Wagner, Lynne I.

TPS8052 Background: The monoclonal antibody (MoAb) daratumumab (dara) has been approved for treatment of newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) in combination with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (DRd) in patients who are not eligible to undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT). Ongoing trials are examining the role of adding bortezomib (Btz) to DRd, but it remains unclear if all patients benefit from a quadruplet regimen. Availability of sensitive assays to detect measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD) in MM and emerging data demonstrating significant prognostic value for attaining MRD negativity, offers an unprecedented opportunity to develop individualized treatment approaches. An important question is to identify who benefits from adding a fourth drug to the MoAb-IMiD triplet, thus individualizing therapy based on depth of response. We hypothesize that prolonged intensive therapy with the addition of Btz for consolidation and maintenance after DRd induction therapy for NDMM will improve survival outcomes with a more pronounced effect when used in MRD positive patients. Methods: Patients with NDMM, R-ISS Stage I or II, who are not eligible to undergo SCT or those willing to defer SCT to first relapse and have not received more than 1 cycle of any NDMM therapy will be enrolled, provided they have measurable disease, adequate organ and marrow function, have received no more than once cycle of therapy for MM and significant peripheral neuropathy or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Importantly, a dominant clone should be identified by lymphotrack assay for future MRD monitoring. Once enrolled, induction therapy will be in 28 day cycles consisting of daraSC (1800 mg) weekly for 2 cycles, every other week for cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks for 9 cycles, along with len 25 mg days 1-21 of each cycle and dex 40 mg (20 mg for those > 75 years) weekly. At end of 9 cycles (induction), patients will undergo MRD testing by next generation sequencing and will be classified into MRD positive or negative subgroups. Using MRD as an integral biomarker, the trial employs a randomized biomarker-stratified design as proposed by Freidlin et al. to determine efficacy for each MRD subgroup. Patients will be stratified by MRD status and R-ISS stage and randomized to receive 9 cycles of consolidation with DRd, without (control arm) or with (experimental arm) Btz (1.3 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks), followed by DR maintenance until progression The primary endpoint is consolidation OS. Sample size considerations rest on estimates of MRD subgroup prevalence at the end of induction and operating characteristics establishing the treatment effect within the MRD positive subgroup as primary and MRD negative subgroup as key secondary. The total accrual goal is 1450 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04566328.

7503 Background: Optimal initial therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain. The randomized phase 2 NCTN trial E1411 tested if progression-free survival (PFS) is prolonged by addition of bortezomib (V) (1.6 mg/m2 SC/IV days 1, 8) to bendamustine-rituximab (BVR vs BR) induction and/or by addition of lenalidomide (L) to rituximab (LR vs R) consolidation. Here we report efficacy and toxicity of induction BVR vs BR. Methods: 373 pts, accrued 2012–16, stratified by MIPI and age (≥60) received 1 of 4 arms: A) BR induction x 6 followed by R x 2 yrs, B) BVR followed by R, C) BR followed by LR or D) BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts had untreated MCL, ≥ age 18 (amended from ≥60 when S1106 for < 65 closed), ECOG PS 0-2 and adequate hematologic and organ function. Pts without progressive disease during induction proceeded to consolidation. Primary induction objective was whether adding bortezomib (BVR) (Arms B + D) to BR (Arms A + C) improves PFS, irrespective of consolidation R vs LR. Design of 360 eligible treated pts would provide 93.8% power to detect 10% improvement in 2-yr PFS from 70% hypothesized for BR, corresponding to 37.4% reduction in hazard using stratified log-rank test at 1-sided 10% alpha. Efficacy population was 179 (BVR) and 180 (BR), induction treatment completed in 144 vs 153, progressive disease during induction 6 vs 7 and registration to consolidation 140 vs 145. Results: Baseline demographics did not differ between the groups, with median age 67 (range 42-90) and 13% < 60 yr, 73% men, ECOG PS 0-1 97%, MIPI Low/Med/Hi 37/29/34%. Estimated PFS at 2 yrs 79.6% BVR (95% CI 73.8-85.9) vs 74.5% BR (95% CI 68.2-81.4) (1-sided stratified log-rank p = 0.268). With median PFS follow-up 51 mos, median PFS estimated at 64.1 and 64.0 mos. Overall response rate (ORR) for BVR was 88.9% (CR 65.5%) vs 89.5% (CR 60.5%) BR (z-test 1 sided p = 0.577 for ORR). Treatment related deaths during induction were 2 in BVR (cardiac arrest, hepatitis) and 1 in BR (tumor lysis). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were 88.1% (163/185) BVR vs 77.5% (145/187) BR. For BVR vs BR grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred in 52 vs 39 pts, though febrile neutropenia (7 vs 6), anemia (7 vs 8) and thrombocytopenia (18 vs 16) did not differ. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) grade 2 was 8 sensory for BVR vs 2 sensory/1 motor for BR, while grade 3 PN was 6 sensory/1 motor for BVR vs 0 with BR. The only non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicity in > 5% of pts was rash (9 vs 12 pts). Conclusions: Bortezomib did not significantly improve the primary endpoint of PFS when added to BR as initial MCL therapy. ORR and CR rates at end of induction were also similar. Follow-up continues to assess the entire treatment regimen, including consolidation R vs LR, but the PFS > 5 yrs, high ORR and MRD negativity rate (Smith et al ASH 2019) in this BR-based trial support BR as a platform for MCL induction therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01415752.

6010 Background: Definitive or postoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is highly curative for human papillomavirus-associated (HPV+) oropharynx cancer (OPC) but induces significant toxicity. As a potential deintensification strategy, we studied primary transoral surgery (TOS) and, in intermediate pathologic risk patients, reduced dose postoperative RT (PORT). Methods: E3311 is a phase II trial with randomization to reduced- or standard-dose PORT for resected stage III-IVa (AJCC7) intermediate pathologic risk HPV+ OPC, stratified by smoking history. Primary endpoints have been reported; we now present updated 3-year PFS and patient-reported outcomes (PRO), including head and neck-cancer specific quality of life (FACT-H&N) and swallowing perception and performance (MDADI). Results: Of 519 enrolled patients, 495 underwent TOS. The primary oncologic endpoint was 2-year PFS for 50 Gy (Arm B) or 60Gy (Arm C). Among 360 eligible and treated patients (ETP), Arm A (observation, N = 38) enrolled 11%, Arms B (N = 100) or C (N = 109) randomized 58%, and Arm D (66Gy + weekly cisplatin, N = 113) enrolled 31%. With 35.1 months median follow-up, 3-year PFS Kaplan-Meier estimate is 96.9% (90% CI [91.9%, 100%]) for Arm A; 94.9% (90% CI [91.3%, 98.6%]) for Arm B; 93.5% (90% CI [89.4%, 97.9%]) for Arm C; and 90.7% (90% CI [86.2%, 95.4%]) for Arm D. Recurrences and death without recurrence were 4 and 1 in Arm B, and 5 and one in Arm C. Smokers ( > 10 pack-years) did not have worse 3-year PFS in Arms B or C. Treatment arm distribution and outcome for ineligible patients who started adjuvant therapy mirrored the 360 ETP. A comparison combining arms B/C versus arm D in the proportion of patients stable/improved in FACT-H&N total score, from baseline to 6 months post-treatment as a pre-specified endpoint, was 56% vs. 38% (p value = 0.011, one-sided Fisher’s exact test); however, underlying differences in treatment and risk may be confounding. An exploratory comparison between Arms B and C revealed improvement in FACT H&N (63% in Arm B vs. 49% in Arm C had a stable/improved score, p-value = 0.056). Conclusions: Primary TOS and reduced PORT retained outstanding oncologic outcome at 35 months follow up, with favorable QOL and functional outcomes, in intermediate risk HPV+ OPC. Clinical trial information: NCT 01898494.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is typically diagnosed in patients (pts) aged 65-74 y (SEER: Myeloma. 2019); therefore, many pts present with concomitant metabolic disorders such as diabetes (18%-22% prevalence of type 2 diabetes [T2D; BMC Cancer. 2020;20:489]). Obesity (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 30 kg/m2) is associated with increased prevalence of T2D (Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:737), and both are suggested risk factors for MM (Blood. 2012;119:4845; Bone Marrow Transpl. 2014;49:1009). Results from single-center, retrospective studies have shown poorer clinical features and survival outcomes in diabetic pts with MM vs their nondiabetic counterparts (Eur J Haematol. 2012;89:320, Br J Cancer. 2014;111:628). The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of largely community-based pts with NDMM. Reported here is a descriptive analysis assessing differences in baseline (BL) characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts enrolled in the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts with NDMM (N = 3011) were enrolled at 250 community, academic, and government sites. Eligible pts were aged ≥ 18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤ 2 months (mo) pre-enrollment per International Myeloma Working Group criteria (Leukemia. 2009;23:3). Diabetic pts were defined as those with a history of diabetes and also receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL; those without a history of diabetes and not receiving antidiabetic treatment at BL were defined as nondiabetic pts. Descriptive statistics were used for BL characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]) were analyzed using Cox regression and adjusted for covariates. Results: Of the 2845 pts included in this analysis, 467 (16%) were diabetic, and 2378 (84%) were nondiabetic. The median age was 69 y for diabetic pts and 66 y for nondiabetic pts, with fewer Black pts (12.2% vs 19.5%) in the nondiabetic group. The proportion of men was higher in the diabetic vs the nondiabetic group (61.9% vs 56.6%). Similar percentages of pts had ECOG PS of 0-1 in both groups (53.3% vs 55.3%). Obesity was more prevalent in diabetic vs nondiabetic pts (55.9% vs 30.4%). More diabetic pts had a history of hypertension requiring treatment vs nondiabetic pts (84.2% vs 52.5%). The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities was comparable between the groups (within the limitation that data were missing in a substantial number of pts). Among MM-defining criteria, diabetic pts had a higher incidence of hypercalcemia (11.8% vs 8.5%), anemia (50.3% vs 46.5%), and increased creatinine (23.8% vs 19%), whereas measured kidney function was similar. A lower proportion of diabetic than nondiabetic pts received stem cell transplantation (SCT; 28.9% vs 41.5%) and triplet regimens during first induction (48.2% vs 52.8%%). The use of ≥ 2 novel agents during first line (1L) was lower in diabetic than nondiabetic pts (27.8% vs 34.6%), but use of a single novel agent (63.4% vs 60%) and alkylator in 1L (20.6% vs 22.4%) was comparable. The top five 1L regimens were similar for both groups, with lenalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone being the most common 1L regimen, and lenalidomide the most common maintenance therapy. Diabetic pts had significantly shorter adjusted median PFS (24.4 vs 31.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P = 0.001; Fig. 1A) and median OS (60 vs 72.6 mo; HR, 1.29; P = 0.001; Fig. 1B) than nondiabetic pts. In a subgroup analysis by BMI, diabetic pts had significantly shorter OS than nondiabetic pts (for BMI &lt; 30 [50.8 vs 73.1 mo; HR, 1.51; P = 0.0001] and BMI ≥ 30 [56.4 vs 78.6 mo; HR, 1.51; P &lt; 0.0001]). Conclusions: Diabetic pts with NDMM had poorer BL features and were less likely to receive SCT and triplet regimens and/or aggressive upfront treatment. Regardless of BMI, diabetic pts had shorter median OS than nondiabetic pts, suggesting that diabetes might be a stronger factor for survival than obesity. These results support a previous analysis of the Connect MM Registry that identified history of diabetes as a predictive prognostic factor for poor OS (Br J Haematol. 2019;187:602). Limitations of this analysis include limited detail on the care/management of diabetes and steroid use/dosage (which can be challenging for glycemic control). These findings highlight the need to provide better supportive care for diabetes management in MM pts to improve survival. Disclosures La: Celgene BMS: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hardin:Celgene Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES. Lee:Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Narang:Maryland Oncology Hematology: Current Employment; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Consultancy, Honoraria. Omel:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:McKesson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Other: Stock ownership; Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Mylan, Coherus BioSciences, Fresenius: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie sponsored clinical trials; Takeda, Amgen, BMS (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Newland Medical Associates: Current Employment; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dhalla:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:TechData Inc: Consultancy. Yang:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joshi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eisai Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Abonour:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: FL is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western world. FL may cause disease-related symptoms, and patients with high-risk disease usually require systemic therapy. BR is commonly used as first-line therapy for high-risk FL, and the addition of bortezomib to a BR backbone has been studied (Evens A et al. Clin Can Res 2020). Little is known about how these therapeutic options impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). To fill this gap, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were administered to patients enrolled on E2408 to quantify symptom burden and effects of BR versus BVR induction on HRQL. Methods: Patients (n=258) randomized to receive 6 cycles of BR or BVR induction completed PROs assessing neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) at the beginning of each treatment cycle. Additional PROs measuring fatigue (FACT-F), lymphoma-specific concerns (FACT-Lym) and HRQL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G) were completed at baseline, mid-treatment (MT; cycle 3/4) and end of induction (EOI; cycle 6). Paired t-test was used to assess PRO score changes from baseline to MT and EOI within BR or BVR group. Two-sample t-test was used to compare change scores between groups at MT and EOI, respectively. Univariate analyses with a linear model identified patient baseline characteristics and clinical factors (age, sex, stage, performance status, # extra nodal sites, FLIPI, GELF, bone marrow involvement, elevated LDH, palpable splenomegaly, B-symptoms, CRIS) associated with PRO change scores from baseline to EOI, adjusting for treatment group. A multivariate model was built with backward variable selection approach for each of the PROs. Results: As shown in Figure 1, compared with baseline, patients randomized to BVR reported significantly worse FACT/GOG-Ntx scores at cycle 4, which continued to end of induction (FACT/GOG-Ntx change scores -2.91 to -3.73; p &lt; 0.001). Neurotoxicity remained stable for patients treated with BR (Ntx change scores -0.02 to -0.55). FACT-Fatigue scores indicated worse fatigue at MT compared to baseline for patients receiving BVR (-2.7, p&lt;0.05), yet they remained stable for BR. FACT-Lym scores were significantly higher at MT (BR: 2.69, p&lt;0.001; BVR: 2.71, p=0.007) and end of induction (BR: 3.32, p&lt;0.001; BVR: 3.55, p&lt;0.001) compared to baseline, signifying a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms in both arms. FACT-G scores were comparable between treatment arms at each time-point and did not change significantly from baseline to end of induction. Univariate analyses among all patients identified older age and the absence of palpable splenomegaly at baseline as associated with worse FACT-Lym, FACT-Fatigue, and FACT-G change scores, signifying less improvement in lymphoma-related symptoms, fatigue and HRQL from baseline to end of induction (p&lt;0.01). The presence of B-symptoms at baseline was associated with a greater reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms and fatigue from baseline to end of induction (p&lt;0.01). Higher ECOG performance status was only associated with higher FACT-Fatigue change score, suggesting more improvement in fatigue for those with worse performance status at baseline. A multivariate model generated similar results. Conclusions: Despite worse treatment-related symptoms throughout induction, the addition of bortezomib was associated with comparable overall HRQL to those treated with BR. Both treatments were associated with a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms from baseline to end of induction, likely contributing to stable HRQL throughout treatment despite treatment-related symptoms. Findings also suggest that a subgroup of patients, particularly those who are older, may experience fewer improvements in lymphoma-related symptoms. This underscores the potential need for closer monitoring and clinical management of these patients. Collectively, results are likely to be encouraging for patients experiencing lymphoma-related symptoms, for whom the symptom burden associated with treatment may be worth the trade-off given the potential for improved disease-related symptom control. Disclosures Evens: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Winter:Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Cella:FACIT.org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: President; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pled Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kiniksa: Consultancy; IDDI: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORP.: Consultancy; Oncoquest: Consultancy; Mei Pharma: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy, Research Funding; BlueNote: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; PROMIS Health Org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

SummaryAlthough new multiple myeloma (MM) therapies are effective in alleviating some disease‐associated symptoms (e.g. bone pain, fatigue, functional decline), they can result in additional toxicities, further impacting health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Here, we compared HRQoL and safety of lenalidomide‐bortezomib‐dexamethasone [RVd (n = 445)], bortezomib‐melphalan‐prednisone [VMP (n = 77)] and Vd or VMP (n = 588) in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) from the Connect® MM Registry, a large, USA, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Multiple Myeloma subscale, EuroQol‐5D overall score and Bone Pain Inventory HRQoL scores were significantly improved with RVd versus Vd/VMP. Serious adverse event rates were similar in all groups. Treatment with RVd maintained HRQoL in this real‐world, largely community‐based population of patients with NDMM.

Abstract Background Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Methods The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. Results Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. Conclusions Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

4627 Background: E4201 compared radiation and gemcitabine (RT+Gem) versus Gem alone in LAPC. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary objectives included: objective response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and QOL. We previously reported that RT+Gem was associated with improved overall survival compared with Gem alone [median survival time, 11 months and 9.2 months, respectively; p=0.034], without impact in RR or PFS. (ASCO 2008, abstract # 4506). We now report on QOL as measured by the Hep subscale from the FACT-Hepatobiliary [FACT-Hep] between both arms. Methods: Eligible patients had LAPC adenocarcinoma, PS <2, without prior therapy. They were randomized to Arm A: Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/week x 3, every 4 weeks, 7 cycles), or Arm B: RT (50.4Gy/28 fractions) plus Gem (600 mg/m2/weekly x 6) followed by 5 cycles of Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/weekly x 3 every 4 wks). The FACT-Hep was administered at baseline (before starting induction), 6 weeks (immediately after completing induction), week 16 (Arm A) or week 15 (Arm B) mid-consolidation, and at 9 months. Results: From April, 2003 to December, 2005, 74 patients were enrolled, 71 were eligible [37 Arm A; 34 Arm B]. Grade ≥3 was reported in 80% and 82.4% in ARM A and B, respectively (p=1.00). Grade IV toxicities, mainly gastrointestinal and hematologic, were more common in ARM B (41.2% vs 5.7%, p=<0.0001). QOL compliance declined over time, most commonly attributable to either patients or staff choosing not to complete or administer the instrument due to declining health (96%, 69%, 60%, and 40% at baseline, week 6, 15/16 weeks and 9 months, respectively). Within Arm B, QoL scores dropped significantly from baseline to 6 weeks. By week 15, QoL scores for patients on Arm B rebounded to levels similar to baseline. Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests failed to suggest differences in median FACT-Hep subscale score between treatment arms at any of the four time-points (alpha = 0.10). Conclusions: RT+Gem is associated with an overall survival benefit without apparent long term adverse impact on QOL when compared with Gem alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

BackgroundStudies have reported racial disparities in access to and use of multiple myeloma (MM) treatments between African American (AA) and White patients. Although AA patients demonstrate longer disease‐specific survival, this has not uniformly translated into improved survival over time. The association between race and treatment patterns and survival outcomes was analyzed using data from the Connect MM Registry.MethodsThe Connect MM Registry is a large US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients who received first‐line (1L) stem cell transplantation (SCT) or who did not receive SCT (non‐SCT or non–stem cell transplantation [NSCT]) were grouped by raceEffects of race and transplantation status on the use of triplet treatment were estimated using logistic regression.ResultsTreatment patterns in 1L (types and duration of induction, posttransplantation maintenance) were similar between AA and White patients. SCT rates in 1L (32% vs 36%) and triplet treatment use (AA: 44% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients; and White: 48% for NSCT patients and 72% for SCT patients) during first induction were similar. No significant effect of race or transplantation status on 1L triplet treatment use was observed. Race was not found to be associated with survival outcomes among patients who underwent NSCT; however, AA patients who received SCT had significantly longer overall survival compared with White patients who underwent SCT (not reached vs 88.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35‐0.89 [P = .0141]).ConclusionsAA and White patients were found to have similar treatment patterns in the Connect MM Registry, suggesting that both groups had equal access to health care. In this real‐world setting, AA patients received standard‐of‐care treatment, which might have contributed to better MM‐specific survival compared with White patients.

LBA3 Background: Bortezomib (btz) combined with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) (VRd) is a standard initial therapy for NDMM. Carfilzomib (cfz), a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with len-dex (KRd) has shown higher efficacy in phase II trials. This randomized phase III trial was designed to examine if KRd improves progression free survival (PFS) compared to VRd in NDMM (current results), and whether indefinite maintenance with len improves OS compared with two-year maintenance (to be analyzed once data matures). Methods: Patients (Pts) with NDMM, were randomized to receive VRd or KRd in a 1:1 fashion for 36 weeks followed by a second randomization (1:1) to indefinite versus two years of len maintenance. Pts without del17p, t (14;16), t(14;20), plasma cell leukemia or high-risk GEP70 profile, were enrolled. VRd arm included btz 1.3 mg/m2 on days(d) 1, 4, 8, and 11 (d 1, 8 for cycles 9-12), len 25 mg d 1-14, and dex 40 mg d 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 3-week (wk) cycle for 12 cycles, while pts in the KRd arm received cfz 36 mg/m2 d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 with len 25 mg daily on d 1-21 and dex 40 mg wkly, in 4 wk cycles for 9 cycles. Maintenance included len 15mg d 1-21 every 4 wks. The study was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 with 80% power at 1-sided 2.5% alpha and 399 PFS events (progression or death regardless of intervening therapy). Results: The study accrued 1087 pts (VRd=542, KRd=545). The median age was 65y. Treatment, efficacy, and toxicity data are in the table. At the second of 3 planned interim analyses, with PFS HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3, p=0.74), futility was met. Median PFS was VRd=34.4m and KRd=34.6m; no differences were seen based on age (<65 or ≥65), presence or absence of t(4;14) or ISS stage. The three-year OS (95% CI) was similar: VRd 84% (80 to 88) and KRd 86% (82 to 89). Conclusions: In this randomized phase 3 trial, KRd did not improve PFS compared with VRd in NDMM. A significantly higher rate of cardio-pulmonary and renal toxicity was observed with KRd, while neuropathy rates were higher with VRd. VRd remains the standard triplet induction regimen in standard and intermediate risk NDMM, and a suitable backbone for 4 drug combinations. Clinical trial information: NCT01863550 . [Table: see text]