Sidana, Surbhi

Abstract Introduction Population level data about the survival outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies occurring as second cancers is limited. We undertook one of the largest analyses of second hematologic malignancies (SHM) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology & End Results (SEER) registry to identify factors associated with survival. Methods SEER 9 &13 registries were queried to identify adult patients (pts>18 years) diagnosed with SHM that comprised of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL), Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) & Other Acute Leukemias (OAL, biphenotypic leukemias, myeloid sarcomas & leukemias NOS) > 1 year (yr) after diagnosis of a primary unrelated cancer, using ICD-O-3 codes over a 40 yr period (1973-2012). Data on demographics, follow up, primary tumor & survival were abstracted. Univariate & multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors influencing survival of SHM & compared with hematologic malignancies occurring as first cancers. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported & significance was set at p< 0.01. Results SHM cases included 4665 AML, 3569 MDS, 1140 OAL, 1076 CML & 536 ALL pts. Median age at diagnosis of SHM was 73 yrs (range, 18-100) for AML, 79 yrs (18-100) for MDS, 74 yrs(20-99) for OAL, 74 yrs(18-98) for CML & 70 yrs(19-97) for ALL. Pts>60 yrs comprised 79.2% of AML, 92% of MDS, 88.7% of OAL, 82.9% of CML & 75.2% of ALL cases. Gender distribution was similar across all categories, with females comprising 48.5% of AML, 42.2% of MDS, 45.3% of OAL, 42.8% of CML & 50.2% of ALL cases. More than 85% of pts in each group were Caucasians. While the majority of pts had one primary unrelated cancer (82-89%), 14% of AML pts, 17.8% of MDS pts, 13.8% of OAL, 15.3% of CML pts& 10.6% of ALL pts had >1 primary unrelated cancer. Most common primary sites were prostate (19.1-29.6%), breast (16.1-21.9%) & colorectal (9.3-14.5%). Median survival (range) was as follows: AML 0.2 yrs (0-28.2); MDS 1.5 yrs (0-14); OAL 0.2 yrs (0-29.1); CML 2.5 yrs (0-27.1); & ALL 0.7 yrs (0-28.8). Median latency periods (range) for secondary cancers were as follows: AML 5.2 yrs (1.0-24.2); MDS 7.6 yrs (1.0-35.5); OAL 5.7 yrs (1.0-=34.3); CML 5.2 yrs (1.0-31.6); & ALL 6.2 yrs (1.0-35.5). In univariable analyses, age <60 yrs predicted for better survival (p<0.0001) for all SHM, as did diagnosis in recent yrs (2001-2012) (p< 0.0001 for AML, OAL, CML & ALL). Effect of time period on survival for MDS was not done, as it became formally reportable in 2001. Having >2 primaries was associated with an unfavorable outcome for subsequent AML (HR=1.15; 1.08-1.23; p < 0.0001), MDS (HR=1.13; 1.05-1.22: p=0.001) & CML (HR=1.30; 1.13-1.48: p=0.0002). In multivariable analyses, advancing age was an independent adverse prognostic factor for all secondary leukemias & MDS, both as a continuous variable & when categorized as <60 yrs vs. >60 yrs (p<0.001). Race & gender did not impact survival. Using breast cancer as a referent primary, AML pts had worse outcomes following colorectal (HR=1.31; 1.14-1.5; p=0.0002) or lung (HR=1.46; 1.22-1.74; p< 0.0001) primaries, while MDS pts fared worse with prior lung (HR=1.61; 1.22-2.12; p=0.0007) or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HR=1.58; 1.3-1.92: p< 0.0001). Of all 2ndCML cases, those after colorectal cancer had worst survival (HR=1.54; 1.12-2.13; p=0.008). Among SHM pts, MDS pts had better survival than those with AML (HR=0.42; 0.4-0.44: p< 0.0001), as did pts with CML (HR=0.37; 0.35-0.41: p< 0.0001) & ALL (HR=0.64; 0.58-0.70; p< 0.0001). Out OAL had similar outcomes compared to AML (HR=0.99; 0.92-1.05; p=0.66). Pts with CML fared better than MDS (HR=0.47; 0.41-0.54; p< 0.0001) & OAL (HR=0.37; 0.34-0.41: p< 0.0001). Pts with ALL had worse survival than CML (HR=1.8; 1.6-2.03: p< 0.0001) & MDS (HR=1.28; 1.11-1.48: p=0.0005), but better than OAL (HR=0.65; 0.58-0.73: p< 0.0001). (Figure 1) Patients with all SHM, except CML, had worse outcomes compared to those with primary hematologic cancers (Figure 2). Conclusion The prolonged latencies for SHM in this study suggest that they are likely therapy-related. Our findings show that type & number of primary cancers influence survival of subsequent leukemias & MDS. SHM have worse survival compared to those with primary hematologic malignancies except CML where non-separation of survival curves suggest that CML as SHM does not behave like a therapy-related neoplasm. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: The incidence of thyroid cancers has been rising in the United States primarily due to the increased detection of well differentiated thyroid cancers (WDTC). Radioactive iodine (RAI), which is frequently used to treat WDTC, can be considered a circulating radiation emitter with the potential for mutagenic effects on hematopoietic stem cells. With a growing number of WDTC patients (pts) surviving long term following RAI therapy, establishing the risk of developing a myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in this cohort has important clinical implications. Methods: A novel R program, SEERaBomb (Radiat Environ Biophys. 2014;53(1):55-63) was used to query all 18 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries to identify WDTC cases treated with RAI and MDS as second cancers. SEERaBomb allows merging of all 18 SEER registries - a function not permitted by the SEER*Stat MP-SIR that limits researchers to use to one of two datasets (SEER 9 or SEER 13), thereby significantly increasing the capture of MDS cases (Figure 1). WDTC includes papillary and follicular thyroid histologies. WDTC survivor person-years at risk for developing MDS was based on age at diagnosis of WDTC, survival time, and age at diagnosis of MDS. Relative risks (RR) for developing MDS were then based on observed/expected cases between the cohorts receiving surgery alone (control), surgery combined with RAI as well as those receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and surgery with or without (+/-) RAI. Mean radiation exposure to bone marrow was compared between RAI and prostate cancer (as example) treated with other radiation modalities - brachytherapy (seeds), EBRT (3D, IMRT and VMRT). Results: In total 132,157 WDTC patients were identified from 1973-2011, of whom 69,975 (53%) received surgery alone, 59,015 (45%) underwent surgery + RAI and 3167 (2%) underwent EBRT [combined with surgery+/- adjuvant RAI]. Mean age at the time of WDTC diagnosis was: 49.4 years (yrs, range, 2-105) in the surgery group; 46.7 yrs (2-99) in the surgery + RAI group and 55.1 yrs (10-101) in the EBRT group. Median person years of follow up after WDTC diagnosis was: 6.1 yrs (2.5-11.6) in pts undergoing thyroidectomy; 5.4 yrs (2.4-9.7) in the surgery + RAI group and 5.9 yrs (1.7-11) in the EBRT group. A total of 55 patients developed MDS; 24 had surgery alone, 27 received surgery + RAI and 4 had EBRT. Median time to development of MDS after WDTM diagnosis (25-75 interquartile range) was: 6.4 yrs (4-15) in pts receiving surgery alone; 4 yrs (1.7-6.7) in the surgery + RAI group and 3.6 yrs (2.4-7.9) in the EBRT group. MDS cases were classified as RA (n=11), RARS (n=2), RCMD (n=3), RAEB (n=9), MDS with 5q deletion syndrome (n=1), and MDS-U (n=29). Compared to patients definitively treated with surgery, those who additionally received RAI (+/- EBRT) had a statistically significantly increased risk of developing MDS within the first two years of exposure (RR=1.9; 95% CI, 0.43-5.61 vs. RR=5.8; 95% CI, 2.84-12.22). Beyond 2 years, the risk for MDS drops to baseline rates, and a trend observed beyond 12 years, which did not reach statistical significance (Figure 2). Conclusion: WDTC pts undergoing RAI treatment appear to have an increased risk of developing MDS within the first two years of exposure to RAI. It is difficult to determine whether this early excess risk is true risk or an effect of ascertainment bias (RAI pts followed more closely), as the kinetics of RAI indicate a lower magnitude of bone marrow exposure compared to other radiation modalities (Figure 3). Considering the long latency of MDS seen in atomic bomb cohorts, relative young age of WDTC pts, current trend towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment of WDTCÕs, MDS rates are likely to continue to rise. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction High dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is an effective therapy for eligible patients with newly diagnosed systemic AL amyloidosis. Dose attenuated melphalan is used in patients with older age, renal dysfunction, and multi-organ involvement in an effort to limit treatment related mortality. Reducing the dose of melphalan compromises response rates and survival outcomes, but this is often contributed to frailty of these patients. The revised Mayo staging (MS) system improves risk stratification and helps develop risk-adapted therapies. We analyzed the outcomes of ASCT following standard [(200 mg/m2); SD group] versus risk adapted [(140-160 mg/m2); RD group] melphalan conditioning, in the context of the factors typically leading to dose modification. Methods Three hundred and twenty nine patients with newly diagnosed systemic AL amyloidosis who underwent conditioning with melphalan followed by ASCT at Mayo Clinic between 2006 and 2015 were identified using existing databases. The clinical and laboratory data, treatment and follow - up details were collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Overall survival(OS) was defined as the time from start of initial