Greipp, Patricia T.

8108 Background: 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2) is a natural endogenous product of estradiol metabolism with anti-angiogenic and anti-neoplastic properties that has demonstrated activity against multiple myeloma cell lines and xenografts in immunocompromised mice. We report results of the first phase II clinical trial of 2ME2 in pts with relapsed and plateau phase myeloma. Methods: This trial was designed with a one-stage design to accrue 60 pts in the setting of relapsed and plateau phase myeloma. 2ME2 was administered orally at a dose of 1000 mg daily. After the first 39 pts were accrued, based on the results of ongoing phase I trials, the dose of 2ME2 was increased to 800 mg twice daily for the remaining patients. Pts who were already on study at that point were also allowed to escalate their dose to 800 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Responses were assessed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group criteria. Results: Sixty patients were treated at Mayo Clinic and Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Median age was 60 years (range, 28–99). Thirty-one patients had relapsed/refractory myeloma and 29 patients had plateau phase myeloma. Median number of prior therapies was 4 including stem cell transplant (48%), thalidomide (62%), bortezomib (6%) and lenalidomide (3%). Therapy was well tolerated. Adverse events were anemia (35%), fatigue (35%), nausea (25%), diarrhea (20%), hot flashes (20%), headache (17%), muscle cramps (15%), and upper respiratory tract infection (15%). Most toxicities were mild (grade 1–2). Estimated progression-free survival rates for all pts at one, two, and three years are 24%, 16%, and 9% respectively. Three pts with plateau phase disease, have been on study for over 4 years without progression at 50, 60, and 63 months. Response assessment is ongoing; so far, whilst no partial responses have been seen, prolonged stable disease has been observed in 3 pts (5%). Conclusions: 2ME2 is a novel agent that appears to be safe and well tolerated. Although no responses have been seen, prolonged stable disease in some pts is promising. Preliminary pharmacokinetic data indicate that the dose of 2ME2 used in this study may be inadequate, and a new formulation with significantly better bioavailability will be tested soon in this patient population. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

LBA8025 Background: We compared lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose Dex (R+HighD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose Dex (R+LowD) in newly diagnosed MM. Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in both arms received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days. In addition, pts in the R+HighD arm received Dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the R+LowD arm received Dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary null hypothesis was that response rates at 4 months on the 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. Pre-planned interim analysis is performed by an independent DMC when full information is available on 25%, 50% and 75% of accrual. All analysis were intent to treat. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to R+HighD, 222 to R+LowD. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities included thromboembolism (22.1% with R+HighD vs 6.1% in R+LowD), infection/pneumonia (15.7% vs 7.5%) and hyperglycemia (9.7% vs 6.6%). Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicities occurred in 65.9% (R+HighD) versus 54.9% (R+LowD) respectively; corresponding grade 4 or higher rates were 20.3% vs 13.1% respectively. Overall survival (OS) at first interim analysis was significantly superior with R+LowD, P<0.001; one year survival 96.5% (R+LowD) versus 86% (Rev+HighD). OS differences in favor of R+LowD were seen in pts <65 (P=0.015; one year rate 98% vs 90%) and pts 65 and older (P=0.004; one year rate 95% vs 83%), respectively. DMC recommended release of survival results, and recommended switching all pts to R+LowD. DMC also recommended closure of an expansion phase trial of R+HighD investigating optimal thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone. This study has major implications for future use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of MM. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

AimsRearrangement of the platelet‐derived growth factor receptor B (PDGFRB) gene defines a unique group of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with frequent eosinophilia and high sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This genetic abnormality is also rarely reported in Philadelphia‐like B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia/lymphoma (B‐ALL). PDGFRB rearrangement was initially thought to only occur in cases with 5q31–33 rearrangement as determined with conventional cytogenetics; however, there are reported cases with cryptic rearrangements. We aim to develop a broader strategy for screening of PDGFRB rearrangements of patients with myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms.Methods and resultsWe performed fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation (FISH) for PDGFRB rearrangement in 197 patients, including 70 with B‐ALL, 10 with myeloid neoplasms with 5q31–33 rearrangements, and 117 with eosinophilia (≥0.5 × 109/l in peripheral blood or ≥5% in bone marrow), and identified PDGFRB rearrangement in four of 197 (2.0%) cases. In an attempt to identify clinicopathological and genetic features that may have a stronger association with PDGFRB rearrangement, we analysed 13 patients with confirmed PDGFRB rearrangements, including 10 with myeloid neoplasms and three with B‐ALL. Among the 10 patients with myeloid neoplasms, eosinophilia was present in eight, monocytosis in two, 5q31–33 rearrangement in seven, and abnormal bone marrow morphology in all. All patients with myeloid neoplasms showed an excellent response to imatinib, including a patient in blast crisis. The three B‐ALL patients presented de novo, showed no eosinophilia, had a complex karyotype including 5q31–33 rearrangement, and had clinically aggressive courses with ultimate patient demise.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that a higher yield for the identification of PDGFRB rearrangement may result from an index of suspicion in patients with eosinophilia, monocytosis, bone marrow features of a myeloid neoplasm, and 5q31–33 rearrangement, and patients with Philadelphia‐like B‐ALL.

