Visram, Alissa

Abstract Background Recommendations for 2 nd line treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients have been changing over the past two decades, given the introduction of novel agents, different side-effect profiles, and attempts at more individualized treatment approaches. We designed this study to characterize how 2 nd line treatment strategies have evolved over the last two decades for MM patients. Methods Patients with MM with at least one relapse treated with a 2 nd line regimen, seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003-2021, were included. To visualize trends in treatment choices we divided the study period into 2-year intervals and for descriptive purpose the period was divided into three 6-year intervals. We used "100% stacked area" charts to show how the constituent parts of the whole have changed over time. The height of each colored stack represents the proportion of patients in that category at a given point in time. Results A total of 1439 patients were included. Patients were diagnosed between 2001 and 2018, the initiation of 2 nd line treatment occurred between June 2003 and February 2021. Median age at diagnosis was 62.7 years (interquartile range, 55.8-69.3), 60.0% were male. International Staging System stage I was present in 23.5% of patients, stage II in 32.9% and stage III in 28.8%. In the 1 st line therapy novel agents were used in 82.8% of cases, regimens based on proteasome inhibitors (PI) in 26.5%, immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) in 42.0% and combination of PI+IMID in 21.1%. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was performed in 50.1% of patients, and maintenance after 1 st line was used in 25.2%. For 2 nd line treatment, during 2003-2008 the majority were treated with doublets (70.5%), followed by triplets (14.8%) and salvage ASCT (7.7%) (Figure 1A). Patients were treated with IMID or PI-based therapy (50.7% and 21.8%, respectively); only 3.7% received PI+IMID and 20.1% of patients received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. The most frequently used regimens were lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, 32.2%) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, 18.1%, Figure 1B). Between 2009-2014, the use of triplets in 2 nd line increased (43.0%), although doublets were still more common (50.9%). Like previous years, IMID-based therapy was most frequently used (37.3%), however, the use of PI-based therapy increased (36.0%). PI+IMID-based therapy was implemented in 17.9% of patient, and 27.3% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens included: RD (29.4%), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (CYBORD, 17.4%), bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, 13.4%) and VD (13.3%). Finally, during 2015-2021, triplets were most common (68.9%), followed by doublets (23.0%). IMID- and PI+IMID-based therapies were most often implemented (34.2% and 31.1%, respectively), followed by PI-based therapy (26.8%). 28.1% of patients received monoclonal antibodies; only 15.9% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens include RD (13.8%), carfilzomib-RD (11.6%), daratumumab-RD (9.8%), CYBORD (9.3%), VRD (8.8%), daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (5.9%) and daratumumab-VD (5.2%). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) from 2 nd line therapy has improved over the course of the three time periods (p<0.01; Figure 1C): years 2003-2008, 10.4 months; years 2009-2014, 13.2 months; and years 2014-2021, 16.6 months. Similarly, the median overall survival from 1 st relapse has increased over the three intervals: 30.9 months, 48.4 months, and 65.8 months, respectively. Conclusions Over the past two decades, the effectiveness of 2 nd line treatment has improved, reflected by improved TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. With the introduction of new agents in 2012-2015 (carfilzomib, pomalidomide and daratumumab) and favorable results for triplets demonstrated in randomized trials, the triplet therapies started to be used more frequently. Over time, the landscape of 2 nd line therapies has become more diverse, which may reflect a more individualized approach to each patient. Moreover, the large variety of treatment strategies makes comparisons more and more challenging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: A baseline involved to uninvolved free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥100 with involved free light chain (iFLC) ≥10 mg/dL is considered a multiple myeloma (MM)-defining event (MDE). However, prior reports have demonstrated that the presence of multimeric light chain aggregates can contribute to falsely increased FLC levels due to impaired renal light chain clearance. Therefore, we aimed to compare the disease progression risk in patients with high versus low urine monoclonal protein (uMCP) excretion in the setting of an elevated serum FLCr. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated untreated smoldering MM (SMM) and asymptomatic MM patients diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and January 10, 2020. Included patients had a baseline bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) burden of 10-59% without concomitant end organ damage (hypercalcemia, anemia, renal failure, or lytic lesions on x-ray or cross-sectional imaging; "CRAB" MDE). Patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 and iFLC >10 mg/dL were included if they had a 24-hour urine collection and electrophoresis. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Progression was defined as treatment for systemic AL amyloidosis or symptomatic MM (typical "CRAB" MDE). SMM patients treated due to evolving biomarkers or "SLiM" MDE (lytic lesions on MRI, BMPC ≥60%, or FLCr ≥100) were censored. Cox proportional hazards models were used for uni- and multivariable analyses. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We included 822 patients without MDE besides elevated FLCr (n=120 with FLCr ≥100, n=702 with FLC <100). Patients with a FLC ≥100 were grouped based on 24-hour uMCP excretion (≥200 mg/24h [n=35], <200 mg/24h [n=85]). Among included patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100, the median iFLC was 79.9 (IQR 42.9-131.5) mg/dL and median FLCr was 207.1 (IQR 137.7-400.3). Patients with a FLCr ≥100 and high (≥200 mg/24h) versus low (<200 mg/24h) uMCP excretion had a median iFLC of 101 versus 66.5 mg/dL (p=0.001), median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 74.4 versus 74.6 mL/min/1.73m 2 (p=0.505), and median BMPC burden of 30% versus 21% (p=0.088), as shown in Table 1. The 2-year risk of progression to symptomatic MM or AL amyloidosis was significantly higher in patients with uMCP excretion ≥200 versus <200 mg/24h (36.2% versus 13.5%, respectively; HR 2.79, 95% CI 1.57-4.96, p<0.001, see Figure 1). However, the progression risk was similar in patients with a baseline FLCr <100 versus those with a FLCr≥100 and uMCP <200 mg/24h (log rank p=0.127). After adjusting for baseline eGFR, BMPC burden, iFLC, and light chain isotype, the progression risk was still 2.7 times higher in patients with high versus low uMCP excretion (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.39-5.10, p=0.003). In patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 that had cross-sectional imaging at diagnosis or prior to progression confirming the absence of osteolytic lesions, the risk of progression remained significantly higher in patients with a high versus low uMCP excretion (n=14 versus n=53, respectively; HR 4.20, 95% CI 1.86-9.49, p<0.001). In patients with FLCr ≥100, there were a total of 52 patients with end organ damage at progression (26 [50%] patients with anemia, 8 [15%] with renal failure, 21 [40%] with lytic lesions, 6 [12%] with systemic AL amyloidosis). Among patients who progressed, 5 (25%) of 20 patients with high uMCP excretion and 3 (9.4%) of 32 patients with low uMCP excretion presented with renal failure as the MDE. In patients with baseline high versus low uMCP excretion that experienced renal failure at progression, the median serum creatinine of 2.7 (range 1.9-4.1) versus 2.5 (range 1.9-3.2) mg/dL (p=0.653), median uMCP 4964 (range 738-5910) versus 512 (range 196-734) mg/24h (p=0.052), and median iFLC 388 (range 317-1640) versus 437 (range 199-1030) mg/dL (p=1.00). Conclusions: Increased uMCP excretion in the setting of a FLCr ≥100 is an unfavourable prognostic marker and is associated with an increased risk of progression. The progression risk in patients with a FLCr ≥100 and low uMCP excretion (<200 mg/24h) is similar to patients with a baseline FLCr <100. Our findings underscore the importance of conducting a 24-hour urine assessment at diagnosis and may help refine the subset of patients with FLCr ≥100 in whom pre-emptive therapy is warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, 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.

Introduction: Cardiac involvement is one of the main predictors for survival in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Biomarkers such as Troponin T and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are used routinely for detecting cardiac involvement. In addition echocardiogram (ECHO) is used to determine septal and left ventricular wall thickness and strain. Most patients with AL present with preserved ejection fraction (EF) however, the outcomes of AL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with decreased EF are not very well described. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. All patients had an ECHO done before ASCT and the EF was documented. In our practice, the threshold for performing ASCT is an EF >40%. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who had an EF <55% compared to patients with an EF ≥55%. The baseline characteristics were compared between patients with high and low EF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse, or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC) ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and EF <55% vs. ≥55%. Results: We identified 716 patients and 69 (10%) had an EF<55%, with most (n=63, 91%)having cardiac involvement . Compared to patients with EF ≥55%, patients with EF <55% were more likely to have Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 (58% vs. 22%, P<0.0001) and more likely to have thicker interventricular septum (median 14 vs. 12 mm, P<0.0001). The day 100 transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher in patients with EF <55% compared to EF ≥55% (19% vs. 6%, P=0.0006). In patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4, the day 100 TRM was higher in patients with an EF<55% compared to EF ≥55% (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with EF <55% compared to patients with EF ≥55% (Figure 1 A,B). Evaluating PFS and OS according to EF specifically in Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 patients is displayed in Figure 1 (C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4, P=0.006), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.5,P=0.0005), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.7, P=0.01), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.7, P=0.01), and EF <55% vs. ≥55% (HR: 1.5, P=0.02). For OS, age >65 vs. ≤65 years (HR:1.4, P=0.04), Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 1.96, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.5, P<0.0001), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.8, P=0.03), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.5, P<0.0001), and EF <55% vs. ≥55%(HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: Having an EF <55% is associated with a higher day 100 TRM and is an independent predictor for PFS and OS in patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing ASCT. Disclosures Sidiqi: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

Introduction Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been used for treating multiple myeloma (MM) for over three decades and is generally reserved for patients younger than 65 years of age. The definition of transplant eligible is ill-defined and different centers have different policies to determine which patients are transplant eligible. Some centers have an age cut-off, others use clinical judgment, and some use various frailty scores (a scoring system based on comorbidities and physical and cognitive assessments) aiming to objectively assess transplant eligibility. There are limited data about outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years. Aim To report on outcomes of ASCT in a cohort of patients with MM aged 75 years or older. Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive MM patients aged ≥ 75 years that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Stem cell transplantation at our center is routinely performed as an outpatient, with patients being hospitalized when deemed clinically necessary upon physician review. Results Between October 2005 and March 2020, 46 patients aged 75 years or older, received an ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The median hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was 0 (range 0-6) with 8 patients having HCT-CI of 5 or 6. Median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 6.45 months (IQR 5.2-10.52) and 54% received reduced intensity conditioning with melphalan 140 mg/m2. All patients except one (that was treated with dexamethasone only) received induction with novel agents (listed in table 1) and 6 patients (13%) received doublet induction. All others received triplet induction. 46% of patients completed the ASCT without requiring hospitalization and 54% (n=25) of patients required hospitalization with a median duration of hospital admission of 9 days (IQR 5-13). Reasons for hospitalization included fever or infection (32%), cardiac arrhythmia (36%) and dehydration (32%). Overall response rate was 100% with a complete response seen in 57% of patients and 16 patients achieving MRD negative sCR. Median overall survival and progression free survival for the cohort were 82 months and 33 months, respectively. One patient died within 100 days of transplant representing a 2% 100-day mortality rate. Univariable cox regression model that evaluated the effect of gender, high risk cytogenetics, hemoglobin, renal function and melphalan dose did not detect any variable that was predictive of OS or PFS (Table 3). Conclusions ASCT is efficacious and can be safely delivered in the outpatient setting in carefully screened patients aged 75 or above. An arbitrary cutoff for age should not be used to exclude patients from ASCT, rather a careful assessment of "physiological age" including performance status and co-morbidities is required by an experienced treating team. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; 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; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other.

Introduction: The routine incorporation of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibody drugs (mAbs) in managing multiple myeloma (MM) has improved patients' prognosis. Unfortunately, triple refractory patients continue to do poorly. Immunotherapeutic approaches (mAbs, CAR-T cells) have shown the most promise in these patients. However, the efficacy of these therapies depends on a functional tumor immune microenvironment (iTME), which is extensively reshaped by existing MM therapies and disease evolution. Understanding how the iTME and malignant clone co-evolve over the disease course is crucial to optimize the use of immune-based treatments and understand their mechanisms of action. Methods: Newly diagnosed MM patients (NDMM), MM patients relapsing prior to anti-CD38 antibody exposure (RMM), and triple refractory MM patients (TRMM) were identified from the Mayo Clinic biospecimen database. We performed CyTOF (with a 37 marker lymphoid panel on CD138- bone marrow [BM] mononuclear cell samples) to assess the cellular iTME, Luminex (using BM plasma) to assess the humoral iTME (cytokines and chemokines) and RNAseq analysis (using BM CD138+ cells) to assess the malignant clone transcriptome. Astrolabe was used to identify immune cell clusters. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was used to identify gene pathways with differential expression across groups. JMP was used to perform unsupervised hierarchical clustering and descriptive statistics. An FDR corrected p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons. Results: This study included 39 patients (13 NDMM, 11 RMM, and 15 TRMM). Samples were hierarchically clustered by cellular iTME, humoral iTME and malignant cell transcriptome, separately. The cellular iTME best recapitulated known disease biology and was used as the "anchoring" variable for subsequent analyses. Three distinct immune clusters were identified (figure 1): cluster 1, comprised mainly of NDMM and RMM patients; and clusters 2 and 3, comprised primarily of TRMM patients. In cluster 2, 4/5 patient samples were collected immediately after progression on daratumumab-IMID therapy, whereas all 7 TRMM patient samples in cluster 3 were collected at a median of 2.8 (range 0-17.2) months after last daratumumab exposure (table 1). Most naïve T cell subsets (including the TIGIT+ T5 and the C38/CD127+ subsets T1, T2, and T12) were highest in cluster 1 compared to clusters 2 and 3. Several unfavorable T cell subsets were elevated in Cluster 2: 1) CD161+ T6, T7 and T17 subsets, which are thought to be Th17 polarized cells that promote MM growth; 2) T7, T9 CCR5+ subsets, which are thought to represent tumor-specific exhausted (PD-1+) T cell subsets; 3) senescent subsets (T-10, T14, T16,T18, T19); and 4) TCR-gd subsets with features of senescence (KLR, CD57), exhaustion (PD-1, TIGIT) and Th17 polarization (CD161). There were no significant differences in cytokine and chemokine expression based on disease status (NDMM, RMM, or TRMM) or iTME (immune clusters 1, 2, or 3). GSEA was performed to compare clusters 2 and 3 (TRMM enriched) with cluster 1. The most up-regulated gene pathways in clusters 2 and 3 related to cell cycle targets of E2F transcription factors and MYC proliferation pathways. The most down-regulated gene pathways in clusters 2 and 3 were IFN-gamma, IFN-alpha and TNF-alpha response and signalling. Conclusion: Changes in the cellular iTME mirror the disease course better than changes in the malignant clone or humoral iTME. Patients with more refractory MM have a smaller pool of naïve T cells which express TIGIT or CD127 and could be "revived" with anti-TIGIT antibodies or IL-7 prior to manufacturing CART cells or administering BCMA-based therapies. Significant heterogeneity exists within the more refractory subgroups, with some patients having more dysfunctional T cell subsets which may be less responsive to immunotherapeutic approaches. The malignant transcriptome of samples in clusters 2 and 3 parallels the aggressive clinical course, with myc upregulation and downregulation of cytokine pathways that mediate an antitumor immune response. This study suggests that the MM iTME becomes more dysfunctional with therapy and may explain the differential sensitivity of patients to immunotherapeutic approaches. Disclosures Kumar: MedImmune: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments.

Introduction: In general, the use of an immunomodulator (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of MM is associated with better outcomes. The management of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging due to difficulty in managing their co-morbidities and inability to tolerate treatment side effects. We evaluated therapies and outcomes of elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with MM who were >75 years old treated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2004 to January 2018. We included patients who were treated on clinical trials as well as off-trials. Patients were classified as receiving treatment with IMiD+PI+dex, alkylator+PI+steroid, IMiD+dex, PI+dex, alkylator+IMid+steroid, and other (alkylator with steroid or steroid only). Treatment response was documented as well as the progression-free (PFS), defined as the time from therapy initiation to disease relapse or death from any cause and overall survival (OS), defined as the time from start of treatment to death from any cause. A multivariate analysis for factors affecting OS was done including the following variables: being on a triplet combination (alkylator+PI+steroid, IMid+PI+dex, or alkylator +IMiD+steroid), revised international staging system (R-ISS)(stage 3 vs. 1-2), bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC%)(>60% vs. ≤60%), and receiving treatment during or after 2010 vs. before 2010. Analysis was done for patients treated off-trials, as well as, including trial patients. Results: We identified 394 patients with MM who were >75 years old and 246 (62%) were male. For non-trial patients (n=350), IMiD+dex (32%) was the most commonly used regimen followed by alkylator with steroid or steroid only (20%), alkylator+PI+steroid (18%), and IMid+PI+dex (13%). The remaining patients were treated with PI+dex (12%) and alkylator +IMiD+steroid (5%). Forty-four patients (11%) were treated in clinical trials with alkylator+IMid+steroid (47%), IMiD+dex (25%), IMiD+PI+dex (14%), and alkylator+PI+steroid (14%). The median follow up was 45.9 months with an interquartile range of 28.2 to 75.6 months. Overall, achieving very good partial response or complete response was more likely in patients who were treated with an IMid+PI+dex (58%) or alkylator+PI+steroid (47%), compared to in other therapies (5-30%)(P<0.0001). The PFS and OS for non-trial patients are displayed in Figure 1 (A,B) and for all, including trial patients in (C,D). Overall, the median OS was significantly longer in patients who were treated with a triplet in non-trial as well as all patients. In a multivariate for OS including non-trial patients, predictors for better OS included receiving a triplet (HR: 0.63, P=0.02) and not having an R-ISS stage 3 (HR: 0.39, P=0.001). This was also found when including trial patients (using a triplet, HR: 0.65, P=0.01 and not having an R-ISS stage 3, HR: 0.35, P=0.0002). Conclusion: In MM patients >75 years old, being able to receive triplet therapy is associated with better survival. This study provides better understanding of the natural history of MM outside of trials in the elderly age group. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Abbvie: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee. Kumar:Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; 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; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy.

Introduction: First degree relatives of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) or multiple myeloma (MM), and African Americans, have an increased risk of having MGUS and MM compared to the general population. However, current guidelines do not advocate for screening family members of MM for plasma cell disorders (PCD). Understanding the epidemiology of familial plasma cell disorders (PCDs) is essential in order to identify people at highest risk of developing PCDs who may benefit from targeted screening strategies. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of MM patients with a family history of PCD, and the implications of a family history of PCD on the overall survival (OS) of MM patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients with symptomatic MM followed at Mayo Clinic and diagnosed between January 1989 and June 2019. Clinical notes were reviewed for documentation pertaining to family history of PCDs. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was used to assess the OS, where OS was calculated from the date of diagnosis of symptomatic MM until death; patients were censored if they were alive at the date of last follow up. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to provide risk estimates for OS. Results: A total of 8403 patients with symptomatic MM were included in this study. Family history was documented in 1521 patients, and 291 patients (3.5% of all patients, 19% of those with any documented family history) had a documented family member with a PCD. The median age at diagnosis of symptomatic MM was significantly lower in patients with (n=291) versus without (n= 8112) a family history of PCD (60.9 versus 63.6 years, p<0.0001). The median OS of MM patients with a family history of PCD was significantly longer than MM patients without a family history of PCD (8.1 versus 4.9 years, respectively, with p<0.0001, see figure 1). Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, MM patients with a family history of PCD had a significantly lower risk of death compared to those without a family history of PCD (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.78, p<0.0001) even after adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis (above versus below age 65), self-reported race (African American versus not African American), or date of diagnosis (before versus after 2010). When restricting the analyses to the 1521 patients with clearly documented family history, the survival benefit amongst patients with versus without a family history of PCD was similar. In probands with a PCD family history, 182 (63%) had a first degree relative with PCD, whereas 109 (37%) had a second degree relative with PCD. The most common reported PCD amongst family members was MM (figure 2). Nineteen (6.5%) probands with a family history of PCD had 2 or more relatives with a PCD (6 MM patients had 2 or more first degree relatives, 5 MM patients had at least 1 first and 1 second degree relative, and 8 MM patients had 2 or more second degree relatives with a PCD history). There was no significant difference in the median OS between MM patients with a first degree versus second degree relative with PCD (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.46, p=0.837), or MM patients with 1 versus 2 or more relatives with PCD (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.53-1.96, p=0.962). Conclusion: We reviewed patients with symptomatic MM seen at Mayo Clinic over the last 30 years and found that the prevalence of patients with a documented family history of PCD was 3.5%. MM patients with a family history of PCD were diagnosed with MM at a younger age and survived longer than patients without a family history of PCD. Further work is needed to understand factors underlying the survival benefit in patients with a family history of PCD, and whether they present with less aggressive or less advanced disease at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kapoor:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Proclara: Other; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties. Kumar:Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments.

Introduction Amyloidosis is a disease caused by aggregates of misfolded insoluble proteins that accumulate extracellularly and impair organ function. The most common type of systemic amyloidosis is immunoglobulin light chain (AL), which typically involves the heart, kidneys, nerves, liver, gastrointestinal tract and soft tissue. Retroperitoneal involvement in the setting of systemic AL amyloidosis is rare and only published as case reports. Aim To report characteristics and outcomes of AL amyloidosis patients that had retroperitoneal deposition of amyloid in the novel agent era. Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive systemic AL amyloidosis patients with retroperitoneal involvement at all three Mayo Clinic sites and at Davidoff cancer center, a tertiary hospital in Israel. All patients were diagnosed with retroperitoneal involvement based on computerized tomography (CT) scans. All patients had biopsy proof of amyloidosis with Congo red staining. Patients that were diagnosed with localized amyloidosis of the bladder or ureter and patients that did not receive systemic treatment were excluded. Results We identified 11 patients with systemic AL amyloidosis and retroperitoneal involvement between January 2001 and December 2018. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 50-72). Ten were male (91%) and one was female. Five patients had amyloid secondary to B cell lymphoma (4 Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and 1 had follicular lymphoma). The involved light chain was lambda in 7 patients and kappa in 4 patients. All patients were diagnosed with retroperitoneal involvement of amyloidosis at presentation (not at progression). In 10 out of the 11 patients, amyloidosis in the retroperitoneum was confirmed by a core biopsy of the retroperitoneal tissue. Significant unintentional weight loss (more than 5 kg) at presentation was documented in six patients (55%). Seven patients (64%) had enlarged lymph nodes on the CT scan. Three patients had CT finding of calcifications, and the distribution pattern was diffuse in 7 patients (64%), while 4 patients presented with a mesenteric mass. Six patients (55%) had evidence of amyloid deposits in the bone marrow and 3 patients (27%) had a positive fat pad. Periorbital purpura was observed in one patient and none had macroglossia. Therapy regimens used are described in table 1. Five patients underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Eight patients (72%) presented with unilateral (N=2) or bilateral (N=6) hydronephrosis and 7 had nephrostomy tubes or stents inserted. The median follow-up from stent/nephrostomy tube insertion was 33 months (IQR 8-91). Regression of the deposition was documented in one patient and one patient was able to have his nephrostomy tube removed. One patient (9%) developed end stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Data regarding hematologic response rates were available for 9 patients and all responded and achieved hematologic PR or better. The median follow-up for all surviving patients was 91 months (IQR 27-179). Seven of the patients are currently alive. The median OS from diagnosis was 150 months. Figure 1 shows typical diffuse retroperitoneal involvement of AL amyloidosis on a CT scan. Review of the literature revealed 5 cases of retroperitoneal involvement of systemic AL amyloidosis. Most were reports published before routine typing of amyloid. Four of the five cases (80%) were male. The ages ranged from 46 to 80 years. Four of the five cases (80%) presented with weight loss. Two patients had calcifications on the CT scans, and one had a large pleural effusion. Conclusions We report a multicenter case series of 11 patients diagnosed with systemic AL amyloidosis with retroperitoneal involvement, all received systemic chemotherapy. We found male predominance in our cohort. Eight patients presented with hydronephrosis, and only one patient had the nephrostomy tube removed successfully after systemic therapy. ORR was 100% and median OS from diagnosis was 150 months, suggesting that retroperitoneal deposition might confer improved prognosis compared to the general amyloid population. Disclosures Kumar: Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Proclara: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Sanofi: Other.

Introduction High risk (HR) multiple myeloma (MM) constitutes approximately 25 % of newly diagnosed patients and is a subgroup of MM patients that is variably defined. Patients with 17p deletion are considered HR and their optimal treatment approach has not been determined. Various strategies have been suggested to improve outcomes in MM patients harboring del 17p, including tandem transplants. Recently, the long-term outcomes of the phase 3 EMN02 trial were published with the study group receiving bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCd) induction prior to transplant. There are no data demonstrating that tandem transplant is applicable to the US population using induction containing immunomodulatory agents and bortezomib. Aim To report on outcomes of newly diagnosed MM patients with del 17p that underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive newly diagnosed MM patient with del 17p that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were defined by the Mayo Medical Lab as 17p deleted and included if they met the following criteria: If 50 cells in the bone marrow sample and 10 cells with the deletion were identified (20%) or if the bone marrow sample had between 20-50 total cells and 20% cells with the deletion were identified. We excluded patients that relapsed prior to ASCT (as those patients were excluded in the EMN02 trial), patients that underwent ASCT more than 12 months from the diagnosis and patients that underwent tandem ASCT (defined as two consecutive ASCT within 180 days of each other without relapse in between). Consolidation treatment was defined as treatment given after transplant for up to six 28-day cycles and maintenance was defined as all treatment given after ASCT for more than 6 months. Combined maintenance was defined as maintenance regimens that included two novel agents. Results 116 patients with MM and 17p deletion underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic between January 2013 and April 2020. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (IQR 57-68, range 34-76) years. Forty-five (39%) patients were over 65 years. Nine patients (8%) had triple-hit MM and 34 (29%) had double-hit MM. Median follow-up of the survivors was 33 months (IQR 21-54). Consolidation therapy was given to 36 patients (31%) and maintenance was given to 91 patients (78%). Seven patients relapsed before day 100. There was no difference in the OS (P=0.72) or PFS (P=0.1) between patients that received VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone) versus VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) induction (Figure 1). When comparing patients that received proteasome inhibitors (PIs)+ immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) as induction to patients that received VCd induction, PFS was longer for patients that received the PIs + IMiDs (HR 0.53 P=0.04, 95% CI=0.3-0.98) (Figure 2), however there was no OS difference (P=0.61). Maintenance therapy was given to 94 patients (81%). There was no OS (P=0.34) or PFS (P=0.36) difference between IMiD based and PI based maintenance, but there was a PFS advantage to patients that received two drug maintenance (HR= 0.41, P=0.037, 95% CI 0.14-0.95) (Figure 2). The median OS and PFS of the entire cohort were not reached and 29 months, respectively. Conclusions The outcomes of our patients were similar to that of the single arm ASCT in the EMN02 trial, and no difference in outcomes were found between patients that received VRd and VCd induction, suggesting that tandem transplants should be considered for 17p deleted MM patients. Dual novel agent maintenance therapy is important in improving outcome. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: 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; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Sanofi: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee.