Chhabra, Saurabh

Abstract There is marked paucity of data regarding late effects in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) who undergo myeloablative conditioning (MAC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated late effects and survival in 826 1-year disease-free survivors of MAC HCT for AYA AML, with an additional focus on comparing late effects based upon MAC type (total body irradiation [TBI] vs high-dose chemotherapy only). The estimated 10-year cumulative incidence of subsequent neoplasms was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-6%); 10-year cumulative incidence of nonmalignant late effects included gonadal dysfunction (10%; 95% CI, 8%-13%), cataracts (10%; 95% CI, 7%-13%), avascular necrosis (8%; 95% CI, 5%-10%), diabetes mellitus (5%; 95% CI, 3%-7%), and hypothyroidism (3%; 95% CI, 2%-5%). Receipt of TBI was independently associated with a higher risk of cataracts only (hazard ratio [HR], 4.98; P < .0001) whereas chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) was associated with an increased risk of cataracts (HR, 3.22; P = .0006), avascular necrosis (HR, 2.49; P = .006), and diabetes mellitus (HR, 3.36; P = .03). Estimated 10-year overall survival and leukemia-free survival were 73% and 70%, respectively, and did not differ on the basis of conditioning type. In conclusion, late effects among survivors of MAC HCT for AYA AML are frequent and are more closely linked to cGVHD than type of conditioning.

SummaryTransplant‐associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA‐TMA) is a complication of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). The incidence and risk factors associated with TA‐TMA are not well known. A retrospective analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) was conducted including patients receiving allo‐HCT between 2008 and 2016, with the primary objective of evaluating the incidence of TA‐TMA. Secondary objectives included identification of risk factors associated with TA‐TMA, and the impact of TA‐TMA on overall survival and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Among 23,665 allo‐HCT recipients, the 3‐year cumulative incidence of TA‐TMA was 3%. Variables independently‐associated with increased incidence of TA‐TMA included female sex, prior autologous transplant, primary disease (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and severe aplastic anaemia), donor type (mismatched or unrelated donor), conditioning intensity (myeloablative), GVHD prophylaxis (sirolimus + calcineurin inhibitor), pre‐transplant kidney dysfunction and acute GVHD (time‐varying effect). TA‐TMA was associated with higher mortality (HR = 3·1, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 2·8–16·3) and RRT requirement (HR = 7·1, 95% CI = 5·7–311·6). This study provides epidemiologic data on TA‐TMA and its impact on transplant outcomes. Increased awareness of the risk factors will enable providers to be vigilant of this uncommon but serious transplant complication. The results will also provide benchmarking for future study designs and comparisons.

Background: Novel agent induction and AHCT remains the preferred initial therapeutic strategy for transplant-eligible MM patients. Current prognostic tools in MM focus solely on disease-specific factors at diagnosis to determine patient prognosis-International Staging System (ISS) and revised-ISS (R-ISS). A major limitation to both, the ISS and R-ISS, is that they are not specific for HCT-eligible patients and do not take into account other patient factors that may enter into a decision to pursue AHCT. The data used to generate these staging systems were from broad populations with varying upfront treatment strategies and included patients who were ineligible for intensive therapy. Additionally, there is considerable interest in identifying the population that relapses early despite modern induction/AHCT approaches who are candidates for novel approaches for maintenance/consolidation. To address these problems, we used data from the Center for Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to identify disease-, patient-, and transplantation-specific variables that are associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients undergoing upfront AHCT (within 12 months of diagnosis). Methods: We used the outcomes of 2528 MM patients undergoing upfront AHCT from 2008-2017 reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were divided into training and validation sets with a 50% random split. High risk cytogenetics was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), del 13q, del 17p, 1q gain, or 1p deletion. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of progression free survival (PFS) in a training subset. The regression coefficients of the final model was transformed into a risk score with an appropriate transformation. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the training cohort (n = 917) and validation cohort (n=897) using subset that had all values that entered the final model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the individual scores were used to classify patients into risk groups for both cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1. No cytogenetic abnormality, VRD induction, pre-AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) <10% and 1 line of induction chemotherapy were assigned 0 points. Pre-AHCT BMPCs ≥10% (hazard ratio HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.83), use of ≥2 lines of induction chemotherapy prior to AHCT (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.64), standard cytogenetic risk vs. no abnormality (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13-1.77) and induction regimens (non-VRD regimens vs. VRD) (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) were associated with increased hazard of progression and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Presence of high-risk cytogenetics vs. no abnormality (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.45-2.42) was assigned 2 points, and the use of thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as an induction regimen (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.48-3.2) was assigned 3 points. A two-category system was created based on the scoring: low risk (0-3) and high risk (4-6). The scoring system was prognostic for PFS when applied to both cohorts. High-risk group was found to have significantly higher risk of progression and/or death compared to low risk in training (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.74-2.86; p<0.0001) and validation cohort (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.22; p=0.0001) respectively (Table 2). The 3-year PFS in the training cohort was 60% (95% CI 56%-64%) in low risk and 27% (95% CI 17%- 36%) in high risk while in the validation cohort was 51% (95% CI 47%-55%) in low risk and 28% (95% CI 16%- 39%) in high risk (Figure 1A and 1B). Conclusions: We describe a prognostic model specifically for patients undergoing upfront AHCT in MM which can identify patients at very high risk for early relapse/progression. These patients should be ideal candidates for studies of immunotherapy or other interventions after AHCT aimed at reducing relapse. Disclosures Dhakal: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Shah:Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Poseida: Research Funding; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Autolus: Consultancy; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction Renal dysfunction is a recognized risk factor for mortality after HCT, as it is included in the comorbidity index (HCT CI). Yet, further understanding on outcomes in patients with different level of renal dysfunction or undergoing hemodialysis (HD) at time of transplant remains scant. This study explores the impact of different levels renal dysfunction on major HCT outcomes in a large population using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Methods The study population included 8,102 patients age 40 years and older who received HCT for treatment of malignancies from 2008 to 2016, with available pre-transplant creatinine measurement. eGFR, calculated using CKD-EPI (CKD-epidemiology collaboration) method, was used to assigned patients in four categories: eGFR ≥ 90ml/min (eGFR≥ 90, N=4,237, reference), eGFR 60-90ml/min (eGFR 60-90, N=3,158), eGFR 45-59ml/min (eGFR 45-59, N=538) and eGFR <45ml/min(eGFR<45, N=169). A separate cohort of patients on HD at time of HCT (N=46) was analyzed independently. Multivariate analysis models were built for assessment of overall mortality, transplant-related mortality (TRM), disease relapse or progression, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), hepatic sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS), thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (IPS) and need of HD post-transplant. Common patient-, disease- and transplant-related covariates were tested on all models and HCT CI was computed without reported renal dysfunction comorbidity to avoid collinearity. Results Patient characteristics are shown in table 1. The groups were comparable on disease risk index, graft and donor source, but patients with eGFR>90 were younger and received myeloablative conditioning more frequently. The cohort of eGFR <45 had a higher proportion of patients with HCT CI ≥3. TRM and overall survival according to eGFR groups are shown in Figure. In the multivariate analysis models eGFR as the main effect was associated with TRM (p<0.0001), overall mortality (p<0.0001), and requirement of HD post HCT (p<0.0001), but not for relapse/progression (p=0.98), GVHD (grades II-IV, p=0.34; III-IV, p=0.70; and chronic, p=0.20), TMA (p=0.46), SOS (p=0.02) or IPS (p=0.06). Compared to eGFR ≥90, the hazard ratio (HR) for TRM for eGFR 60-89 was 1.12 (p=0.07), for eGFR 45-59 was 1.46 (p<0.001) and for eGFR<45 was 1.74 (p=0.004). Corresponding HRs for overall mortality were 1.0 (p=0.9), 1.17 (p=0.03) and 1.63 (p<0.0001), respectively. Similarly, for the need of HD post HCT, HR for eGFR60-89 was 1.29 (p=0.03), eGFR45-59 was 2.45 (p<0.001) and for eGFR<45 was 3.09 (p<0.0001). Only eGFR<45 was associated with higher risk of SOS (HR2.66, p=0.03). Among 46 patients on HD prior to HCT, one-year probability of overall survival was 20% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 10-32%) and cumulative incidence of TRM at one year was 67% (95% CI, 50-81%). Conclusion These findings indicate that degree of renal dysfunction is an independent predictor of OS, TRM, probability of receiving HD and SOS when adjusted for other risk factors. The impact of eGFR on the need of HD, a complication that increases morbidity post HCT is an important finding. Additionally, the outcomes of a subset of patients on HD at time of transplants are dismal. These results can further assist the prognostic assessment of candidates for an allogeneic HCT. Disclosures Stadtmauer: Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tmunity: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Wingard:Ansun: Consultancy; Pluristem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy. Ganguly:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Pasquini:Pfizer: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Consultancy; Medigene: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kit Pharma: Research Funding.

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and the CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (dara) have transformed the management of MM, yet eventual refractoriness to these agents seems inevitable. Relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) which becomes triple class refractory (TCR, i.e. refractory to a PI, an IMiD and Dara) uncommonly responds to further lines of therapy and survival is dismal. Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound targeting exportin 1 (XPO1) which is overexpressed in MM cells and essential for their survival. In the STORM study, selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) demonstrated promising efficacy in TCR, penta-exposed (TCR-PE, i.e. exposed to lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib and dara) MM. Establishing the natural history for outcomes in the TCR-PE population can help provide context to understand the outcomes observed with Sd in STORM. In the retrospective MAMMOTH study, we reported the outcomes of patients with RRMM after they became refractory to dara, including a subset of patients who were TCR. We further analyzed the MAMMOTH dataset to generate a cohort of patients similar to patients in STORM in order to compare conventional care vs. Sd. Methods: We included all patients in STORM who received Sd as the first line therapy after they achieved TCR-PE status (n=64). We extracted from the MAMMOTH dataset all patients who were not exposed to Sd in a subsequent line of therapy, became TCR-PE and who received subsequent MM-directed therapy (n=128). Overall response rate (ORR) was evaluated according to IMWG criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of initiation of next line of therapy after TCR-PE status until death or last follow-up. We compared OS in STORM vs. MAMMOTH utilizing cox-regression analysis with adjustment for covariables potentially influencing the outcome. Results: Baseline patient characteristics and prior therapies are per table. The two cohorts were similar in terms of age, number of prior lines of therapy and presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. STORM patients had longer time between MM diagnosis and post TCR-PE therapy with a higher proportion of refractoriness to carfilzomib. Patients in STORM had ORR to Sd of 32.8% vs 25.0% for patients receiving conventional care in MAMMOTH (P=0.078). In direct comparison, patients in STORM had better OS than patients in MAMMOTH (median 10.4 vs. 6.9 months) (P=0.043, figure). In multivariate analysis, STORM patients had lower risk of death in comparison with MAMMOTH patients (aHR=0.55, 95%C.I. 0.35-0.86, P=0.009). Refractoriness to carfilzomib (aHR=2.20, 95%C.I. 1.16-4.15, P=0.015) and high-risk cytogenetics (aHR-1.66, 95% C.I. 1.13-2.42, P=0.009) were also associated with inferior OS. Conclusion: Despite inherent limitations in comparison of trial enrollees vs. real world patients, this analysis suggests improved OS with Sd vs conventional care in patients with TCR-PE RRMM. Prognosis for these patients remains poor and underscores the need for therapeutic advancements. Disclosures Costa: Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tang:Karyopharm: Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jagannath:BMS: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau. Chari:Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, 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; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Ma:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siegel:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Biran:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malek:Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Medpacto: Research Funding. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant. Kang:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; InCyte Corportation: Research Funding. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: 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, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: 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, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have significantly improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Refractoriness to PIs and IMiDs results in poor outcomes with a median survival of about 13 months.Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) with remarkable activity in relapsed and refractory MM. The outcome of MM patients in US clinical practice who becomes refractory to CD38 MoABs is unknown. The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study is to investigate the natural history of patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoABs (Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure: MAMMOTH study). Methods We identified patients from 14 academic institutions in the US with diagnosis of active MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination. Patients were considered refractory to CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. The time when patients met the above criteria of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data including patient-disease characteristics and all therapies administered before and after T0 were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. For survival outcome analysis, patients were classified into three groups: "Penta-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 2 PIs + 2 IMiDs), "Triple-refractory and quad-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 1 PI + 1/2 IMiDs, or 1 CD38 MoAB + 1/2 PIs + 1 IMiD), and "Not triple-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB, and not both of a PI and an IMiD). Responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients were included in this study; median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90). Fifty five percent of patients were males, 52% had IgG isotype, 29% had ISS stage III disease, and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Median interval from diagnosis of MM to T0 was 50.1 months (mo) (range 2.5-230.1). Patients received a median of 4 lines of treatment (1-16) prior to the CD38 MoAB-containing regimen; 72% underwent prior autologous transplant. Daratumumab-refractory patients formed a majority (256, 93.1%) of this cohort. Most of the patients were refractory to lenalidomide (77%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (68%), and carfilzomib (47%). Seventy patients (25.5%) were "penta-refractory" and 148 (53.8%) were "triple-refractory and quad-refractory". Median follow-up from T0 for survivors was 10.6 mo (range 1.9-42.3 mo). The median overall survival (OS) from T0 for the entire cohort was 8.6 mo (95% C.I. 7.2-9.9); OS for the groups based on refractoriness to prior treatments are shown (Figure). Two hundred and forty-nine patients (90.5%) received at least one line of treatment after T0, (median 2, range 1-10). The response rates and depth of responses to each line of treatment post T0 are shown (Table). Among patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent treatment, the median PFS and OS from T0 were 3.4 (95% C.I. 2.8-4.0) mo and 9.3 (95% C.I. 8.1-10.6) mo, respectively; the median OS for the 26 patients who received no further treatment was only 1.3 (95% C.I. 0.6-1.9) mo. By multivariate analysis, penta-refractoriness (HR 2.4, p <0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.5, p=0.01), elevated LDH (HR 2, p<0.001) and creatinine > 2 (HR 2.4, p=0.01) at the onset of CD38-based therapy predicted inferior OS. Conclusions Patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoAB are increasingly less responsive to subsequent therapies. While survival is particularly dismal for penta-refractory patients, the outcomes are poor even for patients who are not refractory to other mainstream MM agents. The MAMMOTH study defines a MM population in urgent need for new therapies, and provides benchmark OS, PFS and response data for subsequent investigational therapies in this setting. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vij: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, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P &lt; 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.