Kumar, Shaji

Background: The current commonly used regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) utilize steroids (dexamethasone or prednisone) in various combinations: bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTd), daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (DVMP). However, steroid therapy may be associated with various adverse effects, including, but not limited to mood changes, insomnia, hypertension, hyperglycemia, osteoporosis, adrenal suppression, muscle weakness, and increased risk of opportunistic infections. A recent trial demonstrated improved tolerability of a regimen (Rd-R) involving an abbreviated course of dexamethasone, without compromising the efficacy in patients with intermediate-fit NDMM (Lorocca A., et al., ASH 2018). We designed a phase 2 clinical trial to examine the safety and efficacy of daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody in combination with an all-oral regimen of ixazomib, a proteasome inhibitor, lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug, and modified dose dexamethasone (IRd). Patients and Methods: NDMM patients with measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled, irrespective of their transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response (CR) to daratumumab-IRd. Treatment consisted of daratumumab, 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks, ixazomib, 4 mg days 1, 8, 15, lenalidomide, 25 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone upto 40 mg intravenously weekly for no more than two cycles, followed by use only as a prophylactic premedication for daratumumab-associated infusion reactions. Myeloma risk stratification was assessed by cytoplasmic immunoglobulin fluorescence in-situ hybridization (cIg FISH) analysis. Results: Overall, 40 patients were accrued, with data available on all patients for analysis at the cutoff date of July 19, 2019. The median age at enrollment was 64.5 (33-81) years; 37.5% were female. Eight (20%) patients were high risk by FISH. The median number of cycles was 6 (2-11) and the median follow up was 6.1 (2-11.7) months. Among 40 patients who had received at least 2 cycles of therapy, responses were attained rapidly; at the end of cycle 2, 88% patients achieved at least a partial response and 33% at least a very good partial response (VGPR) that improved to 52% at the end of 4 cycles among 29 patients who had completed at least 4 cycles. The overall best confirmed response rate among all 40 patients (Figure 1) was 95%, including 10% stringent CR, 5% CR and 23% near CR (13% VGPR excluding nCR). Stem cell collection was completed in 17 patients so far, all of whom required filgrastim and plerixafor. The median CD34+ cell count was 7.7 (range 2.9-11.6) million/kg . All patients were alive and 39 (97.5%) patients were progression-free at last follow up. Four (10%) patients proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation off study, per patient and/or investigator discretion (1 in CR, 2 in PR, 1 with progressive disease). Overall, 224 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose reduction/ hold required in a subset of patients; ixazomib (10%), lenalidomide (20%), daratumumab (0%) and dexamethasone (13%); the most frequent reasons for dose adjustment were skin rash and hematologic toxicities. A grade 3 or higher adverse event, at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 40% of patients; hematologic in 30% (lymphopenia 25%, neutropenia 15%, thrombocytopenia 5% and anemia 2.5%) and non-hematologic in 18% of patients (hyperglycemia 8%, diarrhea 5%, infections 5%, ileus 2.5%, maculopapular rash 2.5%, and fatigue 2.5%). Updated results with additional 6 months of follow up and minimal residual disease assessment related data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Our early results suggest that the combination of daratumumab, ixazomib, lenalidomide and modified dose dexamethasone is well-tolerated, with excellent activity, and does not adversely impact stem-cell mobilization in patients with NDMM. Disclosures Kapoor: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Gertz:Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Daratumumab in combination with Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Background Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare plasma cell neoplasm with a high mortality rate. There have been improvements in multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes with novel induction agents and use of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with maintenance, but similar progress has not been reported for pPCL. We examined the outcomes of pPCL patients receiving novel agents with autologous (autoHCT) or allogeneic (alloHCT) approaches as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in the modern era. Methods From 2008 to 2015, 348 pPCL pts underwent HCT (N = 277 - autoHCT and 71 - alloHCT) with 45% and 48% having research level data available, respectively. Cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse/progression (REL), and probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Cox multivariate regression was used to model survival after autoHCT only. Median follow-up in autoHCT and alloHCT was 48 and 60 months, respectively. Results AutoHCT Cohort Median age was 60 years and 93% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis with 76% after a single line of induction (Table 1). 35% had high risk cytogenetics. 23% received bortezomib, doxorubicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (VDPACE). Moreover, 40% received bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drug (IMIID)-based triplets. Disease status at HCT was VGPR or better in 47%. 27% received maintenance therapy. At 4 years post-HCT, NRM was 7% (4-11%), REL 76% (69-82%), PFS 17% (13-23%), and OS 28% (22-35%) (Figures 1A, 2A, 2B). Disease status ≥VGPR at HCT and Karnofsky Performance Score >90 significantly predicted superior OS in multivariate analysis. AlloHCT Cohort Median age was 53 years and 89% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis (Table 1). 