Kapoor, Prashant

Abstract Background: A recent preclinical study revealed an antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of propranolol on MM cell lines. This study was to investigate if propranolol and other beta blocker intake improved survival in MM patients. Methods: Among patients seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 1993 to 2010, we identified those taking propranolol. Age, year of diagnosis, International Staging System (ISS), Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) were used as case-match variables to match propranolol users to two control populations: no beta blocker and other beta-blocker. Cox proportional hazard modeling was utilized to analyze the effect of propranolol and other beta blockers intake on overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Results: In 3 groups: propranolol (n=52), no beta blocker (n= 136), or other beta blocker (n=84), transplant eligibility was 63.5%, 66.9%, 66.7% respectively (p=0.90). Median age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 86 months. No statistically differences were seen in age, ISS, mSMART or year of diagnosis in 3 groups (p=0.46).In univariate analysis comparing propranolol vs no beta blocker or other beta blocker cohort, 5-year OS rate was 60.2% vs 47% or 64% (p=0.039), and 5-year DSS rate was 71.7% vs 50.3% or 69.1% (p=0.0029). In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, ISS, transplant eligibility, mSMART and year of diagnosis, compared to propranolol intake, no beta blocker group had poorer OS [HR= 2.081; 95% CI (1.353- 3.200); p=0.0008], and DSS [HR=2.833 (1.709-4.697); p<0.0001], but other beta blocker users had no difference in OS [HR =1.145 (0.728-1.803);p=0.56],and DSS [HR= 1.276 (0.745-2.185); p=0.38]. Conclusion: Propranolol and other beta-blocker intake among MM patients were equally associated with a more favorable OS and DSS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Lust: Senesco: PI Other.

Abstract Background Suppression of uninvolved immunoglobulins is a common finding in multiple myeloma and the preservation of uninvolved immunoglobulins at diagnosis is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival. However, little is known about the impact of myeloma treatment on levels of uninvolved immunoglobulins, and the link between changes in uninvolved immunoglobulins during therapy and treatment response, disease progression and survival. Methods We identified patients who received therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at our institution between 2001 and 2014, and who had data available on absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and quantitative uninvolved immunoglobulins (Ig) before commencing treatment. The ALC and levels of uninvolved Ig after 4 cycles of therapy were abstracted from the electronic medical record; patients who switched or stopped treatment, or died, before this time point were excluded. To assess change in ALC, the percentage difference in ALC between baseline and 4 cycles was calculated; for uninvolved Ig, the average of the percentage difference between baseline and 4 cycles for each uninvolved Ig (IgA and IgM for IgG myeloma, IgG and IgM for IgA myeloma, IgG and IgA for IgM and IgD myeloma, and IgG, IgM and IgA for light-chain only myeloma) was calculated. Treatment response at 4 cycles was retrospectively assigned according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined as time from start of initial therapy to start of next line of therapy or death (if no additional treatment was received). A landmark analysis was used to calculate overall survival (OS) from the date of follow-up after 4 cycles of therapy. The Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, and log rank tests were used to detect differences in medians, proportions, and survival times respectively. Results A total of 421 patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 63 years (range 33-91), 254 patients (60.3%) were male and median follow-up was 6.5 years (95% CI 5.6-7.3); the vast majority of patients had IgG (n=247 [58.7%]), IgA (n=98 [23.3%]) or light-chain only myeloma (n=68 [16.2%]). First line therapy comprised of pulse-dose dexamethasone (DEX, n=92 [21.9%]), lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, n=176 [41.8%]), bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, n=22 [5.2%]), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD, n=84 [20.0%]), and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, n=47 [11.2%]). Across the entire cohort, the median change in ALC and uninvolved Ig after 4 cycles of treatment was -11.0% (range: -92.7 to +718.8) and +9.0% (-77.7 to +1094.4) respectively; treatment with VCD