Jacobus, Susanna

Abstract Abstract 3017 Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignancy of clonal plasma cells with resulting in an increase production of ineffective immunoglobulins with suppression of non-involved immunoglobulins. Patients with MM are at increased risk of infectious complications, particularly to those organisms in which opsonization is one of the key defense mechanisms, e.g. strep and staph infections. Treatment of MM is virtually always associated with further immunosuppression, at least in the immediate term, until the malignant clone is eradicated and normal immunoglobulins are produced. Rationale: Due to further compromise of an already incompetent immune system by initial chemotherapy and the previous suggestion (Oken et al Am J Med 1996; 100:624-628) that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce infectious complications, this study was designed to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on the incidence of serious bacterial infections during the first two months of treatment. Methods: Pts with untreated MM receiving chemotherapy were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to receive either a daily ciprofloxacin (C; 500 mg), trimetheprim-sulfamethoxazole (T; DS bid) or observation (O) for the first 2 months of treatment. Pts were evaluated for serious bacterial infection (grade 3 or 4) during the first two months of myelotoxic/suppressive therapy. Secondary endpoints (EP) included: incidence of non-bacterial infections, resistant organisms due to prophylaxis, the incidence of infection the third month OFF of antibiotic prophylaxis and whether protection against infection is associated with an improved response rate. Results: From July 1998 to January 2008, 212 untreated, symptomatic MM pts being treated with myelotoxic/suppressive chemotherapy were randomized to C (n=69), T (n=76) or O (n=67) for the first 2 months of treatment. The incidence of serious infection (> grade 3 ECOG toxicity criteria and/or hospitalization) was comparable among groups: C=10 (14.7%), T=5 (6.9%), O=9 (14.5%); p= 0.268 which was the primary EP. The incidence of any infection during the first 2 months was also comparable (20% vs 23% vs 22%, respectively, p=0.910). There were 25 grade 2 infections and 4 grade 3 infections involving respiratory (n =13), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 4), and urinary (n =3), joint/bone (n =2), unknown (n =2) or various GI tract (n = 5) and skin (n =1). Eight pts expired within the first 2 months: 2 from MM, 3 cardiac, 2 respiratory, 1 renal (unrelated to MM or Rx) occurring in the C (4), T (1), O (2). Secondary EPs failed to show a difference in the incidence of serious bacterial infection during the third month in the absence of prophylaxis (C=3%, T=4%, O=2%; p=0.874), development of resistant infections, initial response to therapy or overall survival. Conclusions: The use of prophylactic antibiotics did not decrease the incidence of serious infection (> grade 3 and/or hospitalization) nor of any infection within the first 2 months of treatment. Infection prophylaxis did not affect the incidence of infection upon completion of 2 months of therapy (nor, ultimately, at any time during the subsequent 2 years), the response to therapy or to overall survival. Incidentally, there were no documented cases of PCP despite the assumption that MM pts, with compromised immune systems, are more susceptible. The incidence of serious infections in this study, in which few patients received novel agents, is comparable to that observed in more modern regimens even in the presence of mandated/recommended prophylactic antibiotics. Utilizing either lenalidomide plus dexamethasone or clarithromycin, lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in > grade 3 infectious complications in 16.7% and 9.7%, respectively, as reported by the Mayo Clinic and Cornell groups, respectively (Gay et al Am J Hematol, in press). Furthermore, in the ECOG E4A03 randomized trial of lenalidomide plus either high dose dexamethasone (LD) or low dose dexamethasone (Ld) in which prophylactic antibiotics were recommended, the incidence of > grade 3 infectious complications were 9.4% and 6.4%, respectively (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). We conclude that routine use of prophylactic antibiotics should not be mandated for patients receiving induction chemotherapy. Prophylactic antibiotics should be considered on a case-by-case basis after analyzing the potential infection risk in individuals. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 308 Introduction: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has previously reported the superior 1 and 2 year survival of Ld versus LD as initial therapy in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). The 1 year and 2 year OS for Ld vs LD were 96% and 85% vs 88% and 78%, (p < 0.01), respectively. This despite higher ORR in LD vs Ld (79% vs 68%; p = 0.008). The difference in OS was predominantly due to early death in the LD group (5% vs 0.5%; p = 0.003). As a result of this analysis, Ld is now considered the standard of care. However, it should be noted that the majority of these deaths occurred in pts > 65. In this analysis, we evaluated the impact of age on dexamethasone dose intensity and OS. Methods: 445 pts were randomly assigned: 223 to LD and 222 to Ld. Pts were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis for OS. The pts were analyzed by age in 2 groups: < 65 and > 65 (the age corresponding to transplant eligibility outside the US). The pts > 65 were then further subdivided into >70 and > 75 yrs. Results are expressed as OS probability at 1 and 2 years post randomization. In addition, to eliminate the early death ‘penalty’ in the LD group in the original analysis, a landmark analysis was performed at 4 months. Results: Overall Survival Probability: Intent-to Treat Analysis Overall Survival Probability: 4 month Landmark Analysis Conclusions: As previously reported, OS in the trial at 1 and 2 years was superior with Ld. OS was not superior with LD compared with Ld in any age group despite a higher response rate. This was true even when using a landmark analysis to eliminate the 5% early deaths seen in the first 4 months of treatment. We conclude the following: 1) LD is not definitively superior to Ld in any age group; 2) Given the higher toxicity in the absence of a clear survival benefit with LD, Ld remains the best choice for all ages. This analysis confirms the original opinion that low-dose dexamethasone is the standard of care for all newly diagnosed MM pts, regardless of age. Disclosures: Vesole: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centorcor-Ortho-Biotech: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front-line therapy in multiple myeloma. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Intellikine: Consultancy. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Aim: A phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 months, with the null hypothesis being that the response rates in the two 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. All analysis were performed on an intent to treat basis. An independent DMC recommended release of study results. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 17 months. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities, including DVT/PE and infections, were significantly higher in the high dose dex arm (see Table). Overall survival (OS) at the second pre-planned interim analysis was significantly superior with lenalidomide plus low dose dex, P<0.001; one year survival 96% (Rd) versus 87% (RD). The 18 month survival rate is 91% versus 80%, respectively. OS differences in favor of the low dose dex arm were seen in pts <65 (P=0.022; one year rate 97% vs 92%) as well as pts 65 and older (P=0.002; one year rate 94% vs 83%), respectively. Sixty-one patients have died; 42 in the RD arm and 16 in Rd arm. The cause of death has been verified by detailed chart review in 38 patients. Of 29 verified deaths in the RD arm, 13 were due to disease progression, 6 thrombosis/embolism, 3 infection, 3 cardiac ischemia, 1 stroke, and 1 respiratory failure. Of 9 verified deaths in the Rd arm, 5 were due to disease progression, 2 infection, 1 thrombosis/embolism, and 1 cardiac arrest. Response rate data are expected to be available at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM. The increased mortality in Arm A is due to disease progression (myeloma deaths) as well as increased toxicity. This study has major implications for the use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM. Major Grade 3 or Higher Adverse Events Toxicity Arm A % Arm B % P value Neutropenia 10 19 0.01 DVT/PE 25 9 <0.001 Infections 16 6 <0.001 Any grade 3 or higher non-hematologic 49 32 <0.001 Any grade 4 or higher non-hematologic 20 9 <0.001 Deaths in first 4 months 5 0.5 0.006

Abstract Background: Immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E4A03 demonstrated the superiority of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEX; Ld) over LEN and high dose DEX (LD) in newly diagnosed MM (Rajkumar SV, Lancet Oncol, 2010). This led to the universal acceptance of Ld as a standard induction regimen. More recently, the FIRST study demonstrated the superiority of Ld as continuous therapy vs Ld given x 18 cycles and melphalan-thalidomide-prednisone x 12 cycles proving continuous Ld should be considered standard of care (Benboubker L, NEJM, 2014). Upon completion of four cycles of therapy, patients enrolled in E4A03 had the option of proceeding to ASCT or continuing on their assigned Ld or LD. A prior post-hoc retrospective landmark analysis (Siegel DS, Abstract, Blood 2010) comparing outcomes of early ASCT vs. no early ASCT showed that in patients <65, 65-70, and >70, the survival with early ASCT at 3 years appeared higher, supporting the role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. This analysis is the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned study. Methods: A post hoc, retrospective landmark analysis was performed evaluating overall survival (OS) by early ASCT vs. no early ASCT overall and within age subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival distributions and Cox regression for hazard ratio (HR) estimates. The landmark analysis included only patients surviving the first four cycles of therapy. Results: 21% of patients opted for early ASCT (n=90). At baseline (four cycles prior), early ASCT patients were younger (median 57.5y vs 66y), more fit (ECOG PS 0 45% vs 56%) and with less aggressive disease (ISS Stage 3 12% vs 28%). Median treatment duration was 7.6m for no early ASCT patients. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year survival probability estimates were higher for early ASCT vs. no early ASCT at 99%, 93%, 91%, 85%, and 80% vs. 94%, 84%, 75%, 65%, and 57%. The median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 5.8 years, respectively (Table 1). The survival hazard ratio (HR) for early ASCT was 0.55 [95%CI (0.38-0.80)]. In a further subgroup analysis of patients </= 65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 79% [95%CI (67-87)] vs. 62% [95%CI (54-69)], respectively. In patients </= 65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 7.4 years and the survival HR was 0.74 [95%CI (0.48-1.15)]. For patients >65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 83% [95%CI (56-94)] vs. 52% [95%CI (45-59)], respectively. In patients >65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached versus 5.2 years and the survival HR was 0.38 [95%CI (0.17-0.87)]. In all age groups, overall response rate was similar prior to the decision of proceeding with ASCT vs. no early ASCT. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, early ASCT retained marginal significance. Conclusions: The landmark analysis demonstrated that patients opting for ASCT after induction Ld/LD had a higher 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5- year survival probability and improvement in median OS regardless of DEX dose density. Results were stronger within the older age cohort and upheld in adjusted models. Limitations include lack of randomization and data on salvage therapy. At a time when lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction is gaining worldwide acceptance in all age groups, early ASCT is safe and efficacious and should remain a standard of care for newly diagnosed MM even in the era of novel therapies. Table 1. Survival Probabilities (Time from Registration) for all Patients Included in the Landmark Analysis Median 1 year 2-year 3-year 4-year 5-year N Events Median (Yrs)(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) No Early ASCT All 341 195 5.78(5.11 - 6.59) 22 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96) 53 0.84 (0.80-0.88) 84 0.75 (0.70-0.79) 119 0.65 (0.59-0.69) 144 0.57 (0.51 - 0.62) Early ASCT All 90 34 NR 1 0.99 (0.92 - 1.00) 6 0.93 (0.86 - 0.97) 8 0.91 (0.83 - 0.95) 13 0.85 (0.76 - 0.91) 18 0.80 (0.69 - 0.87) NR = not reached Disclosures Biran: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Vesole:Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 4079 The treatment and natural history of asymptomatic or smoldering myeloma has been an area of intense preclinical and clinical study. Historical attempts to treat these patients have not demonstrated significant benefit, likely as a consequence of limited therapeutic options as well lack of attention to the vast heterogeneity contained within the diagnosis of smoldering myeloma. More recent risk criteria from both US and Spanish investigators have identified a cohort of smoldering myeloma patients at high risk for progression to myeloma in a short time. Recently the PETHEMA group has conducted a randomized clinical trial testing lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs observation among high risk smoldering patients and has demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of progression free survival and hints towards improvement in overall survival favoring early intervention. To further evaluate the potential benefit of early intervention in a high risk smoldering cohort, the ECOG myeloma group designed a phase II trial testing the safety and efficacy of single agent lenalidomide with the intent of broadening to a randomized phase III trial if toxicity was acceptable. We report here on the safety portion of the phase II trial. The phase II group of patients received lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg days 1–21 every 28 days to evaluate the early toxicity and tolerance of this dosing. The dose of lenalidomide could be adjusted based on toxicity using a defined dose-modification guideline in the protocol. The primary endpoint for the safety study was the rate of any treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity plus grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) observed within 6 cycles of treatment. The goal was to enroll 34 patients; if 9 or more patients experience toxicity as defined, then the study would not continue. In terms of eligibility, patients were to be diagnosed with asymptomatic high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) within the past 12 months, as confirmed by both of the following: bone marrow plasmacytosis with >= 10% plasma cells or sheets of plasma cells and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio (<0.125 or >8.0) by serum FLC assay. Further, patients must have measurable levels of monoclonal protein (M-protein): >=1g/dL on serum protein electrophoresis or >=200 mg of monoclonal protein on a 24 hour urine protein electrophoresis. Patients must have no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia. Among the 36 patients enrolled in the phase II study, 56% were female, and 44% were 65 years and older. Treatment and toxicity data at a minimum through cycle 6 is complete as of August 2, 2102. The last patient enrolled completed cycle 6 treatment on June 7, 2012. The median treatment duration of the entire cohort is 9 cycles (range 1–18 cycles), with 86% of patients completing at least 6 cycles of treatment. Ten patients are off treatment for the following reasons: disease progression (n=1), AE/complication (n=5), death (n=1) and patient withdrawal/refusal (n=3); 5 of the 10 patients ended treatment before completing 6 cycles. Of 36 patients assessed for toxicity, 8 patients [22.2%, 90% CI: (11.6%-36.5%)] experienced worst grade treatment-related non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Separately, 6 patients experienced unrelated non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Three patients [8.3%, 90% CI: (2.3%-20.2%)] experienced a serious adverse event as defined for the purposes of the phase II toxicity analysis (treatment-related grade 4–5 non-hematologic toxicity or grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events). Based upon this analysis of the study, the phase II portion of the trial met the prespecified safety benchmark established to allow for phase III expansion, and accrual to the phase III portion of this study will begin. Efficacy data will be presented at the time of presentation. Disclosures: Lonial: Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corp: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for treatment of smoldering MM. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Binding site: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene : Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties. Dhodapkar:Celgene: Research Funding; KHK: Research Funding.

Key PointsIn a randomized phase 3 trial, overall response rates, PFS, and overall survival were similar between MPT-T and mPR-R. Toxicity with both regimens was common, but mPR-R was better tolerated, and patients on the mPR-R regimen reported better quality of life.

Key PointsIn this study, African American MM patients have a significantly lower frequency of IgH translocations than European American patients.