61% received a single alloHCT, while 39% used auto-alloHCT tandem approach. 42% had high-risk cytogenetics. 61% received total body irradiation with 44% receiving myeloablative conditioning. Use of VDPACE was higher at 41% in this cohort. VGPR status at HCT was similar (48%), while maintenance was used less often (12%). Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 30% and chronic GVHD in 45%. At four years post-HCT, NRM was 12% (5-21%), REL 69% (56-81%), PFS 19% (10-31%), and OS 31% (19-44%) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). There were no differences in outcomes based on type of HCT. A comparison of post-HCT outcomes of CIBMTR pPCL patients from 1995 to 2006 showed that PFS and OS outcomes are inferior despite lower NRM in this modern cohort (Mahindra et al. Leukemia. 2012). In addition, analysis of SEER (1995-2009) and CIBMTR databases showed that use of HCT increased from 12% (7-21%) in 1995 to 46% (34-64%) in 2009. Conclusion More newly diagnosed pPCL patients are receiving modern induction regimens translating into a higher proportion receiving HCT, but without significant further benefit post-HCT. Post-HCT relapse remains the biggest challenge and further survival in pPCL will likely need a combination of targeted and cell therapy approaches. This study provides a benchmark for future HCT studies for pPCL. Disclosures Girnius: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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. Dhakal:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Shah:University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background: Overexpression of the anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein promotes multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis and has shown synergistic activity with bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Phase 1 studies in relapsed/refractory (RR) MM demonstrated encouraging clinical efficacy of Ven + d in t(11;14) MM and in a broader patient (pt) population in combination with Bd. Recent results from the Phase 3 BELLINI study of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with RRMM demonstrated that pts treated with Ven + Bd had improved clinical response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs Pbo, although the overall survival (OS) result was in favor of Pbo. Subgroup analyses showed different efficacy and survival outcomes based on tumor cytogenetics and BCL-2 expression. Results of pre-specified subgroup analyses and additional retrospective correlative biomarker analyses in the Phase 3 BELLINI study are described herein. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1-3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. The following biomarker analyses were performed by central laboratory assessments of pre-treatment tumor samples: BCL-2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of bone marrow (BM) core biopsies; BCL2 gene expression by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and cytogenetic abnormalities by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of CD138-enriched BM mononuclear cells. Correlation between BCL-2 (protein and gene) expression, cytogenetics, and outcomes were examined by Kruskal-Wallis tests and by hazard ratio (HR) using the Cox proportional hazard model. Results: As of the data cut-off of 18 Mar 2019, 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Out of the 291 pts randomized, 177 pts (61%) were evaluable by IHC, 257 pts (88%) by qPCR, and 262 pts (90%) by FISH. A broad range of BCL2 gene expression was observed (median 2-DCt: 0.212 [range: 0-5.21]), which strongly correlated with protein expression (median 2-DCt 0.115 in BCL-2 IHC Low vs 0.277 in BCL-2 IHC High, p=0.0021). t(11;14) MM had the highest levels of BCL-2 expression (23/23 BCL-2 High by IHC; median 2-DCt 0.406 vs 0.212 in t(11;14) negative, p=0.0132), however high BCL-2 expression was not limited to the t(11;14) subgroup. Univariate analyses showed higher BCL2 expression in pt tumor samples with del(13q) (median 2-DCt 0.333 vs 0.159 in pts without del(13q), p=0.0008) and gain(1q) (median 2-DCt 0. 295 vs 0.180 in pts without gain(1q), p=0.0059). Bootstrapping and aggregating thresholds from trees (BATTing) was used retrospectively to identify an estimated threshold value for BCL2 expression (2-DCt ≥0.323) that could provide optimum selection of pts with maximum improvement in PFS when treated with Ven+Bd. Biomarker subgroups with the greatest PFS improvement were t(11;14) (HR=0.10; 95% CI: 0.02-0.46, p=0.003) and High BCL2 by qPCR (HR=0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.51, p<0.001; Table 1). Since the t(11;14) and High BCL2 patient populations do not completely overlap (20% of High BCL2 pts were t(11;14) and 54% of t(11;14) were High BCL2), a combined subgroup analysis was performed. For pts with t(11;14) or High BCL2, the median PFS was not reached in the Ven arm vs 9.9 mo in Pbo (HR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.14-0.48, p<0.001; Table 1). Higher overall response (ORR, 88% vs 70%), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR, 73% vs 33%), and complete response or better (≥CR, 42% vs 3%) rates were observed in the Ven vs Pbo arm (Table 2). Minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-, 10-5) rate was also higher for t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts in the Ven vs Pbo arm (19% vs 0%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but was similar between treatment arms for the combined group with t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts (HR=0.92, 95% CI=0.39-2.16, p=0.85). In contrast, in the t(11;14) negative and Low BCL2 pts, OS favored Pbo (HR=3.13, 95% CI=1.2-8.13, p=0.019; Table 1). Conclusions: Adding Ven to Bd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with RRMM harboring either t(11;14) or tumor cells expressing high levels of BCL2. The benefit-risk profile appears to be favorable in these subsets of pts and additional studies to gain further safety