was associated with the greatest median declines in ALC (DEX: -0.1%; RD: -9.9%; VD: -20.8%; VCD: -40.9%; VRD: -15.3%) and uninvolved Ig (DEX: -0.5%; RD: +15.5%; VD: +44.0%; VCD: -14.0%; VRD: +76.0%, both p<0.001). Conversion from suppression to normalization of the primary uninvolved Ig (IgA in IgG myeloma, and IgG in all other myeloma types) after 4 cycles was seen more frequently with the use of RD (13.1%) and VRD (12.8%) compared to DEX (4.7%), VCD (1.3%), or VD (4.8%), χ2=21.8, p=0.040. When considering only patients in whom the primary uninvolved Ig remained suppressed between baseline and 4 cycles, a ≥25% reduction in the primary uninvolved Ig occurred more frequently with the use of DEX (51.5%) and VCD (34.5%) compared to RD (24.8%), VD (23.5%) or VRD (25.7%), χ2=15.1, p=0.005 (Table 1). Although an average reduction in uninvolved Ig between baseline and 4 cycles (ΔIg<0) was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving very good partial response (VGPR) of better on multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex and treatment regimen (OR=0.40 [0.24-0.63], p<0.001), there were no differences in TTF (2.0yrs vs. 2.0yrs, p=0.783) or OS (8.0yrs vs. 8.0yrs, p=0.721) between patients with ΔIg<0 (n=169) and those with ΔIg≥0 (n=222). Conclusions Myeloma treatments produce differential impacts on immune parameters, with VCD causing the greatest reduction in lymphocytes and uninvolved Ig, implying general targeting of plasma cells, in comparison to lenalidomide, which appeared to be more tumor-specific with relative sparing of lymphocytes and uninvolved Ig. While an average decrease in uninvolved Ig was an independent predictor of a lower likelihood of achieving VGPR or better after 4 cycles of therapy, it was not associated with a shorter TTF or poorer OS. Disclosures Kumar: BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide has demonstrated excellent activity in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, multiple myeloma (MM). Between November 2007 and March 2012, we enrolled 285 patients with relapsed MM on 5 sequential phase 2 trials; patients received pomalidomide at 2mg or 4 mg daily with weekly dexamethasone (Pom/dex). The approved dose of pomalidomide is 4 mg for 21 of 28 days. We wished to compare efficacy, tolerability and long-term outcomes between cohorts treated with 2 mg or 4mg daily continuously and 4mg daily for 21/28 days. Methods: After excluding two ineligible patients, 283 patients with lenalidomide refractory, relapsed MM from 5 sequential cohorts were analyzed. These patients were divided into 3 groups: Group1 received Pom 2mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 69), Group 2 received Pom 4 mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 95) and Group 3 received Pom 4mg for 21/28 day cycle (N= 119). All patients received oral dexamethasone given 40 mg daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Response was assessed by the IMWG Uniform Response criteria. All patients received aspirin 325 mg daily for DVT prophylaxis or full dose anticoagulation. Results: The median age was 63 years (32-85); 35% were female. The median time from diagnosis was 53 months and the median number of prior regimens was 4. 127 (46%) had high-risk molecular markers. Prior therapies (% received) included lenalidomide (100%), thalidomide (46%), bortezomib (78%), autologous stem cell transplant (71%), and allogeneic transplant (4%). The median follow-up is 16.4 months (3.2-64.4). Forty eight percent are alive and 26% remain progression free; 15 patients are continuing to receive treatment. Frequency of AEs by groups are shown in Table 1. The most notable difference is grade 3+ neutropenia seen in 39% of group 1 and 56% and 57% of groups 2 and 3. Confirmed responses of PR or better were seen in 29% (group1), 35% (group2) and 24% (group3). Median duration of response (DOR) was 14.1 months (group1), 14.5 months (group2) and 10.2 months (group3). Median PFS was 5.5 months (group1), 6.9 months (group2) and 4.3 months (group3). Although the dose level cohorts were sequential rather than randomized, we compared OS between the dose levels in an exploratory manner. There was no significant difference in OS between dose levels (p=0.26). Median overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months (group1), 21.9 months (group2) and 16.0 months (group3). Conclusions: Pom/dex is active and well tolerated even in heavily pretreated patients Responses are durable. Response rates and overall toxicity are similar between the 2 mg and 4 mg doses. Neutropenia is more common in those receiving doses of 4mg daily or for 21/28 days compared to those receiving 2 mg daily. Table 1. All Grades Grade 3+ 