Moreau, Philippe

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

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

Abstract Background: BCL-2 and MCL-1 promote multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (VEN) is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable small-molecular inhibitor of BCL-2. When combined with bortezomib, which can inhibit MCL-1, VEN can enhance the activity of bortezomib in MM cell lines and xenograft models. Methods: In this Phase 1b, open label, dose escalation study, patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM received daily VEN (50 - 1200 mg per designated dose cohort) with bortezomib and dexamethasone. The objectives of the study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose (R2PD), and efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], time to progression [TTP], and duration of response [DoR]) of combination therapy in this patient population. Results: As of 01July2016, 66 patients were enrolled, with 54 in the dose escalation cohort and 12 in the safety expansion at R2PD of 800 mg. The median age was 64 years and 39 (59%) were ISS stage II/III. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 1 - 13), and 21 (32%) were refractory to prior bortezomib, 37 (56%) were refractory to prior lenalidomide, and 41 (62%) had prior stem cell transplant. Forty-three (65%) patients discontinued the study for the following primary reasons: 33 related to disease progression, 5 due to AEs (1 each: respiratory failure and cardiac failure, lung adenocarcinoma, sepsis, renal impairment, and Guillain-Barre syndrome; none were considered by the investigator as related to VEN), 2 withdrew consent, and 3 for other reasons not specified. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (99%) patients, with common AEs in ≥20% of patients being diarrhea (41%), thrombocytopenia (39%), constipation (38%), nausea (36%), insomnia (32%), peripheral neuropathy (30%), peripheral edema (29%), anemia (27%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (27%), dyspnea (24%), fatigue (24%), and asthenia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% of patients included thrombocytopenia (29%), anemia (15%) and neutropenia (14%). Serious AEs in ≥2 patients were febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, cardiac failure, pyrexia, influenza, lower respiratory tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, embolism, and hypotension. One dose-limiting toxicity of lower abdominal pain was reported for a patient who received 1200 mg VEN. Five deaths were reported during the study, 4 due to disease progression and 1 due to respiratory syncytial virus infection (not considered by the investigator as related to VEN). After co-administration with bortezomib and dexamethasone, dose-normalized VEN exposure at steady-state appeared to be within the exposure range observed with VEN monotherapy in patients with MM. The ORR for all evaluable patients was 68% (44/65) and 26 (40%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or better (3 stringent complete response [sCR], 8 CR, 15 VGPR) (Figure). For all patients, median DoR was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.2, 15.8) and TTP was 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.7, 10.2), with a median follow up of 4.9 months (range: .03 - 26.7). High ORR of 89% was seen in patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib (39/45) or who had 1 - 3 prior therapies (31/35). In 31 patients who were non-refractory to bortezomib and had 1 - 3 prior therapies had ORR of 94% (29/31), 68% (21/31) with VGPR or better; median DoR was 10.6 months and TTP was 11.3 months for this subgroup. Moreover, patients who were bortezomib naïve and had 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy had ORR of 100% (12/12), and median DoR was 15.8 months and TTP was 17.1 months. In patients who were non-refractory to prior bortezomib but who were refractory to lenalidomide, the ORR was 86% (19/22) as compared with 91% (20/22) in those non-refractory to lenalidomide. Clinical responses were comparable in patients with t(11;14) MM (ORR, 78% [7/9]) and without t(11;14) MM (ORR, 66% [37/56]). In the t(11;14) group, 3 patients were bortezomib-refractory, and 2 of them achieved a PR as best response. Also, 4 patients had more than 3 prior lines, with 3 of them achieving PR. Conclusions: VEN in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone has an acceptable safety profile in patients with R/R MM. Efficacy results, including 68% ORR in all patients and 94% ORR in patients not refractory to bortezomib and who received 1 - 3 prior lines of therapy, indicates promising efficacy of this novel combination and supports the ongoing Phase 3 trial with this regimen in patients with R/R MM. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Roberts:Genentech: Patents & Royalties: Employee of Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research which receives milestone payments related to venetoclax; AbbVie: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Agarwal:AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Facon:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Kumar:Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Cordero:AbbVie: Employment. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie: Employment. Jia:AbbVie: Employment. Salem:AbbVie: Employment. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Shareholder in AbbVie. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment. Verdugo:AbbVie: Employment, Other: may own stock. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have become refractory to bortezomib (BORT) and refractory or otherwise ineligible for thalidomide or lenalidomide (LEN) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 9 months (Kumar. Leukemia. 2012). There is no standard treatment available for these patients. Pomalidomide (POM) is a novel immunomodulatory drug that has shown activity in LEN- and BORT-refractory patients (Vij. ASCO 2012). MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) vs high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in a population of patients who are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Here we present the final progression-free survival (PFS) and interim OS analysis of MM-003. Methods: Eligible patients with primary refractory or relapsed and refractory disease were enrolled. All patients with documented disease progression during treatment or within 60 days of completing their last myeloma therapy (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of LEN and BORT either alone or in combination), were randomized 2:1 to receive either POM + LoDEX (arm A) or HiDEX alone (arm B). Patients progressing on HiDEX had the opportunity to receive POM in the companion trial, MM-003C. Patients in arm A received POM 4 mg on days 1–21 and DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Patients in arm B received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by age (≤ 75 vs > 75 years), disease population (refractory vs refractory and relapsed vs refractory and intolerant [intolerant to BORT only]), and number of prior therapies (2 vs > 2). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included safety, OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response) by IMWG and EBMT criteria, duration of response, time to progression, and quality of life. OS was to be tested only if PFS would be statistically significant; therefore, alpha was controlled at 0.05 2-sided for both PFS and OS. Results: The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the protocol-specified final analysis results. 455 patients were randomized from March 2011 to Sept 2012. 302 patients received POM + LoDEX, and 153 patients received HiDEX. At the time of analysis, 45% of patients in arm A and 25% of patients in arm B remained on study. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1–17). 72% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BORT. At the PFS final analysis, with a median follow-up of 18 weeks, PFS was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median 15.7 vs 8.0 weeks; 267 total events; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P <.001). OS interim analysis was performed as planned; OS also was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median not reached vs 34 weeks; 134 events; HR, 0.53; P<.001), crossing the prespecified O’brien-Fleming superiority boundary. This includes 45 pts who received POM after progressing on HiDEX. Median duration of treatment was 12.4 weeks in arm A and 8 weeks in arm B. Following DSMB review of the data, immediate crossover of arm B patients to arm A was recommended. Overall, 25% of patients in arm A and 38% in arm B died, with progressive disease and infections as the primary reasons. Frequent grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (42% in arm A vs 15% in arm B), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 24%), and febrile neutropenia (7% vs 0%). Other toxicities (grade 3/4) were predominantly infections (24% vs 23%), hemorrhage (3% vs 5%), glucose intolerance (3% vs 7%), neuropathy (1% vs 1%), and venous thromboembolism (1% vs 0%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 35% arm A and 49% arm B. Complete results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly increased PFS and OS compared with HiDEX in patients who are refractory to LEN and BORT, a population with limited treatment options. The OS superiority boundary was crossed. Based on these data, POM + LoDEX should become the new standard of care in patients who have exhausted the novel agents, LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlin:Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 743 Background There has been considerable recent focus upon the molecular classification of myeloma. However, the prognostic impact of molecular changes has mostly been assessed from small and/or incomplete studies from single institutions or groups. There has been no large scale analysis of molecular features linked to ISS stage. Methods In order