Delforge, Michel

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study. PATIENTS AND METHODS PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs. RESULTS A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score. CONCLUSION D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

8016 Background: MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival with D-Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of pt-reported outcomes alongside efficacy endpoints provides pt perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of HRQoL while on treatments (tx). Methods: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were completed by pts using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 mo during tx; interim results are presented for first 12 mo. Tx effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature. Results: Compliance rates were high and comparable at baseline ( > 90%) and through month 12 ( > 80%) for both groups (D-Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D-Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D-Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: -0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D-Rd was also observed in EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D-Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D-Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the tx groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D-Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D-Rd: -17.9 [95% CI: -20.7, -15.0], Rd: -11.0 [95% CI: -14.0, -8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D-Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning at cycle 12 in both tx arms, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Faster and sustained improvement in HRQoL was observed in pts treated with D-Rd vs Rd with similar findings reflected across pain subscale. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172.

8583 Background: Poor prognosis and therapy exhaustion have been associated with reduced QOL in RRMM. In MM-003, a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial, POM + LoDEX (n = 302) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; n = 153) in pts who failed lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) and progressed on their last therapy. This analysis evaluated QOL changes in these pts. Methods: To assess pt-reported outcomes, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed. Minimal important differences for 5 clinically relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (Global Health Status, Physical Functioning, Fatigue, Emotional Functioning, and Pain) were calculated as meaningful change thresholds (1 standard error of measurement) from baseline through cycle (C) 5. Time to QOL worsening was compared between arms using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Favorable trends were observed for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in each of the 5 relevant domains. The cross-sectional analysis indicated statistically or marginally significant (P < .10) differences favoring POM + LoDEX in Global Health Status (C2, 4), Physical Function (C2, 3, 4), Emotional Function (C2, 3, 4), and Fatigue (C2) scores. Longitudinal comparisons between arms confirmed the significance of score changes for Global Health Status (C2; P = .01), Physical Functioning (C3 and 4; P = .018 and .028, respectively), Emotional Functioning (C3; P = .018), and Fatigue (C5; P = .008) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX. HiDEX pts exhibited clinically meaningful worsening in Global Health Status and Physical Functioning scores vs. POM + LoDEX by C2 (P = .04) and C3 (P = .02), respectively. POM + LoDEX extended median time to meaningful worsening vs. HiDEX for Global Health Status (114 vs. 85 days, P = .05), Physical Functioning (174 vs. 106 days; P = .09), Fatigue (113 vs. 60 days; P = .02), Emotional Functioning (190 vs. 124 days; P = .04), and Pain (147 vs. 113 days; P = .2). Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts who failed LEN and BORT, POM + LoDEX resulted in better clinical outcomes as well as improvement in clinically relevant QOL measurements over the course of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

Abstract Introduction: Selinexor is a novel, oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1). Selinexor treatment results in nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibition of NF-kB, and translational suppression of several oncoprotein mRNAs (e.g., c-myc, cyclin D).Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and most patients (pts) eventually progress through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), anti-CD38 mAbs and others. The increased use of combinations in MM treatment, (PIs/IMiDs/mAbs), has led to a growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM (pts that have been treated with bortezomib (bort), carfilzomib (carfil), lenalidomide (len), pomalidomide (pom) and daratumumab (dara)). Active novel therapies with different mechanisms of actions are needed to address this unmet medical need. Part 1 of STORM enrolled pts with both quad- (bort, carfil, len, pom, treated MM) or penta-refractory MM and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 21% (Vogl et al, JCO 2018). Based on these findings, the Pivotal Part 2 of STORM was initiated, enrolling an additional cohort of 122 patients with penta-refractory MM. Methods: Pts with penta-refractory MM were treated with 80 mg selinexor plus 20 mg dexamethasone (Sd) twice weekly. Pts must have received an alkylator, bort, carfil, len, pom and dara, and had MM refractory to ≥1 PI, ≥1 IMiD, dara, a glucocorticoid, and their last therapy. Pts must have a total ANC ≥1000 mm3,platelets ≥50k/mm3 (or ≥75k if marrow plasma cells <50%), and creatinine clearance ≥20 mL/min. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints: duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) based on IMWG criteria. OS was also compared to a cohort of pts with PI, IMiD, dara refractory MM from the Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD), (ref: ASH 2018 abs ID: 116493),who met all the inclusion criteria for STORM. Results: As of 1-Jun-2018, 122 pts (71 M/ 51 F) were enrolled in 38 sites (US and EU). Pt characteristics were [medians (range)]: age 65 yrs (40-85); 7 (3 - 18) prior treatment regimens, 6.6 yrs (<1 - 23.4) from initial MM diagnosis.65 pts (53%) had high risk cytogenetics, 86 pts (70%) had prior dara in combination, 102 pts (84%) had prior stem cell transplantation, 2 pts had prior CAR-T therapy. All pts enrolled with progressive disease (PD), 72% of pts had increases (3% - 792%) in MM markers from screening to C1D1 (median 11 days). Frequently reported Sd treatment related adverse events (AEs) included (all grades, grades 3/4): thrombocytopenia (67%, 53%), nausea (67%, 10%), fatigue (68%, 21%), anorexia (50%, 2%), anemia (46%, 28%), and weight loss (46%, 0%). Eight pts remain on study and 114 pts discontinued treatment (most commonly for PD). There were 4 deaths on treatment: sepsis, respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, and an unrelated, unspecified cardiac event. IRC determined ORR (≥PR) was 26.2%, with 6.5% ≥ very good partial response, including 2 stringent complete responses (sCRs; MRD negative at 1:10-6 and at 1:10-4sensitivity). Both pts who relapsed after CAR-T achieved PRs. The CBR (≥minimal response, [MR]) was 39.3%, and 79% of pts achieved ≥stable disease (SD). Responses typically occurred within the first month. Medians: DOR 4.4 months (mo) (range <1 - 10 mo), PFS 3.7 mo, and OS 8.0 mo. Pts with ≥MR had significantly longer OS than pts with PD/NE (median not reached vs 1.9 mo, p=<0.0001). Compared to the FHAD cohort, STORM cohort had longer OS (Figure 1, HR 0.41, p=0.0001). Conclusions: Results of the pivotal STORM Part 2 in penta (PI, IMiD, dara)-refractory MM demonstrated that oral selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) was highly active with an ORR of 26.2%. Importantly, responses were rapid and deep with 2 patients achieving sCRs (both MRD negative) in these heavily pre-treated penta-refractory MM pts (median 7 prior regimens, 53% high risk). AEs are a function of dose/schedule/disease severity and can be managed with dose modifications and supportive care. No major organ toxicity was observed and AEs were typically transient and reversible. Sd is an all-oral, first in class mechanism with novel MOA and represents a potential therapeutic option to the growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM who have exhausted approved therapies. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, 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; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Vogl:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Nooka:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Amgen: 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; Abbvie: 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. Cole:University of Michigan: Employment; Cancer Support Community myeloma advisory board: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Vij:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raab:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Consultancy. Stewart:Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy; Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Mohty:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sylvain:Gilead: Other: scientific advisor board. Costa:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Picklesimer:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Li:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract LBA-6 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have become refractory to bortezomib (BORT) and refractory or otherwise ineligible for thalidomide or lenalidomide (LEN) have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 9 months (Kumar. Leukemia. 2012). There is no standard treatment available for these patients. Pomalidomide (POM) is a novel immunomodulatory drug that has shown activity in LEN- and BORT-refractory patients (Vij. ASCO 2012). MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial designed to compare the efficacy and safety of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) vs high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in a population of patients who are refractory to both LEN and BORT. Here we present the final progression-free survival (PFS) and interim OS analysis of MM-003. Methods: Eligible patients with primary refractory or relapsed and refractory disease were enrolled. All patients with documented disease progression during treatment or within 60 days of completing their last myeloma therapy (including ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of LEN and BORT either alone or in combination), were randomized 2:1 to receive either POM + LoDEX (arm A) or HiDEX alone (arm B). Patients progressing on HiDEX had the opportunity to receive POM in the companion trial, MM-003C. Patients in arm A received POM 4 mg on days 1–21 and DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Patients in arm B received DEX 40 mg (20 mg for patients > 75 years of age) on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by age (≤ 75 vs > 75 years), disease population (refractory vs refractory and relapsed vs refractory and intolerant [intolerant to BORT only]), and number of prior therapies (2 vs > 2). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included safety, OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response) by IMWG and EBMT criteria, duration of response, time to progression, and quality of life. OS was to be tested only if PFS would be statistically significant; therefore, alpha was controlled at 0.05 2-sided for both PFS and OS. Results: The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the protocol-specified final analysis results. 455 patients were randomized from March 2011 to Sept 2012. 302 patients received POM + LoDEX, and 153 patients received HiDEX. At the time of analysis, 45% of patients in arm A and 25% of patients in arm B remained on study. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1–17). 72% of patients were refractory to both LEN and BORT. At the PFS final analysis, with a median follow-up of 18 weeks, PFS was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median 15.7 vs 8.0 weeks; 267 total events; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P <.001). OS interim analysis was performed as planned; OS also was significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX alone (median not reached vs 34 weeks; 134 events; HR, 0.53; P<.001), crossing the prespecified O’brien-Fleming superiority boundary. This includes 45 pts who received POM after progressing on HiDEX. Median duration of treatment was 12.4 weeks in arm A and 8 weeks in arm B. Following DSMB review of the data, immediate crossover of arm B patients to arm A was recommended. Overall, 25% of patients in arm A and 38% in arm B died, with progressive disease and infections as the primary reasons. Frequent grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (42% in arm A vs 15% in arm B), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 24%), and febrile neutropenia (7% vs 0%). Other toxicities (grade 3/4) were predominantly infections (24% vs 23%), hemorrhage (3% vs 5%), glucose intolerance (3% vs 7%), neuropathy (1% vs 1%), and venous thromboembolism (1% vs 0%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 35% arm A and 49% arm B. Complete results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly increased PFS and OS compared with HiDEX in patients who are refractory to LEN and BORT, a population with limited treatment options. The OS superiority boundary was crossed. Based on these data, POM + LoDEX should become the new standard of care in patients who have exhausted the novel agents, LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karlin:Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. San Miguel:Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.

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