therapy until death from any cause or last follow up. Progression free survival(PFS) was defined as the time to relapse or progression requiring change or reinstitution of treatment or death from any cause. The OS and PFS curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method while log rank test was used to estimate their difference. Multivariate survival analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Among the 329 patients, 240 patients were in SD group and 89 patients were in RD group (1 patient received 120 mg/ m2, 2 received 160 mg/m2 and the rest received 140 mg / m2). In the SD group, median age was 58.5 years (25.6 - 72.3); 59.6% were males; 38.7% / 61.7 %/ 7.5% had cardiac / renal /hepatic involvement; and 47.1% / 35.7% / 8.8% / 8.4% had MS I/II/III/IV. In the RD group, median age was 60.8 years (40 - 73.7); 62.9% were males; 66.3% / 71.9 %/ 11.2% had cardiac / renal /hepatic involvement; and 26.2% / 32.5% / 21.2% / 20% had MS I/II/III/IV. The response rates for patients in the SD group [complete response (CR) - 53.7%, very good partial response (VGPR) - 19.6%, partial response (PR) - 12.5%, no response (NR) - 1.2%, progressive disease (PD) - 1.6%] were significantly higher than patients in the RD group (CR - 34.8%, VGPR - 20.2%, PR - 15.7%, NR - 10.1%, PD - 1.1%) (85.8 vs 70.7%; p < 0.002). The PFS and OS for both the groups according to Mayo stage are presented in Figure 1. Multivariate survival analysis for PFS and OS was performed using age (≤ vs > 70 years), serum creatinine (≤ vs > 2 mg/dL), number of major organs involved (heart, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal tract and autonomic neuropathy), MS (1 vs 2 vs 3 and 4) and dose of melphalan (SD vs RD). The dose of melphalan (p=0.0002), MS (p=0.03) and the number of organs involved (p=0.04) were significant for PFS while the dose of melphalan (p=0.0001) and the MS (p = 0.004) were significant for OS. Conclusion Reducing the dose of melphalan during conditioning for frontline ASCT in systemic AL amyloidosis renders more patients eligible for transplant but compromises on the response rates. There is no impact on PFS and OS in Mayo stage I patients. However the OS as well as PFS in Mayo stage II, III and IV were significantly lower in RD group as compared to SD group. These results suggest a suboptimal outcome with use of reduced dose melphalan, even after accounting for the pother prognostic factors, suggesting that high dose therapy should potentially be limited to those eligible to receive the full dose conditioning. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding; Prothena: 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. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL Amyloidosis) is a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder that is characterized by tissue deposits of misfolded insoluble κ or λ light chain derived amyloid fibrils, leading to organ dysfunction. The prognosis of patients depends on the number and severity of organ involvement, especially cardiac involvement. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), if eligible, alkylator (melphalan) and novel drugs like proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulators (IMiD) have improved the overall survival (OS) during the past decades. But still, nearly half of the patients die within a year of diagnosis. We analyzed the factors predicting early relapse / progression or death (within 12 months) after first line therapy for systemic AL amyloidosis. Methods Clinical and laboratory data of all consecutive patients with systemic AL amyloidosis seen at Mayo Clinic within 90 days of their diagnosis, between 2006 and 2015, was collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Patients who died within 3 months of starting the first line treatment were excluded from analysis. Early relapse (ER) was defined as relapse / progression requiring treatment change / re-institution or death within 12 months of starting first line treatment. Patients in the cohort with ER were compared with patients with a follow up of more than 12 months who had a relapse / progression beyond 12 months or had continuing response at the time of analysis. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi - square and Fisher's exact test and continuous variables using Kruskal- Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Multivariate analysis was done using logistic regression model. Results Seven hundred and eighty six patients with newly diagnosed systemic AL amyloidosis met the study criteria and were included in the analysis. Among these, 230 (29.3%) patients had ER within 12 months of starting initial therapy while 556 (70.7%) patients either relapsed after 1 year or had continuing response at the time of analysis. Baseline demographics, organ involvement and type of first line therapy are presented in Table1. The median estimated follow up for the entire cohort from start of initial therapy was 62.9 months (95% CI; 59.9, 67.3). The variables included in the univariate and multivariate analyses for factors predicting ER were age at diagnosis (≤ vs > 70 years ), revised mayo stage (I and II vs III and IV), bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC; ≤ 10% vs > 10%), presence of any chromosomal abnormalities, trisomies or IgH translocations by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), multiorgan involvement [(>1 vs 1) (heart, liver, kidney, gastrointestinal tract, autonomic neuropathy), incorporation of ASCT in initial therapy. In univariate analysis, mayo stage (p<0.0001), multiorgan involvement (p=0.0008) and inclusion of ASCT as part of initial therapy (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with ER, while age (p=0.06), BMPC(p=0.9), FISH abnormalities (p=0.2) were not. However, in multivariate analysis, only mayo stage (III + IV vs I + II; p=0.01) and non-inclusion of ASCT in first line treatment (p=0.0001) were significantly predictive of ER. Conclusions Despite the introduction of ASCT and novel drugs, the early mortality in systemic AL amyloidosis remains high. This study demonstrates that patients with ER are older with higher prevalence of cardiac involvement and multiorgan involvement and higher Mayo stage (III and IV). Incorporation of ASCT as part of the initial therapy was associated with reduced early relapse, but it is difficult to separate the influence of the eligibility for ASCT from the effect of ASCT itself. This will help us in characterizing these patients to better understand their mechanisms of resistance to therapy and gives an insight to the type of initial therapy that benefits them. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; Prothena: 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; Alnylam: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL Amyloidosis) is a plasma cell disorder characterized by deposition of misfolded insoluble protein fibrils (composed of monoclonal κ or λ light chains) in tissues causing progressive organ dysfunction. Chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), when eligible, are standard treatment options but relapses remain inevitable for most patients. However, there is a paucity of literature describing relapsed or refractory patients. We performed a retrospective study to analyze the outcomes upon relapse and the impact of type of therapy and retreatment with the same therapy at relapse. Methods Clinical and laboratory data of 1327 consecutive patients with systemic AL amyloidosis seen at Mayo Clinic within 90 days of their diagnosis, between 2006 and 2015, was collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients, 219 (16.5%) were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1108 patients, 366 patients experienced a documented hematological or organ relapse or progression requiring change of first line or start of second line therapy and form the current study population. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of second line treatment or progression mandating therapy until death from any cause or the date of last follow up. The OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test was used to estimate the difference in survival curves. Results The median age was 62.8 years (36.1 - 85.3); 63.1% were males; 64.7% / 59.3% / 11.4% had cardiac / renal / hepatic involvement and 24.2% / 32.1% / 23.3% / 20.3% had MS I/II/III/IV. The median estimated follow up for this cohort was 69.4 months (95% CI; 64.4, 76.8) from the start of first line therapy and 45.2 months (95% CI; 36.5, 50.6) from the start of second line therapy or progression requiring treatment. The median time to second line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 16.2 months (1-93) from the start of first line therapy. At relapse, 14 patients underwent ASCT, 165 were treated with proteasome inhibitor (PI) based therapy, 83 with immunomodulator (IMiD) based therapy, 33 with alkylator based therapy, 15 with a combination of PI and IMiD, 10 with steroids, 8 with other therapies and 38 did not receive treatment. Among the 366 patients, 124 (33.9%) required change or reinstitution of therapy during follow up at the time of analysis. The median time to third line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 31 months (95% CI; 24, 40.5) from the start of second line treatment. The median overall survival (OS) was 76.4 months (95% CI; 65.2, 83.6) from the start of first line therapy and 38.8 months (95% CI; 29.6, 52.6) from the start of second line therapy. The type of therapy at relapse (ASCT vs PI vs IMiD vs melphalan vs steroids and others) did not alter the time to next