AbstractHistological transformation in Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is an uncommon complication, with limited data, particularly regarding the impact of MYD88 L265P mutation on transformation. We examined risk factors and outcomes associated with transformation in WM, highlighting the role of MYD88 L265P mutation. Patients with WM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA and University Hospital of Reims, France, between 01/01/1996 and December 31, 2017 were included; 50 (4.3%) of 1147 patients transformed to a high‐grade lymphoma, with median time‐to‐transformation of 4.5 (range 0‐21) years in the transformed cohort. The MYD88 L265P mutation status was known in 435/1147 (38%) patients (406 with non‐transformed WM and 29 patients in transformed cohort). On multivariate analysis, MYD88 WT status alone was an independent predictor of transformation (odds ratio, 7[95%CI: 2.1‐23]; P = .003). Additionally, the MYD88 WT status was independently associated with shorter time‐to‐transformation (HR 7.9 [95%CI: 2.3‐27; P = .001]), with a 5‐year transformation rate of 16% for MYD88 WT vs 2.8% with MYD88 L265P mutated patients. Patients with transformation demonstrated a significant increase in risk of death compared to patients who did not transform (HR 5.075; 95%CI: 3.8‐6.8; P < .001). In conclusion, the MYD88 WT status is an independent predictor of transformation and associated with a shorter time‐to‐transformation. Additionally, transformation conferred an inferior overall survival in patients with WM.

Introduction Novel high-risk groups have been identified in adult ALL, including secondary (sALL) and Philadelphia-like ALL (Ph-like, based on CRLF2, IgH, ABL2, JAK2 and other tyrosine kinase translocations), and those with minimal residual disease >0.1% (MRD+) after induction therapy. Novel targeted therapies are now routinely incorporated into 1st line regimens, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BCR-ABL1-pos), rituximab (CD20+) and blinatumomab (Blina) for MRD+. The impact of these novel high risk groups and therapies after alloHCT is unknown; therefore, we evaluated their impact on overall survival (OS), relapse rate (REL), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and acute and chronic GVHD. Methods We evaluated pts receiving 1st Allo-HCT for ALL at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from 2008-2018 for outcomes of interest, specifically the impact of novel therapies and risk groups. Associations of patient factors with outcomes were examined using univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox proportional hazards regression models, where the cause-specific hazard of the given outcome was modeled to account for the competing risk of death. Results We identified 261 consecutive AlloHCT recipients during the study period. Median age at transplant was 48 years (18-72) and 147 (56.3%) were male. The median comorbidity (HCT-CI) score was 2 (0-8). 213 pts (81.6%) had B-lineage ALL, of which 85 (32.6%) were BCR-ABL-pos, 17 (6.5%) Ph-like (identified by FISH), 16 (6.1%) hypoploidy/near triploidy (Hy/Tri), and 67 (25.7%) pre-B ALL NOS. The remaining 48 (18.4%) had T-ALL. 30 pts (11.5%) had sALL (i.e. prior chemo/radiotherapy for another malignancy). HyperCVAD was the most common 1st line regimen (68.2%). 243 (93.1%) pts achieved Complete Remission (CR1) after induction therapy, and 203 (77.8%) were in CR1 at the time of alloHCT. Blina was administered for MRD+ in 14 pts (5.4%), and for relapsed/refractory ALL (R/R) in 13 (27% of R/R pts), 7 of whom received Blina as initial therapy for R/R. Donors were matched unrelated in 149 (57.1%), matched related in 98 (37.5%), and haploidentical in 14 (5.4%). Peripheral blood (PB) grafts were used in 233 (89.3%). 103 (54.5%) were donor:recipient (D:R) sex-matched, and 86 D:R mismatched [47 (24.9%) M:F; and 39 (20.6%) F:M]. Myeloablative conditioning was used for the majority (78.5%) mostly with Cy/TBI (60.5%). Standard GVHD prophylaxis regimens were used. Outcomes Median follow-up after transplant was 22.4 months (0.5-135), and 51 (19.5%) had REL. The 1, 2 and 5-year survival rates were 71.9%, 64.9%, and 54.1%, respectively (Figure 1). Acute GVHD developed in 144 (55.2%) and chronic GVHD in 100 (38.3%). Ph-like ALL, Blina for MRD+, Blina for R/R, sALL and CD20-pos had no independent impact on OS. In contrast, age>60, Hy/Tri, and >CR1 at alloHCT were associated with worse OS in UVA, however, in MVA only pre-B ALL NOS was associated with better OS. Female:male D:R status was associated with inferior OS. Blina for R/R disease was associated with increased risk of