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day Anemia 68% 58% 74% 14% 15% 27% Lymphopenia 22% 51% 11% 16% 32% 8% Neutropenia 71% 82% 77% 39% 57% 56% Thrombocytopenia 51% 61% 63% 10% 9% 23% Leukopenia 59% 77% 72% 26% 38% 39% Pneumonia 7% 11% 12% 6% 7% 11% Fatigue 51% 65% 60% 9% 5% 8% Neuropathy 28% 32% 28% 0% 3% 0% Elevated Blood Glucose 10% 21% 8% 4% 6% 3% Pneumonitis 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% VTE (Thrombosis) 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% Secondary Malignancy 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Bergsagel:Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; OncoEthix: Research Funding; MundiPharma: Research Funding. Stewart:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Cytogenetic evaluation using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) at the time of diagnosis is essential for initial risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Despite the absence of cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities a subset of patients does experience poor overall survival comparable high-risk disease (i.e. median overall survival less than three years after diagnosis). We aimed to identify demographic, clinical, and cytogenetic characteristics predicting poor three-year overall survival in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. Methods: We studied 428 patients who were diagnosed with multiple myeloma between July 2004 and July 2014 at Mayo Clinic Rochester, underwent FISH evaluation within six months of diagnosis, and received treatment with novel agents (immunomodulator, proteasome-inhibitor, or a combination thereof). Patients with high- and intermediate-risk cytogenetics as well as patients lost to follow-up within three years were excluded. High-risk cytogenetics were defined as del(17p), t(14;16), and t(14;20). Intermediate-risk cytogenetics were defined as t(4;14) and gain(1q). Bone marrow aspirates were evaluated for deletions, monosomies, trisomies, and tetrasomies using chromosome- or centromere-specific FISH probes. IGH rearrangements were evaluated using an IGH break-apart probe and evaluating up to five potential partners (FGFR3, CCND1, CCND3, MAF, and MAFB). A multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was used to assess the associations between the parameters of interest and three-year overall survival. Discrimination and calibration of the model were evaluated using the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. The odds ratios of the identified predictors were rounded up to the next integer and assigned as points in a scoring system. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-point and associated test performance characteristics. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (31 - 95), 259 (61%) of the patients were male. The median overall survival was 7.4 years (6.1 - 8.6) for the entire cohort (n = 428), 10.5 years (8.3 - NR) for those who survived at least three years (n = 327, 76%), and 1.6 years (1.2 - 1.7) for those who did not survive three years after diagnosis (n = 101, 24%). The factors associated with poor three-year overall survival and the derived scoring system are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Patients with multiple myeloma and standard-risk cytogenetics are a heterogeneous group. One fourth of the patients are experiencing less than three years of overall survival after diagnosis. Stage, age, extent of bone marrow involvement, karyotype, and platelet count at the time of diagnosis were helpful in identifying patients at risk for poor three-year overall survival. These findings emphasize the importance of further risk stratification in this patient population and warrant external validation. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: A recent study revealed an antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of propranolol on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Our previous small matched case-control study showed longer survival in patients with propranolol and other beta-blockers (BB) intake than those without. This larger scale study was conducted to confirm the positive association of BB and MM survival. Methods: We identified 1971 newly diagnosed pts seen at Mayo Clinic between 1995 and 2010. Cardiac medication usage after diagnosis of MM was extracted from patient records and categorized based on BB intake. Cause of death was collected with death due to MM as the primary interest event and death due to cardiac disease or other reasons as competing risk events. The primary outcomes were MM disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Cumulative incidence functions and Kaplan-Meier method were used to estimate the 5-year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of MM death and OS rate, respectively. DSS and OS were compared by Gray's test and log-rank test, respectively. Multivarable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted cause-specific HR (HRCSadj.) and hazard ratio (HRadj.) for DSS and OS, respectively, adjusting for demographics, disease characteristics, diagnosis year, and various chemotherapies. Results: 930 (47.2%) of MM patients had no intake of any cardiac medications; 260 (13.2%) had BB only; 343 (17.4%) used both BB / non-BB cardiac medications; and 438 patients (22.2%) had non-BB cardiac drugs. Five-year CIR of MM death and OS rate were shown in table. Superior MM DSS was observed for BB only users, compared to patients without any cardiac drugs (HRCSadj., .53, 95% confidence interval [CI], .42-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj., .49, 95% CI, .38-.63, padj.<.0001). Patients received both BB and other cardiac drugs also showed superior MM DSS than non-cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj.., .54, 95% CI, .44-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drug users. (HRCSadj., .50, 95% CI, .40-.62, padj.<.0001). MM DSS does not differ between BB users with and without other cardiac drugs (padj.=0.90). Multivariable analysis showed the same pattern for OS. None of the MM therapies impacted the differences in DSS and OS among BB intake groups (interaction padj.>.60). Conclusion: MM patients with BB intake showed reduced risk of death due to MM and overall mortality compared to patients who used non-BB cardiac or never used cardiac drugs. The result warrants further investigation for anti-cancer effect of BB in MM. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

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

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD®) that has been approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combinations of IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors offer the potential for deeper and more durable responses due to enhanced efficacy. Preliminary results of a phase 1 study of twice weekly bortezomib with pomalidomide have been reported with promising results (Richardson, ASH 2012). This phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) as well as safety and efficacy of the combination of pomalidomide, once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVD) in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, MM. Patients and methods: We included patients with relapsed MM who had 1-4 prior lines of therapy and were resistant or refractory to lenalidomide. In the phase I portion of the trial, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide 4 mg days 1-21 PO, bortezomib 1.0mg/m2 days 1,8,15, and 22 IV or SQ and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1,8,15, and 22 PO, given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3mg/m2 for dose level 2 and and was adopted for the phase 2 portion. The primary aim of the phase I cohort was to determine the MTD of the combination, and for the phase II cohort was to evaluate the confirmed response rate (PR, VGPR, or CR) in relapsed refractory MM. Response was assessed by the IMWG criteria and toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Results: 50 patients were accrued between March 2012 and July 2014 (dose level (DL)1: 3, DL 2: 6, Phase II: 41). We describe results in 47 patients treated at MTD and phase II. Median age was 66, 51% were female and median time from diagnosis to study was 46 months (15-142). Twenty five percent had mSMART defined high-risk status. Median number of prior regimens was 3. All patients had prior lenalidomide, 68% had stem cell transplant, 17% received thalidomide, 56% had alkylators and 57% had bortezomib. With median follow up of 9 months, 72% remain progression free, 96% are alive and 66% remain on treatment. The most common AEs at least possibly attributable to the combination were anemia, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia; however, the majority of these were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 AEs (regardless of attribution) that occurred in at least 3 patients included neutropenia (29), leukopenia (15), lung infection (6), lymphopenia (8) dyspnea (3) and syncope (3). DVT/PE occurred in one patient. Among the 42 patients who were evaluable, confirmed responses (PR, VGPR, or CR) were seen in 34 (81%) including sCR (3), CR (5), VGPR (8), PR (18). Confirmed responses were seen in 9 of 11( 82%) high risk patients. Median progression free survival was 17.7 months (95%CI: 9.5-NA). Conclusions: PVD is a highly effective combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide with confirmed responses in over 80%. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced the tolerability and convenience of this regimen. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy or DVT. PVD is a highly attractive option in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Lust:Senesco: PI Other. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Conflicting results have emerged, especially with respect to the impact on overall survival (OS), from trials evaluating lenalidomide maintenance (LM) therapy after induction therapy alone or post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing outcome data from LM trials to evaluate role of lenalidomide as maintenance strategy in MM. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases and abstracts through June 2013 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LM vs. placebo/no maintenance. Single arm studies were excluded. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model for clinical endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), OS, response rate (RR) and adverse events (AEs), including second primary malignancies (SPMs). Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 2. We assessed between-study heterogeneity with the Cochran Q test and quantified its extent with the I2 statistic. Results Overall, five RCTs, with data extractable from four phase III trials (3 publications and 1 abstract) were identified (n= 1935). All studies were RCTs with an adequate randomization. MRC MM XI study was excluded from analyses as survival data are not available. Two placebo controlled trials (IFM 05-02, CALGB 100104) addressed the role of LM post-ASCT, one placebo-controlled trial (MM-015) studied LM therapy in the non-transplant setting and the remaining trial (RV-MM-PI209) had a 2 X 2 design comprising of both ASCT and non-transplant randomized arms followed by a second randomization of LM versus no maintenance. There was no heterogeneity for estimate of PFS results (Cochran Q, p=0.68; I2=0%), but considerable heterogeneity for estimate of OS (Cochran Q, p=0.09; I2= 55%), among the studies. There was significant prolongation of both PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.41–0.58, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95, p=0.013) with LM vs. placebo/no maintenance (Figure 1). Best response during maintenance was reported only in 2 studies and odds of responding (very good partial response or better) were not significantly different with LM (OR 1.28, p=0.3). Grade 3-4 AEs data were available from 3 trials for calculation of pooled OR with LM compared with placebo. We observed a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of SPMs with LM (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31–3.04; p=0.001). Patients on LM were more likely to have grade 3-4 AEs than placebo: neutropenia (OR 4.9, p<0.001), thrombocytopenia (OR 2.7, p<0.001), fatigue (OR 2.3, p=0.01) and venous thromboembolism (OR 3.2, p=0.02). Odds of discontinuing treatment were also significantly higher in patients on lenalidomide (OR 2.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates significant improvement in PFS and modest improvement in OS with LM. There is an increased risk of grade 3-4 adverse effects, including SPMs with LM. Substantial heterogeneity for estimate of OS among protocols is a limitation of this analysis. Lack of uniform access to lenalidomide upon disease progression in the placebo/no maintenance arms of the constituent studies should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate effect estimates for OS in this meta-analysis. OS: Cochran Q p=0.09, I2=55%, substantial heterogeneity PFS: Cochran Q p=0.68, I2=0%, minimal heterogeneity Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Onyx: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1040 Introduction: Hemophagocytic syndrome (HPS) is a rare disorder characterized by fever, splenomegaly, cytopenias, hypofibrinogenemia, hyperferritinemia and hemophagocytosis in the bone marrow or lymph nodes. It is caused by pathologic activation of the immune system, and manifests clinically with signs and symptoms related to extreme inflammation. Primary HPS or familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) occurs predominantly in children (<18 years) due to inherited defects in natural killer and cytotoxic T-cell function. Secondary HPS generally occurs in adults (>18 years) and is precipitated by autoimmune disorders, malignancy and a variety of infections. The results of HLH-94 trial, the largest prospective study in pediatric patients with HLH, reported an estimated 5-year survival of 54%. There is a paucity of information about HPS in adult patients. Methods: Records of all adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a diagnosis of “hemophagocytosis“ or “hemophagocytic syndrome” presenting from January 1996 through December 2011 at Mayo Clinic were reviewed. Our hematopathology database was also analyzed for patients bearing a diagnosis of HPS. Out of a total of 127 patients identified in the database, 50 adult patients were diagnosed to have HPS as per the diagnostic criteria of the HLH-1994 trial (for patients seen prior to 2004), and HLH-2004 trial (for patients seen after 2004). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic. Results: Baseline characteristics of all patients are shown in Table 1. The median time to diagnosis from the onset of symptoms was 38 days (4–158 days). Secondary HPS was diagnosed in 46 (92%) patients. The causes of secondary HPS are shown in Table 2. Twenty (40%) patients were treated with etoposide containing regimen, 26 (52%) were treated with therapeutic agents directed specifically to the underlying precipitating disease, and 4 (8%) patients did not receive any treatment. No patient in our study underwent a stem cell transplant (SCT). After a median follow-up of 43 months, 36 (72%) patients have died. The causes of death were infection (47%), malignancy (42%), bleeding (8%) and unknown (3%). The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 1.5 months (95% CI, 0.7–4.5 months). The median OS for patients with malignancy- related HPS was 0.8 months (95% CI, 0.4–2.4 months) compared to 11 months (95% CI, 0.7-not reached) for patients with non-malignancy related HPS (p-value:0.006; Figure). On univariableanalysis, factors associated with a worse survival were serum albumin <2 g/dL (hazard ratio, 8.3), malignancy-related HPS (hazard ratio, 7.3) and serum creatinine >1.3 mg/dL (hazard ratio, 3.8). Conclusion: In this large series of adult HPS patients treated at a single tertiary care center, most cases are secondary, and are associated with a worse survival compared to historical outcomes reported for children enrolled on the HLH-94 trial. This is likely related to a marked delay in referral to our institution, and high early mortality precluding consideration of SCT. Adult patients with malignancy- related HPS in this study had a markedly inferior outcome compared to patients with non-malignancy related HPS. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Previous studies have demonstrated inferior overall survival (OS) among patients with AL amyloidosis who have bone marrow plasmacytosis (BMPC) >10%. It is well recognized that AL patients who achieve the deepest hematologic responses have superior organ response and OS rate. Methods: We designed a study to determine if BMPC% affects CR rate post ASCT and whether pre-transplant induction therapy improves response rate and OS among patients with a higher baseline BMPC burden. Results: Among 415 AL patients who underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester within 12 months of diagnosis, 116 (28%) had BMPC>10% at diagnosis. The median age was 57.2 years. The median follow up for surviving patients was 67.3 months. There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, time from diagnosis to transplant, or use of attenuated conditioning regimen between groups with high (>10%) and low (≤ 10%) bone marrow involvement. The high BMPC group tended to receive more induction chemotherapy before ASCT, and presented with greater value of albumin, beta-2 microglobulin and difference in serum free light chain (dFLC). A higher CR rate was observed in low BMPC group (44.6% versus 26.7%, p=0.0013). In patients with high BMPC, a higher CR rate (33.9% versus 17.7%, p<0.05) was seen in those who received pre-ASCT induction therapy compared with no induction therapy. Among 3 groups of patients who had: no pre-ASCT therapy; steroid only as induction; and induction chemotherapy, the 5-year OS rates were 50.5%, 40% & 67.5%, respectively, p<0.03. Conclusions: Lower bone marrow burden at diagnosis yielded a deeper response following ASCT. Compared to no therapy, patients who were treated with steroid only pre-ASCT had an inferior OS, but other induction regimens appeared to improve survival. These data would support the concept that using induction therapy prior to ASCT conditioning among patients with higher tumor burden may be of value. Figure 1. In BMPC > 10% at diagnosis, OS comparison between induction therapies pre-ASCT Figure 1. In BMPC > 10% at diagnosis, OS comparison between induction therapies pre-ASCT Figure 2. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria; millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Smith Kline: Honoraria.