Rajkumar, S. Vincent

Abstract INTRODUCTION POEMS syndrome is a paraneoplastic disorder that results in multi-organ disease, and Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is associated with disease activity. There is evidence that the cytokine Interleukin- 6 (IL-6) stimulates VEGF production in several cancer cell lines. It has also been suggested that patients with POEMS syndrome experience symptoms improvement when IL-6 levels are low. Our study aims to understand the role of IL-6 and whether it is a contributor to disease activity in POEMS syndrome. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of patients (pts) seen at Mayo Clinic within 1 year of diagnosis for POEMS syndrome with an IL-6 level within 3 months of diagnosis between 01/01/2011-05/31/2021 were included. Our database comprised 358 pts,7 were excluded because did not have official diagnosis of POEMS syndrome. Two hundred and ninety-nine pts did not have IL-6 testing within 90 days of diagnosis and were excluded. Clinical data was abstracted from our electronic medical record. Descriptive statistics were used for IL-6 levels. The majority of IL-6 laboratory testing for pts utilized the same reference range. A minority of pts had alternate reference ranges; thus, all IL-6 values and reference ranges were fold-corrected to have a unified reference to determine elevation in IL-6. High IL-6 was considered any value above the normal range, also analyzed pts in quartiles and deciles. Hematologic, VEGF and PET response criteria were utilized to group pts into responders or non-responders. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Differences between curves were by log rank. Statistical analysis was conducted via JMP software package (SAS, Cary, NC, USA). Univariate analysis was done to determine the prognostic value of IL-6. Statistical significance is considered with p-values <0.05. RESULTS 52 patients from among 352 met criteria and were included for analysis. Twenty-one patients (40%) had elevated IL-6 levels (IQR 5.67, 22.6) at the time of diagnosis. The fold elevation about normal was typically not very high, with a median of 3.1-fold elevation (IQR 1.3, 4.4; and range 1.0, 8.3). The percentage of males in the high IL-6 versus the normal Il-6 group were 90% versus 65%, p=0.03. Compared to normal IL-6, those with elevated IL-6 values had more instances of hepatomegaly (43% vs 16%, p=0.03), ascites (28% vs 6%, p=0 .04), abnormal DLCO (26% vs 3%, p=0.03), mixed bone lesions (57% vs 29%, p= 0.04), and lower serum albumin (range 2.3-3.5 vs 2.5-4.5 g/dL, p=0.0008).There was a trend for lower VEGF values among the high IL-6 group, but this did not meet statistical significance (median 250 vs 438 pg/mL). There was no significant difference in the time to progression between pts with high versus normal IL-6 levels (HR 1.36; p=0.456). Overall survival was significantly longer in pts with normal IL-6 compared to pts with high IL-6 levels (Median OS 67.4 vs 47.8 months, p=0.02). Forty-two pts were evaluated for VEGF response after treatment; there was a significant improvement in time to progression (85.5 vs 14.9 months, p=0.03) in pts who were VEGF responders. Among pts evaluable for a hematologic response (n=15), time to progression in pts with baseline high IL6 was longer in hematologic responders compared to non-responders (p=0.02). Conclusion Although OS was longer for pts with normal IL-6, elevated IL-6 at the time of diagnosis does not prevent pts from achieving disease remission. The study demonstrates that response to treatment rather than interleukin-6 levels in pts with POEMS syndrome is more prognostic. This study is an important initial step into understanding the utility of IL-6 in POEMS syndrome. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Lin: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) prognostication models routinely used in clinical practice were developed for use at diagnosis. However, retrospective studies have shown that in SMM patients the risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM) decreases over time. Therefore, this study assessed whether the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 scores could be used dynamically to risk stratify patients post-diagnosis, and whether they could identify SMM patients with evolving disease. Methods: We retrospectively studied 704 SMM patients diagnosed between January 2000 to January 2020. Patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 and involved FLC ≥10 mg/dL or baseline bone marrow plasma cells ≥60% were excluded. We collected serial laboratory data and available pathology data and re-applied the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 SMM risk stratification models at annual landmark timepoints up to 5 years post SMM diagnosis. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Time to progression (TTP) was defined as time from diagnosis or landmark timepoint to treatment initiation for MM or systemic AL amyloidosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At SMM diagnosis, 271 (38%) patients were low risk, 228 (32%) were intermediate risk, and 205 (29%) were high risk per the Mayo 2018 score. Applying the IMWG 2020 score at diagnosis, 90 (34%) of patients were low risk, 111 (42%) were low-intermediate risk, 54 (21%) were intermediate risk, and 9 (3%) were high risk. The Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 risk scores was re-assessed annually post-diagnosis in patients without progression (respective sample sizes: n=430 and n=197 at year 1 landmark, n=326 and n=143 at year 2 landmark, n=260 and n=106 at year 3 landmark, n=203 and n=73 patients at year 4 landmark). The Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 models reliably stratified patients based on progression risk post diagnosis (as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively). As shown in Figure 1, if only diagnostic values were used in risk categorization with the Mayo 2018 model, the TTP between risk categories became less distinct over time. However, when follow-up laboratory values were used to re-stratify patients, the TTP between risk categories was more consistent over time. The respective 2-year progression risk in Mayo 2018 high-risk versus IMWG 2020 intermediate-high risk patients was 51% versus 62% at the 1-year landmark, 60% versus 65% at the 2-year landmark, 47% versus 62% at the 3-year landmark, and 47% versus 45% at the 4-year landmark. To assess the prognostic significance of an increase in SMM risk category, we stratified patients based on whether the SMM risk category at follow-up had increased versus was stable or decreased compared to the baseline SMM risk stratification. We found that patients evolving to a risk category during follow up consistently had an increased risk of progression compared to patients with a stable/decreased risk categorization using both the Mayo 2018 (HR 3.34, 95% CI 2.04-5.48, p<0.001 at 2-year landmark; HR 3.41, 95% CI 2.05-5.68, p<0.001 at 3-year landmark; HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.34-5.38, p=0.005 at 4-year landmark) and IMWG 2020 (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.42-3.77, p<0.001 at 1-year landmark; HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.69-5.70, p<0.001 at 2-year landmark; HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.30-4.78, p=0.004 at 3-year landmark; HR 2.26, 95% CI 0.91-5.60, p=0.072 at 4-year landmark) risk models. However, patients categorized as Mayo 2018 high-risk at follow-up had a similar risk of progression regardless of whether the baseline risk categorization was low-intermediate versus high-risk (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51-1.48, p=0.606 at 2-year landmark; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59-1.73, p=0.972 at 3-year landmark; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.34-1.65, p=0.467 at 4-year landmark). Conclusions: Our findings support the use of the Mayo 2018 and IMWG 2020 scores post-diagnosis. We showed that patients migrating to a higher risk category have an increased risk of progression. This suggests that if patients evolve to a high-risk score during follow-up, they should be considered for an early intervention treatment approach. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Achievement of a complete response (CR) to therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) early in disease course correlates with improvement in clinical outcomes, reflective of therapeutically sensitive disease biology. While depth of response is known to impact overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the effect of known prognostic variables at baseline including FISH risk and International Staging System (ISS) score outside of clinical trial settings is not well described. We sought to determine the impact of known prognostic variables in MM including FISH and ISS risk in the context of NDMM patients achieving a CR to therapy and to also examine additional predictors of outcome among this cohort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 1869 NDMM patients who had ≥ 2 consecutive monoclonal protein immunofixation (IFE) studies in the serum and urine available within 24 months from diagnosis. We identified the number of patients who had ≥ 2 negative serum and urine IFE as a surrogate for achieving CR (N=461), since a bone marrow biopsy is not routinely performed to confirm CR in the non-trial setting. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to compare median PFS and OS between patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR and a multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for known prognostic variables. A cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of baseline FISH (high risk vs. standard risk) and ISS scores (3 vs.1 and 2) on PFS and OS, among patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR, and identify additional prognostically significant variables within the CR cohort. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort (n=1869) was 64 months (range: 1-199). The median time from diagnosis to achievement of CR among the CR cohort was 9.8 months (0.20-23.8 months). The median PFS for CR (n=461) vs. non-CR (n=1408) patients was 42.0 vs. 29.3 months (p<.0001) and median OS was 124.4 vs. 85.6 months (p<.0001), respectively (Figure 1). The impact of achieving a CR on outcomes was retained after adjusting for FISH, ISS, age, sex, autologous stem cell transplant, and involved heavy chain as follows: PFS HR 0.57 (0.43-0.76; p=0.0001); OS HR 0.56 (0.43-0.74; p<0.0001). The baseline FISH and ISS risk on PFS and OS comparing CR vs. non-CR patients are shown in Table 1, with both variables having statistically insignificant impact on PFS and OS among the CR cohort. We examined several