Cohen, Oliver

PURPOSE Outcomes in systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis have improved with modern therapy limiting utility of existing risk stratification models. We validate a new staging system, incorporating longitudinal strain (LS) to the biomarker-based (NT-proBNP and Troponin-T) staging system in the contemporary treatment era (2015-2024). METHODS AL International Staging System (AL-ISS) was derived from a cohort of patients with AL amyloidosis from the UK National Amyloidosis Centre (2015-2019). The model was validated in patient cohorts from Europe (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), the United States (2015-2024), and the United Kingdom (2020-2024). RESULTS In total, 2,493 patients were included (derivation, n = 573; validation n = 1,920). In a multivariable model for the derivation cohort, LS ≥ –9% and cardiac biomarkers at previously validated thresholds (NT-proBNP 332 ng/L and 8,500 ng/L and high-sensitivity troponin T ≥ 50 ng/L) were independent poor prognostic factors stratifying patients into stages I, II, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC. In the validation cohort, the patient stages were stage I: 317 (17%), II: 782 (41%), IIIA: 551 (29%), IIIB: 174 (9%), and IIIC: 96 (5%), respectively (first-line daratumumab treated: 826; 43%). With a median follow-up of 34 months, median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR); estimated 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS was 82%, 74%, and 70% respectively. The median survival for stages I to II, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC were NR, 67, 26, and 7 months (1-year OS IIIC 53% v 68% for IIIB in the daratumumab-treated patients), respectively ( P < .001). External validation exhibited good predictive performance: 12-month calibration slope was 1.09, Harrell C 0.69, Royston D 1.19, and R 2 D 0.25. Stage IIIC independently discriminated the poorest outcome across all cohorts. CONCLUSION This defines and validates a new staging system from systemic AL amyloidosis with robust identification of an ultra-poor risk stage (IIIC) in contemporarily treated patients.

Abstract Background: Systemic AL amyloidosis is an incurable disorder caused by misfolded light chain fibrils. Survival is determined by the extent of cardiac involvement and response to therapy. Mayo 2012 (stage I-IV) and European modified Mayo 2004 (stage I-IIIB) prognostic scores were developed in a historic treatment era, prior to widespread bortezomib and daratumumab use. These no longer discriminate those with the poorest outcomes. We presented a new model sub-stratifying IIIB into a high risk, ‘IIIC’ group, incorporating longitudinal strain (LS) to the European modified score (IIIC: LS &gt;-9% + NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L + high-sensitivity troponin T [hs-TnT] &gt;50ng/L) in the bortezomib-era (2015-2019) last year (Khwaja et al, ASH 2024). Here, we present an independent external validation of the IIIC model in the modern treatment era. Methods: The ‘IIIC model’ was derived from a large real-world cohort of adults from the UK National Amyloidosis Centre (2015-2019). Performance was externally validated across Europe (Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland), USA (2015-2024) and UK (2020-2024). Survival estimates were generated from diagnosis to death or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using Cox regression (using Stata v18). Stage IIIB and IIIC were defined as follows IIIB: LS &lt;-9%, NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L, hs-TnT &gt;50ng/L and IIIC: LS &gt;-9%, NT-proBNP &gt;8500ng/L, hs-TnT &gt;50ng/L, respectively. Stage I, II and IIIa were defined as previously described in the European modification of Mayo 2004 staging system. Results: 2493 patients were analysed from 2015-2024 (derivation, n=573; validation: Europe, n=374, USA n=458, UK, n=1088). In the derivation cohort, LS ≥-9% and standard cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP 332ng/L and 8500ng/L and hs-TnT&gt;50ng/L) were selected as independent prognostic factors in a multivariable model. In the European and UK validation cohort (n=1462), median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 35-95) with 1014 (69%) cardiac and 869 (60%) renal involvement. Median difference in involved and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) was 181 mg/L (range 0-24933), NT-proBNP 1911ng/L (range 42-70000), hs-TnT 45ng/L (range 3-1221) and LS -14.7% (range -3- -28). In the US cohort median NT-proBNP was 1764 (range 13-71000) and hs-TnT 44 (6-687). Applying the new model staging, the patient stages were across Europe and UK were stage I: 224 (15%), II: 627 (43%), IIIA: 396 (27%), IIIB: 139 (10%) and IIIC: 76 (5%), respectively. 592 (41%) were treated with first-line daratumumab-based regimens. In the US dataset stage I: 103 (22%), II: 176 (38%), IIIA: 131 (29%), IIIB: 48 (10%) and IIIC: 16 (3%), respectively. 234 (51%) were treated with first-line daratumumab-based regimens. At a median follow-up of 30 months (95% CI 28-32) in the European and UK validation cohort, estimated median overall survival (OS) was not reached and 2-year OS was 74% (95% CI 72-77). Median survival for stages I-II, IIIA, IIIB and IIIC were not reached (NR), 67, 31 and 10 months, respectively (p&lt;0.001). Hazard ratios for stage II, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC were 2.01 (95% CI 1.32-3.07), 3.51 (95% CI 2.31-5.35), 5.67 (95% CI 3.60-8.91) and 11.12 (95% CI 6.93-17.87), respectively (p&lt;0.001). This was confirmed in the US cohort with a median survival for respective stages were NR, NR, NR, 8 and 2 months (p&lt;0.001). External validation in the European and UK cohorts exhibited good predictive performance: 12-month calibration slope was 1.00 (95% CI 0.81-1.20, p=0.98), Harrel's C was 0.90 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), Royston's D 1.07, R2D 0.21 (95% CI 0.15-0.28). In 1462 patients with dataset available, stage IIIC discriminated the poorest outcome despite a greater proportion treated with first-line daratumumab v IIIB in the validation cohort (59% v 40%, p=0.008). 12-month OS for IIIC v IIIB was 44% (95% CI 32-55) v 69% (95% CI 60-76), specificity for 12-month OS 97% v 92% and diagnostic odds ratio 6.62 v 2.36. Conclusions: This study validates the new staging system from stage I-IIIC with robust identification of an ultra-poor prognostic group (Stage IIIC) in a contemporarily treated patient cohort. Despite novel therapies, the OS remains &lt;12 month in the IIIC group and also poor in stage IIIB with median OS 31 months compared to a median of &gt;5 years for all other stages. This staging system can be considered as a new standard of care for risk stratification of AL amyloidosis. Novel approaches are required for patients with advanced risk.

