Ludwig, Heinz

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with varying survival outcomes depending on the presence of certain genetic abnormalities. Common abnormalities include trisomies, translocations involving the chromosome 14, and amplifications or deletions of chromosomes 1, 13, and 17. t(11;14), occurring in 15% of patients with myeloma, had been considered a standard risk abnormality, but recent data suggest inferior outcome. This is important as new therapeutic options such as the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax has been shown to be particularly effective in t(11;14) patients. Methods: This was a multicenter study to identify the outcomes of patients with t(11;14), using a retrospectively assembled cohort. Patients with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 with t(11;14) identified on FISH performed within six months of diagnosis, and with treatment details available and if alive, a minimum of 12 months of follow up, were enrolled. Results: The current analysis includes 1216 patients; median age of 62.56 years; 58.7% male. The median follow-up from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 51.9 months; 69.1% of the patients were alive at the last follow up. ISS stage distribution included: Stage I (35.7%), Stage II (34.0%) and Stage III (15.1%), data was missing for the rest. The distribution of concurrent FISH abnormalities included: trisomies (3.5%), del 13q (13.3%), 1q amp (8.8%), and del 17p or monosomy 17 (5.8%). Initial regimen included: 27.2% had an immunomodulatory (IMiD), 45.9% had a proteasome inhibitor (PI), 17.7% had both, and 9.0% had no novel agent. The drug classes by line of therapy are shown in Table 1. An early stem cell transplant (defined as within 12 months of start of first line treatment) was used in 49.4% of patients. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) after starting initial treatment was 26.6 (95% CI: 23.9 to 29.2) months. The median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 95.1 (95% CI: 85.9 to 105.9) months; 4-year estimates for those diagnosed from January 2005 to December 2009, and from January 2010 to December 2014 were 77.5% and 78.6%, respectively. The median OS for those with any one high risk FISH lesion (del 17p/ 1q amp) was 67.5 (55.2, 97.1) versus 101.7 (89.7, 107.3) months. Patients with early SCT (within 12 months of diagnosis) had better OS: 108.3 (103.8, 133.0) vs. 69.8 (61.5, 80.3) months. Conclusion: Patients with t(11;14) without high risk FISH abnormalities have an excellent survival. Patients receiving a PI + IMiD combination and those receiving autologous SCT as part of initial therapy had best survival. Though numbers are limited, patients in the later lines receiving newer drugs such as venetoclax and daratumumab had high response rates and durable responses. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Bittrich:Celgene: Other: Travel Funding, Research Funding; Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Europe: Other: N/A; SANOFI Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, N/A, Research Funding; University Hospital Wuerzburg: Employment; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Funding; AMGEN: Other: Travel Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Funding; Wilhelm Sander Foundation: Research Funding; German Research Foundation (DFG): Other: N/A; University of Würzburg: Other: N/A. Goldschmidt:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Stiftung: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Reece:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ludwig:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; PharmaMar: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mangiacavalli:celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen cilag: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Kastritis:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy. Raje:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Rosta:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Haltner:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Cameron:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment, Equity Ownership. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 3949 Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common but serious sequela of multiple myeloma. Recently, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) introduced a new renal response criteria with complete (CRenal), partial (PRenal) and minimal (MRenal) responses. This study compares the IMWG criteria with other models to determine their correlation with overall survival (OS). Patients with multiple myeloma and AKI were identified from centers around the world. OS was calculated from the day of AKI. Renal function was assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) via MDRD method. Hematologic response was the best achieved as assessed by International Uniform Response Criteria for Multiple Myeloma. Only patients with peak serum creatinine (Scr) ≥ 2.0 mg/dl were included. Separate analyses were performed on the newly diagnosed (ND) versus previously treated (PT) patients. A total of 158 patients were collected from centers in United States, United Kingdom, France and Austria. Fourteen patients were excluded for having peak Scr < 2.0 mg/dl and one for repeated episodes of AKI. Median age of the 143 patients was 64 (34 – 87) years, 58.7% were male and 115 were newly diagnosed. Median Scr was 5.1 (2.0 to 18.6) mg/dl and median eGFR was 10.6 (2.8 – 36.5) ml/min/1.72 m2. Dialysis was required in 49.3%, and 72.9% were dialysis independent at the end of the study. By IMWG criteria, median OS ranged between 6.0 months (m) in PT patients with no renal response (NRenal) to 23.7m in patients with CRenal, p = 0.34 (Table 1). In ND patients, OS was 31.4m in NRenal vs 73.8m in CRenal (p = 0.08). However, OS was similar between PRenal and CRenal, p = 0.70 (Figure 1). If only patients with a hematologic PR or better were analyzed, the OS range was 6.0m in NRenal to 23.7m in CRenal in PT patients (p = 0.85) and 36.6m in NRenal to 73.8m in CRenal in ND patients, p = 0.73.Table 1.Previously TreatedNMedian SurvivalNMedian Survival (>PR) CRenal323.7 m323.7 m PRenal413.1 m312.8 m MRenal512.0 m119.2 m NRenal166.0 m56.0 m p-value0.340.85Newly Diagnosed CRenal2273.8 m2273.8 m PRenal27Not Reached23Not Reached MRenal2265.6 m1965.6 m NRenal4331.4 m2136.6 m p-value0.080.73Figure 1.Overall survival (OS) of 115 patients evaluated by the IMWG renal response criteria. OS was not significantly different by Log-Rank test between patients with CRenal and NRenal, p = 0.08.Figure 1. Overall survival (OS) of 115 patients evaluated by the IMWG renal response criteria. OS was not significantly different by Log-Rank test between patients with CRenal and NRenal, p = 0.08. The best model tested was one that defined renal response (RR) as regaining or maintaining dialysis independence and no response (NR) as dialysis dependence. RR was associated with a superior survival for both PT patients (13.5 m vs 6.0m (NR), p = 0.03) and ND patients (73.8m vs 20.1m (NR), p < 0.001). RR increased with the depth of hematologic response, p = 0.04. RR occurred in 75% of the PT patients with hematologic PR or better and 66.7% in those with less than PR, p = 0.64. In ND patients, RR occurred in 85.7% of those with PR or better and 54.6% of those with PR or less, p = 0.003. This may explain the differences in OS when hematologic response was considered. In PT patients with hematologic PR or better, renal response did not improve OS (21m vs 6m, p = 0.28) but it remained beneficial in the ND patients (73.8m vs 35.1m, p = 0.04, Figure 2). Renal response was not significantly associated with OS for any patient with hematologic response that was VGPR or better. In a multivariate analysis, RR (p = 0.001), ND (p <0.001) and PR or better hematologic response (p = 0.046) were associated with OS.Figure 2.In a separate model, 83 newly diagnosed patients with hematologic response of PR or better were evaluated. Patients who were dialysis independent achieved a renal response (RR) and those who remained on dialysis had no response (NR). Patients with RR had a superior overall survival than patients with NR. Renal response was independent of a hematologic response of PR or better.Figure 2. In a separate model, 83 newly diagnosed patients with hematologic response of PR or better were evaluated. Patients who were dialysis independent achieved a renal response (RR) and those who remained on dialysis had no response (NR). Patients with RR had a superior overall survival than patients with NR. Renal response was independent of a hematologic response of PR or better. The results of our study suggest renal response is important to OS but the depth of response was not as important. Renal response was most important when the hematologic response was less than a VGPR. This supports renal response as part of the overall response assessment in multiple myeloma patients. Based on our results, reducing the number of response categories and simplifying the current consensus criteria seems justified. Median survival of the 143 patients evaluated by the IMWG renal response criteria. Overall survival was calculated by Kaplan Meier method. Differences in survival were evaluated by Log-Rank test. Disclosures: Ludwig: Mundipharma, Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hutchison:The Binding Site: Honoraria.

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 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.

Background:A.R.R.O.W. demonstrated superior progression‐free survival (PFS) with once‐weekly carfilzomib (K, 70 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (Kd70) vs twice‐weekly K (27 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (Kd27) in relapsed and refractory (RRMM) patients (pts), regardless of age. For a comprehensive measure of fitness, frailty scales were developed incorporating age, comorbidities, and functional status (Palumbo Blood 2015;125:2068–74; Facon Blood 2015;126:4239).Aims:Here, we assessed post‐hoc pt outcomes by frailty status.Methods:PFS and safety were assessed by treatment arm and a frailty algorithm which incorporated age, Charlson Comorbidity Index derived from medical history, and ECOG performance status; pts with frailty scores of 0, 1, or ≥2 were classified as fit, intermediate, or frail, respectively. PFS was assessed using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Safety was assessed in pts who received ≥1 treatment dose.Results:The distribution of pts by frailty status was generally balanced between treatment arms (Table). Once‐weekly Kd70 vs twice‐weekly Kd27 resulted in median PFS for fit, intermediate, and frail pts of 15.7 vs 5.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.86]), 11.1 vs 7.7 months (HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.55–1.19]), and 10.3 vs 6.6 months (HR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.49–1.16]), respectively.Rates of grade ≥3 treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest were similar between treatment arms across frailty subgroups (Table). In the once‐weekly Kd70 subgroups, there was no grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy and grade ≥3 cardiac failure rates were ≤4%.Summary/Conclusion:Once‐weekly Kd70 resulted in PFS benefits vs twice‐weekly Kd27, regardless of frailty level. These results support weekly Kd70 as a treatment option for fit and frail RRMM pts.image

Background:Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with varying survival outcomes depending on the presence of certain genetic abnormalities. Common abnormalities include trisomies, translocations involving the chromosome 14, and amplifications or deletions of chromosomes 1, 13, and 17. t(11;14), occurring in 15% of patients with myeloma, had been considered a standard risk abnormality, but recent data suggest inferior outcome. This is important as new therapeutic options such as the BCL‐2 inhibitor venetoclax has been shown to be particularly effective in t(11;14) patients.Aims: Primary objective: To describe the overall survival of myeloma patients with translocation t(11:14) Secondary objectives: To determine the response rates, progression free survival, time to progression, time to next treatment, duration of responses and overall survival with different regimens among patients with t(11;14), to determine the prognostic factors for overall survival among patients with t(11;14), and to identify the spectrum of co‐existing genetic abnormalities among patients with t(11;14)Methods:This was a multicenter study to identify the outcomes of patients with t(11;14), using a retrospectively assembled cohort. Patients with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 with t(11;14) identified on FISH performed within six months of diagnosis, and with treatment details available and if alive, a minimum of 12 months of follow up, were enrolled.Results:The current analysis includes 848 patients; median age of 64.4 years; 60.0% male. The median follow‐up from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 46.5 months; 86.7% of the patients were alive at the last follow up. ISS stage distribution included: Stage I (35.3%), Stage II (38.9%) and Stage III (25.8%). The distribution of FISH abnormalities included: del 13q (14.5%), 1q amp (12.1%), del 17p or monosomy 17 (6.1%). Initial therapy included different regimens: 23.3% had an IMiD, 43.3% had a PI, 20.0% had both and 13.3% had no novel agent. The drug classes by line of therapy are shown in Table 1. A stem cell transplant (SCT), defined as within 12 months of start of first line treatment, was used in 39.1% of patients. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) after initial treatment was 13.7 (95% CI: 11.3 to 16.5) months. The median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 82.5 (95% CI: 73.5 to 95.8) months; 4‐year estimates for those diagnosed from January 2005 to December 2009, and from January 2010 to December 2014 were 75.1% and 70.2%, respectively. Median OS by initial regimen is shown in Figure 1; those receiving an early SCT had median OS of 116.9 (95% CI: 85.6 to NA) months.Summary/Conclusion:This is the first study to examine the outcomes of a large group of myeloma patients with t(11;14) abnormality. Patients receiving a combination of a PI and an IMiD appear to have the best survival outcomes. Patients receiving an early SCT appear to have excellent survival with median OS approaching 10 years. Additional patients are being accrued to this study and additional analysis examining the variables affecting response duration and survival will be presented.image