variables present at baseline and at the time of CR to determine their impact on PFS and OS, including age, sex, and non-IgG involved heavy chain (baseline), and thrombocytopenia (<150,000), hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL), and immunoparesis (at time of CR). The following variables were found as inferior predictors on PFS within the CR cohort with hazard ratios as follows: male gender, HR 1.36 (1.05-1.75; p=0.02) and non-IgG involved heavy chain, HR 2.2 (1.55-3.2).The following variables were found as predictors for inferior outcomes on OS within the CR cohort with hazard ratios as follows: Age> 75 years, HR 2.7 (1.54-4.8; p=.0005); male gender, HR 1.5 (1.1-2.02; p=.008); serum albumin <3.5, HR 1.54 (1.1-2.08; p=.004); and non-IgG involved heavy chain, HR 1.75 (1.23-2.47; p=.002). On multivariate analysis, age, hypoalbuminemia, and non-IgG involved heavy chain retained prognostic significance for OS. Conclusion: Attainment of an early CR in NDMM confers improvement in PFS and OS. Our study confirms these findings and suggests that achievement of CR neutralizes the impact of baseline FISH and ISS risk on PFS and OS. Among the CR cohort, age> 75 years, male sex, non-IgG involved heavy chain, and hypoalbuminemia at the time of CR predict for inferior overall survival. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell malignancy characterized by a collection of cytogenetic abnormalities that drive clinical presentation, response to treatment, and prognosis. The most common immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) translocation found in MM, t(11;14), results in CCND1 overexpression. Although t(11;14) is considered a standard risk cytogenetic abnormality, heterogeneity in patient outcomes and response to therapy within the t(11;14) group has been reported. In contrast to t(11;14) mantle cell lymphoma, where most cases (73%) have a typical, balanced t(11;14) rearrangement, only 47% of t(11;14) MM have a typical, balanced t(11;14) FISH pattern; the remaining 53% of MM are characterized by an atypical t(11;14) FISH result (Dalland, Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 2021). Here, we compared the genetic characteristics of typical vs. atypical t(11;14) MM and the association with other genomic abnormalities, CCND1 expression, IGH breakpoint location and patient outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of newly diagnosed t(11;14) MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic (N=411) or enrolled in the MMRF CoMMpass trial (N=167). The t(11;14) FISH results of the Mayo Clinic samples were segmented into two groups: typical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=179, 3 red, 3 green, 2 fusion signals) and atypical CCND1/IGH signal pattern (n=232, any FISH pattern deviating from typical). The CoMMpass cases had both RNAseq and long-insert WGS data and were analyzed to detect gene expression, structural and copy number variants and IGH breakpoint locations. These data were used to classify the t(11;14) as typical (n=63) or atypical (n=104) and whether there was a single t(11;14) fusion (n=107) or a gain of the t(11;14) fusion (n=60), and whether these cases were associated with changes in gene expression or breakpoint location. Differences between the groups were measured using χ2 and Wilcoxon tests. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan Meier and compared using the Log-Rank test. Statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. Results: Of the Mayo t(11;14) cohort, 232/411 (56%) had an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern and 179/411 (44%) had a typical t(11;14) FISH pattern. Although an atypical t(11;14) FISH pattern was not significantly associated with monosomy 17/17p deletion, MYC rearrangements, 1q gain or ISS stage III, it was significantly associated with the presence of any trisomy in comparison to typical t(11;14) cases (40/222=18% vs.12/166=7%, p=0.002). Atypical t(11;14) cases had an increase in CCND1 gene expression compared to typical t(11;14) cases (median 375.0 RPKM vs. 266.4 RPKM, p<0.0001) and cases with a gain of the t(11;14) fusion were associated with even greater CCND1 expression compared to cases with a single t(11;14) fusion (median 459.4 RPKM vs. 263.2 RPKM, p<0.0001). We next evaluated whether the t(11:14) FISH pattern was associated with differences in IGH breakpoint locations. Nearly 80.0% of atypical t(11;14) cases had a breakpoint within the constant region of the IGH locus commonly reported for MM, while only 61.0% of the typical cases had constant region breakpoints (p=0.035); the remaining cases had breakpoints involving the VDJ region. We next evaluated the impact of atypical t(11;14) FISH on OS. In Mayo cases, OS was significantly shorter in patients with atypical FISH patterns compared to typical t(11;14) FISH patterns (6.9 years [95% CI: 5.1-7.8] vs. 9.0 years [95% CI: 7.0-11.6], p=0.019). Although atypical t(11;14) was associated with increased risk of death (RR 1.45, p=0.021), this finding was not retained in a multivariate model including high risk abnormalities such as age, ISS stage, 17p deletion and 1q gain demonstrating atypical t(11;14) is not an independent predictor of poor outcome when treated with standard therapies. Conclusions: Atypical t(11;14) FISH in MM is found in approximately half of t(11;14) cases, is associated with trisomies, higher CCND1 expression and is more likely to have a breakpoint involving the constant region of the IGH locus. The enrichment of VDJ breakpoints within typical t(11;14) MM is consistent with enrichment of VDJ IGH breakpoints in MCL, which are mostly characterized by typical t(11;14) FISH patterns. While not an independent predictor of outcome with standard therapies, it remains to be evaluated whether patients with typical or atypical t(11;14) have a differential response to novel agents, such as venetoclax. Disclosures Fonseca: Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Multiple Myeloma (MM) remains incurable with current approaches and eventually relapses in nearly all patients. At relapse, patients may present with increasing serum and/or urine monoclonal (M) protein or with clinical features suggestive of progression. The outcomes of different progression patterns need to be better understood to provide insight about the optimal time to intervene with salvage therapy. This study aimed to describe the prevalence and outcome of biochemical (BP) versus clinical progression (CP) in a real-world setting. Methods We retrospectively assessed 1347 relapsed MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic between February 2001 and December 2018. CP was defined as per IMWG criteria (increase ≥50% in size or new plasmacytomas/bone lesions, hypercalcemia ≥11.5 mg/dl, decrease in hemoglobin ≥2 g/dl or to ≤10 g/dl, rise in serum creatinine ≥2g/dl, hyperviscosity), while BP was defined as increase in serum or urine M protein leading to initiation of a new line of therapy without meeting criteria for CP. Aggressive relapse was defined as new extramedullary disease (EMD), plasma cell leukemia or hyperviscosity requiring plasmapheresis. The overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from 1 st relapse to last follow-up or death. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was defined as the time between initiation of 2 nd and 3 rd line therapy. Results Prevalence of different patterns of relapse is presented in Table 1. The majority of progressions were BP (60.4%); among the CP (39.6%), the most common presentation was a new bone lesion. Similar proportions of BP and CP patients were diagnosed before 2013 (70% and 73%; p=0.2). The median time from diagnosis to 1 st relapse was 22.8 months (range, 0.4-154.7) and was shorter in the CP group in comparison to BP (20.8 [range, 1.0-152.1] vs 23.7 [range, 0.4-154.7] months, p=0.001). With the exception of ISS stage, patients in the CP group had higher risk features at MM diagnosis including: high-risk (HR) FISH ([4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], deletion 17p or p53 mutation; 29% vs 20%, p=0.01); elevated LDH (23% vs 17%, p=0.03); and EMD (19% vs 10%, p<0.001). CP patients more often had non-secretory disease at baseline (6% vs 2%, p<0.001). At 1 st line, patients with eventual CP were less likely to have received novel agents (78% vs 85%, p<0.001), upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT, 43% vs 51%, p=0.004), and lenalidomide-based maintenance (11% vs 16%, p=0.01). While patients in the CP group were less likely to have achieved very good partial remission (VGPR) or better to the 1 st line therapy (53% vs 60%, p=0.01), the percentage of patients who achieved CR was similar between the groups (22% vs 24%, p=0.4). Relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance was more prevalent in the CP (46% vs 40%, p=0.04). On multivariable logistic regression model male sex, plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) ≥2% and EMD at diagnosis were associated with higher risk of CP, whereas achieving VGPR or better after 1 st line treatment was associated with decreased risk of CP. Patients with CP had shorter median TTNT from 2 nd line therapy compared to BP (9.6 vs 17.0 months, p<0.001) as well as shorter median OS from 1 st relapse (26.2 vs 59.4 months, p<0.001; Figure 1). Amongst patients with CP, those presenting with typical "aggressive" versus "CRAB" features at relapse had a significantly shorter median TTNT (6.0 vs 11.0 months, p<0.001) and OS (17.2 vs 28.1 months, p<0.001). Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, CP (vs BP) was a predictor of shorter TTNT from 2 nd line therapy (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.20-1.62, p<0.001), along with ISS stage III, HR FISH at diagnosis and relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance, whereas the use of upfront ASCT was a predictor of longer TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. CP was also a predictor of shorter OS from 1 st relapse (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-1.81, p<0.001) along with age >65 years, male sex, ISS stage III, HR FISH at diagnosis, EMD at diagnosis and relapse while on primary treatment/maintenance. Conclusions Patients with clinical features at relapse have a worse prognosis after 1 st relapse than patients who relapsed solely biochemically. Approximately half of CP presented while on active treatment, which suggests that even patients monitored closely may develop CRAB features at relapse. Factors that help predict the occurrence of CP include male sex, PCLI ≥2% and EMD at diagnosis. Patients with deeper response to 1 st line treatment are less likely to develop CP. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease, and its prognosis is largely influenced by clinicopathological features, response to therapy, and relapse characteristics. Despite novel agents and the attempts to individualize treatment strategies based on baseline risk stratification, significant variations in progression-free survivals (PFS) and overall survivals (OS) are observed between patients. We examined the outcomes of MM patients stratified according to timing of first relapse into early (<2 years) and late (>5 years). Methods We retrospectively assessed 1441 MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2018. Patients were 18 years or older and had at least one disease relapse that required an additional line of treatment. The study cohort was divided into three groups based on time of first relapse: early relapse (<2 years from diagnosis), relapse between 2 to 5 years from diagnosis, and late relapse (>5 years from diagnosis). The independent predictors of early/late relapse were identified using a forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression. Odds ratios in multivariate models were adjusted for age and sex. Results Early relapse has been recognized in 758 patients (52.6%), relapse between 2-5 years in 561 patients (38.9%), late relapse in 122 patients (8.5%). Six patients had a PFS >10 years. In comparison to patients with late relapse, patients with early relapse were older (median 63 vs 61 years, p=0.04), more frequently ISS stage III (40% vs 20%, p<0.001) had higher bone marrow plasma cell infiltration (median 60% vs 40%, p<0.001), and were more likely to have high-risk (HR) FISH (defined as translocation t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], deletion 17p or p53 mutation; 28% vs 11%, p<0.001). At diagnosis, early relapse group more often presented with anemia (35% vs 21%, p=0.004), hypercalcemia (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), renal insufficiency (19% vs 5%, p<0.001) and higher serum beta-2-microglobulin (median 4.4 vs 3.4 mg/l, p<0.001). In terms of first line treatment, novel agents use was higher in early relapse group in comparison to late relapse group (82% vs 72%, p=0.007). Early relapse patients more often received PI-based therapy (30% vs 10%, p<0.001) or PI+IMID-based therapy (22% vs 12%, p=0.01), whereas late relapse patients received more often IMID-based therapy (63% vs 37%, p<0.001). No differences in the maintenance therapy were observed. Early relapse patients were less frequently treated with upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT, 35% vs 60%, p<0.001). Progression on active treatment/maintenance was observed more often in the early relapse group (55% vs 18%, p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression model early relapse (vs all remaining patients) was predicted by HR cytogenetic features (odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-5.46, p<0.001), non-IgG isotype disease (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, p=0.02), a non-ASCT pathway (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.71-4.52, p<0.01), and by achieving less than a very good partial remission (VGPR; OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.96-5.35, p<0.01). The only factor associated with decreased chances of late relapse (vs all remaining patients) on multivariate logistic regression model was the presence of HR FISH features (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.82, p=0.03). Median PFS from first relapse for the whole population was 13.9 months (95% CI 12.9-15.1), median OS from first relapse - 44.6 months (95% CI 41.7-183.0). Early relapse group exhibited worse median PFS and OS from first relapse (median PFS 9.1 months; median OS 26.6 months) than patients who relapsed 2-5 years after diagnosis (median PFS 18.5 months; OS 71.9 months), or late relapse group (median PFS 31.6 months; median OS 87.8 months; p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusions Early relapse (<2 years) is an indicator for shorter duration of response to subsequent treatments, and worse OS. Treatment with upfront ASCT and achieving VGPR or better after first line therapy lower the risk of early relapse. The only parameter that is predictive for both early and late relapse is HR FISH features. Although factors that predict worse survival in MM are well defined, further studies are needed to identify predictors of a more indolent disease course so that future therapeutic approaches can be tailored to each individual. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), and clonal hematopoiesis (CH) are three common premalignant hematological conditions. MBL is a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), MGUS is a precursor to both multiple myeloma (MM) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), and CH is a possible precursor to myeloid disease. All three conditions are independently associated with aging. Furthermore, there is evidence that all three conditions are associated with increased risk of infection. The relationship among these conditions, the prevalence with which they co-exist, and the association between the number of premalignant conditions and risk of infection is unknown. Methods Study participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a large-scale biorepository of adult patients, provided a peripheral blood sample between 7/14/2009 to 06/18/2015. Individuals were screened for MBL using eight-color flow cytometry capable of detecting clonal B-cells to the 0.005% level. MGUS was screened using a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) assay. CH was screened using a targeted sequencing panel of 42 CH-associated genes with at least 1000x read depth and the ability to detect variant allele fractions down to 1%. All study participants resided in Olmsted County, Minnesota, the county that includes Mayo Clinic. Serious infection, defined as hospitalization due to infection, was abstracted from medical records from the time of sample collection through 12/31/2020 or date of death. The medical record abstractor collecting data was blinded to condition. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between each of the conditions. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI to assess the association between number of premalignant conditions with risk of infection. All analyses were adjusted for age at sample collection and sex. Results A total of 407 individuals (55% male, median age 68 years) were screened for all three conditions. The prevalence was 19.9% (n=81) for MBL, 14.5% (n=59) for MGUS, and 25.6% (n=104) for CH. When we evaluated the association between each of the conditions, we found no evidence of an association between the prevalence of CH and risk of MBL (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.43-1.42), CH and risk of MGUS (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.66-2.27), or MGUS and risk of MBL (OR=1.32, 95% CI:0.66-2.52). The prevalence of co-existence of these conditions was assessed by grouping individuals based on their condition or conditions (Figure 1A). We found that 197 (48.4%) study participants had at least one premalignant condition and 10.6% had two or more. Individuals with 2 or more conditions were the oldest (median age 74 years), followed by 1 condition (median 69 years) and 0 conditions (median 67 years, P-trend <0.001). Sex was not significantly different across the groups, with 55%, 58%, and 47% male for 0, 1, and 2 conditions, respectively. Medical record abstraction identified 97 serious infection events in 80 individuals. Medical records were not available on 7 individuals. The most common infections were urinary tract (20 events), pneumonia (14 events), and cellulitis (14 events). Median follow-up time was 10.6 years (range 0.1-11.5 years). Compared to individuals with no condition, MBL (HR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.06-2.88) and MGUS (HR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.04-2.93) were associated with increased risk of serious infection. We found no evidence of an association with CH (HR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.71-1.87). When grouped by the number of conditions, we observed a significant trend (P-trend <0.01, Figure 1B) in risk of serious infections by the number of conditions: individuals with 1 condition had a 35% increased risk of infections (HR=1.35, 95% CI:0.83-2.20) and individuals with 2 or more conditions had a 2.6-fold increased risk (HR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.37-4.84). Discussion At least one premalignant condition was present in nearly 50% of the study population, with CH being the most prevalent. No evidence of a relationship between any of the three conditions was observed. However, we found increased susceptibility to serious infections as the number of conditions increased with individuals with at least two conditions had 2.6-fold increased risk of infections. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Kay: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: A number of cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in MM, including del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and amp1q21. There is a general consensus that treatment with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) benefits pts carrying these CAs (Sonneveld Blood 2016). This meta-analysis of four phase 3 studies assesses PFS benefit in pts receiving the oral PI ixa vs pbo regarding the specific adverse CAs. Methods: Pts in TOURMALINE-MM1 (N=722; relapsed/refractory MM; Moreau N Engl J Med 2016) and MM2 (N=705; newly diagnosed MM; Facon Blood 2021) received ixa plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs pbo-Rd (1:1). Pts in TOURMALINE-MM3 (N=656; Dimopoulos Lancet 2019) and TOURMALINE-MM4 (N=706; Dimopoulos J Clin Oncol 2020) received ixa vs pbo (3:2) as maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant or as post-induction maintenance in transplant-ineligible pts, respectively. In TOURMALINE-MM1/MM2, CAs were centrally assessed on CD138 positive sorted cells from bone marrow samples collected at study entry using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Cutoff values for defining the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16) were 5%, 3%, and 3% positive cells, respectively, based on the false-positive rates (technical cutoffs) of the FISH probes used, and cutoff values of 3% (MM1) and 20% (MM2) were used for amp1q21. In TOURMALINE-MM3/MM4, cytogenetic assessment was performed locally using FISH or conventional karyotyping with locally defined thresholds for positivity. Results: 270/1227 (22%) vs 227/1019 (22%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had high-risk CAs [del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)]: 75 vs 62 in MM1, 60 vs 63 in MM2, 61 vs 54 in MM3, and 74 vs 48 in MM4. 