REL in UVA [HR 5.26 95% CI (1.33, 20.00), p=0.017], whereas other novel high risk groups had no impact on REL. In contrast, T-ALL, Hy/Tri and >CR1 at AlloHCT were associated with increased REL in UVA, but only T-ALL and Hy/Tri continued to predict for increased REL in MVA. Secondary ALL was associated with increased NRM in UVA [HR 1.96 95% CI (1.07, 3.57), p=0.028], whereas other novel high risk groups had no impact on NRM. In contrast, age>60, >CR1 at AlloHCT and D:R sex mismatch were associated with higher NRM in UVA, but only sex mismatch and >CR1 at AlloHCT were associated with higher NRM in MVA. TBI use was associated with higher risk of acute GvHD (p=0.008) and ATG use with lower risk chronic GVHD (p<0.001). Similarly non-PB grafts were associated with a lower risk of chronic GVHD (p=0.005). Results for OS, REL, NRM, acute and chronic GVHD analysis are shown in Table 1. Conclusion Novel high risk groups (CD20+, Ph-like and sALL) do not appear to adversely impact OS after alloHCT, although sALL was associated with increased risk of NRM. Interestingly, pre-B-ALL NOS appear to be associated with favorable OS. Novel targeted therapies also do not independently predict outcome, with the exception of Blina for R/R ALL which may be associated with REL after subsequent alloHCT (a subgroup for whom novel maintenance strategies should be explored). Our analysis highlights the importance of allo-HCT for novel high risk ALL subgroups. Disclosures Patnaik: Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction There have been few recent therapeutic advances in T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (T-ALL/LBL), a rare and aggressive malignancy. Intensive chemotherapy +/- allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) can effect cure, realized by only a minority of adults. In distinction to B-ALL, there have been no safe/effective targeted therapies developed in T-ALL/LBL. We therefore performed a focused tissue array to identify novel tumor proteins, including CCR4; evaluated together with established immunophenotypic (IP) T-ALL/LBL subtypes [early-T-precursor (ETP), early non-ETP (Pre/Pro-T), common & late thymocyte]. We evaluated the clinical phenotype and outcome together with clinical and epidemiologic data in patients diagnosed at the 3-site Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC: Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL). Methods Following IRB approval, we identified 50 consecutive T-ALL/LBL patients from 1997 -2019 diagnosed at the 3-site MCCC. Available remnant leukemia/lymphoma paraffin blocks were identified (n=28). Using immunohistochemistry (IHC) we evaluated expression of leukemic antigens of interest (CCR4, CD47, BCL2, BCL6, PD-L1, CD38 and CD123); these were selected based on clinical availability of novel targeted agents, approved or in development for other indications. Tissue array studies were performed and interpreted by a single hematopathologist (L.J) blinded to clinical data, using positive and negative controls, according to standard techniques. We also evaluated the clinical and epidemiological parameters, including different IP subtypes [ETP: CD1a-, sCD3- & CD8-, Pre/Pro-T: CD1a-, sCD3- & CD8+ or CD8- (11 marker T-ALL IP score was used to distinguish CD8- ETP vs. Pre/Pro-T), thymic: CD1a+ and mature: CD1a- & sCD3+] (Khogeer et al., Br J Haematol., 2019) & the presence of the unique MLLT10-PICALM fusion (n=6), as well as therapy and outcome. Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes of interest were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous characteristics) or Fisher's exact test (categorical characteristics), unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models (overall survival), or unadjusted logistic regression models (complete remission after first line treatment). Results We identified the expression of novel targetable tissue proteins in all adult T-ALL/LBL cases [Table 1]. BCL2, CD38 & CD47 were expressed in majority of the cases, and CCR4 [Fig. 1] was expressed in 11/28 (39.3%) cases. CCR4 expression was significantly more common in the Pre/Pro-T (75%) vs. other IP subtypes (19%) (p=0.011); there was no other association of CCR4 expression with clinical characteristics/outcomes. We also observed differences in T-ALL vs. T-LBL, specifically T-ALL patients were more likely to be male (71% vs. LBL 38.9%, p=0.038). Surprisingly, T-LBL patients were more likely to have a family history of leukemia/lymphoma (41.2% vs. T-ALL 0%, p<0.001). In addition, a significantly different distribution of IP subtype in T-LBL was noted [Table 2]. Not surprisingly, T-LBL patients