therapy (ASCT, 43.1m; PI, 31m; IMiD, 37m; melphalan, 20.8m; steroids and others, 20m; p=0.3) and OS (ASCT, 66.9m; PI, 51.1m; IMiD, 51.3m; melphalan, 37.2m; steroids and others, 80.7m; p=0.9) from the start of the second line treatment; as depicted in Figure 1. Retreatment with a different drug class (as the first line treatment) at relapse significantly reduced the time to next treatment (32.3m vs 22 m; p= 0.01) as compared to same therapy; but did not have any impact on survival (30.8m vs 51.1m; p = 0.5); as presented in Figure 2. Conclusion This study provides novel information about outcomes of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who relapse or progress after first line therapy which could be useful in planning salvage therapies and designing clinical trials. Retreatment with a different therapy at relapse improves time to next therapy but does not impact OS. Hence, we conclude that the patients can fare well post relapse/ progression and can benefit from various treatment regimens including retreatment with the same agent. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Melphalan based chemotherapy is commonly used for treatment of light chain amyloidosis (AL). Patients with AL often receive chemotherapy before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) if they have high plasma cell burden or while awaiting ASCT. Melphalan is an alkylator and can affect bone marrow stem cells. Limited data is available on the effect of melphalan on stem cell mobilization in patients with amyloidosis. This study aims to identify the impact of melphalan therapy on collection of stem cells and ASCT in amyloidosis. Methods: All patients with AL seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who underwent stem cell harvest were identified from an institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment, stem cell harvest and ASCT was extracted from the electronic medical records. Analysis was carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Results: Three hundred and seventy two patients with AL who met the inclusion criteria were identified, of whom 10% (n=38) received melphalan based chemotherapy prior to harvesting, 28.5% (n=106) received non-melphalan based chemotherapy and 61.3% (n=228) received no chemotherapy prior to stem cell collection. Bortezomib based regimens were the most common (78%, n=83) non-melphalan based chemotherapy. All three groups were similar in terms of median age at diagnosis (59.1 years), median age at collection (59.4 years), gender distribution (59% males, n=221) and type of involved free light chain (FLC), with lambda being more common (72.2%, n=268). Patients who received melphalan-based chemotherapy had more cardiac (73.8% vs. 45.2% vs. 46.4%, p=0.005) and renal (84.2% vs. 50.9% vs. 68%, p=0.0002) involvement compared to other chemotherapy and no chemotherapy groups, respectively. In contrast, patients who received non-melphalan based chemotherapy had higher plasma cell burden (15% vs. 6% vs. 10%, p< 0.0001) and greater difference between involved and uninvolved FLC (44.2 mg/dL vs. 13.3 mg/dL vs. 13.2 mg/dL, p< 0.0001) compared to melphalan and no chemotherapy, respectively. Median duration of melphalan based chemotherapy was shorter at 54 days (34.5 to 79.5) or estimated 2 cycles compared to 101 days (60 to 135.5) or estimated 4 cycles (p=0.0019). Despite shorter duration of chemotherapy, total stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was lower in patients who received melphalan based chemotherapy (5.54) compared to non-melphalan based chemotherapy (8.14) or no prior chemotherapy (7.94); p<0.0001. Similarly, day one stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was the lowest in the melphalan group (2.71), followed by other chemotherapy group (3.63) and highest in no chemotherapy group (4.84); p<0.0001. This trend persisted for average stem cell yield per collection as illustrated in table 1. Filgrastrim (GCSF) alone was the most common mobilizing agent. However, patients with any chemotherapy prior to harvesting had higher utilization of plerixafor; 26.3% (n=10) in the melphalan group and 39.6% (n=42) in the non-melphalan group compared to 11.6% (n=27) if no prior chemotherapy (p<0.0001). However, no statistically significant difference was seen for melphalan vs. non-melphalan chemotherapy groups (p=0.44). In patients who underwent ASCT (85%, n=315), median stem cell dose (million CD34/kg) was different in the melphalan (3.66), non-melphalan (4.2) and no chemotherapy groups (4.44) (p=0.047), though the difference was not statistically significant amongst the 2 chemotherapy groups (p=0.34). There was also no difference in time to engraftment (table 1). Conclusions: Melphalan based chemotherapy, even if used for a short duration of time, significantly decreases both total stem cell yield and the yield on day one. It therefore has the potential to add to resource utilization with more collections needed. As much as possible, limited cycles of melphalan based chemotherapy or non-melphalan based treatment should be utilized in patients who are transplant eligible. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Chemotherapeutic options for patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) who are not transplant candidates include bortezomib based therapy, melphalan with dexamethasone, and less commonly, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). However, prospective clinical trial data comparing these regimens are lacking. This study aims to compare efficacy of bortezomib-based treatment to other therapies. Methods: All patients with AL seen within 90 days of diagnosis at our institution over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who did not undergo a stem cell transplant were identified from our institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were extracted from electronic medical records. Analyses were carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as time to death, progression requiring treatment change or relapse requiring re-institution of treatment. PFS and overall survival was analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Seven hundred and twenty five patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 38% (n=275) received bortezomib containing regimens and 62% (n=450) received non-bortezomib based therapies. Bortezomib was used with dexamethasone in 24% (n=67) patients; and with other drugs, most commonly cyclophosphamide, in 76% (n=208) patients. Non-bortezomib treatment regimens included melphalan-based treatment in the majority (92%, n=414) followed by IMiDs with steroids and other drugs (8%, n=36). Baseline variables similar in both groups and their distribution in the entire cohort was as follows: gender distribution (63.3% males, n=459), median age of diagnosis (66.3 years, range 32.2 to 93.6), type of involved free light chain (FLC) (lambda 73%, n=523) and median plasma cell burden (10%, range 0 to 91). Median difference between the involved and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) was higher in the bortezomib group (29 mg/dL vs. 23 mg/dL; p=0.017). There was no difference in organ involvement. In the bortezomib group, organ involvement was as follows: cardiac (81%, n=219), renal (62%, n=168) and hepatic (18%, n=48). In the non-bortezomib group, the rates of organ involvement were similar: cardiac (78%, n=346), renal (57%, n=247) and hepatic (19%, n=85). Median duration of first line treatment was similar in the 2 groups, with 178 days in the bortezomib cohort and 187 days in the non-bortezomib cohort. Response rates are illustrated in Table 1. Rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better response were higher in the bortezomib group (64 % vs. 54%, p=0.0002). Patients treated with bortezomib achieved VGPR faster with higher rates of VGPR or better response seen at 3 months (48% vs. 27%, p <0.0001) and 6 months (57% vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) after initiation of therapy compared to non-bortezomib treatment. Rates of organ response were similar amongst the 2 groups as shown in Table 1. However, median time taken to achieve a cardiac response was shorter in the bortezomib group (23 vs. 38 weeks, p=0.0026). In a multivariable model, bortezomib-based treatment and dFLC at diagnosis were predictors of VGPR. Relapse or progression requiring change in therapy was more common in patients treated with non-bortezomib based therapy (38%, n=143/372) compared to bortezomib-based treatment (28%, n=67/236); p =0.01). However, no difference in overall survival was observed in patients treated with bortezomib (2.2 years; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 3.3) vs. non-bortezomib therapies (1.7 years; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.5). Conclusion: Treatment with bortezomib-based regimens results in a deeper response including higher rates of early VGPR at 3 and 6 months from starting therapy. Moreover, these patients achieve cardiac response faster and have lower rate of relapse. However, no difference in overall survival was seen, which may be explained by subsequent use of bortezomib-based therapies in this population. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Hematologic response criteria for light chain amyloidosis (AL) requires that difference in involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) be at least 5 mg/dL (or 50 mg/L). However, many patients do not meet these criteria and are often excluded from clinical trials. These patients are challenging to follow clinically as organ response takes much longer and therefore response to treatment is difficult to evaluate in the first few cycles. This study aims to evaluate patients who had non-evaluable FLC (dFLC< 5 mg/dL) at diagnosis and compare them to those who had evaluable FLC (dFLC≥ 5 mg/dL). Methods: All patients with newly diagnosed AL seen within 90 days of diagnosis at our institution over a 10-year period (2006-2015) were identified from an institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up was extracted from electronic medical records. Analysis was carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as time to progression requiring treatment change or relapse requiring re-institution of treatment or death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 1336 patients meeting inclusion criteria, dFLC at diagnosis was known in 1290. 85.4% (n=1101) had dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL, while 14.6% (n=189) had non-evaluable FLC. Median age at diagnosis (65.2 vs. 63.9 years), gender distribution (males 56.1% vs.64.8%) and involved FLC (lambda: 72.2% vs. 72.9%) was similar in FLC < 5 mg/dL and FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL group. Cardiac (38.1 vs. 76.3%, p <0.0001) and liver (10.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.03) organ involvement were less common in patients with non-evaluable FLC (table 1). NT-ProBNP was significantly lower in the group with dFLC < 5 mg/dL in patients with and without cardiac involvement, as was Mayo cardiac stage (table 1). A trend towards less gastrointestinal (GI) involvement (17.1% vs. 24%, p=0.09) was also seen with dFLC < 5 mg/dL. In contrast, a trend towards higher renal involvement was seen in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL (64.6% vs. 55.9%, p=0.08), though this was not statistically significant. Median 24 hour urine protein was significantly higher in all patients (with and without renal involvement) with dFLC < 5 mg/dL compared to dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL group (table 1). Treatment details are listed in Table 1. ASCT (autologous stem cell transplant) was utilized more commonly in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL compared to patients with dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL(43.2% vs. 26.1%, p <0.0001), including ASCT alone without chemotherapy (35.4% vs. 15.3%, p <0.0001).Rates of cardiac response (53.3% vs. 50.3%, p=0.88), and time to response (27.7 weeks vs. 35.6 weeks, p=0.67), were similar in both groups. Similarly, there was no difference in rates of renal and liver response and time taken to achieve a response (table 1). In patients with evaluable FLC, hematologic response was complete response (27.3%, n=245), very good partial response (21%, n=189), partial response (18%, n=160), no response (8%, n=74), progression (2%, n=15) and not known in 26.1% (n=216). In patients who had follow up data available, 30.6% (44/144) with dFLC < 5mg/dL experienced a relapse/progression with median PFS of 4.1 years (95% confidence interval (CI): 3 to 5.7), while 34.7% (304/875) with FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL experienced a relapse/progression with median PFS of 1.3 years (95% CI 1.1 to 1.5); p<0.0001. Median OS was higher in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL at diagnosis at 8.3 years compared to 2.4 years in patients with dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL (p < 0.0001) as depicted in Figure 1. Conclusions: Patients with non-evaluable FLC at diagnosis have significant differences in organ involvement and survival compared to those with FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL at diagnosis. They have less cardiac and liver involvement and a trend towards less GI involvement, which may be secondary to low serum FLC burden and consequent less organ deposition. However, a trend towards higher renal involvement was seen in dFLC < 5 mg/dL group, with significantly higher urinary protein excretion. Loss of FLC in urine may result in lower serum FLC levels in this group. Survival was significantly better in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL, which may be explained by less cardiac involvement, lower cardiac stage and lower median FLC at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry captures data on acute leukemias (AL) that morphologically do not conform to well characterized acute leukemic entities in the established French-American-British (FAB) nomenclature. Not much is known about population level outcomes of these rare AL. We performed a comprehensive survival analysis of these rare AL over a forty-year period using the SEER registry. Methods: SEER 18 dataset was queried to identify adult patients (pts > 18 years) diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) and rare AL from 1973-2012. Rare AL cases were identified using ICD-O-3 morphology codes and included Leukemias, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (9800-01, 9860) and myeloid sarcoma (9930). Data on demographics,follow up and survival was abstracted. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors influencing survival of rare AL and survival patterns were compared to AML and ALL. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: We identified 61,550 AML pts, 13,457 ALL pts, 525 myeloid sarcoma pts and 13,446 pts with leukemia NOS. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (yrs, range 18-100) for AML, 54 yrs (18-100) for ALL, 65 yrs (18-95) for myeloid sarcoma and 76 yrs (18-100) for leukemia NOS. Gender distribution was similar with females comprising 45.9% of AML, 43% of ALL, 42.3% of myeloid sarcoma and 47.2% of leukemia NOS cases. Over 80% pts in all categories were Caucasian. Median survival was as follows: 0.4 (0-40) yrs for AML; 1.4 (0-39.8) yrs for ALL; 0.7 (0-32.9) yrs for Myeloid Sarcoma; and 0.3 (0-38.9) yrs for leukemia NOS. In univariable analysis, younger age predicted for better survival for both myeloid sarcoma and leukemia NOS (p<0.0001). Improvement in survival over time period was observed for pts with leukemia NOS (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, advancing age was an independent prognostic factor for rare AL, both as a continuous variable and when categorized as older vs. younger pts using age cutoff of 60 yrs. Compared to younger pts, HR for pts > 60 yrs with rare AL was as follows: 2.68 (2.13-3.37; p <0.0001) for myeloid sarcoma; and 2.18 (2.07-2.31; p<0.0001) for leukemia NOS. No difference in survival over time was seen for myeloid sarcoma. Pts with leukemia, NOS diagnosed in yrs 2006-2012 (HR=0.87; 0.82-0.92; p < 0.0001) had better survival compared to the referent years 1973-80. Race and gender did not impact survival. In multivariable analysis, pts with leukemia NOS did worse overall compared to AML (HR=1.13; 1.11-1.53; p<0.0001) and ALL (HR=1.86; 1.81-1.91; p<0.0001). Interestingly, younger pts had a poorer outcome than AML (HR=1.10; 1.04-1.16; p=0.0003), but pts > 60 yrs had a better outcome (HR=0.93; 0.91-0.95; p<0.0001). Both younger (HR=1.33; 1.26-1.41; p<0.0001) and older pts (HR=1.45, 1.40-1.50: p<0.0001) compared unfavorably to ALL (Figure 1). Pts with myeloid sarcoma had a better survival compared to AML pts (HR=0.77; 0.7-0.85; p<0.0001) (Figure 2). This was uniform for pts <60 yrs (HR=0.77; 0.64-0.93; p=0.006) and > 60 yrs (HR= 0.77; 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001). Conclusion: Pts with leukemias NOS have poor outcomes compared to AML and ALL but prognosis has improved in recent years. The most probable explanation is identification of prognostic molecular mutations that has allowed accurate risk-stratification of pts using the WHO classification and in turn better selection of treatment strategies. Several reasons have limited our understanding of these rare AL - small numbers, exclusion from clinical trials and wide variability in treatment options used. Efforts at better molecular characterization of these AL holds the most promise for improving outcomes. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractThe role of consolidation post autologous stem cell transplant in light chain amyloidosis is not well defined. We retrospectively identified patients who had light chain amyloidosis and underwent autologous stem cell transplant at the Mayo Clinic. Consolidation was defined as any treatment given after the day 100 evaluation post‐transplant to maintain or deepen the response. We identified 471 patients, of whom 72 (15%) received consolidation. Patients receiving consolidation had more advanced disease (Mayo 2012 stage ≥II in 67% vs 52%, P = .02), and had lower day 100 response rates (very good partial response or better: 35% vs 84%, P < .001). After consolidation, rates of very good partial response improved from 24% to 28%, and rates of complete response improved from 11% to 40%. Patients with less than very good partial response who received consolidation, had better progression‐free survival (median of 22.4 vs 8.8 months, P < .001), and the benefit was greater in those who deepened their response (median of 41 vs 8.8 months, P < .001). In patients with less than very good partial response, there was a trend for better overall survival in patients who responded to consolidation (median of 125.8 vs 74.4 months, P = .07). In patients who achieved very good partial response, or better, at day 100 post autologous stem cell transplant, consolidation did not improve progression‐free or overall survival. Consolidation after autologous stem cell transplant for light chain amyloidosis improves progression‐free survival for patients who achieve less than very good partial response.