and efficacy information are warranted. Disclosures Harrison: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: 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, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. De La Rubia:AMGEN: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasparetto:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:AbbVie: 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, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Specialised Therapeutics Australia: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics Inc: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Onkimmune: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Garg:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis, Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen, Takeda, Novartis: Other: Travel expenses. Punnoose:Roche: Other: Stock/stock options; Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jia:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Yang:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Sun:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Introduction: Advances in the understanding of disease biology, the introduction of new drugs, and better supportive care have improved outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM). Most improvements have been observed in clinical trial and tertiary referral center populations but questions remain about the generalizability of these findings to patients treated in the community. Methods: We studied all patients diagnosed with MM between 01/01/2001 and 12/31/2015 who had complete demographic and overall survival (OS) data available and were seen at Mayo Clinic (MAYO) or followed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER, 18 registry data 2000 - 2016, 11/2018 submission). We retrieved age at diagnosis, sex, date of diagnosis, date of last follow-up, and OS for all patients. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause. Patients who were alive at the end of follow-up (12/31/ 2016) were censored. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Age- and sex-adjusted Cox models were used to assess the association between the 5-year interval of diagnosis and OS. Expected OS estimates were calculated based on United States general population rate tables (Human Mortality Database) using a conditional approach. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated by dividing the number of observed deaths by the number of expected deaths in age- and sex-matched general United States population controls. Linear regression models were fit to test for linear trends in early mortality and SMR over time (per 5-year interval). P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 3 years lower in patients at MAYO (64 years, 15% ≥ 75 years, 60% male, n = 3293) compared to SEER (67 years, 29% ≥ 75 years, 55% male, n = 61779). After a median follow-up of 2.8 years the median OS was longer in MAYO compared to SEER (5.4 versus 4.0 years, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 - 0.86, p < 0.001) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 - 0.95, p < 0.001). Early mortality (1-year mortality) decreased between 2001-2005 and 2011-2015: From 20% to 11% at MAYO and from 26% to 19% in SEER. When grouping OS by year of diagnosis (in 5-year-intervals) improvements were seen in both populations (A) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex. The relative improvements were similar comparing the 5-year period after the introduction of the novel therapies (2006 - 2010) to 2001 - 2005 and more pronounced in MAYO for the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015, A). This trend was reflected in a steady temporal improvement in 5-year OS estimates in MAYO including the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015, B bottom left). In SEER there was a comparable increase between the first two 5-year intervals but a lesser improvement in more recently (2011 - 2015, B bottom left). A diagnosis of MM remained associated with significant excess mortality in all age groups over time in both populations (B top). There was a decrease in excess mortality over time at MAYO (SMR decline per 5-year interval 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8, p < 0.001) while there was little change in SEER (SMR decline 0.0, 95% CI -0.3 - 0.3, p = 0.917, B bottom right). Further stratifying by age at diagnosis, the decrease in excess mortality was observed mostly in patients < 75 years at MAYO (SMR decline per 5-year interval 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 - 2.0, p < 0.001, C bottom left) and to a lesser extent in older patients (SMR decline 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 - 0.6, p < 0.001, C bottom right). No such trends towards improvement were observed in either age group in SEER (C bottom). In older patients, early mortality remained approximately 30% in both populations despite continued improvements, while the 5-year OS estimates for the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015) were 37% at MAYO and 26% in SEER (C top). Conclusions: Both early mortality and long-term survival have improved over time. Reductions in excess mortality were largely confined to younger patients with access to specialized care. Patients ≥ 75 years represent more than a quarter of all patients in the community, a third of them died within one year of the diagnosis, and only one in four was alive five years later. Older patients with MM remain a vulnerable population and have derived only limited benefit from recent advances in the field. Safe and effective therapies for older patients with MM remain an unmet need. Figure Disclosures Gertz: Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Maurer:Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

AbstractWe evaluated bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in 44 patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis using next generation flow cytometry (sensitivity ≥1 × 10−5; median events analyzed: 8.7 million, range: 4.8 to 9.7 million). All patients underwent MRD testing in 2 years from start of therapy (median: 7 months). The overall MRD negative rate was 64% (n = 28). The MRD‐negative rate after one‐line of therapy was 71% (20/28). And, MRD negative rates were higher with stem‐cell transplant as first‐line therapy (86%, 18/21) vs chemotherapy alone as first‐line treatment (29%, 2/7), P = .005. The MRD negative rate amongst patients in complete response was 75% (15/20), and in very good partial response, 50% (11/22). There were two patients in partial response/rising light chains (with renal dysfunction) who were MRD negative. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of MRD negative vs MRD positive patients, except younger age amongst MRD‐negative patients. Patients with MRD negativity were more likely to have achieved cardiac response at the time of MRD assessment, 67% (8/12) vs 22% (2/7), P = .04. Renal response rates were similar in both groups. Progression free survival was assessed in the 42 patients achieving CR or VGPR. After median follow‐up of 14 months, the estimated 1‐year progression free survival in MRD negative vs MRD positive patients was 100% (26 patients, 0 events) vs 64% (16 patients, five events), P = .006, respectively. MRD assessment should be explored as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and MRD risk‐adapted trials may help optimize treatment in AL amyloidosis.

Key PointsPatients with an abnormal sFLC ratio because of LC suppression have outcomes similar to those with a normal ratio. sFLC ratio has prognostic value in patients achieving CR who have an absence of clonal BMPCs assessed by MFC.

Background Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide‐based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide‐based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide‐based regimens in patients with myeloma. Methods The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: “lenalidomide,” “venous thromboembolism,” and “multiple myeloma.” Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide‐based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random‐effects model. Results The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk‐stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%‐7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles (95% CI, 0.9‐1.7 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1‐0.6] events/100 patient‐cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0‐0.7] events per 100 patient‐cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7‐2.3] events per 100 patient‐cycles). Conclusions Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide‐based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Abstract A complex network precisely regulates the cell cycle through the G1, S, G2, and M phases and is the basis for cell division under physiological and pathological conditions. On the one hand, the transition from one phase to another as well as the progression within each phase is driven by the specific cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs; e.g., CDK1, CDK2, CDK4, CDK6, and CDK7), together with their exclusive partner cyclins (e.g., cyclin A1, B1, D1–3, and E1). On the other hand, these phases are negatively regulated by endogenous CDK inhibitors such as p16ink4a, p18ink4c, p19ink4d, p21cip1, and p27kip1. In addition, several checkpoints control the commitment of cells to replicate DNA and undergo mitosis, thereby avoiding the passage of genomic errors to daughter cells. CDKs are often constitutively activated in cancer, which is characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of transformed cells, due to genetic and epigenetic abnormalities in the genes involved in the cell cycle. Moreover, several oncogenes and defective tumor suppressors promote malignant changes by stimulating cell cycle entry and progression or disrupting DNA damage responses, including the cell cycle checkpoints, DNA repair mechanisms, and apoptosis. Thus, genes or proteins related to cell cycle regulation remain the main targets of interest in the treatment of various cancer types, including hematologic malignancies. In this context, advances in the understanding of the cell cycle regulatory machinery provide a basis for the development of novel therapeutic approaches. The present article summarizes the pathways as well as their genetic and epigenetic alterations that regulate the cell cycle; moreover, it discusses the various approved or potential therapeutic targets associated with the cell cycle, focusing on hematologic malignancies.

The treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved markedly in the last decade, but mortality remains high, emphasizing the need for more effective therapies. Daratumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has shown clinical efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma both as monotherapy and in combination with other drugs, including novel agents. More recently, promising results have been reported in patients with untreated newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Clinical trials thus far have shown enhanced efficacy and tolerability of several daratumumab-based combinations in both transplant ineligible and eligible patients, without compromising transplant ability. However, benefit in high-risk subpopulations is still unclear. A subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab has been introduced to decrease the risk of infusion reactions, with preliminary results showing non-inferior efficacy. The antimyeloma activity of daratumumab is achieved through multiple mechanisms including direct, Fc-dependent, and immunomodulatory mechanisms. Enhanced efficacy of daratumumab in combination with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors is supported by preclinical data showing synergism. This review will focus on the role of daratumumab in untreated NDMM patients, highlighting the results of major clinical trials, and listing ongoing trials that are evaluating various daratumumab-based combinations in this setting.