and lung cancer. However, correlation of response with mutation and neoantigen burden has not been reported for cancers of lower characteristic mutational burden such as multiple myeloma (MM). Indeed early results of checkpoint inhibitors in MM have been underwhelming. We therefore wished to better understand the mutation and neoantigen landscape of MM patients as it relates to responsiveness to current and future therapies. Materials/Methods Somatic mutation burden, neoantigen load, and response to therapy was obtained using interim data from theCoMMpassstudy (NCT01454297), a study by the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation that collects longitudinal clinical and molecular data on 1,000 newly diagnosed MM patients from baseline through treatment and disease progression. Next-generation exome sequencing data was used to call somatic mutations andbioinformaticallydetermine patient specific HLA type. Neoantigen binding affinity was predicted for all unique patient specific somatic missense mutation and HLA allele combinations using a well validated neural network and machine learning based algorithm. Binding affinity of the corresponding non-mutated peptide was also predicted to identify mutated neoantigens witha high binding affinity while the wild type counterpart has low predicted binding affinity. Results For 627 patients with available sequencing and clinical data, mutation and neoantigen profiles were created. Within this population, the mean overall canonical somatic mutation load was 405.84 (s=608.55) mutations per patient. These mutations included 38,222 unique missense mutations in 12,994 genes. The mean somatic missense mutation load was 64.51(s=95.29) mutations per patient including immunoglobulin genes (52.70, s=94.85 excluding immunoglobulins). There was a positive linear correlation between mutation burden and neoantigen burden. The mean neoantigen load using thresholds of mutant peptide binding affinity (half maximal inhibitory concentration, IC50) less than 500nM was 69.57 (s=124.76) neoantigens (58.53, s=123.58 excluding immunoglobulins). Limiting binding affinity of wild type peptide sequence to greater than 500nM decreased the mean neoantigen load to 23.84 (s=53.55) neoantigens (20.74, s=53.28 excluding immunoglobulins). Progression free survival (PFS) following induction therapy was used to determine correlates of mutation burden excluding immunoglobulin mutations with response. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significantly shorter PFS time in patients with greater than average tumor somatic missense mutation load (N=126) relative to those with less than average mutation load (49.1% vs. 73.0% PFS at 2yrs, p=0.0055, Figure 1) Similarly, patients with greater than average neoantigen load (N=164) had significantly shorter PFS relative to those with less than average neoantigen load (48.0% vs. 74.2% PFS at 2yrs, p=0.00259, Figure 2). Moreover, patients with both high mutation and neoantigen load (N=85) had significantly shorter PFS relative to those with less than average mutation and neoantigen load (45.3% vs. 72% PFS at 2yrs, p= 0.0168). Conclusion While mutation and neoantigen load has been correlated with response to targeted immunotherapies in highly mutated solid tumors, we report here a negative correlation between mutation, neoantigen load and MM patient survival. This indicates that a high mutation andneoantigen load negatively impacts survival of myeloma patients under current standard of care. It is hypothesized that this is because current treatments fail to recruit T cell immunity necessary to exploit tumor neoantigens fundamental to immune-mediated killing of cancer cells. This presents an encouraging basis for pursuing targeted and personalized immunotherapies for multiple myeloma, especially for patients with a higher mutational burden. PFS and mutation load. PFS and mutation load. PFS and neoantigen load. PFS and neoantigen load. Disclosures Lonial: BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

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: Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 2-3-fold higher risk of multiple myeloma (MM) than persons of European ancestry (EA). Like other B-cell malignancies, genome-wide association scans (GWAS) have identified MM risk variants in the HLA region in persons of EA. We conducted a case-control analysis with data from the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)1comprising MM patients typed for bone marrow transplant to donor controls matched by race-ethnicity, and found associations between specific HLA alleles/haplotypes and MM risk that varied by race and ethnicity. To confirm our results and identify additional novel signals, we have now investigated associations between HLA alleles and haplotypes and MM risk in the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) Cohort. Methods: The source of subjects was the AAMMS, in which AA MM patients were identified from 10 cancer centers and 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) Program cancer registries in order to identify genetic risk factors for MM among AAs. A GWAS was conducted using the Illumina Human Core BeadChip array on DNA samples from 1,305 AA MM patients in the AAMMS comparing results to those from 7,078 AA controls with GWAS data generated from the Illumina 1MDuo2. The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were imputed to classical HLA variants using HIBAG. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate HLA associations, adjusting for sex, age and the first 2 principal components. P-values were adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR) for each locus group. Results: We did not identify any single HLA alleles associated with MM risk among AAs. However, several B*07:02-containing haplotypes were associated with MM risk (odds ratios [OR] ranging from 2.38 to 2.64 and FDR P-values ranging from 1.43 x 10-6 to 3.57 x 10-8). We found associations between MM risk and genotypes containing DRB3*02:02, including DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01+ DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01 (OR=1.93, PFDR= 9.36 x 10-5) similar to those observed in the NMDP study1. Novel findings included associations between MM risk and HLA Class I haplotypes B*53:01+ B*57:01 (OR=1.94, PFDR= 0.003) and C04:01~B*53:01+C*06:02~B*57:01 (OR=1.96, PFDR= 0.0050). Results from an ongoing meta-analysis between the two data sets (one based on an imputed GWAS and one based on NMDP HLA typing) will be presented. Conclusions: This study is the second to examine HLA alleles and risk of MM among AA's and is by far the largest. We confirmed a previously observed association between an HLA Class II DRB3 variant and MM risk and confirmed an association with B*07 haplotypes previously observed among EAs1. We also identified novel associations between other HLA Class I haplotypes and MM risk in AA's. Because HLA is highly polymorphic, many HLA alleles are rare variants for which genetic associations are difficult to detect without very large sample sizes. Further investigation with large sample sizes will be necessary to refine these associations in order to better identify the underlying causal alleles and determine the functional significance of these HLA associations. 1Beksac M, Gragert L, Fingerson S, et al.: HLA polymorphism and risk of multiple myeloma.Leukemia. 2016 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.199. 2Rand KA, Song C, Hwang AE, et al. Genetic susceptibility markers of multiple myeloma in African-Americans. Abstract # 2030, 56th Annual American Society of Hematology Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2014. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Nooka:Spectrum, Novartis, Onyx pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Zonder:Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Abstract Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a disorder of lymphoplasmacytoid cells that inhabit lymph nodes and the bone marrow. WM cells are characterized by secretion of monoclonal pentameric IgM. These cells are CD19+, CD20+, CD22+, CD38+, CD138+/- and phenotypically resemble IgM plasmablasts or plasma cells. In addition, 91% of WM cases carry an activating mutation of MyD88 (L265P). Mature resting B cells can be driven to differentiate to IgM secreting plasmablasts and plasma cells with similar phenotypes using the TLR4 ligand lipopolysaccharide (LPS). We have demonstrated that LPS (+ cytokine)-differentiated cells become Bcl-xL dependent during this process, rendering them sensitive to the Bcl-xL/Bcl-2 inhibitor ABT-737. For this reason, we hypothesized that activation of MyD88 in WM cells could drive Bcl-xL dependence in a similar manner conferring ABT-737 sensitivity. We treated three WM cell lines, BCWM.1, MWCL-1 and RPCI-WM1 which all harbor the MyD88 (L265P) mutation with ABT-737. We found varying levels of resistance to ABT-737 with an IC50 > 2 μM for all three lines as compared with the ABT-737 sensitive multiple myeloma cell line MM.1s which has an IC50 of 0.4 μM. The RPCI-WM1 cell line was the most insensitive to ABT-737-induced apoptosis with no apoptosis above baseline up to 1.6 μM of drug. Since the WM cell lines were not sensitive to direct inhibition of intrinsic survival regulators, we then examined the sensitivity of these cell lines to other activators of the intrinsic apoptosis pathway. Two of the three cell lines were moderately sensitive to bortezomib with IC50 ≈ 5 nM as compared with the sensitive multiple myeloma cell line MM.1s with an IC50 of 2 nM. The RPCI-WM1 cell line was insensitive to bortezomib with no apoptosis above baseline up to 20 nM bortezomib. Similarly, we found that two of the cell lines were moderately sensitive to arsenic trioxide with an IC50 ≈ 6 μM as compared with the multiple myeloma cell line MM1.s (IC50 ≈ 4 μM). The RPCI-WM1 cell line was insensitive to ATO as well with an IC50 > 20 μM. Given the lack of sensitivity of the three WM cell lines we tested to Bcl-xL/Bcl-2 inhibition with ABT-737 treatment, and that RPCI-WM1 appears insensitive to multiple inducers of intrinsic apoptosis, we examined the expression levels of Bcl-2 family members in these cells. Both BCWM.1 cells and MWCL-1 cells expressed Bim mRNA at very low levels with MWCL-1 expressing no detectable Bim at the protein level. Surprisingly, more moderate levels of Bim were detected in RPCI-WM1 cells. These findings were confirmed at the mRNA level by qRT-PCR. Bcl-xL and Mcl-1 were detectable in all three lines at moderate levels while Bcl-2 which was only expressed at significant levels in MWCL-1 cells and undetectable in BCWM.1 cells. We examined the expression levels of the Bax and Bak in these cells and remarkably there was no detectable Bax and very small amounts of Bak protein in RPCI-WM1 cells. Consistent with a defect in gene expression, Bax mRNA was also low in RPCI-WM1. This was not due to copy number variation, as determined by array-CGH in both the initial patient isolate and the established cell line. Additionally, no loss of Bax, Bak or Bim (Bcl2l11) was observed in SNP array analysis of 46 patients with WM. Interestingly, Bak mRNA levels in RPCI-WM1 were similar to the other WM lines, suggesting a defect in translation or post-translational regulation is responsible for the low protein expression. These results lead us to conclude that these WM cell lines are not sensitive to Bcl-xL/ Bcl-2 inhibition despite activation of MyD88. We have further shown that there are multiple and distinct differences in Bcl-2 family protein expression that lead to this insensitivity. While low levels of Bim combined with expression of Mcl-1 confer resistance to ABT-737 in MWCL-1 and BCWM.1, the lack of Bax and Bak confers resistance to intrinsic apoptotic stimuli in general in RPCI-WM1. Moreover, the loss of Bax and Bak protein expression occur through distinct mechanisms. These WM cell lines demonstrate that sensitivity to agents that kill through the intrinsic apoptotic pathway may vary within a disease that is characterized by a single activating mutation and suggests that additional heterogeneous events regulate the expression of Bcl-2 family proteins in WM. Disclosures: Leleu: CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Boise:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Abstract Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and a steroid are used to treat newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Although ixazomib (Ix), an oral PI with single agent activity, can be combined with lenalidomide (LEN), patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM are often LEN-refractory. Pomalidomide (POM) has single agent activity in LEN-refractory disease, and both POM and Ix also show activity in poor cytogenetic risk pts. Methods: Primary objectives: 1) determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Ix in combination with standard dose POM and dexamethasone (DEX), and 2) evaluate the anti-tumor activity of the triplet. The treatment regimen included two dose levels (3 mg and 4 mg) of Ix on days 1, 8, 15; POM 4 mg days 1-21; and DEX 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22, of a 28 day cycle. Eligibility: R/R MM after >1 prior therapy, LEN-refractory, and ≤ grade(gr) 1 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Design: Phase I study utilizing a standard 3+3 design; dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) defined during cycle 1. Results: 32 pts treated, 31 evaluable for toxicity and response. Pts received a median 4 cycles (range 1-13); median follow-up is 5.5 months (range 1.8-21.1). Six pts treated on DL1, 25 treated on DL2, the MTD/Phase II dose (P2D). Median age: 62 years (range 38-84); median time from diagnosis: 3.7 years (range 1.0-8.9); median number prior therapies: 3 (range 1-5); prior transplant: n = 23 (74%); double (LEN/Bortezomib[BOR]) or triple (LEN/BOR/Carfilzomib[CFZ]) refractory: 19 (61%). Phase I: DL1 expanded to n=6 after 1/3 pts experienced DLT (gr3 lung infection); no further DLT seen on DL 1 or 2. Adverse events (AEs) related to POM and/or Ix: ANC decrease Gr1/2 n=11 (35%), Gr3/4 n=10 (32%), platelet decrease Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), lymphocyte decrease Gr1/2 n=8 (26%), Gr3/4 n=11 (35%), PN Gr1/2 n=9 (29%), no Gr3/4. Response: Phase I and II, n=31 pts treated. ORR: 45% (6 VGPR, 8 PR); Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR): 81% (6 VGPR, 8 PR, 3 MR, 8 SD). In the pts with high risk cytogenetics (7[23%] 1q, 3[10%] 17p, 2[6%] t(4;14)) an ORR of 58% (3 VGPR, 4 PR) was seen, and the CBR was 83%. In the double or triple refractory pts, an ORR of 26% and CBR of 79% (1 VGPR, 4 PR, 3 MR, 7 SD) were observed. Conclusions: Ix/POM/DEX is a well-tolerated oral combination therapy, and responses were seen even at DL1 and in high risk patients, including those with poor-risk cytogenetics or advanced refractory disease. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Nathwani:Carevive Systems, Inc.: Research Funding. Forman:Mustang Therpapeutics: Other: Construct licensed by City of Hope. Berdeja:Abbvie, Acetylon, Amgen, Bluebird, BMS, Calithera, Celgene, Constellation, Curis, Epizyme, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kesios, Novartis, Onyx, Takeda, Tragara: Research Funding.

Abstract Backround: Dysregulation of the PI3K/Akt signal transduction pathway has been implicated in the development of a number of malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM). This cellular signaling mechanism and its downstream targets (eg mTOR) regulate cell growth, proliferation and apoptosis. SF1126 (Semafore) is a water soluble prodrug of the pan-PI3K inhibitor, LY294002, whose anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic activity has been well described in the literature. Preclinical studies using SF1126 in a variety of malignancies including glioma, prostate, non-small cell lung cancer, and breast cancer appear promising and have demonstrated profound antiangiogenic effects mediated through VEGF inhibition. Aim: To demonstrate in vitro anti-myeloma activity of SF1126, alone and in combination with dexamethasone, bortezomib, and melphalan and evaluate their effects on downstream targets of PI3K/Akt. Methods: MM cell lines (MM.1R, MM.1S, RPMI 8226) were treated with SF1126 (1–100uM), dexamethasone (5uM), bortezomib (5nM), melphalan (10uM) alone, and in combination. Growth inhibition following treatment was measured by MTT assay at 24 and 48 hours. Apoptosis was assessed by annexin-V binding assay using flow cytometry. Immunoblot analysis was performed to measure downstream targets of Akt including: p-PDK1 and mTOR (4E-BP1). Results: A clear dose response was established with an IC50 of 8.75uM in the MM.1R and 7.5uM in the MM.1S cell lines at 48 hours. At 24 and 48 hours, 5uM SF1126 alone resulted in 80% and 64% cell viability by MTT assay, respectively, in the MM.1R cell line. The combination of 5uM SF1126 with conventional agents was then tested in the MM.1R cell line. Combination with 5uM dexamethasone enhanced the efficacy of 5uM SF1126 by 26% at 48 hours. Combination with 10uM melphalan enhanced the efficacy of 5uM SF1126 by 20% at 24 hours. The combination with 5nM bortezomib enhanced the efficacy of 5uM SF1126 by 23% at 48 hours. Given prior experience demonstrating that short exposure to bortezomib activates Akt, we tested sequential administration of bortezomib and SF1126 in the MM.1R cell line. Optimal cell death was induced with bortezomib prior to SF1126, followed by concurrent administration. Immunoblot analysis of p-PDK1, downstream mTOR target (4E-BP1) were performed on the MM.1S cell line treated with 5, 10, 20, and 50uM SF1126 at 12 and 24 hours. At the 12 hour time point, p-PDK-1 appeared to increase, but was significantly reduced by 48 hours. A similar pattern of initial upregulation followed by reduction by 24 hours was seen with the mTOR protein 4E-BP1. Conclusion: SF1126 has dose dependent, in vitro activity in several multiple myeloma cell lines both as a single agent and in combination with dexamethasone, bortezomib, and melphalan. The addition of SF1126 to dexamethasone in a dexamethasone resistant cell line results in increased cell death, possibly by overcoming resistance mechanisms. The addition of SF1126 to bortezomib and melphalan also resulted in increased growth inhibition over either agent alone. These results warrant further study of this promising new pan-PI3K/Akt inhibitor.