to clarify the overall impact of molecular changes we undertook a collective analysis of 9,897 patients through the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Within this population 2,295 patients had presence of cytogenetic abnormalities (Any CA); 1,713 hypodiploidy; 1,673 hyperdiploidy; 2,309 cytogenetic deletion 13; 3,226 deletion 13 by FISH; 1,573 FISH t(4;14); 1,486 FISH del p17; 1, 683 FISH t(11:14); and 366 FISH t(4;16). Enrolled patients had complete clinical and treatment details available including baseline standard prognostic factors, ISS stage, as well as both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) information. Data came from 14 sites: 3 from the US and the remainder from Europe, Asia, and Latin America as for the ISS staging system analyses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results Each of the known adverse molecular features had a negative impact upon both PFS and OS (p=002 - <0.0001). Among the deleterious FISH abnormalities the t(4;14) abnormality was the most highly correlated with poorer outcomes by PFS: 4 year estimate: 32% vs. 60% (p<0.0001). The t(4;14) abnormality combined with ISS Stage also significantly enhanced predictive capability: ISS Stage I without t(4;14) OS 81% @ 4 years; ISS Stage III with t(4;14) OS 22% @ 4 years (P<0.0001) [Figure 1]. The best outcomes were for ISS Stage I in the presence of t(11;14): OS 89% @ 4 years. Absence of any one adverse feature correlated with 80-81% OS @ 4 years for Stage I. Presence of any one adverse feature had a more variable impact and correlated with 22%-40% OS at 4 years for Stage III. In univariate correlations the most predictive correlations with OS were presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy, cytogenetic 13q- with R2 values of 6.9%, 4.5%, 4.1% and 3.8% respectively. In multivariate analyses, ISS stage provided the best predictions: R2 values = 13.3%. The added contributions from molecular features were: t(4;14) 3.8%; cytogenetic 13q- 2.9%; Any CA 2.3%; and 17p- 1.0%. The maximum total R2 for OS was 22%. Conclusions This large multicenter analysis confirms the correlations between abnormal molecular findings and outcomes. Combinations with ISS Stage provide the best predictive capability. Presence of Any CA, t(4;14), 17p-, hypodiploidy and cytogenetic 13q- contribute to poorer outcomes by ISS stage. The presence of hyperdiploidy and/or t(11;14) contribute to better outcomes. There is thus validation of prior molecular studies related to prognosis utilizing this large IMWG database. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

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

Background:Carfilzomib (CFZ) combined with dexamethasone is approved to treat patients (pts) with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with CFZ given once‐weekly at 70 mg/m2 (Kd70 QW) or twice‐weekly at 56 mg/m2 (Kd56 BIW). No randomized trials have directly compared Kd70 QW with Kd56 BIW.Aims:We performed a post hoc comparison between pts who received Kd56 BIW in the ENDEAVOR trial and pts who received Kd70 QW in the A.R.R.O.W. or CHAMPION‐1 trials.Methods:Data were analyzed from 3 trials of CFZ in RRMM: A.R.R.O.W. (240 pts in Kd70 QW arm; 2–3 prior therapies and refractory to most recent therapy), CHAMPION‐1 (104 pts received Kd70 QW; 1–3 prior therapies), and ENDEAVOR (464 pts in Kd56 BIW arm; 1–3 prior therapies). Pts who received Kd70 QW in A.R.R.O.W. and CHAMPION‐1 were pooled and compared with pts who received Kd56 BIW in ENDEAVOR. As study populations slightly varied among the 3 trials, an analysis of safety and efficacy was performed in a subgroup of pts who received 2–3 prior therapy lines and were not refractory to bortezomib (BTZ). Also, we performed regression analyses (controlling for age, ISS stage, BTZ and lenalidomide refractory status, and number of prior regimens) among all pts in the trials who received Kd70 QW or Kd56 BIW.Results:Among BTZ non‐refractory pts with 2–3 lines of prior therapy, median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months (95% CI 8.4–14.3) for Kd70 QW (n = 146) and 14.5 months (95% CI 10.2–NE) for Kd56 BIW (n = 217), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 69.9% (95% CI 61.7–77.2) for Kd70 QW and 72.4% (95% CI 65.9–78.2) for Kd56 BIW. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 67.6% and 85.3%; among adverse events of interest, the grade ≥3 rate was 1.4% and 5.1% for cardiac failure, 3.4% and 6.0% for renal failure, and 5.5% and 15.7% for hypertension. Kd70 QW represents a convenient and well‐tolerated treatment modality for pts with RRMM. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for PFS (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.69–1.19), and in a logistic regression model the odds ratio for ORR (Kd70 QW vs Kd56 BIW) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.74–1.69).Summary/Conclusion:This post hoc analysis suggests that once‐weekly Kd70 has a comparable benefit‐risk profile to twice‐weekly Kd56.© 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.

