Vaxman, Iuliana

Introduction Amyloidosis is a disease caused by aggregates of misfolded insoluble proteins that accumulate extracellularly and impair organ function. The most common type of systemic amyloidosis is immunoglobulin light chain (AL), which typically involves the heart, kidneys, nerves, liver, gastrointestinal tract and soft tissue. Retroperitoneal involvement in the setting of systemic AL amyloidosis is rare and only published as case reports. Aim To report characteristics and outcomes of AL amyloidosis patients that had retroperitoneal deposition of amyloid in the novel agent era. Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive systemic AL amyloidosis patients with retroperitoneal involvement at all three Mayo Clinic sites and at Davidoff cancer center, a tertiary hospital in Israel. All patients were diagnosed with retroperitoneal involvement based on computerized tomography (CT) scans. All patients had biopsy proof of amyloidosis with Congo red staining. Patients that were diagnosed with localized amyloidosis of the bladder or ureter and patients that did not receive systemic treatment were excluded. Results We identified 11 patients with systemic AL amyloidosis and retroperitoneal involvement between January 2001 and December 2018. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 50-72). Ten were male (91%) and one was female. Five patients had amyloid secondary to B cell lymphoma (4 Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and 1 had follicular lymphoma). The involved light chain was lambda in 7 patients and kappa in 4 patients. All patients were diagnosed with retroperitoneal involvement of amyloidosis at presentation (not at progression). In 10 out of the 11 patients, amyloidosis in the retroperitoneum was confirmed by a core biopsy of the retroperitoneal tissue. Significant unintentional weight loss (more than 5 kg) at presentation was documented in six patients (55%). Seven patients (64%) had enlarged lymph nodes on the CT scan. Three patients had CT finding of calcifications, and the distribution pattern was diffuse in 7 patients (64%), while 4 patients presented with a mesenteric mass. Six patients (55%) had evidence of amyloid deposits in the bone marrow and 3 patients (27%) had a positive fat pad. Periorbital purpura was observed in one patient and none had macroglossia. Therapy regimens used are described in table 1. Five patients underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Eight patients (72%) presented with unilateral (N=2) or bilateral (N=6) hydronephrosis and 7 had nephrostomy tubes or stents inserted. The median follow-up from stent/nephrostomy tube insertion was 33 months (IQR 8-91). Regression of the deposition was documented in one patient and one patient was able to have his nephrostomy tube removed. One patient (9%) developed end stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Data regarding hematologic response rates were available for 9 patients and all responded and achieved hematologic PR or better. The median follow-up for all surviving patients was 91 months (IQR 27-179). Seven of the patients are currently alive. The median OS from diagnosis was 150 months. Figure 1 shows typical diffuse retroperitoneal involvement of AL amyloidosis on a CT scan. Review of the literature revealed 5 cases of retroperitoneal involvement of systemic AL amyloidosis. Most were reports published before routine typing of amyloid. Four of the five cases (80%) were male. The ages ranged from 46 to 80 years. Four of the five cases (80%) presented with weight loss. Two patients had calcifications on the CT scans, and one had a large pleural effusion. Conclusions We report a multicenter case series of 11 patients diagnosed with systemic AL amyloidosis with retroperitoneal involvement, all received systemic chemotherapy. We found male predominance in our cohort. Eight patients presented with hydronephrosis, and only one patient had the nephrostomy tube removed successfully after systemic therapy. ORR was 100% and median OS from diagnosis was 150 months, suggesting that retroperitoneal deposition might confer improved prognosis compared to the general amyloid population. Disclosures Kumar: Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Proclara: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Sanofi: Other.

Introduction High risk (HR) multiple myeloma (MM) constitutes approximately 25 % of newly diagnosed patients and is a subgroup of MM patients that is variably defined. Patients with 17p deletion are considered HR and their optimal treatment approach has not been determined. Various strategies have been suggested to improve outcomes in MM patients harboring del 17p, including tandem transplants. Recently, the long-term outcomes of the phase 3 EMN02 trial were published with the study group receiving bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCd) induction prior to transplant. There are no data demonstrating that tandem transplant is applicable to the US population using induction containing immunomodulatory agents and bortezomib. Aim To report on outcomes of newly diagnosed MM patients with del 17p that underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive newly diagnosed MM patient with del 17p that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were defined by the Mayo Medical Lab as 17p deleted and included if they met the following criteria: If 50 cells in the bone marrow sample and 10 cells with the deletion were identified (20%) or if the bone marrow sample had between 20-50 total cells and 20% cells with the deletion were identified. We excluded patients that relapsed prior to ASCT (as those patients were excluded in the EMN02 trial), patients that underwent ASCT more than 12 months from the diagnosis and patients that underwent tandem ASCT (defined as two consecutive ASCT within 180 days of each other without relapse in between). Consolidation treatment was defined as treatment given after transplant for up to six 28-day cycles and maintenance was defined as all treatment given after ASCT for more than 6 months. Combined maintenance was defined as maintenance regimens that included two novel agents. Results 116 patients with MM and 17p deletion underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic between January 2013 and April 2020. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (IQR 57-68, range 34-76) years. Forty-five (39%) patients were over 65 years. Nine patients (8%) had triple-hit MM and 34 (29%) had double-hit MM. Median follow-up of the survivors was 33 months (IQR 21-54). Consolidation therapy was given to 36 patients (31%) and maintenance was given to 91 patients (78%). Seven patients relapsed before day 100. There was no difference in the OS (P=0.72) or PFS (P=0.1) between patients that received VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone) versus VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) induction (Figure 1). When comparing patients that received proteasome inhibitors (PIs)+ immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) as induction to patients that received VCd induction, PFS was longer for patients that received the PIs + IMiDs (HR 0.53 P=0.04, 95% CI=0.3-0.98) (Figure 2), however there was no OS difference (P=0.61). Maintenance therapy was given to 94 patients (81%). There was no OS (P=0.34) or PFS (P=0.36) difference between IMiD based and PI based maintenance, but there was a PFS advantage to patients that received two drug maintenance (HR= 0.41, P=0.037, 95% CI 0.14-0.95) (Figure 2). The median OS and PFS of the entire cohort were not reached and 29 months, respectively. Conclusions The outcomes of our patients were similar to that of the single arm ASCT in the EMN02 trial, and no difference in outcomes were found between patients that received VRd and VCd induction, suggesting that tandem transplants should be considered for 17p deleted MM patients. Dual novel agent maintenance therapy is important in improving outcome. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Sanofi: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee.

Abstract Gastrointestinal complications of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment are common and include nausea, constipation, and diarrhea. However, acute gastrointestinal events like perforations are rare. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with MM that had colonic perforations during their treatment. This is a retrospective study that included patients from all three Mayo Clinic sites who had MM and developed a colonic perforation. All patients were diagnosed with colonic perforations based on CT scans and were surgically treated. Patients diagnosed with AL amyloidosis, a perforated colon complicating neutropenic colitis during ASCT and those with perforation due to colonic cancer were excluded. A high dose of dexamethasone was defined as ≥40 mg dexamethasone once a week. Thirty patients met inclusion criteria. All patients received steroids at doses ≥10 mg once weekly prior to the perforation, while four (11%) were on high‐dose dexamethasone without chemotherapy. Fourteen patients were given high doses of dexamethasone. Twenty‐five patients required ostomies with all surviving surgery. Twenty‐four perforations (80%) were associated with diverticulitis. Treatment with steroids was resumed in 23 patients with no further gastrointestinal complications. The median OS was 20 months following perforation (IQR 8–59). Within the same timeframe 5854 patients were treated at Mayo Clinic for MM, making the risk of bowel perforation 0.5%. Intestinal perforations in MM are rare and, in our series, always occurred with dexamethasone ≥10 mg per week. Urgent surgery is lifesaving and resumption of anti‐myeloma treatment appears to be safe.

AbstractWe evaluated the role of 18‐fluoro‐2‐deoxy‐d‐glucose positron emission tomography ([18F] FDG‐PET) with computed tomography (CT) (PET/CT) as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) patients.This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MZL, treated with immunotherapy, chemotherapy regimens, surgery, or Helicobacter pylori eradication between 2008 and 2016 in a single tertiary center. Only patients who had a pretreatment PET/CT (P‐PET/CT) were included. P‐PET/CT, interim (I‐PET/CT), and end‐of‐treatment PET/CT (E‐PET/CT) studies were reviewed. P‐PET/CT results were reported using two methods of evaluation, qualitative and semi quantitative: visual assessment (VAS) and maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and I‐PET and E‐PET results were reported by Deauville 5‐point score (DS) evaluation as well. Avidity of PET/CT was defined as abnormal uptake in any of these methods. The primary outcome was the prognostic role of P‐PET/CT, I‐PET/CT, and E‐PET/CT on progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Data of 196 patients with MZL were identified, 110 of which had P‐PET/CT and were included in this analysis. Median age was 67 years (range 18‐93). The median follow‐up period was 63 months (range 3‐278). The median OS and PFS for the whole cohort were 63 (interquartile range 39‐85) and 60 (interquartile range 37‐76) months, respectively. The avidity of PET at baseline for the whole cohort was 70% (77/110 patients), for MALT lymphoma, 62.5% (40/64 patients), for NMZL, 76.4% (13/17 patients), and for SMZL, 82.7% (24/29 patients). When adjusted for IPI, sex, and comorbidities, positive E‐PET/CT was associated with reduced PFS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.27‐9.14, P = 0.02). Positive E‐PET/CT did not correlate with OS. However, there were only three events. P‐PET/CT was not predictive of PFS or OS. Our study demonstrates that above 70% of MZL are FDG avid. Positive E‐PET/CT is a strong prognostic factor for PFS.