Cavo, Michèle

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study (NCT02412878) has shown a favorable benefit-risk profile of once-weekly carfilzomib (K) at 70 mg/m2 over twice-weekly K at 27mg/m2 plus dexamethasone (d) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (Moreau. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:953-964). Once-weekly significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with twice-weekly (median 11.2 vs 7.6 months [mos]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.88; P=0.0014). Herein, we present a subgroup analysis of once-weekly vs twice-weekly Kd by previous therapy in pts with RRMM. Methods: 478 pts with RRMM, previously treated with 2 or 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent were randomized 1:1 to receive either once-weekly (n=240) or twice-weekly (n=238) Kd. The once-weekly group received K (30-min intravenous infusion [IV]) on days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 on D1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice-weekly group received K (10-min IV) on D1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 (20 mg/m2 on D1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All pts received d at 40 mg/m2 on D1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and 22 (cycle 1-9 only). Treatment was given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptably toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The study secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. PFS, ORR, and safety outcomes by prior lines of therapy are shown in the Table; PFS curves by prior lines are shown in the Figure. With a median follow-up time of 12.6 mos in the once-weekly group and 12.0 mos in the twice-week group, PFS for pts with 2 prior lines (N=241) was 12.1 mos vs 7.6 mos (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.86). Median PFS for pts with 3 prior lines (N=237) was 8.9 mos for once-weekly vs 7.9 mos for twice-weekly (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.15). ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.9% vs 40.8% (OR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.47, 4.14) in pts with 2 prior lines and 62.9% vs 40.7% (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.46, 4.17) in pts with 3 prior lines. In the 2 prior lines group, 9.5% vs 3.2% of pts had a complete response or better with once- vs twice-weekly Kd respectively. Complete responses or better in pts with 3 prior lines were obtained in 4.8% of pts receiving once-weekly and no pts with twice-weekly Kd. In A.R.R.O.W., 401 (83.9%) pts had prior lenalidomide (LEN) exposure. Median PFS for once- vs twice-weekly was 11.1 mos vs 7.4 mos (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94) for LEN exposed pts and NE (not estimable) vs 9.4 mos (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.21) for pts without prior LEN exposure. ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.3% vs 39.2% (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.72, 3.84) in pts with prior LEN exposure, and 66.7% vs 47.7% (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: (0.86, 5.58) in pts without prior LEN exposure. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59.1% vs 65.0% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, and 75.6% vs 58.0% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts with 3 prior lines of therapy. The incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs of interest by prior lines can be found in the Table. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 69.3% vs 60.2% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with prior LEN, and 57.6% vs 68.2% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts without prior LEN. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd resulted in a favorable benefit-risk profile regardless of the number of prior lines. Although the median PFS was prolonged in both groups, pts with 2 prior lines achieved a greater benefit, underlining the need for using once-weekly Kd early to optimize outcomes for pts with RRMM. Safety profiles were consistent with previous findings and reports. Importantly, low incidences of heart failure were reported across all subgroups and no additional toxicities were found. As described for other K-based regimens, efficacy of K can be further enhanced by being used in earlier lines of therapy for pts with RRMM. This subgroup analysis further confirmed the positive results from A.R.R.O.W. of using once-weekly Kd at 70 mg/m2 regardless of prior therapies and should be considered an additional option to treat pts with RRMM. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy. Lazzaro:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Cavo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Iskander:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zahlten-Kumeli:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mateos:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Ixazomib is the first orally administered PI studied in the clinic. The feasibility of combining ixazomib weekly and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in the first all-oral PI- and immunomodulatory drug-containing triplet regimen was evaluated in a phase 1/2 trial of 65 pts with newly diagnosed MM. Results indicated a 90% ORR (62% ≥VGPR) using ixazomib 4 mg (recommended phase 2/3 dose), with a manageable safety profile, including 14% gr ≥3 skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders and limited (4% gr 3) peripheral neuropathy (PN) (Kumar et al, Lancet Oncol 2014). These data provided the rationale for phase 3 investigation of IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with RRMM in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter study. Methods Adults with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to prior lenalidomide or PI-based therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive ixazomib 4 mg or matching placebo weekly on d 1, 8, and 15, plus lenalidomide 25 mg PO on d 1-21 (dose reduced for renal impairment per local label/practice) and dexamethasone 40 mg PO on d 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-d cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2/3), PI exposure (naïve vs exposed), and ISS disease stage (I/II vs III). Cycles were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was PFS as assessed by an independent review committee blinded to treatment, per IMWG criteria. Key secondary endpoints were OS and OS in high-risk pts with del(17). Sample size was determined to provide 80% power for the OS endpoint and adequate power to test PFS. Three interim analyses (IAs) and a final analysis were planned to test PFS and OS; here, we report data from the first IA, the final analysis for PFS. Results 722 pts were randomized (360 IRd; 362 Rd). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 66 yrs (30-91), 70% were PI-exposed, 88% were ISS stage I/II, 59% had received 1 prior therapy, and 77%/11%/11% were relapsed/refractory/relapsed and refractory, with 6% primary refractory. Based primarily (97%) on central laboratory evaluation, 19% had high-risk cytogenetics by FISH (del(17), t(4;14), or t(14;16)), including 10% del(17). Prior therapies included 69% bortezomib, 45% thalidomide, and 12% lenalidomide. The study met the primary endpoint at the first IA (median follow-up 14.8 vs 14.6 mos with IRd vs Rd), demonstrating a 35% improvement in PFS with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.742; p=0.012; Table). In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, the PFS HR was 0.543 with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.596 in pts with del(17)), with a median PFS similar to the overall IRd group, indicating ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations. OS data were not yet mature. Key response data are shown in the Table. Pts received a median of 13 (1-26) vs 12 (1-25) cycles of IRd vs Rd; 55% and 52% of pts remained on treatment. With IRd vs Rd, 68% vs 61% of pts had gr ≥3 AEs (driven by thrombocytopenia), 40% vs 44% had serious AEs, 13% vs 11% discontinued all study drugs due to AEs, and 3% vs 5% died on treatment. AEs observed with IRd were consistent with reported safety profiles for the individual agents. Common gr ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (19% vs 16%), anemia (9% vs 13%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 5%), and pneumonia (6% vs 8%). Gastrointestinal events included 42% vs 36% diarrhea (6% vs 2% gr 3), 26% vs 21% nausea (2% vs 0% gr 3), and 22% vs 11% vomiting (1% vs <1% gr 3). PN rates were 28% vs 21% (2% vs 2% gr 3), 35% vs 21% had rash events (4% vs 1% gr 3), 4% vs 6% had renal failure (2% vs 3% gr ≥3), and 4% vs 3% had heart failure (2% vs 2% gr ≥3). Conclusion At this first prespecified IA, addition of ixazomib to Rd in pts with RRMM increased median PFS to 20.6 from 14.7 mos without a substantial increase in overall toxicity, including cardiac and PN toxicity. Benefit with IRd was also noted in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, including those with del(17), in whom median PFS was similar to all IRd-treated pts indicating that ixazomib may have a favorable impact on the adverse prognosis associated with genetic mutations. If approved, this all-oral combination of IRd may become a new standard of care in this setting. Table. Key efficacy data IRd Rd HR / OR Median PFS, mos 20.6 14.7 HR 0.742; 95% CI: 0.587-0.939; p=0.012 Confirmed ORR, % 78.3 71.5 OR 1.44; p=0.035 CR 11.7 6.6 OR 1.87; p=0.019 ≥VGPR 48.1 39.0 OR 1.45; p=0.014 Median time to first response (ITT analysis), mos 1.1 1.9 Median duration of response (≥PR), mos 20.5 15.0 Disclosures Moreau: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sandhu:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ganly:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medipics: Equity Ownership. Baker:Janssen-Cilag New Zealand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stoppa:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Simpson:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Gimsing:Amgen: Honoraria. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. DiBacco:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hui:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is increasingly recognized as a major complication of thalidomide (T; Thal) and lenalidomide (R; Rev) based therapy for multiple myeloma. Estimated incidence varies widely in the literature. There is no consensus on specific risk factors, indications for thromboprophylaxis or the agent of choice for DVT prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus among members of the IMWG. Patients and Methods: A survey was electronically mailed to 67 IMWG members on July 21, 2006 and consisted of 24 multiple-choice questions. Results: Twenty-three IMWG members (34%) sent in their responses by the cut-off date. All (100%) felt that DVT was an important question, but most (95%) did not avoid Thal/Rev based therapy because of the DVT risk. Overall results are summarized in the Table below. A majority of physicians felt that concomitant therapy with high dose dexamethasone (90% of physicians), alkylators (55%), doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin (90%), and erythropoietin (75%) increase the risk of DVT associated with Thal or Rev based therapy. Aspirin (81 mg or 325 mg per day) was the preferred choice of prophylaxis when necessary. However, 65% of respondents preferred warfarin to a therapeutic INR or LMW heparin if either doxorubicin or liposomal doxorubicin was added to the regimens. Most (95–100%) felt that DVT prophylaxis was not indicated for: VAD, MP, bortezomib +/− dexamethasone regimens. Seventy-five percent felt it to be safe to resume therapy with Thal/Rev after therapeutic anticoagulation. Most (95%) believed randomized trials were needed. Conclusion: DVT is recognized as a major clinical problem associated with Thal/Rev containing regimens. Most respondents felt that the DVT risk did not warrant any prophylaxis when either Thal or Rev were used as single agents. Aspirin was the preferred form of DVT prophylaxis for most Thal/Rev containing regimens, except when doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin or melphalan were added. Additional responses will be analyzed both electronically and by conference call prior to the meeting. Therapy Estimated incidence of DVT (% respondents) Choice of thromboprophylaxis (% respondents) Single agent thal <5% (61%) None (65%) Single agent Rev <5% (80%) None (65%) Thal-Dex 10–20% (52%) Aspirin (60%) Rev-Dex 10–20% (48%) Aspirin (60%) MPT 10–20% (65%) Aspirin (40%) R-MP 5–10% (57%) Aspirin (70%)

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

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

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized 1:1:1 to Rd continuous (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression), Rd18 (with lenalidomide given on days 1-21 of eighteen 28-day cycles), or MPT (twelve 42-day cycles); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) and safety. Time from randomization to second progression or death (PFS2) was an exploratory analysis. Response assessment used for PFS and PFS2 analysis was determined by investigators based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:Despite recent advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and new treatment options are needed to continue to improve patient outcomes. This is the first randomized, phase 3 trial of an anti‐CD38 antibody in combination with pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d) in RRMM.Aims:The primary objective of this phase 3 trial (NCT02990338) was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody targeting a specific epitope, combined with Pd versus (vs) Pd in RRMM.Methods:Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4 mg PO days 1–21; 40 mg [20 mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36–86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2–11); estimated GFR: <60 ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high‐risk cytogenetics. At median follow‐up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44–0.81), P = 0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P < 0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10−5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461–1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3 h at 1st inf. and 2.8 h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3–4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd.Summary/Conclusion:Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone, with a manageable safety profile. Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM.