Dimopoulos, Meletios Α.

Abstract Background: The initial therapies for multiple myeloma have changed significantly in the recent years with routine incorporation of combinations containing IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. However, patients with MM invariably relapse after their initial treatment and undergo successive therapies for continued control of their disease. The increasing access to new therapies for treatment of relapsed disease has led to improved survival of patients with MM. Many recent phase 3 trials have studied the impact of new agents on outcome of patients with MM who are relapsing after the initial lines of therapy for relapsed disease. However, the natural history of relapsed myeloma earlier in the course of relapsed disease has not been studied in detail. Patients and methods: We designed a global, multicenter, retrospective study to examine the current treatment approaches for initial relapses in MM and patient outcomes following application of successive treatment regimens. Patients with multiple myeloma who experience a first relapse between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011 were identified at participating sites. Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses up to and including the third relapse will be obtained from the clinical records. The first date of treatment with an anti-myeloma regimen for first disease relapse was termed time zero (T0). Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled; median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range: 35 - 86), 59% were male. Patients were enrolled from North America (33%), Europe (35%) or Asia (32%). The patients were diagnosed between 1997 and 2011 and the median time to T0 from diagnosis was 23.9 months (range: 0.8 - 131.9 months). An IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide), bortezomib or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the initial therapy in 63%, 36% and 51% of patients, respectively; 93 (33%) patients had stem cell transplantation as part of initial treatment. The median follow up from the study entry was 56 months; 117 were alive at the time of data extraction. A second line, third line and fourth line of treatment were recorded in 307, 163 and 84 patients respectively. An IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide), proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib) or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the therapy for first relapse in 50%, 59% and 33% of patients, respectively. The responses to the regimens after T0, the TTNT, PFS and OS to each line of therapy are provided in the Table. Conclusion: The current study provides an assessment of the current treatment approaches used for initial treatment of MM and the salvage treatment options utilized. The study again demonstrates the progressively shorter duration of disease control with each successive treatment regimen, reflecting ongoing development of drug resistance. The overall survival of over 3 years from the time of therapy for first relapse highlights the impact of the newer therapies that have been introduced for this disease. Table. Treatment outcomes after initial relapse Endpoint 2nd line therapyN=307 3rd line therapyN=163 4th line therapyN=84 Partial response or better Median in Months (95% Confidence Interval) Overall Survival 36.1 (30.2, 42.4) 18.4 (14.5, 26.8) 12.6 (10.4, 19.0) Progression-Free Survival 13.4 (11.8, 15.8) 8.3 (6.5, 11.2) 6.4 (5.0, 8.1) Time to Next Treatment 15 (12,17) 9.8 (7.4, 12.0) 6.6 (5.8, 8.7) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lahuerta:Janssen Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Takeda, Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Onyx, Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Single-agent carfilzomib has shown encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who harbor high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (Jakubowiak et al, Leukemia 2013;27:2351-56). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391; N=792 patients) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (Stewart et al, N Engl J Med 2015;372:142-52). We present a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of KRd vs Rd in the ASPIRE study according to baseline cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Adults with RMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy) were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to KRd or Rd. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the KRd arm received carfilzomib as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose, 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose, 27 mg/m2 thereafter) during cycles 1-12; carfilzomib was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13-18 and was discontinued after 18 cycles. All patients received lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety. Cytogenetic risk status was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. The high-risk group consisted of patients with the genetic subtype t(4;14) or t(14;16) or with deletion 17p in ≥60% of plasma cells, according to central review of bone marrow samples obtained at study entry. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with known baseline cytogenetics. The cutoff value of 60% for the proportion of plasma cells with deletion 17p was used on the basis of recommendations from the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2 (Munshi et al. Blood 2011;117:4696-700). Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized to KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). In patients with known baseline cytogenetics, baseline cytogenetic risk status was similar between the treatment arms (high-risk: KRd, 24.6%; Rd, 23.4%; standard-risk: KRd, 75.4%; Rd, 76.6%). Efficacy outcomes by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Median PFS in the high-risk group (n=100) was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5-24.2) for KRd vs 13.9 months (95% CI: 9.5-16.7) for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.639; 95% CI: 0.369-1.106). Median PFS in the standard-risk group (n=317) was 29.6 months (95% CI: 24.1-not estimable) for KRd vs 19.5 months (95% CI: 14.8-26.0) for Rd (HR: 0.657; 95% CI: 0.480-0.901). ORRs were 79.2% (KRd) vs 59.6% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 91.2% (KRd) vs 73.