Rosiñol, Laura

e19521 Background: Blindedindependent central review (BICR) committees are often established for oncology trials to assessbestoverall response (BOR), while real-world (RW) studies typically rely on physician-assessed responses. To emulate clinical trial rigor, a BICR committee was implemented in the R5458-ONC-21101 RW data-derived external control arm study (NCT05673967) to evaluate BOR using International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. A pre-specified concordance analysis compared BOR assessments between the BICR committee and treating site physicians. Methods: RW data were obtained from chart reviews at 15 participating International Myeloma Foundation IMWG sites. The BICR committee, comprised of three multiple myeloma experts, evaluated BOR through consensus voting. Per protocol, the committee reviewed case report forms consisting of data on serum and urine myeloma protein and free light chain levels; and, where available, bone marrow plasma cell percentage, presence of plasmacytomas, and bone lesion changes. Concordance between BICR- and physician-assessed BOR was evaluated for objective response rate defined as ≥partial response (PR), ≥very good partial response (VGPR), ≥complete response (CR), and stringent complete response (sCR), with non-evaluable responses excluded from the analysis. Cohen’s kappa (κ) was used to measure agreement, with values >0.6 indicating strong concordance. 1 Results: Of 279 evaluable lines of therapy from 203 patients (Table), the BOR of ≥PR was 45.2% by BICR assessment and 42.3% by treating physicians (κ=0.622). Concordance improved for BOR of ≥VGPR (22.2% by BICR vs 24.7% by treating physicians; κ=0.731) but was low for BOR of ≥CR (3.9% vs. 10.8%; κ=0.508) and sCR (1.1% vs. 4.7%; κ=0.364). Conclusions: BICR- and physician-assessed responses showed strong concordance for BOR of ≥PR and ≥VGPR. However, as expected, lower concordance for ≥CR and sCR was observed, as evaluation of CR per IMWG criteria requires a bone marrow biopsy, which is rarely performed in clinical practice. While the reliability of CR and sCR in RW data is less certain, these results suggest that BOR of ≥VGPR or ≥PR may be reliably ascertained in academic settings based on treating physician evaluations. 1. Landis JR, Koch GG. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159–74. Clinical trial information: NCT05673967 . Agreement of BICR- and physician-assessed responses. BICR assessed Physician assessed Observed agreement, % Cohen’s kappa* Number of evaluable lines of therapy 279 279 - - ≥PR, n (%) 126 (45.2) 118 (42.3) 81.4 0.622 ≥VGPR, n (%) 62 (22.2) 69 (24.7) 90.3 0.731 ≥CR, n (%) 11 (3.9) 30 (10.8) 93.2 0.508 sCR, n (%) 3 (1.1) 13 (4.7) 96.4 0.364 *A kappa value >0.6 indicates strong concordance. 1

Background: Despite the development and approval of effective therapies for multiple myeloma (MM), MM remains an incurable disease. Moreover, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, like translocation t(4;14), continue to have a poor prognosis compared to standard-risk patients. No novel agents have been approved specifically for this population. There remains an unmet need for precision therapies for MM that can target specific drivers of high-risk MM like t(4;14). Multiple myeloma SET domain-containing protein (MMSET) overexpression observed in 100% of patients with t(4;14) acts through the MMSET-H3K36me2 axis, which promotes malignant transformation through regulation of multiple oncogenic programs. KTX-1001, a methyl transferase inhibitor, is a novel, first-in-class, potent, oral, small molecule that inhibits MMSET and the methylation of lysine K36. KTX-1001 had favorable drug-like properties, demonstrated in vivo activity, and was well tolerated in non-clinical studies. Based on these data, KTX-1001 is now being studied in a Phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Study Design and Methods: This multi-country, Phase 1, open-label study (NCT05651932) is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and initial clinical activity of KTX-1001. The study will also examine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Part A of this trial includes an accelerated titration, followed by 3+3 dose escalation with backfill of cohorts for dose optimization prior to moving to Part B, which is an expansion phase at the RP2D (please see Figure 1 for study design schematic). The expansion phase will only include patients with t(4;14). KTX-1001 will be administered orally daily and given until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Estimated enrollment for Parts A and B will be approximately 60 patients. The study will enroll patients with RRMM who have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and anti-CD38 antibody. Patients must have measurable disease, be ≥18 years of age, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of ≤2, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Key exclusion criteria include history of or current plasma cell leukemia, active central nervous system (CNS) disease, or active unstable cardiovascular function. The primary endpoints of safety and tolerability include incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs), treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related AEs. Secondary endpoints include plasma concentrations of KTX-1001 and efficacy outcomes such as objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory biomarker and pharmacodynamic assessments will also be performed. The sample size was not determined by formal statistical methods but will be sufficient to provide preliminary information on safety, PK, PD, and efficacy. Statistical analyses will be primarily descriptive. Conclusion: This Phase 1 study will evaluate a potential treatment for RRMM utilizing KTX-1001, which is a novel, first-in-class, potent, oral small-molecule MMSET inhibitor. The study is open and actively enrolling patients at centers in the United States, Spain, France, and Canada.

TPS8064 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease. Combinations of established agents, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 antibodies, are used in all lines of therapy, but re-exposure to previously received classes of therapy is associated with decreasing response rates and duration of response (Moreau et al. 2021). BCMA-targeted agents have recently been approved for the treatment of patients with RRMM whose disease has been exposed or become refractory to PIs, IMIDs and anti-CD38 antibodies (triple-class exposed or refractory MM). Although effective, the majority of patients who respond to anti-BCMA agents eventually relapse. Proven salvage therapies for these patients are currently lacking and represent a new unmet medical need. Cevostamab is an immunoglobulin G1-based T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody that targets Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5) on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells. Dual binding results in T-cell activation and potent killing of MM cells. In an ongoing Phase I study (GO39775; NCT03275103), cevostamab monotherapy showed promising activity in heavily pre-treated patients with RRMM, including those with prior exposure to anti-BCMA agents (Trudel et al. 2021). Methods: CAMMA 2 (CO43476; NCT05535244) is an open-label, multicenter Phase I/II trial evaluating cevostamab monotherapy in patients with RRMM who are triple-class refractory and have previously received an anti-BCMA agent. Prior anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugates or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are permitted in Cohorts A1 and B1, while prior anti-BCMA bispecific antibodies are allowed in Cohorts A2 and B2. In A1 and A2, cevostamab is administered by intravenous infusion and is initiated with step dosing (0.3mg on Cycle [C] 1 Day [D] 1 and 3.3mg on C1D2, D3, or D4 depending on the emergence and resolution of cytokine release syndrome [CRS] after the initial administration), with the target dose of 160mg given on C1D8 and on D1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. Patients are hospitalized for the C1 administrations only and treatment is continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs. CRS is managed per protocol based on the clinical presentation and may involve corticosteroid and tocilizumab treatment. Primary objectives are evaluation of efficacy (primary endpoint: objective response rate by investigator assessment using IMWG criteria) and safety. Secondary objectives include assessment of quality of life, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. Cohorts B1 and B2 will evaluate the efficacy and safety of cevostamab at the recommended Phase II dose in this setting. As of February 2023, enrolment into Cohorts A1 and A2 is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT05535244 .

Abstract Introduction: Single-agent carfilzomib has shown encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who harbor high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (Jakubowiak et al, Leukemia 2013;27:2351-56). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391; N=792 patients) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (Stewart et al, N Engl J Med 2015;372:142-52). We present a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of KRd vs Rd in the ASPIRE study according to baseline cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Adults with RMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy) were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to KRd or Rd. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the KRd arm received carfilzomib as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose, 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose, 27 mg/m2 thereafter) during cycles 1-12; carfilzomib was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13-18 and was discontinued after 18 cycles. All patients received lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety. Cytogenetic risk status was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. The high-risk group consisted of patients with the genetic subtype t(4;14) or t(14;16) or with deletion 17p in ≥60% of plasma cells, according to central review of bone marrow samples obtained at study entry. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with known baseline cytogenetics. The cutoff value of 60% for the proportion of plasma cells with deletion 17p was used on the basis of recommendations from the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2 (Munshi et al. Blood 2011;117:4696-700). Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized to KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). In patients with known baseline cytogenetics, baseline cytogenetic risk status was similar between the treatment arms (high-risk: KRd, 24.6%; Rd, 23.4%; standard-risk: KRd, 75.4%; Rd, 76.6%). Efficacy outcomes by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Median PFS in the high-risk group (n=100) was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5-24.2) for KRd vs 13.9 months (95% CI: 9.5-16.7) for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.639; 95% CI: 0.369-1.106). Median PFS in the standard-risk group (n=317) was 29.6 months (95% CI: 24.1-not estimable) for KRd vs 19.5 months (95% CI: 14.8-26.0) for Rd (HR: 0.657; 95% CI: 0.480-0.901). ORRs were 79.2% (KRd) vs 59.6% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 91.2% (KRd) vs 73.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 29.2% (KRd) and 5.8% (Rd) of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or better, including 16.7% (KRd) and 3.8% (Rd) with a stringent complete response (sCR). In the standard-risk group, 38.1% (KRd) and 6.5% (Rd) of patients achieved ≥CR, including 15.0% (KRd) and 3.5% (Rd) with an sCR. Median DOR in the high-risk group was 22.2 months for KRd vs 14.9 months for Rd. Median DOR in the standard-risk group was 30.4 months for KRd vs 20.4 months for Rd. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events was 89.1% (KRd) vs 78.4% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 85.6% (KRd) vs 84.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest (dyspnea, hypertension, acute renal failure, cardiac failure, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral neuropathy) by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of nearly 2 years, which was a 9-month improvement relative to that in patients treated with Rd. Treatment with KRd also led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics; similar reductions in the risk of progression or death with Kd vs Vd were observed in both cytogenetics risk groups. Treatment with KRd also led to higher response rates, greater response depth, and a longer DOR compared with Rd in patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMM, irrespective of baseline cytogenetic risk status, and improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Fonseca: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acetylon: Research Funding; BMS: 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, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Tonda:Onyx: Employment. Obreja:Amgen Inc: Employment. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Millennium: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The first step to the cure of Multiple myeloma (MM) is achieving a clinical complete response (CR). However, a majority of patients relapse in part due to the persistence of low levels of pathological plasma cells after treatment (minimal residual disease (MRD)). In previous work, we have shown that Next generation sequencing (NGS) of immunoglobulin (IG) rearranged genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM, and also it is a good predictor of patient prognosis. However, this technology is a proprietary multiplex PCR, uses a reference plasmid, it is performed at the centralized laboratories, and it is not broadly available. AIMS: To present a new in-house simplified method for quantification of IG gene clonal rearrangements by NGS. To test the suitability of the method for MRD detection in MM patients compared with 8-color high sensitivity Flow Cytometry (8c-MFC) data on a prospective way. To determine its capability as a predictor of patient prognosis. METHOD: We use deep sequencing to prospectively analyzed DNA from bone marrow samples of 58 patients (58 diagnostic samples and 80 follow-up samples) of patients included the GEM10 clinical trial. The method employs the primers developed by BIOMED-2 for IGH and IGK, and a set of specific mathematical and bioinformatics tools. First, we identified the clonal rearrangement(s) (clonotype) in the diagnostic sample by fragment analysis and NGS. Second, we searched the NGS sequences from follow-up samples to detect and quantitate (MRD) the presence of the clonotype identified in the diagnostic sample. Overall Survival (OS) and Progression free Survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The survival curves generated were compared with the log-rank test for trend. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the method is 10-5 for 150.000 cells. Reproducibility is >90%. The Spearman correlation coefficient between NGS and 8c-MFC data for diagnosis and follow-up samples was R=0.6903, p<0.0001. When we applied the criteria of 10-5 for NGS, discordant results were as follow: 121 cases were positive by both methods, 2 cases were positive (>10-5) by 8c-MFC but negative (<10-5) by NGS; 7 samples were negative (<10-5) by 8c-MFC but positive (>10-5) by NGS; and 7 cases were negative by both methods. Next we analyzed de correlation of OS and PFS with MRD levels determined by NGS and by 8c-MFC. For NGS data, median PFS (FigA) was 34 months for patients with values of MRD>10-5 vs not reached for patients with values of MRD<10-5 (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Also, for 8c-MFC data, the patients with values of MRD<10-5 had longer PFS than those with values of MRD>10-5 (34 months versus 47; HR = 3.69, P =0 .0109). Median OS (FigB) was also significantly longer in MRD<10-5 (NGS) patients (not yet reached), compared to MRD>10-5 (NGS) patients (41 months, HR = 3.6, P =0.0495). For 8c-MFC we did not get a significant association (41 vs 50 months, HR=1.979, p=0.228). It should be noted that this comparison was made with the standard 8c-MFC and it is probable that the sensitivity will be inferior to that of the Next generation flow. There were no significant differences in terms of PFS between the data obtained by our in-house method, 8c-FCM and previous data obtained with LymphoSight technology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirms that analysis of MRD levels determined by deep sequencing is capable of predict survival outcomes in myeloma patients. NGS sequencing of Ig genes is an effective technology to identify and quantify pathological clonal cells in MM. This approach is a methodological and economical alternative to MFC and other methods for MRD follow-up. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Paiva: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BD Bioscience: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; EngMab AG: Research Funding. Ocio:Pharmamar: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jassen: Honoraria. Mateos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. San Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria.

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: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care used for pts with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391) is comparing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) to Rd in pts with RMM. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by an independent review committee). Secondary end points include overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL), and safety. Methods: Adults with RMM who received 1–3 prior regimens were eligible. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd and were stratified by β2-microglobulin levels (<2.5 vs ≥2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs yes), and prior R (no vs yes). All pts received lenalidomide (25 mg) on days 1–21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, KRd pts received K as a 10-min infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1–12 (20 mg/m2 [days 1 and 2 of cycle 1]; 27 mg/m2 thereafter); K was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13–18 and was not administered beyond 18 cycles. Cycles were repeated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The study had 90% power to detect a 25% reduction in risk for PFS events for KRd vs Rd (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75) at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. A stratified log-rank test was used for the PFS comparison. Results: Data are presented for KRd followed by Rd throughout the abstract. Between July 2010 and March 2012, 792 pts from 20 countries were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. Median age was 64.0 years (range: 31.0‒91.0). Pts received a median of 2 prior regimens in each group. In both the KRd and Rd groups, 66% of pts received prior bortezomib; 20% of pts in each arm received prior R. Median treatment exposure was 22 cycles (KRd) and 14 cycles (Rd). At the time of the prespecified interim analysis, the study met the primary end point for PFS (HR=0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.83; P<.0001), with a longer duration of median PFS in the KRd group (26.3 months [mo]; 95% CI: 23.3–30.5) compared with the Rd group (17.6 mo; 95% CI: 15.0–20.6). Median OS was not reached in either group; however, there was a trend toward longer OS with KRd compared with Rd (HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; P=.018), which did not meet the prespecified statistical boundary at the interim analysis of survival (P=.005). The Kaplan-Meier OS event-free rates at 24 mo were 73.3% (95% CI: 68.6‒77.5) and 65.0% (95% CI: 59.9‒69.5). The ORR was 87.4% (95% CI: 83.7–90.5) with KRd and 66.9% (95% CI: 62.0–71.5) with Rd. Median DOR was 28.6 mo (95% CI: 24.9–31.3) and 21.2 mo (95% CI: 16.7–25.8). In the KRd and Rd groups, 31.8% vs 9.4% achieved a stringent complete response (sCR) or complete response (CR) (sCR: 14.1% vs 4.3%; CR: 17.7% vs 5.1%), and 70.4% and 40.7% achieved ≥very good partial response. KRd consistently improved Global Health Status/QoL compared with Rd over 18 cycles of treatment (P=.0001). Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 15.2% (KRd) and 17.4% (Rd) of pts. In each group, 7.7% and 8.5% of pts died while still on study treatment or within 30 days of receiving the last dose of study treatment. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (≥grade 3) included neutropenia (29.6% vs 26.5%), anemia (17.9% vs 17.2%), and thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 12.3%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (all grade) included diarrhea (42.3% vs 33.7%), fatigue (32.9% vs 30.6%), and cough (28.8% vs 17.2%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (≥grade 3) included pneumonia (12.5% vs 10.5%), hypokalemia (9.4% vs 4.9%), and hypophosphatemia (8.4% vs 4.6%). Other TEAEs of interest (grouped terms; all grade) included dyspnea (22.4% vs 18.0%), hypertension (preferred term; all grade: 14.3% vs 6.9%; grade 3: 4.3% vs 1.8%), acute renal failure (8.4% vs 7.2%), cardiac failure (6.4% vs 4.1%), and ischemic heart disease (5.9% vs 4.6%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grouped terms; all grade) were 17.1% and 17.0%; ≥grade 3 PN was infrequent (2.6% and 3.1%). Conclusion: The addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with RMM resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. KRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and represents a potential new standard of care. Disclosures Stewart: Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. ASPIRE is a randomized, multi-center, phase 3 study investigating the use of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received 1–3 prior regimens.. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Masszi:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Spicka:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hájek: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; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Onyx Pharmaceticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millinnium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zojwalla:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tonda:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xing:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Novartis: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Inc,: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria.

Abstract Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revealed new insight into the complexity of clonal and subclonal architecture of multiple myeloma (MM). The introduction of targeted studies allows the detection of mutations with very low allele frequencies at affordable price. However, there is few information about the prognostic impact of this mutational profile in series of homogeneously treated MM patients. In this study, we analyzed the most frequently mutated genes in MM from patients included in a randomized clinical trial applying the highest read depth to date. We performed a correlation study between our results and cytogenetics aberrations and clinical outcomes. We used Ampliseq Library Kit 2.0 to target 77 genes (M3Pv2.0 panel) related to critical pathophysiological pathways, associated to drug resistance or targetable with molecular drugs in MM. We sequenced DNA (15ng) from CD138+ purified plasma cells from 80 MM patients at diagnosis included in GEM2010MAS65 clinical trial. We sequenced at an average read depth of 1500X and using Ion Proton sequencer (Thermo Fisher, USA, PaloAlto, CA). We used Ion Reporter software applying in-house modifications in call variants process. We also sequenced DNA from CD138 negative population in 30% of patients in order to filter out potential artifacts and stablish conditions for excluding germline variants. We first fitted a cox-proportional hazard model to predict survival and a second approach using a penalized regression LASSO. We identified 137 gene mutations in the 80 patients analyzed, 54 mutations were predicted pathogenic by Shif and Poliphen and 65 have been described in COSMIC database. 85% of patients harbored at least 1 mutation. The most frequently mutated genes were KRAS (16%), DIS3 (15%), NRAS (13%), BRAF (6%), and TP53 (5%), accounting for the 54% of the total number of mutations. The most frequently mutated pathways were RAS and NFKB in 34% and 28% of patients respectively. Mutational allele frequency for KRAS, BRAF and TP53 was, in all cases, lower than 50% while DIS3 showed mutations in a broad range (from 2 to 85%). Only one patient presented one mutation in NRAS at 73 % of allele frequency. For patients with more than one mutation, two different scenarios have been found. Some patients showed several genes mutated in a similar allele frequency values. On the contrary, a complex subclonal structure was confirmed in 3 patients, with mutations at very different clonal frequency. CD138 negative fraction was sequenced to confirm that these mutations were exclusive of plasma cells. The first of them had two mutations in DIS3 at 8 and 53% of allele frequency, second in KRAS and DIS3 at 13 and 63% respectively and the third in NRAS and IFNGR2 at 5 and 37% respectively. We found no differences in the survival based on pathway, mutational allele frequency or number of mutations. We also investigated pairwise associations between events and we not found significant correlations (Figure 1). Cox-proportional hazard model only showed a negative impact in survival of patients with TP53 mutations. This ultra-deep targeted sequencing strategy is able to detect mutations in most of patients, at very low allele frequency and using a minimal amount of DNA. Despite of its huge capacity to detect mutations, we have not identified new prognostic factors in MM patients treated with highly efficient therapies. However, this study again confirms the complexity of the genomic landscape of MM and the great heterogeneity between patients. The role of theses mutations at relapse as well as in the subsequent treatment effectiveness remains unknown and should be preferably investigated in larger cohorts of homogeneously treated MM patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Martínez-López: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. 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. Stewart:celgene: Consultancy.