Song, Kevin

Introduction: Non-endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare and highly aggressive B-cell malignancy, of whom a substantial number are adolescents and young adults (AYAs). In this particular group of patients, the balance between efficacy and long-term toxicities is of major concern, due to the long expected remaining lifetime. In this study, we investigated the outcomes for AYA patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients were identified through queries to clinic based and population-based lymphoma registries from six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and USA). All diagnoses were confirmed by local investigators; patients with classical BL histology plus detectable MYC translocation, were included. Patients between 18 and 39 years of age at diagnosis treated with intensive immunochemotherapy (DA-EPOCH-R or more intensively) were evaluated in pre-specified age groups. All treatment protocols included rituximab. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring, while event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until unplanned re-treatment, progression/relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Response evaluation was assessed using established response criteria based on CT and/or PET/CT imaging. Survival curves were computed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The cumulative incidence of relapse in patients reaching complete remission (CR) or CR unconfirmed (CRu) was computed by Aalen-Johansen estimator. The 5-year restricted loss of lifetime (RLOL) was defined as the area between the patient and general population survival curves until 5-years. The general population survival was retrieved from publicly available lifetables stratified on age, sex, calendar year, and country. Results: In total, 108 AYA BL patients were included. The median age was 30 years, ranging between 18 and 39 and 82% were male. The majority had advanced stage disease (Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76%), extranodal involvement (87%), and elevated LDH (67%). Seven patients (6%) had CNS involvement at the time of diagnosis. The chemotherapy regimens used were CODOX-M/IVAC (51%), BFM/GMALL (34%), hyper-CVAD (7%), DA-EPOCH (5%), and others (3%). Among 74 patients for whom data on tumor lysis were available, 10 (14%) developed clinical tumor lysis upon start of chemotherapy, all presenting with advanced stage and extranodal disease. The response rate was 91% (89 in CR/CRu and 2% in partial remission). At a median follow-up of 53 months, 15 had an event and 10 died. The 2-year OS and EFS for the total population was 92% (87-97%, Figure 1) and 88% (82-94%), respectively. For 13 patients aged 18-21 2-year OS and EFS were both 100%, while 2-year OS and EFS for 43 patients aged 22-30 were 98% (93-100%) and 93% (85-100%), respectively. The 2-year OS and EFS for patients aged 31-39 were 86% (76-96%) and 80% (69-91%), respectively. For patients in CR/CRu and available date of response evaluation, the 2-year post-remission OS was 99% (97-100%) and the 2-year relapse risk was 2% (0-5%), with no relapses after 6 months. Compared to the general population, the RLOL was 0.8 months (-0.5-2.2 months). Nine patients did not respond to primary treatment (SD or PD), all which belonged to the age group 31-40 years (P<0.001 versus age group 18-30 years). The oldest age group had an inferior OS compared to younger patients (P=0.008), largely due to non-responders having poor subsequent survival with a 1-year OS of 33%. Conclusion: The outcomes of AYA BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy are excellent with high remission rates and low risk of relapse in general. However, even among young patients age remained prognostic, with patients 31 years or older having inferior OS and lower response rate to first-line treatment. In patients achieving CR, survival was similar to that of the general population over the median follow-up of 4.5 years, illustrating the need to focus on survivorship issues in these individuals. Figure 1: Overall survival for BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy for all patients and for age groups (18-21, 22-30, and 31-39 years). Figure 1 Disclosures Jørgensen: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holte:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Molin:Roche Holding AG: Honoraria; Merck & Co., Inc.: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ekstroem Smedby:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding. Song:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cheah:Roche, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Acerta, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Roche, Abbvie: Research Funding. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: 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; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 1875 Introduction: Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a next-generation proteasome inhibitor that has demonstrated durable single-agent antitumor activity in patients (pts) with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). Previously we have shown that unfavorable cytogenetic features, defined as presence of any of del 13 or hypodiploidy by metaphase cytogenetic analysis and/or del 17p13, t(4;14), t (14;16) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), did not appreciably affect overall (≥PR) and clinical benefit (≥MR) response rates (ORR and CBR) in PX-171-003-A1, a large phase 2 study of single-agent CFZ in pts with R/R MM (Jakubowiak et al. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(S4): Abstract 117). The objectives of the present analysis were to evaluate the impact of specific cytogenetic abnormalities on efficacy and treatment outcomes. Methods: Pts with unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities (defined above) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. All pts received CFZ at 20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles (C) and were dose-escalated to 27 mg/m2 at C2. Pts were treated for up to 12 C. Responses were assessed by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with minimal response (MR) by European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria. Assessments were confirmed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Results: A total of 234 pts were included in this analysis. Metaphase cytogenetic data were available for 203 pts (87%), and FISH data were available for 210 pts (90%); 178 pts had both (76%). Seventy-five of 234 pts (32%) had ≥1 abnormality and represented the unfavorable group in this analysis. Of these, 49 (65%) had abnormalities detected via metaphase cytogenetics, 47 (63%) by FISH, and 21 (28%) by both methods. Characteristics of pts in the unfavorable and normal/favorable groups were comparable overall, with the exception of a higher proportion of pts with International Staging System stage II/III in the unfavorable group (83% vs 64%). Response rates per the IRC, presented previously, included an ORR of 30% for pts with ≥1 abnormality compared with 23% for pts with none. The corresponding CBRs were 34% and 40%, respectively. Duration of response (DOR) and time to progression (TTP) values were 7 months (mo) (95% CI 4–9) and 4 mo (95% CI 3–6), respectively, for pts with ≥1 abnormality and 8 mo (95% CI 6–12) and 5 mo (95% CI 3–6), respectively, for pts with none. The ORRs, CBRs, and disease control rates (DCRs) according to specific cytogenetic abnormalities are presented below. Response rates were largely unaffected by the presence of specific unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities, with the possible exceptions of trends toward a higher response rate for t(4;14) and a lower rate for t(14;16), although the latter abnormality was only noted in 3 pts. The trend for better response rates in pts with t(4;14) corresponded to a DOR of 5.6 mo (95% CI 2.8–10.2). In contrast, the DOR appeared shorter for the subgroup of pts with del 17p13 (4.6 mo, 95% CI: 3.7–Not reached). Time-to-event endpoints including TTP are being analyzed for these and the other subpopulations, and data on these will be presented, along with overall survival stratified by cytogenetic abnormality. Conclusions: CFZ demonstrated comparable response rates in pts with relapsed/refractory MM in both the absence and presence of unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities in the 003-A1 study. Similarly, in the phase 2 PX-171-004 study, no significant difference in response rates between unfavorable and normal/favorable groups has been observed in a population of less heavily-pretreated pts with relapsed or R/R MM. Taken together, the results of these and other analyses to date suggest that responses to single-agent CFZ can be achieved in heavily pretreated pts and that overall, these responses appear not to be significantly influenced by poor prognostic cytogenetic features. Further analyses from studies with CFZ in newly diagnosed MM and in less heavily-pretreated pts are needed to determine whether a trend toward lower response rates and DOR for pts with del 17p13 is consistently observed in other populations. Disclosures: Jakubowiak: Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of the investigational agent carfilzomib, proteasome inhibitor, in the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Siegel:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Singhal:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Lonial:Onyx: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Alsina:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allergan: Research Funding. Kunkel:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Threshold: Consultancy; VLST biothech: Consultancy. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Orlowski:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; OrthoBiotec. Imedex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medicom World Wide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Optum Health Education: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 985 Introduction: CFZ is a novel and highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor currently in clinical development for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Ph 1 and 2 studies with CFZ have demonstrated durable single-agent antitumor activity in pts with relapsed or refractory (R/R) MM. The present study, PX-171-003-A1, was an open-label, single-arm Ph 2b trial and enrolled patients with multiply relapsed MM whose disease was refractory (defined as <25% response on, or progression during or <60 days after completion of, therapy) to their last treatment regimen. Patients must have received ≥2 prior therapies including: 1) bortezomib (BTZ) and either thalidomide (THAL) or lenalidomide (LEN), and 2) an alkylating agent. Materials and Methods: Pts received CFZ at 20 mg/m2 on a QDx2 schedule (Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 every 28 days) in cycle (C) 1 and were dose escalated to 27 mg/m2 on the same schedule thereafter for up to 12 C. Pts completing 12 C were eligible to enter an extension study (PX-171-010). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) (≥ partial response [PR]). Secondary endpoints included: clinical benefit response (CBR) (ORR + Minimal response [MR]), duration of response for ≥PR (DOR), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), and safety. Responses and progression were determined according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and were assessed and confirmed by an Independent Response Committee (IRC). Results: 266 pts were enrolled with a median duration of MM of 5.4 years including 83% whose disease had progressed on or within 60 d of last therapy and 17% whose disease had achieved <25 % response to the regimen immediately preceding study entry. Of the 266 pts enrolled pts, 257 were evaluable for response; 9 patients were considered not evaluable based on missing baseline or lacking at least one post-baseline M-protein. An ORR (≥PR) of 24% with a median DOR of 7.4 mo (range 6.2–10.3) was determined. Responses are detailed in the table. The CBR (ORR + MR) was 36%. Median DOR of pts with MRs was 6.3 months, indicating that long-term MRs were observed. An additional 32% (83 pts) achieved SD for at least 6 wks. To date, 79 pts (30%) completed ≥6 C and >11% of pts have completed all 12 C of protocol specified therapy and most have entered the extension protocol; 15 pts remain on study (all >10 C). OS and TTP data for the overall population will also be reported. The enrolled pts in this study were heavily pretreated having received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (range 1–20, median of 13 anti-myeloma agents). 85% of pts had received at least 2 and 37% had received at least 3 drugs in the regimen just prior to entering the study. Prior anti-myeloma agents included 99.6% (265/266 pts) BTZ (median 2 prior regimens containing BTZ), 99.6% either THAL (74%) or LEN (94%), 98% corticosteroids, 91% alkylating agents, and 74% stem cell transplant; 65% of pts were refractory to BTZ at any point in time prior to study entry. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events ≥ Grade (G) 3 regardless of relationship to study drug were predominantly hematologic and included thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (20%), lymphopenia (10%), pneumonia (8%), neutropenia (8%), fatigue (7%), hyponatremia (5%), and hypercalcemia (5%). Although 206 pts (77%) had G1/2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) at baseline, new onset PN was infrequent and G ≥3 PN occurred in <1%. Interestingly, in this subset of patients, efficacy response was nearly identical to that seen in the full study population with an ORR (≥PR) of 24%. Conclusions: Single-agent CFZ achieved durable responses in pts with R/R MM whose disease had relapsed after all available therapies including BTZ and immunomodulatory agents. The CBR and median DOR achieved with this steroid-sparing regimen establish that CFZ has the potential to offer substantial clinical benefit to patients with relapsed or refractory disease. CFZ was well-tolerated and side effects were clinically manageable with no new or unexpected toxicities observed. Importantly, exacerbation of pre-existing PN was uncommon. Cumulative side effects were not observed, allowing prolonged single-agent dosing for chronic disease control. Disclosures: Siegel: Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Martin:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Vij:Onyx: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Millenium, OrthoBiotec, Celgene, Merck, Onyx: Honoraria; Imedex, Medicom World Wide, Optum Health Education, PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Alsina:Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Vallone:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Chang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Kauffman:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Singhal:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx : Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3031 Background: Treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) can be a debilitating side-effect as well as a therapy-limiting complication in multiple myeloma (MM). Thalidomide (THAL) and bortezomib (BTZ) are two therapies frequently associated with TIPN in MM. Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a novel and highly selective epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor that differs from BTZ both structurally and mechanistically. CFZ overcomes BTZ-resistance in vitro, lacks the off-target activities of BTZ in preclinical studies, and does not cause neurotoxicity in long-term (6–9 month) chronic animal toxicology studies (Kirk et al. Blood, 2008). Single-agent CFZ produces durable responses in relapsed or refractory (R/R) MM without dose-limiting PN. Here we report on the clinical experience with single-agent CFZ in the Ph 2b PX-171-003-A1 trial in patients (pts) with R/R MM and Grade (G) 1/2 PN at study entry. Methods: Pts received CFZ at 20 mg/m2 IV, on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in a 28-day cycle (C) for the first C followed by 27 mg/m2 thereafter for up to 12 C. Pts completing 12 C were eligible to enter an extension study. Responses and progression were determined according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and were assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). PN data were collected for all pts on study and included neuropathy history, neurological physical exam and PN-related quality of life data (FACT-GOG/NTx v 4.0 scores) collected at screening. Prospective neurological exams and subjective reporting of PN occurred every 2 cycles until study discontinuation to proactively assess for PN. Adverse event (AE) data were also collected, with AEs reported as ‘neuropathy peripheral', ‘neuropathic pain', ‘neuropathy', and ‘peripheral sensory neuropathy' included as PN. AE reports of ‘paraesthesias' and ‘dysesthesias' were counted separately. Results: Of the 266 pts with R/R MM in PX-171-003-A1, 237 (89%) had a history of PN which was attributable to prior anti-myeloma therapy, including THAL (108 pts/41%), BTZ (134 pts/50%), or both BTZ and THAL (17 pts/6.4%). 206 of the 266 (77%) had G1/2 PN at baseline and a median disease duration of 5.9 years. This subset with active PN at baseline had received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (range 1–20), with a median 13 anti-myeloma agents, and a median of 2 prior BTZ- and 1 prior THAL- containing regimens. Prior therapies included 100% BTZ, and 100% either THAL (77%) or prior lenalidomide (95%). Responses in the subset of pts with baseline PN were nearly identical to those seen in the full study population with an overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response [PR]) of 24% and a clinical benefit response rate (CBR; ≥ minimal response [MR]) of 36%. The median duration of response (≥PR) was 7.4 mo (95% CI 5.6–not reached) and median duration of MR was 6.3 months in both the overall and PN-baseline cohorts. OS and TTP data will also be reported. The most common treatment-emergent ≥G3 adverse events regardless of relationship to study drug were primarily hematologic and were as follows: thrombocytopenia (24%), anemia (21%), lymphopenia (11%), pneumonia (9%), neutropenia (9%), fatigue (7%), hypercalcemia (7%), and hyponatremia (6%). Although 77% of pts had G1/2 PN at baseline, new onset PN was infrequent with PN AEs of any grade reported in 31 (15%) pts and G3 PN reported in only 1 (0.4%) pt. New onset or worsening of paraesthesias (6.8%) and dysesthesias (0%) was also infrequent. Conclusions: Analysis of the subset of pts (77%) with active PN (G1/2) in this single-agent Ph 2 trial of CFZ in pts with R/R MM demonstrated that PN has no impact on depth or durability of responses, or on the tolerability of CFZ, in heavily pretreated pts with multiply relapsed and refractory MM. Reports of new or worsening PN were very uncommon, and paraesthesias and dysesthesia were generally infrequent and mild. CFZ can be given to pts with baseline PN with little risk of exacerbation; prolonged therapy is possible in this population. Disclosures: Martin: Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy. Singhal:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Vij:Onyx: Honoraria. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Jagannath:Millenium, OrthoBiotec, Celgene, Merck, Onyx: Honoraria; Imedex, Medicom World Wide, Optum Health Education, PER Group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Alsina:Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Wong:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Vallone:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Chang:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Kauffman:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Siegel:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: In multiple myeloma, randomized trials of maintenance therapy using thalidomide or lenalidomide following autologous transplant (ASCT) demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but overall survival benefit was inconsistent. The MY.10 trial (n=332) demonstrated improved PFS with thalidomide-prednisone maintenance therapy, but quality of life was inferior and overall survival was not improved. As a randomized trial with a no-treatment control arm and biospecimen collection, MY.10 provides a unique opportunity to identify predictors of benefit from therapy that could be used to personalize treatment. Immunomodulatory drug action is mediated in part through binding to cereblon (CRBN) and downregulation of IRF4. Candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected from the CRBN/IRF4 pathway and other genes previously associated with myeloma prognosis, drug response and toxicity from literature review. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between candidate SNPs and benefit from immunomodulatory compound-based maintenance therapy, as well as prognostic impact. Methods: Genomic DNA was extracted from samples preserved in Trizol¨. SNPs were genotyped using TaqMan¨ genotyping assays on the ViiA7 qPCR platform. Analysis was performed on 187 patients with available samples and clinical data (86 in treatment arm; 101 in observation arm). Cox regression models were performed using SAS clinical 2.0 for prognostic impact of a single SNP on PFS, assessed with and without adjusted covariates (age, stage, performance status and response to ASCT). In treatment benefit analysis, PFS was modeled with genotype, treatment assignment and their interaction term. Results: SNPs with significant prognostic impact for PFS in all 187 patients were found in CRBN (rs1672753) (HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.4-0.86; p=0.006) and the following SNPs which had been found to be prognostic in prior studies were validated: CYP1A1 (rs1048943) (HR 1.98, 95%CI 1.19-3.27; p=0.008), CYP1B1 (rs1056836) (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.52-0.99; p=0.043), and trend toward significance for SNP in CYP1A2 (rs2069514) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 0.98-4.15; p=0.057). Of these, only the CYP1A1 SNP was found to be possibly predictive of greater benefit from maintenance therapy. A SNP in ABCA1 (rs363717), previously associated with thalidomide-induced neuropathy,‎ was prognostic in this study (HR 1.44, 95%CI 1.03-2.02; p=0.033) but not predictive of treatment benefit. Table 1 lists SNPs associated with a differential level of benefit from maintenance therapy, including SNPs in FAM179a and ICAM1 that were possibly associated with harm from maintenance therapy. Table 1. SNPs and treatment interaction with significant impact on PFS. HR represent hazard ratio of treatment versus observation for a given genotype group. Asterisk Indicates trend toward significance. Wildtype Heterozygote & mutant p-value interaction Gene dbSNP ID SNP HR 95% CI HR 95% CI FAM179A rs1053667 T>C 0.46 0.33, 0.66 2.28 0.78, 6.65 0.003 ICAM1 rs1799969 G>A 0.51 0.36, 0.73 1.75 0.83, 3.70 0.007 CASP3 rs1049216 A>G 0.82 0.54, 1.25 0.41 0.25, 0.69 0.029 IRF4 rs12203592 C>T 0.69 0.47, 1.02 0.38 0.21, 0.69 0.062* CYP1A1 rs1048943 A>G 0.62 0.44, 0.87 0.11 0.02, 0.52 0.079* Conclusion: Previously identified SNPs in drug metabolism and drug efflux genes were validated to be prognostic in this cohort. The prognostic but not predictive significance of a SNP in CRBN suggests a possible role for CRBN in multiple myeloma disease biology independent of immunomodulatory therapy. SNPs predictive of differing degrees of benefit from immunomodulatory maintenance were found in genes involved in immunomodulatory activation, drug action and cell adhesion mediated drug resistance; SNPs in FAM179A and ICAM1 were possibly associated with harm from thalidomide maintenance and could potentially be used to identify patients unsuitable for immunomodulatory maintenance therapy. These results may be applicable to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, since immunomodulatory compounds exhibit similar chemical structures and mechanisms of action. Validation of these SNPs in prospective clinical trials involving other immunomodulatory can test this hypothesis. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: thalidomide and prednisone maintenance for multiple myeloma. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. White:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Seftel:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Howsen-Jan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reece:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shepherd:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Djurfeldt:Celgene: Research Funding. Reiman:Soricimed Biopharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board for Soricimed.

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.

Background:The pivotal FIRST trial, the largest study conducted in transplant‐ineligible (TNE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), examined lenalidomide plus low‐dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18), and melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT). The study, conducted in 18 countries in Europe, North America, and Asia Pacific, demonstrated that Rd continuous significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) vs MPT (median 26.0 vs 21.9 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59‐0.79; P < .00001). PFS was similarly extended for Rd continuous vs Rd18 (median 21.0 mos; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.81). Furthermore, median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 59.1 vs 49.1 mos; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67‐0.92; P = .0023). These results support the use of frontline oral, alkylator‐free continuous therapy for TNE NDMM pts and established Rd continuous as a standard of care as reflected by clinical guidelines in Canada, the US, and Europe.Aims:To report outcomes in the subset of patients from Canada and the US.MethodsPts with TNE 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). Rd18 and MPT were both 72 weeks in duration. Stratification factors included country and Rd continuous vs MPT was the primary comparison. The primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints included OS, time to next therapy (TTNT) 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. Data is presented as of the January 21, 2016 cutoff used for the final OS analysis.Results:A total of 312 pts from Canada (n = 252) and the US (n = 60) were enrolled (104 in each arm). Consistent with results from the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis, the Canada/US subgroup also demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS with Rd continuous vs MPT (median 29.3 vs 20.2 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49‐0.97; P = .03326) and an improvement vs Rd18 (median 21.9 mos; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51‐1.02; Table). Median OS was 56.9 vs 46.8 mos for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53‐1.11; P = .15346). Median PFS2 was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (median 39.3 vs 35.1 mos; HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.50‐0.95) as was TTNT (median 39.1 vs 24.6 mos; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.78). Additional details, including safety data, will be presented at the meeting.Summary/Conclusion:In the Canada/US subpopulation of pts from FIRST, Rd continuous extended median PFS by 9 mos vs MPT and > 7 mos vs Rd18. Rd continuous also delayed median TTNT > 14 mos and resulted in a longer PFS2 vs MPT, suggesting that the benefit from frontline Rd continuous is maintained at relapse. These results are consistent with that from the ITT population confirming the advantage of Rd continuous vs MPT in the Canada/US subgroup and supporting the role of Rd continuous as a standard of care for TNE pts with NDMM. The efficacy observed with Rd continuous raises the question on the role of immunostimulatory effects by the immunomodulatory agents in NDMM.image