Background:Deepened response has been associated with prolonged progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival in multiple myeloma, including in the maintenance therapy setting. In the Myeloma XI trial, post‐ASCT maintenance with lenalidomide vs observation resulted in improved responses in 15.8% vs 11.0% of patients (pts) and a median PFS of 56.9 vs 30.1 months (Jackson et al, ASH 2017). In the phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled TOURMALINE‐MM3 study (NCT02181413), post‐ASCT maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib vs placebo resulted in a 39% improvement in PFS (median 26.5 vs 21.3 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58–0.89; p = 0.002), with a favorable safety profile (Dimopoulos et al, Lancet 2019). We report improvements in depth of response and the impact on outcomes in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Aims:To evaluate the rates and timing of response improvement during ixazomib vs placebo maintenance and the impact on PFS in TOURMALINE‐MM3.Methods:Pts who had achieved ≥partial response (PR) to induction therapy with a PI and/or immunomodulatory drug followed by single ASCT were randomized 3:2 to receive ixazomib (N = 395) or placebo (N = 261) on day 1, 8, and 15 of 28‐d cycles for up to 2 years or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by induction regimen, pre‐induction ISS stage, and post‐ASCT response (complete response [CR] or very good PR [VGPR] vs PR). Ixazomib dose was 3 mg in cycles 1–4 and 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated in cycles 1–4. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed at screening by flow cytometry (10–5 sensitivity). The primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee (IRC). Other endpoints included rate of response improvement in pts enrolled in VGPR or PR.Results:At study entry, 60 (15%), 213 (54%), and 89 (23%) pts in the ixazomib arm and 54 (21%), 152 (58%), and 35 (13%) in the placebo arm had CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively, by IRC. Deepening responses were seen in 139/302 (46%) ixazomib vs 60/187 (32%) placebo pts with VGPR/PR at enrollment (relative risk [RR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.1–1.8, p = 0.004), including 92/213 (43%) vs 48/152 (32%) VGPR to CR (RR 1.37, p = 0.025) and 47/89 (53%) vs 12/35 (34%) PR to VGPR/CR (RR 1.54, p = 0.063). On Kaplan‐Meier analysis of time to best deepened response in VGPR/PR pts (Figure), 24‐month rates of deepening response were 54.2% vs 41.4%, and there was a 38.4% improvement in the chance of deepening response over time with ixazomib vs placebo (HR 1.384, p = 0.034). A pooled analysis across arms among pts enrolled in VGPR/PR showed that deepening response vs no improvement was associated with prolonged PFS (median not reached vs 15.9 months; HR 0.245, 95% CI 0.184–0.325, p < 0.0001). Analysis by treatment arm showed that, in VGPR/PR pts with deepening response, 24‐month PFS rates were 77.4% vs 68.3% with ixazomib vs placebo (medians not reached; HR 0.875; 12.5% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.52–1.47; p = 0.615); in VGPR/PR pts without deepening response 24‐month PFS rates were 33.4% vs 23.6% (median 17.9 vs 14.1 months; HR 0.780; 22% risk reduction; 95% CI 0.59–1.03; p = 0.080). Baseline MRD status was a strong predictor of deepening response; deepening responses were seen in 63% (78/124) vs 32% (94/293) of MRD‐ vs MRD+ pts enrolled in VGPR/PR.Summary/Conclusion:Post‐ASCT maintenance with ixazomib resulted in a significantly higher rate of deepening response vs placebo; deepening response was associated with prolonged PFS. Ixazomib resulted in non‐significant PFS benefit vs placebo in VGPR/PR pts with and without deepening response; prolonged follow‐up would be needed to confirm these results.image