Importance There is a lack of long-term efficacy and safety data on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (hATTR-PN) and on RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics in general. This study presents the longest-term data to date on patisiran for hATTR-PN. Objective To present the long-term efficacy and safety of patisiran in adults with hATTR-PN. Design, Setting, and Participants This global open-label extension (OLE) of the APOLLO randomized clinical trial and phase 2 OLE study enrolled patients from 43 hospitals or clinical centers across 19 countries between July 2015 and August 2017, with follow-up until November 2022. Of 212 eligible patients with hATTR who completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies, 211 enrolled in and 138 completed the global OLE. Intervention Patisiran, 0.3 mg/kg, intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes evaluated at year 5 of the global OLE included disability (polyneuropathy disability [PND] score); polyneuropathy severity (Neuropathy Impairment Score [NIS]), nutritional status (modified body mass index [mBMI]), quality of life (Norfolk Quality of Life–Diabetic Neuropathy [Norfolk QOL-DN]), and Rasch-Built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS), with no statistical hierarchy. Safety, survival probability, and mortality were also assessed. Results At the global OLE baseline, the mean (SD) age was 61.3 (12.3) years, and 156 patients (73.9%) were male. In 138 patients completing the study, PND scores remained stable or improved in 89 patients (65.0%), NISs showed a mean (SD) change of 10.9 (14.7), and mean (SD) mBMI (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared times serum albumin in grams per liter) increased by 46.4 (120.7) over 5 years from baseline. Norfolk QOL-DN and R-ODS scores showed mean (SD) changes of 4.1 (16.7) and –3.7 (6.2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) leading to study withdrawal occurred in 47 patients (22.3%). Infusion-related reactions were the most common treatment-related AE (n = 34 [16.1%]). Overall, 41 patients (19.4%) died during the study. Patisiran treatment in the parent study and low familial amyloid polyneuropathy score at parent study baseline were associated with significantly improved survival. Conclusions and Relevance In the longest study of an RNAi therapeutic for any disease, patisiran treatment resulted in modest changes for patients with hATTR-PN with an acceptable safety profile. These results highlight the importance of initiating early treatment for hATTR and the potential of RNAi therapeutics in medicine. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02510261

ImportanceKidney light chain (AL) amyloidosis is associated with a risk of progression to kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and death. Several studies have shown that a greater reduction in proteinuria following successful anticlonal therapy is associated with improved outcomes.ObjectiveTo validate graded kidney response criteria and their association with kidney and overall survival (OS).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, multicenter cohort was conducted at 10 referral centers for amyloidosis from 2010 to 2015 and included patients with kidney AL amyloidosis that was evaluable for kidney response and who achieved at least hematologic partial response within 12 months of diagnosis. The median follow-up was 69 (54-88) months. Data analysis was conducted in 2023.ExposureFour kidney response categories based on the reduction in pretreatment 24-hour urine protein (24-hour UP) levels: complete response (kidCR, 24-hour UP ≤200 mg), very good partial response (kidVGPR, &amp;gt;60% reduction in 24-hour UP), partial response (kidPR, 31%-60% reduction), and no response (kidNR, ≤30% reduction). Kidney response was assessed at landmark points (6, 12, and 24 months) and best kidney response.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.ResultsSeven-hundred and thirty-two patients (335 women [45.8%]) were included, with a median (IQR) age of 63 (55-69) years. The median (IQR) baseline 24-hour proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 5.3 (2.8-8.5) g per 24 hours and 72 (48-92) mL/min/1.73m2, respectively. In a competing-risk analysis, the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of progression to KRT decreased with deeper kidney responses as early as 6 months from therapy initiation (11%, 12%, 2.1%, and 0% for kidNR, kidPR, kidVGPR, and kidCR, respectively; P = .002) and were maintained at 12 months and 24 months and best kidney response. Patients able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR by 24 months and at best response had significantly better OS compared with kidPR/kidNR. Kidney progression, defined as a 25% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, was associated with cumulative incidence of progression to KRT and OS.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that graded kidney response criteria offers clinically and prognostically meaningful information for treating patients with kidney AL amyloidosis. The response criteria potentially inform kidney survival based on the depth of reduction in 24-hour proteinuria levels and demonstrate an OS advantage for those able to achieve kidCR/kidVGPR compared with kidPR/kidNR. Taken together, achievement of at least kidVGPR by 12 months is needed to ultimately improve kidney and patient survival.

PURPOSE Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P < .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P < .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as &gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria &gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P&lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: 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. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP &gt;650 pg/mL or BNP &gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, &gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value &lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P&lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P&lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P&lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (&gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.