957/1227 (78%) vs 792/1019 (78%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 200 vs 216 in MM1, 231 vs 234 in MM2, 252 vs 152 in MM3, and 275 vs 190 in MM4. 555/1142 (49%) vs 479/955 (50%) evaluable pts receiving ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy had expanded high-risk CAs (high-risk CAs ± amp1q21): 155 vs 154 in MM1, 134 vs 146 in MM2, 116 vs 88 in MM3, and 150 vs 91 in MM4. 587/1142 (51%) vs 476/955 (50%) had complementary standard-risk CAs: 122 vs 126 in MM1, 164 vs 153 in MM2, 154 vs 89 in MM3, and 148 vs 108 in MM4. After a median follow-up in the pooled analysis of 25.6 months (mos; 12.7, 54.6, 29.7, and 21.3 mos in MM1, MM2, MM3, and MM4, respectively), the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts with high-risk CAs was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.93; median 17.8 vs 13.2 mos) and 0.70, (95% CI 0.62-0.80; median 26.3 vs 17.6 mos) in pts with standard-risk CAs. In the subgroup analyses of expanded high-risk CAs, the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in pts in the expanded high-risk group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.87; median 18.1 vs 14.1 mos; Figure 1) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.85; median 36.1 vs 21.4 mos) in the complementary standard-risk group. Analyses of PFS according to the presence of individual CAs (Figure 2) indicated differing magnitudes of PFS benefit. Notably, in pts with t(4;14) (n=124 vs n=102), the HR for PFS with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy was 0.68 (95% CI 0.48-0.96; median 22.4 vs 13.2 mos), while for pts with amp1q21 (n=380 vs n=312), the HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.93; median 18.8 vs 14.5 mos) and for pts with del(17p) (n=141 vs n=107) the HR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.59-1.09; median 15.7 vs 13.2 mos). Conclusions: This pooled analysis demonstrated a PFS benefit with ixa-based therapy vs pbo-based therapy regardless of the presence of specific adverse CAs, with a similar magnitude of benefit in pts with (expanded) high-risk CAs and the respective complementary standard-risk groups. However, due to the differences in study eligibility criteria and pt populations, ixa combined with Rd or as single-agent maintenance therapy may not abrogate the negative impact of high-risk CAs. Analyses of PFS in subgroups with specific CAs indicated that the greatest magnitudes of benefit (lowest HRs) with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy were in pts with t(4;14) (HR 0.68) and pts with amp1q21 (HR 0.77), suggesting that the improved outcome with ixa-based vs pbo-based therapy in the expanded high-risk subgroup was primarily driven by PFS differences in pts with these more common CAs. Further study is needed, and additional sensitivity analyses will be presented in subsequent publications. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chng: BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lonial: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria. Morgan: Takeda: Honoraria. Iida: Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Moreau: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Dash: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib for the initial treatment of multiple myeloma and as maintenance treatment following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients

Abstract Background: Two global, randomized, placebo (pbo)-controlled phase 3 studies of single-agent ixazomib (ixa) maintenance therapy are currently ongoing for newly diagnosed MM patients following primary therapy that included autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (MM3, NCT02181413) or excluded ASCT (MM4, NCT02312258). Both trials have demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in their primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS): for MM3, median 26.5 months (mos) ixa vs 21.3 mos pbo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.720, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.582-0.890, P=0.002); for MM4, median 17.4 mos for ixa vs 9.4 mos for pbo (HR 0.659, 95% CI 0.542-0.801, P<0.001). Data for the key secondary endpoint, OS, have not previously been published. Methods: Full methods have previously been reported (Dimopoulos, Lancet 2019; Dimopoulos, J Clin Oncol 2020). Eligible patients (MM3, N=656; MM4, N=706) were randomized 3:2 to receive maintenance therapy with single agent ixa or pbo for a maximum of approximately 24 mos (26 cycles, to the nearest complete cycle) or until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. Results: At the most recent data cut-off (MM3, 29 January 2021; MM4, 15 October 2020), with median follow up of 64 mos and 36 mos, respectively, 27% (MM3, 174/656) and 29% (MM4, 203/706) of the intention-to-treat (ITT) population had OS events. In MM3, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for OS was 74% for ixa and 73% for pbo, though the median OS had not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.008, 95% CI 0.744-1.367, P=0.958; Figure). In MM4, the 5-year Kaplan-Meier OS estimate was 55% for ixa and 56% for pbo, though the median OS had also not yet been reached in either arm (HR 1.136, 95% CI 0.853-1.514, P=0.382; Figure). No new safety signals were identified, and the incidence of new primary malignancies in both studies was similar between ixa and pbo. Conclusions: These most current OS data for MM3 and MM4 have not demonstrated a statistically significant difference for the ixa or the pbo arm to date. After 64 mos of follow-up in MM3, the risk of OS does not differ between the study arms. After 36 mos of follow-up in MM4, the OS HR shows a trend that favors the pbo arm. Because interim analyses of OS may be overrepresented by deaths in patients who did not benefit from maintenance therapy, it is not known to what extent these results will be reflective of the ITT population at the time of the final analyses. As treatment options, including anti-CD38 mAb and other new mechanisms of action, for salvage therapies following progression continue to expand, OS is increasingly being confounded by subsequent therapies. Hence, demonstrating OS advantage for early line MM therapies is becoming increasingly challenging. OS data continue to be collected in these studies for later analyses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chng: Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Iida: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKlein: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Mateos: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: 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; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Suryanarayan: Takeda: Current Employment. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Fergus: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib as maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma following stem cell transplantation or induction therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

Abstract Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies remains an unmet need. Belantamab mafodotin is a first in class antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in MM utilizing a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting monomethyl auristatin F. The efficacy of belantamab in relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) patients has been reported in several randomized clinical trials. However, clinical trials have restricted patients' eligibilty. We report the "real world" efficacy and safety of belanatmab in patients treated at all three Mayo Clinic sites. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive MM patients that received at least one dose of belantamab outside a clinical trial. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR) and safety. Results: Thirty-seven RRMM patients were treated with belantamab between September 2020 and June 2021. The median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 37-83) and 64% were male. The median age at belantamab administration was 67 (IQR 59-74) and 14 patients (38%) were 70 years or older. Fifteen of 34 patients (44%) had high-risk FISH and 13 patients of 33 (39%) had ISS 3. Two patients had a creatinine of >2.5 mg/dL, and one patient was on dialysis. All three received full dose belantmab (2.5 mg/kg). The median time from diagnosis to belantamab initiation was 7 years (IQR 4-11), and the median prior lines of therapy was 8 (IQR 7-11). Twenty-seven patients (73%) underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation prior to belantamab therapy, and all patients were penta refractory (IMiD, PI, and anti CD38). Seven patients (19%) received CAR-T therapy prior to belantamab. The median number of belantamab doses administered was 3 (range 1-6). Thirty-one (84%) received belantamab monotherapy and 6 patients (16%) received belantamab in combination [pomalidomide (n=3), cyclophosphamide (n=2), or thalidomide (n=1)]. The overall response (ORR) rate to belantamab was 33% (out of 36 evaluable patients). Two patients (6%) achieved complete response (CR), 3 patients (8%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR), and 7 patients (19%) achieved partial response (PR). At data cutoff 20 patients (54%) are alive. Seventeen patients died of MM complications. The median follow-up was 6 months (IQR 3.5-7). The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort was 2 months (95% CI 1-3) and 7 months (95% CI 3--NR), respectively. Two patients died within the first cycle of belantamab (due to PD), and overall, 12 died within 100 days of belantamab therapy, all due to disease progression. Eleven patients (30%) were hospitalized during belantamab therapy. The reasons for hospitalization were related to MM in 4 patients (one patient with malignant ascites, one with hypercalcemia, 2 patients for pain management). Three patients were hospitalized due to thrombocytopenia (related to disease), and one due to an infusion-related reaction (IRR). Other reasons for hospitalization were infection (soft tissue abscess, n=1), proctitis (n=1) and tumor lysis (n=1). Keratopathy developed in 16 patients (43%). Keratopathy was grade 1 in 6 patients, grade 2 in 7 patients, and grade 3 in 3 patients. Only one patient had corneal erosions and 6 patients reported decreased visual acuity, (1 grade 3 keratopathy, 4 had grade 2 keratopathy, and 1 had grade 1 keratopathy). Two patients had IRR. Two patients reported gaining 3.5 kg each after therapy with belantamab was discontinued. Conclusions: The response rates are similar to those reported in randomized clinical trials. The role of belantamab in the era of other BCMA directed therapy (CAR-T, BiTEs) remains unclear. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.