were more likely to receive 1st line Hyper-CVAD therapy (88.2% v. T-ALL 43.3%, p=0.005), & had a longer delay from diagnosis to initiation of therapy (median 14 vs. 4 days, p=0.012), however this did not appear to impact clinical outcome. In contrast, we observed an important association of IP subtype with outcome after therapy, including complete remission (p=0.035), & a trend suggesting differences in survival (p=0.069) [Table 3]. However, MLLT10-PICALM was not associated with any unique clinical features or with outcome (death, p=0.85; CR, p=0.98), although 4/6 patients underwent AlloHCT, suggesting an important role of AlloHCT in this subgroup. No other significant association of epidemiologic risk factors with phenotype or outcome was noted. Conclusion Using focused tissue array we have identified expression of tumor associated proteins in T-ALL/LBL including CCR4 (Pre/Pro-T IP) & others, which may be targets of therapeutic agents like mogamulizumab. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates an important clinical impact of IP subtype in T-ALL/LBL, as well as important clinical & therapeutic differences in T-ALL vs. LBL. This study will help guide development of targeted clinical trials in T-ALL/LBL (CCR4 trial already in development). Further analyses are planned to determine the clinical & epidemiologic association of genetic lesions in this cohort. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: A variety of risk factors have been described in multiple myeloma and current risk assessment incorporates ISS stage with specific FISH results and serum LDH (R-ISS). However, this model does not include all the current abnormalities described as prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma. Importantly, the impact of many of these high-risk abnormalities are not uniform. We examined if we can better integrate FISH results into a risk assessment tool to better predict the outcomes of newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: We studied a cohort of 1316 patients with FISH done within 6 months of diagnosis of MM, in whom results for commonly observed abnormalities were available. We specifically examined the individual impact of common translocations involving chromosome 14, MYC rearrangements, chromosome 1q gain (single or multiple duplication) and del13q/monosomy 13. A risk assessment system was developed, weighting each abnormality according to their Risk Ratio and integrating ISS stage and serum LDH into the final model construction. Overall survival was calculated from diagnosis, with those alive at last follow up being censored. Results: We first examined the impact of each of the above FISH abnormalities: 1) high risk translocations [t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14,20)], 2) trisomies, 3) t(11;14), 4) MYCrearrangements, 5) del13q/monosomy 13, and 6) 1q gain . Each of the abnormalities, except for t(11;14), was prognostic for survival (Table 1 with the risk ratios). For 1q gain, the median OS was NR, 105 mos and 79 mos respectively for no abnormality, duplication of 1 copy and duplication of multiple copies, (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, t(11;14) and trisomies were no longer prognostic for overall survival (Table 1). The cumulative impact of abnormalities demonstrated worsening survival in the presence of increasing numbers of abnormalities (Figure 1). Including ISS stage 3 and LDH > ULN as additional variables for prognostication indicated both were individually prognostic for OS. In a multivariate analysis, including these two and FISH abnormalities, 1q gain and LDH were not independently prognostic. The final model consisted of HR translocations, MYCrearrangements, del17p/monosomy 17, del13q/monosomy 13, and ISS stage 3. Each of these variables was weighted using their risk ratio and a composite score was developed using 998 patients for whom all variables were available (range: 0-7.9; median 1.8). Three patient groups were characterized: group 1 (0; 32%), group 2 (1-4; 58%) and group 3 (>4; 10%) with a median OS of 53 mos, 106 mos, and NR, respectively, p <0.001 (Figure 2). Conclusion: Using the most relevant FISH and laboratory factors, in a large cohort of patients, we refined the current system to develop a risk stratification system that predicts survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with contemporary treatment regimens. This needs validation in future studies. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appellis: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Leung:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel:Celgene: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Del(17p) detected by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) of bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) is an adverse prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While the natural history and prognostic factors in patients with del (17p) detected at diagnosis have been studied, the outcomes of patients who acquire del (17p) later in their course are not known. We aimed to define the outcomes of MM patients who acquire del(17p). Methods We reviewed the Dysproteinemia database at Mayo Clinic, MN to identify 80 patients with MM who had their first FISH test negative for del (17p), but acquired del(17p) later in the course of the disease. Sixty (75%) patients had their first FISH within 6 months (mo) of diagnosis; 20 (25%) patients had their first FISH more than 6 mo after diagnosis of MM. Del(17p) included del(17p13.1) and/or monosomy 17. We identified 2 control patients for each case, who were diagnosed during the same time period, but did not demonstrate del (17p) at any time during follow-up. Results Characteristics of patients at acquisition of del(17p) are shown in Table 1. Of these, 76 patients had relapsed and/or refractory MM; in 4 patients, del (17p) was detected after having attained a response to prior therapy. Seventy (87.5%) patients had del (17p13.1); 5 (6.3%) patients had monosomy 17; 1 (1.2%) patient had both del (17p13.1) and monosomy 17. Four (5.0%) patients had relative loss of 17p. High-risk translocations (HRT) [t(4;14), t(14;16) and t(14;20)] were present in 14 (17.5%) patients. The percentage of PCs with del(17p) were available in 75 patients. The median percentage of PCs with del(17p) was 76 (range, 9-100). Sixty two (77.5%) patients received exclusively chemotherapy as subsequent treatment; stem cell transplant (SCT) was part of the next treatment in 16 (20%) patients (allogeneic SCT in 1). Among 71 evaluable patients, ≥very good partial response and ≥partial response were attained in 24 (33.8%) and 35 (49.2%) patients respectively. The median progression free survival (PFS) from detection of del (17p) was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 3.5-7.8); overall survival (OS) was 18.2 mo (CI, 13.1-27.5). From a comparable time point, the OS for 160 controls was 56.2 mo (CI, 37.1-75.3) (P<0.001). The results were similar when patients were stratified based on variables at diagnosis such as age, presence of HRT, international staging system (ISS) stage, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and PC proliferative rate, and proteasome inhibitor (PI)-containing induction and SCT within a year of diagnosis and before acquisition of del(17p). Evaluating outcomes from initial diagnosis, PFS in the acquired del (17p) and control groups were 23.0 (CI, 20.2-25.8) and 30.2 (CI, 26.7-33.9) mo (P=0.028) and OS were 68.2 (CI, 50.8-74.8) and 111.6 (CI, 103.4-127.8) mo respectively (P<0.001). High LDH at baseline [OR- 4.31 (CI, 1.34-13.86)] predicted acquisition of del(17p) while presence of HRT showed borderline significance [OR- 2.02 (0.90-4.54)]. Age ≥65 yrs, ISS III vs. I/II stage, t(11;14), any trisomy, monosomy 13, BMPC%, initial therapy and SCT in first year and before acquiring del (17p) were not predictive. We performed univariable analysis with variables at detection of del(17p) such as age ≥65 vs. <65 years, serum creatinine >2 vs. ≤2 mg/dL, BMPC% ≥50 vs. <50%, ISS III vs. I/II stage, elevated vs. normal LDH, presence vs. absence of a HRT, presence vs. absence of monosomy 13, presence vs. absence of any trisomy, high vs. low PC proliferation rate, PI and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-refractoriness and percentage of PCs with del(17p) as independent variables to determine their association with PFS and OS. ISS stage III, high PC proliferative rate and PI and IMiD-refractoriness were selected after univariable analysis and included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. A higher PC proliferative rate alone predicted shorter OS. None of the above factors were associated with shorter PFS. The median OS in those with high PC-proliferative rate from detection of del(17p) was 10.9 mo (CI, 6.0-17.1) vs. 37.2 mo (CI, 18.2-47.5) in those with low PC proliferative rate (P=0.005). Conclusion The prognosis of patients who acquire del (17p) is poor with OS of 6.5 years against 9 years from diagnosis in patients who do not acquire del (17p). This was valid across prognostic sub-groups. High PC proliferative rate was the only factor which impacted OS once patients acquired del(17p). Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.