Abstract Background: BT062 (Biotest AG Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), comprising the anti-CD138 chimerized MAb (nBT062) and the maytansinoid DM4 as a cytotoxic agent. It is designed to bind to CD138 on cancer cells, and then release DM4 after internalization to cause cell death. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly overexpressed on various solid tumors and in hematological malignancies, and represents one of the most specific target antigens for identification of multiple myeloma (MM) cells. BT062 was investigated as a single agent and found to have an acceptable tolerability profile and evidence of activity in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and/or refractory MM (1). Preclinical studies showed enhanced anti-MM activity when BT062 was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len/Dex). Based on these data, a Phase I/IIa study in MM was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BT062 in combination with Len/Dex. Objectives: To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RPTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and anti-MM activity of increasing doses of BT062 (days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) used in combination with Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) and low dose Dex (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Methods: This is a prospective, open label, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The Phase I part includes dose escalation, and the Phase IIa the expansion of the RPTD cohort. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed and/or refractory MM who have failed at least one prior therapy were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len and/or Dex was allowed. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of progressive disease) and without unacceptable toxicities were eligible for additional treatment cycles. Patients were enrolled in cohorts of at least 3 at each dose level; DLT in the first cycle triggered cohort expansion. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4 and clinical response was assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: The maximum administered dose (MAD) was 120 mg/m². Two of six patients treated at this dose had a DLT: mucosal inflammation (CTC grade 3) and anemia (CTC grade 3). The MTD was defined as 100 mg/m² and selected as RPTD. Additional patients are being treated at this RPTD to further evaluate safety and efficacy. Enrollment into the study is ongoing. As of July 2014, a total of 45 patients had received BT062 at dose levels of 80 mg/m² (N=3), 100 mg/m² (N=36) or 120 mg/m² (N=6). Fifteen patients discontinued study treatment: 5 for disease progression, 7 for adverse events, 1 died (not treatment related) and 2 for withdrawal of consent. The other 30 patients remain on treatment. The median treatment duration was 123 days (range 1–597). The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–11). 68% of patients had prior exposure to both Len and bortezomib, 73% of patients had prior Len exposure, and 30% were Len-refractory. According to preliminary data from this ongoing study, about 89% of reported Adverse Events (AEs) were CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common reported AEs were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and hypokalemia. Amongst the 36 patients across all dose levels currently evaluable for efficacy, the overall response rate (ORR) is 78%; including 1 stringent complete response, 2 complete responses, 10 very good partial responses, and 15 partial responses. Two patients achieved a minor response and 6 patients disease stabilization, resulting in a clinical benefit in 100% of the evaluable patients. The ORR was 83% among the 30 evaluable patients receiving the RPTD. Interestingly, the ORR was 70% among the 23 patients with prior exposure to Len and bortezomib, and among 10 patients refractory to prior treatment with Len. Conclusion: Preliminary data from this ongoing study indicate that BT062 is well tolerated in combination with Len/Dex at dose levels that induce responses in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, including patients with prior exposure to both Len and bortezomib and patients refractory to prior treatment with Len. Updated results on safety and efficacy will be presented. References Heffner et al, BT062, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Directed Against CD138, Given Weekly for 3 Weeks in Each 4 Week Cycle: Safety and Further Evidence of Clinical Activity. Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042. Disclosures Kelly: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Heffner:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Research Funding; Dana Farber CI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Idera: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Talon Therapeutics: Research Funding. Somlo:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Munshi:Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Ocopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Barmaki-Rad:Biotest AG: Employment. Chavan:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Patel:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopep: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership.