Kapoor, Prashant

Introduction: Daratumumab (D) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, used frequently in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide (Len) and pomalidomide (Pom). There are no studies comparing DRd to DPd in Len-exposed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We present the Mayo Clinic experience of DPd and DRd utilization and outcomes. Methods: We identified consecutive MM pts who received D, between 1/2015 and 4/2019 at Mayo Clinic. We included pts who were exposed (at least one full cycle, 21/28 days) or refractory (progression on full dose or maintenance Len during treatment or within 60 days of stopping Len) to Len prior to D and received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy. Only Pts who received DRd and DPd were included. Results: Out of 411 evaluable pts 162 met the inclusion criteria; 67 were Len exposed, but not refractory and 95 were Len refractory. Pts' characteristics are shown in Table 1. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) pts. Majority of pts (105; 65%) received DPd or DRd in the 2nd or 3rd line and 104 pts (64%) are still alive. In Len refractory pts, the median time from last dose of Len to D initiation was 1 mths (interquartile range 0-6.5). Seventy pts (43%) had high-risk cytogenetics (HR). Only 11 pts (7%) underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplant after DPd or DRd regimen. There was no significant difference between pts who received DRd and DPd in terms of age (>65 years), gender, race, proportion exposed or refractory to Bortezomib, number of prior lines of treatment (>2), or HR status (p>0.05 for all). Pts who received DPd were 4 times more likely to be Len refractory compared to pts who received DRd, p=0.0008. Median follow up time for the whole cohort from initial diagnosis was 92 mths (CI 95%; 79.5-107), while from D start date was 30 mths (CI 95%; 27-34). Median PFS for the whole cohort was 21 mths (CI 95%; 15-25) and median OS was 138 mths (CI 95%; 111-193). In Len exposed but not refractory pts, n=67, the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% in the DRd group compared to 68% in the DPd group, p=0.2. There was no difference in median PFS; 25.5 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 25 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=0.37. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 138-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 70-NR), respectively, p=0.06. In the 48 Len exposed but refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 39 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 21 mths (CI 95%; 3-NR) for DPd, p=0.11. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; NR-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 36-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In Len refractory pts only, n=95, the ORR was 84% in the DRd group compared to 58% in the DPd group, p=0.009. There was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 9 mths (CI 95%; 5-15) for DPd, p=0.18. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 78-NR) and 106 mths (CI 95%; 66-183), respectively, p=0.5. In the 57 Len refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 13 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=08. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 69-NR) and 105 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR), respectively, p=0.35. In the 16 Len exposed but not refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, the median PFS was better in the DRd group; 24.4 mths (CI 95%; 12-NR) compared to 3.3 mths (CI 95%; 1.9-27.5) for DPd, p=0.0093. However, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 51-NR) and NR mths (CI 95%; 18-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In the 29 Len refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no statistically significant difference in median PFS; 18 mths (CI 95%; 6-43) for DRd compared to 6 mths (CI 95%; 4-13) for DPd, p=0.22.Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR) and 53 mths (CI 95%; 26-105), respectively, p=0.2. Conclusions: D+IMiD regimens after prior Len exposure/refractoriness are commonly used in real-world, despite the lack of data from prospective clinical trials. Combining D with IMiDs in Len exposed or refractory pts is efficacious, whether the IMiD is Len or Pom. Our study shows that regardless of prior Len use, DRd is at least equivalent to DPd. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these observations. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding.

Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and dexamethasone is the current standard induction therapy for myeloma. Daratumumab (Dara), a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, is highly effective in treating myeloma and improves response rates and progression free survival (PFS) when added to PI or IMiD. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an effective, all oral, induction regimen that has been studied in phase 2 and 3 trials. We designed this trial to examine the feasibility and efficacy of adding daratumumab to the IRd regimen as well as early discontinuation of dexamethasone in two sequential cohorts of patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated MM who had measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled, irrespective of their autologous stem cell transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response to IRD-Dara combination. A one-stage binomial design was utilized in each cohort independently to test the null hypothesis that the complete response rate is at most 25% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 45%, with 89% power and 9% type I error. Treatment involved 28-day cycles consisting of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21, dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly and Dara 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks thereafter during induction (12-cyles) followed by Dara-ixazomib maintenance (maximum 24 cycles). Cohorts A (n=38) and B (N=40) comprised the study population, with dexamethasone discontinued after two cycles in Cohort B. Results: Baseline demographics and patient disposition are outlined in the table. Among those who have gone off study, 9 and 5 patients, respectively in Cohort A and B went off for progression, while 11 and 8 patients in the respective arms discontinued treatment for an alternative therapy, most frequently a transplant. Responses were rapid and deepened over the duration of treatment as shown in the figure; 32% of patients in Cohort A and 28% of patients in Cohort B achieved a complete response; 29% and 23%, respectively, achieved a marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status. After a median follow up was 31.4 months for Cohort A and 18.2 months for Cohort B, median PFS has not been reached in either cohort. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 58% of patients in Cohort A (hematologic in 47% and non-hematologic in 26%) and 50% of patients in Cohort B (hematologic 43%, non-hematologic 20%). The most common toxicities included fatigue, neutropenia, lymphopenia, peripheral neuropathy and nausea. Stem cells were collected in 30 and 31 patients in Cohorts A and B respectively; median (range) of CD34 cells/kg were 8.5 (2.8, 15.9) x 106and 7.0 (2.9, 12.1) x 106, with plerixafor used in 83% and 94% of patients, respectively, in Cohorts A and B as per our standard of care "on-demand" approach based on blood CD34 count. Conclusion: Dara-IRd is an active regimen in newly diagnosed MM, with high overall rates of response and deep responses that improved over time with therapy. Early discontinuation of dexamethasone does not appear to impact the depth, rate or kinetics of response. The toxicities were manageable, with dose modifications. All patients were able to collect stem cells when required, though majority needed plerixafor. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Sanofi: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

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

Introduction: The bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) clone burden is typically low in light chain (AL) amyloidosis and some patients do not have a detectable serum monoclonal spike (M-spike). Increased BMPC% and serum free light chain (FLC) are associated with poorer outcomes. However, the outcomes of patients with AL amyloidosis based on the presence or an absence of a measurable serum M-spike before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been explored. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. The serum M-spike was recorded before ASCT and patients were divided according to the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age>65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10%, organs involved >2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010, and presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike. Results: Seven-hundred and sixteen patients were identified and 521 (73%) had a measurable serum M-spike. Patients who had a measurable serum M-spike were more likely to have BMPC≥ 10% than patients without a measurable serum M-spike (46% vs. 34%, P=0.002) and they were more likely to have a difference in FLC ≥18 mg/dl (47% vs. 29%, P=0.0001). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients who had a measurable serum M-spike compared to patients without a measurable serum M-spike (Figure 1 A,B). The shorter survival was irrespective of the administration of induction therapy before ASCT. We also evaluated the difference in survival in patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 based on the presence or absence of a measurable serum M-spike. The PFS and OS were also significantly different in these patients (Figure 1 C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.5, P=0.003), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. <10% (HR: 1.4,P=0.004), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.6, P=0.001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.8, P=0.03), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR: 1.82, P<0.0001). For OS, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 2, P<0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.4, P<0.0001), ASCT year >2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.6, P=0.002), and the presence vs. absence of a measurable serum M-spike (HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: The presence of a measurable serum M-spike before ASCT is a negative independent predictor for PFS and OS in AL amyloidosis. Figure 1 Disclosures Sidiqi: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Janssen: Honoraria. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other.

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

Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is an IgG1k monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells in AL amyloidosis. It has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma as a single agent and in combination. Here we report on the preliminary results of a prospective multi-center, phase II study of isatuximab in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis (NCT03499808). Methods: Eligibility included age ≥ 18 years, relapsed or refractory systemic AL amyloidosis, ≥ 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease (defined as a positive monoclonal serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) or urine IFE, a serum free light chain ratio outside of the normal range (0.25-1.65), and a difference in the involved versus the uninvolved serum free light chain of ≥ 4.5 mg/dL), at least one organ involved, not refractory to daratumumab, ECOG performance status 0-2, creatinine clearance ≥25 mL/min as measured by 24-hour urine collection or as estimated by Cockcroft and Gault formula, and NT-proBNP ≤8500 pg/mL. Patients received isatuximab intravenously 20 mg/kg weekly during the first 28 day cycle and every other week during cycles 2 through 24 for a maximum of 24 cycles. The primary objective was hematologic response with secondary objectives of organ response, safety, progression free survival, and overall survival. Results: At data cut-off (July 24, 2020), 43 patients were registered from March 2018 to September 2019 at 14 institutions. Thirty six patients were eligible with 35 patients receiving at least one dose of isatuximab. Of the eligible patients, the median age was 70 (range 40-81). Prior therapies included proteasome inhibitors in 32 patients (89%), high dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in 17 patients (47%), immunomodulatory therapy in 9 patients (25%), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy in 2 patients (6%). Single organ system involvement was seen in 19 patients (53%), ≥ 2 organ systems in 17 patients (47%), 16 patients (44%) had renal involvement, and 24 (67%) had cardiac involvement. For those with cardiac involvement, 7 patients (29%) had cardiac biomarker stage II and 9 patients (38%) had stage III disease using the Revised Mayo Staging (Kumar S et al., J Clin Oncol, 2012). A total of 17 patients remain on therapy. The median duration on treatment for eligible patients is currently 11.8 months (current range, 0.3-22.1). Of the 19 patients who discontinued treatment, the most common reasons included adverse events in 5 patients (26%), disease progression in 4 patients (21%), sub-optimal response in 2 patients (11%), and concerns related to COVID-19 in 2 patients (11%). The current median follow up is 16.3 months. The most common drug-related AEs were infusion related reactions in 18 patients (50%) with the majority (16/18) being grade I or II, anemia in 9 patients (25%) with the majority (8/9) being grade I, and lymphopenia in 8 patients (22%). Patient characteristics and preliminary safety data were previously presented at the International Symposium on Amyloidosis. The overall hematologic response rate was 77%. Hematological complete response (CR) was observed in 1 of 35 evaluable (completing at least 1 dose) patients (3%), very-good-partial response (VGPR) in 19 patients (54%), and partial response (PR) in 7 patients (20%). Conclusions: Isatuximab demonstrates encouraging efficacy in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis. The administration of isatuximab in these patients is associated with a good safety profile similar to other monoclonal antibodies against CD38. The data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Prothena: Research Funding; Caelum: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Regeneron: Other: advisory board; Caleum: Other: advisory board; Proclara: Other: advisory board; Abbvie: Other: advisory board; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Neparidze:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Diagnostic committee member . Sarosiek:Spectrum: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Usmani:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Orlowski:Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Isatuximab is FDA approved for relapsed refractory myeloma in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Isatuximab is not FDA approved for AL amyloidosis.

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

AbstractInduction therapy for multiple myeloma with bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (d) (VRd) was traditionally administered as bortezomib given twice weekly on a 3 week cycle. A modified schedule of weekly bortezomib has been adopted over time to decrease treatment burden for patients and reduce treatment‐emergent neuropathy. This study evaluates the response rates and outcomes with different schedules of bortezomib in VRd administered for first‐line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with upfront VRd from June 30th 2008 to December 31st 2018, for variations of bortezomib administration. Five hundred and fifty‐five (555) NDMM patients met inclusion criteria; median age 63 years and 61% men. Bortezomib was administered twice weekly every 21 days in 43%, once weekly every 21 days in 41% and once weekly every 28 days in 16%. Though peripheral sensory neuropathy was more frequent with twice weekly dosing (P = .002), this group achieved shorter time to best response (P = .01). Weekly every 21‐day treatment saw higher VGPR or better rates (P = .02). However, with median follow up time of 37 months (IQR 22–56), we found no difference in PFS or OS among the groups. While small differences in response rates were found among the varying administration schedules of bortezomib administration, there was no significant effect on PFS or OS. Given that VRd remains a first line standard of care option for newly diagnosed MM, in the absence of a large trial comparing bortezomib dosing schedule modifications, these results are helpful in supporting current practices of once weekly administration.

AbstractIntroductionLittle is known on continued response following completion of therapy in light chain (AL) amyloidosis.MethodsWe studied 373 AL amyloidosis patients who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) to first‐line therapy.ResultsBy end of therapy (EOT), 46% of patients achieved a CR and 54% a VGPR. With no further therapy, 17.5% of patients were upstaged from VGPR to CR (delayed CR), with a median of 9 months. Compared with CR and VGPR at EOT, patients with a delayed CR were characterized by higher proportion of t(11;14) and lower rate of trisomies. Autologous stem cell transplant was more frequent in the delayed CR group. Patients with a delayed CR were characterized by minimal residual disease negativity and organ response rates similar to patients with CR at EOT and higher than patients achieving VGPR at EOT. Patients with a delayed CR had a longer PFS/OS compared to patients with CR or VGPR by EOT (median PFS 149 vs 92 vs 52 months, P < .001; 10‐year OS 87% vs 71% vs 56%, P < .001).ConclusionsThis study characterizes delayed CR in AL amyloidosis, highlights its prognostic impact which is at least similar to those who achieved CR at EOT, and underlines another aspect of response monitoring.