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 29.2% (KRd) and 5.8% (Rd) of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or better, including 16.7% (KRd) and 3.8% (Rd) with a stringent complete response (sCR). In the standard-risk group, 38.1% (KRd) and 6.5% (Rd) of patients achieved ≥CR, including 15.0% (KRd) and 3.5% (Rd) with an sCR. Median DOR in the high-risk group was 22.2 months for KRd vs 14.9 months for Rd. Median DOR in the standard-risk group was 30.4 months for KRd vs 20.4 months for Rd. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events was 89.1% (KRd) vs 78.4% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 85.6% (KRd) vs 84.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest (dyspnea, hypertension, acute renal failure, cardiac failure, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral neuropathy) by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of nearly 2 years, which was a 9-month improvement relative to that in patients treated with Rd. Treatment with KRd also led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics; similar reductions in the risk of progression or death with Kd vs Vd were observed in both cytogenetics risk groups. Treatment with KRd also led to higher response rates, greater response depth, and a longer DOR compared with Rd in patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMM, irrespective of baseline cytogenetic risk status, and improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Fonseca: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acetylon: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Tonda:Onyx: Employment. Obreja:Amgen Inc: Employment. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is increasingly recognized as a major complication of thalidomide (T; Thal) and lenalidomide (R; Rev) based therapy for multiple myeloma. Estimated incidence varies widely in the literature. There is no consensus on specific risk factors, indications for thromboprophylaxis or the agent of choice for DVT prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus among members of the IMWG. Patients and Methods: A survey was electronically mailed to 67 IMWG members on July 21, 2006 and consisted of 24 multiple-choice questions. Results: Twenty-three IMWG members (34%) sent in their responses by the cut-off date. All (100%) felt that DVT was an important question, but most (95%) did not avoid Thal/Rev based therapy because of the DVT risk. Overall results are summarized in the Table below. A majority of physicians felt that concomitant therapy with high dose dexamethasone (90% of physicians), alkylators (55%), doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin (90%), and erythropoietin (75%) increase the risk of DVT associated with Thal or Rev based therapy. Aspirin (81 mg or 325 mg per day) was the preferred choice of prophylaxis when necessary. However, 65% of respondents preferred warfarin to a therapeutic INR or LMW heparin if either doxorubicin or liposomal doxorubicin was added to the regimens. Most (95–100%) felt that DVT prophylaxis was not indicated for: VAD, MP, bortezomib +/− dexamethasone regimens. Seventy-five percent felt it to be safe to resume therapy with Thal/Rev after therapeutic anticoagulation. Most (95%) believed randomized trials were needed. Conclusion: DVT is recognized as a major clinical problem associated with Thal/Rev containing regimens. Most respondents felt that the DVT risk did not warrant any prophylaxis when either Thal or Rev were used as single agents. Aspirin was the preferred form of DVT prophylaxis for most Thal/Rev containing regimens, except when doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin or melphalan were added. Additional responses will be analyzed both electronically and by conference call prior to the meeting. Therapy Estimated incidence of DVT (% respondents) Choice of thromboprophylaxis (% respondents) Single agent thal <5% (61%) None (65%) Single agent Rev <5% (80%) None (65%) Thal-Dex 10–20% (52%) Aspirin (60%) Rev-Dex 10–20% (48%) Aspirin (60%) MPT 10–20% (65%) Aspirin (40%) R-MP 5–10% (57%) Aspirin (70%)

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: 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; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care used for pts with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391) is comparing carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) to Rd in pts with RMM. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS; assessed by an independent review committee). Secondary end points include overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL), and safety. Methods: Adults with RMM who received 1–3 prior regimens were eligible. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive KRd or Rd and were stratified by β2-microglobulin levels (<2.5 vs ≥2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs yes), and prior R (no vs yes). All pts received lenalidomide (25 mg) on days 1–21 and dexamethasone (40 mg) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, KRd pts received K as a 10-min infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 during cycles 1–12 (20 mg/m2 [days 1 and 2 of cycle 1]; 27 mg/m2 thereafter); K was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13–18 and was not administered beyond 18 cycles. Cycles were repeated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The study had 90% power to detect a 25% reduction in risk for PFS events for KRd vs Rd (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75) at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. A stratified log-rank test was used for the PFS comparison. Results: Data are presented for KRd followed by Rd throughout the abstract. Between July 2010 and March 2012, 792 pts from 20 countries were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. Median age was 64.0 years (range: 31.0‒91.0). Pts received a median of 2 prior regimens in each group. In both the KRd and Rd groups, 66% of pts received prior bortezomib; 20% of pts in each arm received prior R. Median treatment exposure was 22 cycles (KRd) and 14 cycles (Rd). At the time of the prespecified interim analysis, the study met the primary end point for PFS (HR=0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–0.83; P<.0001), with a longer duration of median PFS in the KRd group (26.3 months [mo]; 95% CI: 23.3–30.5) compared with the Rd group (17.6 mo; 95% CI: 15.0–20.6). Median OS was not reached in either group; however, there was a trend toward longer OS with KRd compared with Rd (HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.63–0.99; P=.018), which did not meet the prespecified statistical boundary at the interim analysis of survival (P=.005). The Kaplan-Meier OS event-free rates at 24 mo were 73.3% (95% CI: 68.6‒77.5) and 65.0% (95% CI: 59.9‒69.5). The ORR was 87.4% (95% CI: 83.7–90.5) with KRd and 66.9% (95% CI: 62.0–71.5) with Rd. Median DOR was 28.6 mo (95% CI: 24.9–31.3) and 21.2 mo (95% CI: 16.7–25.8). In the KRd and Rd groups, 31.8% vs 9.4% achieved a stringent complete response (sCR) or complete response (CR) (sCR: 14.1% vs 4.3%; CR: 17.7% vs 5.1%), and 70.4% and 40.7% achieved ≥very good partial response. KRd consistently improved Global Health Status/QoL compared with Rd over 18 cycles of treatment (P=.0001). Treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE) occurred in 15.2% (KRd) and 17.4% (Rd) of pts. In each group, 7.7% and 8.5% of pts died while still on study treatment or within 30 days of receiving the last dose of study treatment. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (≥grade 3) included neutropenia (29.6% vs 26.5%), anemia (17.9% vs 17.2%), and thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 12.3%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (all grade) included diarrhea (42.3% vs 33.7%), fatigue (32.9% vs 30.6%), and cough (28.8% vs 17.2%). The most common nonhematologic TEAEs (≥grade 3) included pneumonia (12.5% vs 10.5%), hypokalemia (9.4% vs 4.9%), and hypophosphatemia (8.4% vs 4.6%). Other TEAEs of interest (grouped terms; all grade) included dyspnea (22.4% vs 18.0%), hypertension (preferred term; all grade: 14.3% vs 6.9%; grade 3: 4.3% vs 1.8%), acute renal failure (8.4% vs 7.2%), cardiac failure (6.4% vs 4.1%), and ischemic heart disease (5.9% vs 4.6%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) (grouped terms; all grade) were 17.1% and 17.0%; ≥grade 3 PN was infrequent (2.6% and 3.1%). Conclusion: The addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in pts with RMM resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. KRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and represents a potential new standard of care. Disclosures Stewart: Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior therapies including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of the last therapy. ASPIRE is a randomized, multi-center, phase 3 study investigating the use of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received 1–3 prior regimens.. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Masszi:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Spicka:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hájek:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Onyx Pharmaceticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millinnium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zojwalla:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tonda:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xing:Onyx Pharmaceticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Inc,: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: For decades conventional skeletal survey (CSS) has been the standard imaging technique for the detection of bone impairment caused by Multiple Myeloma (MM). The development of cross-sectional imaging techniques like Whole Body Computed Tomography (WBCT) with or without Positron Emission Tomography (PET/PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) led to the use of these techniques in several centers worldwide and to the implementation of their findings into the revised diagnostic criteria of MM. The aim of the current multicenter study was to compare sensitivity and prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS in patients with monoclonal plasma disorders. Methods: For the current retrospective analysis 308 patients with different stages of monoclonal plasma cell disorders from 8 centers were included. Compact discs with pseudonymized imaging data of WBCT and CSS were sent to the organizing center and uploaded to the picture archiving and communication system. In addition, questionnaires were completed by each center to collect clinical data of the patients. Image analysis was performed in consensus reading by three experienced radiologists (LAM, SD, VK) blinded to the clinical data of the patients. Osteolytic lesions in 19 pre-specified anatomic regions were characterized as "definitely present", "probably present", "probably absent" and "definitely absent". For the analysis only "definitely present" and "probably present" entries were counted as myeloma lesions. To define symptomatic or active versus smoldering myeloma based on the presence of bone lesions, findings of CSS were used to simulate the situation before the introduction of WBCT. For comparison of WBCT and CSS only those anatomic regions having valid measurements from both methods performed within 30 days without treatment in the meantime were considered. WBCT and CSS were tested for differences in detection sensitivity with the exact McNemar test. Results: Of 308 submitted datasets; 160 patients were without prior treatment and 56 of them had smoldering myeloma. Of 160 patients 80 (50%) had no osteolytic lesions on either CSS or WBCT and 33 (20.6%) showed osteolyses on both techniques. In 9 patients (5.6%) osteolyses were found on CSS but not in WBCT while 38 patients (23.8%) were positive on CT alone. Of note is that for some CT-scans, the upper extremities were not evaluable due to positioning during the examination. Odds ratio for osteolyses on WBCT compared to CSS was 4.22 (P < 0.0001). The regions where WBCT was most significantly superior in detecting osteolyses were the iliac bone, thoracic and lumbar spine as well as the ribs. CSS compared to WBCT revealed osteolyses in more patients only in the proximal extremities: for left humerus 10 (6.5%) versus 3 (1.9%), right humerus 12 (7.7%) versus 4 (2.6%), left femur 11 (7.1%) versus 7 (4.5%) and right femur 10 (6.5%) versus 8 (5.2%) respectively. Of 157 evaluable patients 63 (40.1%) showed osteoporosis (defined by radiological criteria) on both techniques while 29 (18.5%) had osteoporosis on WBCT only and 10 (6.4%) on CSS only (OR 2.90, P = 0.003). In the 56 patients with smoldering myeloma, with bone disease being defined according to the findings of CSS 12 (21.4%), were positive for osteolyses on WBCT (P = 0.0005). Conclusion: WBCT shows significantly more sites of bone destruction compared to conventional X-ray imaging particularly in skeletal regions composed primarily of trabecular bone while CSS shows more osteolyses in the appendicular skeleton - in part due to a limited field of view. More than 20% of patients with smoldering myeloma based on CSS have active disease that needs treatment based on WBCT. Therefore, WBCT is the current standard for the detection of osteolytic lesions in myeloma. The prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS findings for survival and correlation with clinical parameters will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Hillengass: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: 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; Novartis: 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; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Terpos:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: In the pivotal FIRST trial, at the pre-specified planned analysis for progression-free survival (PFS), treatment (Tx) with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous) improved outcomes for transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT), as well as Rd for 18 cycles (Rd18; Benboubker, NEJM 2014). Rd18 was added as a third arm to investigate whether Rd continuous Tx would control progression of NDMM longer than Rd18. Here, we present the final analysis of the overall survival (OS) data from the trial. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with 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); both Rd18 and MPT were 72 weeks in duration. The primary endpoint was PFS and the key secondary endpoint was OS; the primary comparison was Rd continuous vs MPT. Other secondary endpoints included time to second therapy (TTST) 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. Results: At the time of cutoff for the final OS analysis (January 21, 2016), 52 of the 535 pts in the Rd continuous arm and none of the pts in the Rd18 (n = 541) and MPT (n = 547) arms continued to receive Tx. The median follow-up for surviving pts was 67.0 months (range, 0-86.8 months). In the pre-specified final OS analysis for the primary comparison, a statistically significant advantage in OS was shown with Rd continuous over MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92; P = .00234; Table). OS for Rd continuous vs Rd18 was evaluated (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In this updated analysis, a PFS advantage continued to be seen for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) and vs Rd18 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). Median TTST was longer for Rd continuous vs MPT (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73; Table). More pts in the Rd18 and MPT arms started second-line therapy (n = 377 and 381, respectively) compared with the Rd continuous arm (n = 299). Pts received a variety of Tx at progression, with bortezomib-based regimens the most common in the Rd continuous (n = 179; 59.9%), Rd18 (n = 208; 55.2%), and MPT (n = 170; 44.6%) arms. Pts who received bortezomib after Rd continuous or Rd18 had better outcomes than those who received it after MPT. PFS2 for Rd continuous was improved vs MPT (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86.3%, 80.2%, and 88.7% of the 532, 540, and 541 pts in the safety populations of the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (29.5%, 26.5%, and 44.9%) and infections (31.6%, 21.9%, and 17.2%), and no new safety signals were seen compared with earlier analyses. Study discontinuation was most commonly due to disease progression and was less common in the Rd continuous vs Rd18 and MPT arms (50.7% vs 66.9% and 61.6%, respectively). Discontinuation due to AEs was similar across the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms (12.0%, 13.1%, and 13.9%). Solid tumor second primary malignancies (SPMs) occurred in 6.0, 6.9%, and 5.9% of pts, and hematologic malignancies occurred in 0.8%, 0.4%, and 2.6% of pts in the Rd continuous, Rd18, and MPT arms, respectively. Conclusions: Rd continuous significantly prolonged PFS and OS, and improved other secondary endpoints compared with MPT in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Rd continuous also showed a PFS benefit compared with Rd18, delaying the time to next Tx. PFS2 outcomes suggest that Rd does not induce resistant relapses. Few hematologic malignancies occurred in the Rd arms, and the incidence of SPMs was similar between Rd continuous and Rd18. Rd continuous remains a standard of care for transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Disclosures Facon: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel and expense, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding. Belch:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cavenagh:Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Geraldes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De La Rubia:Amgen, Bristol, Celgene, Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Attal:janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; sanofi: Consultancy. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Houck:Celgene: Employment. Hulin:celgene: Honoraria; Bristol: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria. Benboubker:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), is approved by the US FDA, in combination with lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd), for the treatment of pts who have received at least 1 prior therapy. Lenalidomide is a common partner agent in regimens for RRMM; however, due to increasing use of lenalidomide treatment to progression as a standard of care in the first-line setting, novel PI-based combinations without lenalidomide are needed for RRMM. Combinations of a PI, an alkylating agent, and dexamethasone have been shown to be active, with manageable side effects, in RRMM patients (e.g. VCD - bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone), but require SC or IV administration of the PI. The all-oral combination of ICd may offer activity, tolerability, and more convenient administration. This open-label, multicenter phase 2 study (NCT02046070) assessed the safety and efficacy of ICd in pts with RRMM. Methods Adult pts with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy, who had ECOG performance status 0-2, were not PI-refractory, had adequate hematologic, renal, cardiac, and hepatic function, and did not have grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) or grade 1 PN with pain, were eligible. Pts received oral ixazomib 4.0 mg and oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged &gt;75 yrs) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; ≥partial response [PR]); secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), complete response (CR) plus very good PR (VGPR) rate, CR rate, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results 78 pts were enrolled; median age was 64 yrs (40% aged &gt;65 yrs), 53% were male, median time from initial diagnosis was 53.4 months (range, 12.9-142.7), and 24%/27% had ISS stage II/III disease at diagnosis. Median number of prior therapies was 2, including prior bortezomib, lenalidomide, and stem cell transplant (SCT) in 45 (58%), 38 (49%), and 50 (64%) pts, respectively; 17% were immunomodulatory-drug-naive. At data cut-off (June 20, 2016), pts had received a median of 12 treatment cycles (range, 1-22). A total of 51 (65%) pts had discontinued treatment, primarily due to disease progression (26 pts, 33%) and AEs (13 pts, 17%). Overall, 92% of pts reported AEs, including 59% with grade ≥3 AEs (51%/71% in pts aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs), and 29% with serious AEs (30%/29%). Common AEs are listed in Table 1. AEs resulted in dose reductions of any study drug in 28 (36%) pts (28%/48% of pts aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs) and treatment discontinuation in 11 (14%) pts (15%/13% aged ≤65/&gt;65 yrs). Ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone were dose modified in 83%, 85%, and 87% of pts, respectively. Median ixazomib relative dose intensity was 96%. There were 3 on-study deaths: cardiac arrest, severe pulmonary edema, and cerebral hemorrhage secondary to thrombocytopenia, with the latter considered treatment-related. PK data showed that ixazomib exposures were comparable to those in pts treated with IRd in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study, suggesting no PK interaction with Cd. ORR was 49%, including 16% CR+VGPR (Table 2); in pts with/without prior SCT, ORR was 41%/61% (15%/18% CR+VGPR). Median TTR in responding pts was 2.14 months; median DOR was not reached, with response durations of up to 17 months. After a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median PFS was not reached; 12-month PFS rate estimate was 57.5%. Subgroup analysis showed a higher ORR (68% vs 35%), a higher CR+VGPR rate (23% vs 12%), and a significant PFS improvement in pts aged &gt;65 yrs vs pts aged ≤65 yrs (12-month PFS rate estimate 67.2% vs 50.7%; HR=0.43, p=0.028) (Figure). Although pts aged &gt;65 yrs were less likely to have had prior SCT than those aged ≤65 yrs (22% vs 78%), this did not appear to account fully for the difference in outcomes (PFS in pts without vs with prior SCT, HR=0.82, p=0.6). Conclusions All-oral triplet therapy with ICd appears to have activity in RRMM pts, with a toxicity profile consistent with that seen with ixazomib in combination with Rd (Moreau, et al; N Engl J Med 2016). Preliminary best response and PFS data suggest there may be preferential benefit in elderly pts compared to younger patients (possibly related in part to more limited use of prior high-dose alkylator [melphalan] exposure associated with SCT in elderly pts) albeit with additional toxicity. Disclosures Kumar: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grzasko:Celgene: Honoraria; Munipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Jędrzejczak:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Angelini: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kyrtsonis:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Teng:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment; AMAG Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead Science: Equity Ownership; Array: Equity Ownership. Byrne:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Labotka:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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.

Abstract Abstract 1364 In light chain (AL) amyloidosis, as well as in multiple myeloma, response to treatment is increasingly being used as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. In 2005 a consensus statement of the International Society of Amyloidosis (ISA) established the criteria for hematologic and organ response. Since then, several studies emphasized the prognostic relevance of the measurement of the amyloidogenic precursor, the circulating free light chain (FLC). Moreover, it was reported that patients who with treatment achieved decreases in the cardiac biomarker N terminal natriuretic peptide type B (NT-proBNP) had longer survival, although echocardiographic criteria of response were not attained. The ISA Consensus Panel reconvened in 2010 to update hematologic and organ response criteria. The panel felt that any new criteria should be validated in a large patient population. Thus, we systematically gathered from 7 referral centers in Europe and in the United States a cohort of 649 patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who had been evaluated for hematologic and organ responses at diagnosis and 6 months after treatment initiation, excluding patients who died earlier. At diagnosis, 430 patients (66%) had heart involvement, 377 (58%) had NT-proBNP ≥650 ng/L, 455 (70%) had renal involvement (95, 15%, with glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min) and 100 (15%) had liver involvement. Two-hundred eighty-nine patients (44%) were treated with melphalan and dexamethasone, 118 (18%) received thalidomide based therapy, 73 (11%) underwent autologous stem cell transplant, 35 (5%) were treated with regimens including lenalidomide, 20 (3%) received bortezomib-based therapy, and the rest received other alkylating agents, nucleoside analogues or dexamethasone. The median follow-up of living patients was 24 months, and 233 patients (34%) died. The ability of response criteria to identify patients who died was compared by evaluating the areas under Receiver Operator Characteristic curves based on death at 1 year, and by calculating the Harrell C statistic and the Royston explained variation. Survival was calculated from the time of evaluation of response. We maintained the category of complete response (CR: negative serum and urine immunofixation, normal FLC kappa/lambda ratio and normal marrow studies) and examined candidate criteria for partial (PR) and very good partial responses (VGPR), based on percentage changes or absolute values achieved after treatment of involved (amyloidogenic) FLC (iFLC), and alternatively on the difference between iFLC and uninvolved FLC (dFLC). With respect to cardiac response and progression, NT-proBNP-based criteria were defined as a decrease or an increase of both >30% and >300 ng/L, and a threshold of evaluability based on NT-proBNP baseline level >650 ng/L was chosen. The most powerful criteria for PR were those based on dFLC percent decrease, and a 50% cutoff was preferred because of easier clinical use. Among candidate criteria for VGPR, the best were based on iFLC absolute value achieved after therapy, but the performance of those based on dFLC absolute value was only slightly lower. Therefore, a definition of VGPR based on dFLC (<40 mg/L) was adopted for the sake of harmonization with the dFLC-based definition of PR. The adopted hematologic response criteria and their prognostic significance are reported in Table 1. These criteria identified 4 groups with significantly different survivals (Figure 1). Also the proposed criteria of NT-proBNP response and progression were significantly associated with survival (Figure 2). Our 2010 revised consensus criteria for hematologic response include maintenance of the definition of CR, and with use of dFLC re-casting the definition of PR and introducing a VGPR category, and for cardiac response and progression introducing the use of changes in NT-proBNP levels. In a further analysis we will address the definition of measurable dFLC at baseline and evaluate the applicability of the response criteria to earlier evaluation of response. The revised criteria improve the framework for clinical research in AL. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib for systemic AL amyloidosis. Dispenzieri:The Binding Site: Honoraria. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Merlini:Millennium: Honoraria; Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria.