Rajkumar, S. Vincent

Abstract Background Recommendations for 2 nd line treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients have been changing over the past two decades, given the introduction of novel agents, different side-effect profiles, and attempts at more individualized treatment approaches. We designed this study to characterize how 2 nd line treatment strategies have evolved over the last two decades for MM patients. Methods Patients with MM with at least one relapse treated with a 2 nd line regimen, seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003-2021, were included. To visualize trends in treatment choices we divided the study period into 2-year intervals and for descriptive purpose the period was divided into three 6-year intervals. We used "100% stacked area" charts to show how the constituent parts of the whole have changed over time. The height of each colored stack represents the proportion of patients in that category at a given point in time. Results A total of 1439 patients were included. Patients were diagnosed between 2001 and 2018, the initiation of 2 nd line treatment occurred between June 2003 and February 2021. Median age at diagnosis was 62.7 years (interquartile range, 55.8-69.3), 60.0% were male. International Staging System stage I was present in 23.5% of patients, stage II in 32.9% and stage III in 28.8%. In the 1 st line therapy novel agents were used in 82.8% of cases, regimens based on proteasome inhibitors (PI) in 26.5%, immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) in 42.0% and combination of PI+IMID in 21.1%. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was performed in 50.1% of patients, and maintenance after 1 st line was used in 25.2%. For 2 nd line treatment, during 2003-2008 the majority were treated with doublets (70.5%), followed by triplets (14.8%) and salvage ASCT (7.7%) (Figure 1A). Patients were treated with IMID or PI-based therapy (50.7% and 21.8%, respectively); only 3.7% received PI+IMID and 20.1% of patients received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. The most frequently used regimens were lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, 32.2%) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, 18.1%, Figure 1B). Between 2009-2014, the use of triplets in 2 nd line increased (43.0%), although doublets were still more common (50.9%). Like previous years, IMID-based therapy was most frequently used (37.3%), however, the use of PI-based therapy increased (36.0%). PI+IMID-based therapy was implemented in 17.9% of patient, and 27.3% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens included: RD (29.4%), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (CYBORD, 17.4%), bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, 13.4%) and VD (13.3%). Finally, during 2015-2021, triplets were most common (68.9%), followed by doublets (23.0%). IMID- and PI+IMID-based therapies were most often implemented (34.2% and 31.1%, respectively), followed by PI-based therapy (26.8%). 28.1% of patients received monoclonal antibodies; only 15.9% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens include RD (13.8%), carfilzomib-RD (11.6%), daratumumab-RD (9.8%), CYBORD (9.3%), VRD (8.8%), daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (5.9%) and daratumumab-VD (5.2%). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) from 2 nd line therapy has improved over the course of the three time periods (p<0.01; Figure 1C): years 2003-2008, 10.4 months; years 2009-2014, 13.2 months; and years 2014-2021, 16.6 months. Similarly, the median overall survival from 1 st relapse has increased over the three intervals: 30.9 months, 48.4 months, and 65.8 months, respectively. Conclusions Over the past two decades, the effectiveness of 2 nd line treatment has improved, reflected by improved TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. With the introduction of new agents in 2012-2015 (carfilzomib, pomalidomide and daratumumab) and favorable results for triplets demonstrated in randomized trials, the triplet therapies started to be used more frequently. Over time, the landscape of 2 nd line therapies has become more diverse, which may reflect a more individualized approach to each patient. Moreover, the large variety of treatment strategies makes comparisons more and more challenging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. 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; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. 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; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: 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; 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. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. 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: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

Abstract Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that are refractory to a proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiDs) and CD38/SLAMF7 directed monoclonal antibodies are commonly referred to as triple class refractory (TCR). This is an increasingly common clinical problem and here we present the outcomes, prognostic markers and response to therapy for patients with TCR disease. Methods: Consecutive patients with MM diagnosed between 01/01/2013 and 12/31/2018 and seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN were included in this study after institutional review board approval. Refractoriness to therapy was defined as progression or non-responsiveness (failure to achieve at least a minimal response) to therapy within 60 days of discontinuation of therapy, based on the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus definition. Patients meeting the definition for refractory disease for at least 1 PI (bortezomib, carfilzomib or ixazomib), 1 IMiD (lenalidomide, pomalidomide or thalidomide) and 1 monoclonal antibody (daratumumab, isatuximab or elotuzumab) were considered to have TCR disease and included in the study population. The first date when patients satisfied the above-mentioned criteria for TCR was used to calculate the follow-up, progression free survival (PFS) and OS for TCR disease. The mSMART 3.0 (www.msmart.org) classification was used to characterize high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics features in interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The currently prevalent international myeloma working group (IMWG) criteria were used for response assessment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for estimation of time-to-event endpoints. Reverse censoring was used for estimation of follow-up time. Cox regression was used for multivariate analyses. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of continuous variables and Chi square test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables, respectively Results: In this retrospective study, 249 consecutive patients with TCR status were identified. The median follow-up from diagnosis of MM till date of last follow-up was 6.8 years (95% CI: 6.3-7.3 years) and 1.9 years (95% CI: 1.6-2.4) from TCR MM to last follow-up. The median age at diagnosis of MM was 61 years (range 31-89) and at TCR was 65 years (range 32-93). The median number of lines of therapy for the entire cohort were 8 (range 1-17); the patients were exposed to a median of 5 (range 1-12) lines of therapy prior to TCR status. Baseline characteristics for the cohort are depicted in Table 1. The median time to development of triple refractory disease was 2.9 years (95% CI: 2.6-3.2 years) from diagnosis of MM. The time to TCR disease was shorter for high-risk cytogenetics at 2.3 years (95% CI: 2-2.7) compared to 3.4 years (95% CI: 3.1-4.1) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.4) p<0.0001], Figure 1A. The median overall survival (OS) from TCR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) years. High-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis of MM were associated with an inferior OS from TCR disease even after adjustment for age, and ISS stage [median 1.05 years (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) for high-risk vs 1.3 years (95% CI: 0.9-2.9) for standard-risk cytogenetics; hazard ratio 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01-2.05); p=0.04]. Of 249 patients, 227 had data available for therapy post TCR (initial therapy details post TCR status are depicted in Table 2) with a median PFS of 4 months (95% CI: 3.5-5) for the salvage therapy post attainment of TCR. Patients achieving a deeper response [≥partial response (PR)] were noted to have a significantly improved PFS with the initial therapy post TCR disease [median PFS 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-12.7)] compared to patients not achieving a PR [median PFS 2 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.7); HR 0.2 (95% CI: 0.13-0.27); p<0.0001], Figure 1B. Deeper response (≥PR) to initial therapy at TCR disease was associated with an improved PFS [HR 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16-0.34); p <0.0001] after adjusting for age at TCR status, ISS stage and cytogenetic risk categories at diagnosis. Conclusion: Patients with triple refractory MM have a guarded prognosis and demonstrate an underwhelming median PFS of 4 months and median OS of 1 year. Achievement of a deeper response to therapy at triple refractory status is associated with a prolonged PFS. High-risk cytogenetic features at diagnosis confer a negative prognosis in TCR patients. Newer therapies are the needed to sustain the improvement in outcomes for this group of patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; 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: Apellis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Sanofi: Research Funding; 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is frequently accompanied by renal impairment (RI) in 30-40% patients at presentation (Dimopoulos et al, IMWG 2010). As per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG), RI is defined as Creatinine clearance (CrCl) <40 mL/min. Patients with RI at diagnosis have inferior overall survival (OS), however, over the years their outcome has improved due to treatment with novel agents. We examined the baseline clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with a new diagnosis of multiple myeloma at our institution to identify factors associated with baseline RI and study prognostic trend over the last 2 decades. Methods We retrospectively reviewed records for MM patients with a new diagnosis of MM who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 1/2004 and 12/2018. RI was defined as per IMWG criteria. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square test and continuous variables using Wilcoxon test. Overall Survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and difference between groups was assessed using log-rank test. Results In our cohort of 2702 patients, median age at diagnosis was 65 (range, 22-96) years and 61% were males. Number of patients with CrCl <15, 15-29, 30-59 and ≥60 ml/min at diagnosis was 176 (6.5%), 204 (7.6%), 685 (25.3%) and 1637 (61%) respectively. RI was present in 557 (21%) of patients at the time of presentation. On univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with RI at diagnosis were higher age, ECOG PS ≥2, hemoglobin< 10 g/dL, calcium >11 mg/dL , LDH >222 U/L, β-2-microglobulin >5.5 mg/L, free light chain ratio >100, uric acid >8 mg/dL, higher ISS stage and cytogenetics [gain 1q, t (14;20), absence of any trisomy] as shown in table 1. However, on multivariate analysis, only elevated serum calcium >11 g/dL (OR: 11.5; 95%CI:1.78-74.9; p=0.01) and free light chain ratio>100 (OR: 4.17; 95%CI:1.29-13.4; p=0.016) had significant association with RI. The RI group had inferior OS when compared to patients with no RI at diagnosis (4.5 years vs 7.7 years, p-value <0.001). However, use of novel agents was associated with improvement in OS in patients with RI (4.9 years vs 2.6 years; p=0.0001) (Figure 1). Looking at trends over time, the rate of RI at presentation had not changed. Over the last two decades, OS for the CrCl<30 group had significantly improved in the last 5-year period (3.8 years in 2004-2014 vs not reached for 2014-2018; p= 0.0064) as shown in figure 2. Conclusion In our cohort of 2702 patient, frequency of RI at baseline was 21%, which corroborates with previous studies. Hypercalcemia and serum free light chain ratio were found to be independent factors associated with RI. RI at diagnosis is associated with inferior survival, however, use of novel agents in this population has led to improvement of patient outcomes. 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. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; 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. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: MASS-FIX is a novel method for detection, characterization and quantification of serum and urine monoclonal proteins in multiple myeloma (MM) which uses immunoglobulin enrichment coupled with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass-spectrometry (MALDI-TOF). MASS-FIX has been endorsed by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) as an alternative to immunofixation electrophoresis for diagnosis and disease monitoring in MM and has replaced immunofixation electrophoresis in our institution. This technique has demonstrated superior sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional gel-based methods, but its prognostic value is still unknown. We designed this study to evaluate whether serum M protein monitoring by MASS-FIX has prognostic significance in predicting disease progression in patients with MM. Methods: In the first part of the study, we included patients with MM who had a documented negative MASSFIX after first-line treatment and had serial MASS-FIX data available (n=187). We then compared the time to next treatment (TTNT) between patients who became positive by MASS-FIX and those who remained negative by last follow up. In the second part, we included patients who were positive by MASS-FIX within 90 days from diagnosis and had available serial MASS-FIX data (n=203). We compared TTNT between patients who became negative by MASS-FIX and those who remained positive by last follow up. TTNT was defined as the time of initiation of the first-line treatment to the time of initiation of second-line treatment or last follow up. Results: Part 1: We included 155 patients diagnosed with MM between January 2013 and December 2019 who had a documented negative MASSFIX with first-line treatment and had serial MASSFIX data available. After a median follow up of 3.1 (95%CI: 2.6-3.5) years, 44 (28%) patients became MASSFIX positive, while 111 (72%) still had negative MASS-FIX. The median time from treatment start to negative MASSFIX was 18.0 (IQR: 6.4-33.5) months. The median TTNT was 4.1 (95%CI: 3.2 - NR) years in patients who became MASSFIX positive and not reached (NR) (95%CI: NR-NR) in patients who were MASS-FIX negative by last follow up (P<0.001). The 2-year OS was 97% and 100% in the 2 groups, respectively (P=0.27). Part 2: We included 203 patients who had positive MASSFIX within 90 days from diagnosis and available serial MASSFIX data. The median follow-up was 1.5 (95%CI: 1.5-1.7) years. By last follow up, 39 (19%) patients became MASSFIX negative while 164 (81%) still had positive MASSFIX. The median TTNT was NR (95%CI: 2.0-NR) years in patients who developed negative MASSFIX and 2.3 (95%CI: 1.9 - NR) years in patients who were still MASS-FIX positive by last follow up (P=0.03). The 2-year OS was 97% and 94% in the 2 groups, respectively (P=0.84) Conclusion: The utilization of MASS-FIX in disease monitoring of MM patients provides prognostic information; among patients who become MASS-FIX negative after first line treatment, an earlier conversion to positive MASS-FIX predicts disease progression. Similarly, persistent MASS-FIX positivity after treatment initiation predicts earlier disease progression. Larger studies and longer follow up are needed to evaluate whether the MASS-FIX is associated with overall survival. Disclosures Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; 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. 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; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring. Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: 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; Carsgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: 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.

Abstract Introduction: A baseline involved to uninvolved free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥100 with involved free light chain (iFLC) ≥10 mg/dL is considered a multiple myeloma (MM)-defining event (MDE). However, prior reports have demonstrated that the presence of multimeric light chain aggregates can contribute to falsely increased FLC levels due to impaired renal light chain clearance. Therefore, we aimed to compare the disease progression risk in patients with high versus low urine monoclonal protein (uMCP) excretion in the setting of an elevated serum FLCr. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated untreated smoldering MM (SMM) and asymptomatic MM patients diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and January 10, 2020. Included patients had a baseline bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) burden of 10-59% without concomitant end organ damage (hypercalcemia, anemia, renal failure, or lytic lesions on x-ray or cross-sectional imaging; "CRAB" MDE). Patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 and iFLC >10 mg/dL were included if they had a 24-hour urine collection and electrophoresis. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Progression was defined as treatment for systemic AL amyloidosis or symptomatic MM (typical "CRAB" MDE). SMM patients treated due to evolving biomarkers or "SLiM" MDE (lytic lesions on MRI, BMPC ≥60%, or FLCr ≥100) were censored. Cox proportional hazards models were used for uni- and multivariable analyses. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We included 822 patients without MDE besides elevated FLCr (n=120 with FLCr ≥100, n=702 with FLC <100). Patients with a FLC ≥100 were grouped based on 24-hour uMCP excretion (≥200 mg/24h [n=35], <200 mg/24h [n=85]). Among included patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100, the median iFLC was 79.9 (IQR 42.9-131.5) mg/dL and median FLCr was 207.1 (IQR 137.7-400.3). Patients with a FLCr ≥100 and high (≥200 mg/24h) versus low (<200 mg/24h) uMCP excretion had a median iFLC of 101 versus 66.5 mg/dL (p=0.001), median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 74.4 versus 74.6 mL/min/1.73m 2 (p=0.505), and median BMPC burden of 30% versus 21% (p=0.088), as shown in Table 1. The 2-year risk of progression to symptomatic MM or AL amyloidosis was significantly higher in patients with uMCP excretion ≥200 versus <200 mg/24h (36.2% versus 13.5%, respectively; HR 2.79, 95% CI 1.57-4.96, p<0.001, see Figure 1). However, the progression risk was similar in patients with a baseline FLCr <100 versus those with a FLCr≥100 and uMCP <200 mg/24h (log rank p=0.127). After adjusting for baseline eGFR, BMPC burden, iFLC, and light chain isotype, the progression risk was still 2.7 times higher in patients with high versus low uMCP excretion (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.39-5.10, p=0.003). In patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 that had cross-sectional imaging at diagnosis or prior to progression confirming the absence of osteolytic lesions, the risk of progression remained significantly higher in patients with a high versus low uMCP excretion (n=14 versus n=53, respectively; HR 4.20, 95% CI 1.86-9.49, p<0.001). In patients with FLCr ≥100, there were a total of 52 patients with end organ damage at progression (26 [50%] patients with anemia, 8 [15%] with renal failure, 21 [40%] with lytic lesions, 6 [12%] with systemic AL amyloidosis). Among patients who progressed, 5 (25%) of 20 patients with high uMCP excretion and 3 (9.4%) of 32 patients with low uMCP excretion presented with renal failure as the MDE. In patients with baseline high versus low uMCP excretion that experienced renal failure at progression, the median serum creatinine of 2.7 (range 1.9-4.1) versus 2.5 (range 1.9-3.2) mg/dL (p=0.653), median uMCP 4964 (range 738-5910) versus 512 (range 196-734) mg/24h (p=0.052), and median iFLC 388 (range 317-1640) versus 437 (range 199-1030) mg/dL (p=1.00). Conclusions: Increased uMCP excretion in the setting of a FLCr ≥100 is an unfavourable prognostic marker and is associated with an increased risk of progression. The progression risk in patients with a FLCr ≥100 and low uMCP excretion (<200 mg/24h) is similar to patients with a baseline FLCr <100. Our findings underscore the importance of conducting a 24-hour urine assessment at diagnosis and may help refine the subset of patients with FLCr ≥100 in whom pre-emptive therapy is warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: 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; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; 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; 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 Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and >4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and >6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (>4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.

Abstract Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell (PC) malignancy with an increasing incidence in the United States. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is currently the gold-standard diagnostic assay to detect recurrent genomic abnormalities of prognostic and therapeutic significance in MM. Hyperdiploid MM, a standard risk abnormality, is characterized by gains of odd-numbered chromosomes including chromosome 15. While gains of chromosome 15 have been reported in approximately 53% of standard risk MM patients (Chretien, Blood, 2015), losses of chromosome 15 are rarely reported. Enumeration of chromosome 15 centromere is detected using the alpha satellite FISH probe. We previously discovered ~9% of cases had false-negative chromosome 15 FISH results when compared to Mate Pair Sequencing (MPseq) (Smadbeck, BCJ, 2019). To our knowledge, no previous studies have reported a reduced performance of the alpha satellite D15Z4 FISH probe in PC FISH studies. A false-negative result for D15Z4 could result in an underreporting of trisomy 15 and overreporting of monosomy 15. Here, we investigated the incidence of false-negative D15Z4 FISH results by examining the presence of monosomy 15 from patients with a monoclonal gammopathy. Methods: We identified 1231 samples from patients with a monoclonal gammopathy who had undergone uniform testing to identify MM-specific cytogenetic abnormalities. DNA from bone marrow samples was genotyped on the Precision Medicine Research Array and biogeographical ancestry was assessed using the Geographic Population Structure Origins tool (Elhaik, Nat Commun, 2014; Home DNA 2016). FISH of immunoglobulin (cIg)-stained PCs was performed as described (Baughn, BCJ, 2018). Chromosome 15 centromere probe (Vysis CEP 15 D15Z4, Abbott Molecular, Abbott Park, IL) was used for chromosome 15 enumeration. Samples were divided into two groups: Cases with or without evidence of monosomy 15 by FISH. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare difference between groups for data deviating from normal distribution. A Chi-squared test evaluating the differences across these two groups was used. Results: We identified monosomy 15 in 31 cases (2.5% of cohort). Monosomy 15 was observed in nearly 100% of both the PC (cIg+) and non-PC (cIg-) populations, by contrast to the other recurrent PC-specific genomic abnormalities which were restricted to only the PC population. All samples with a banded analysis revealed most metaphases had two normal chromosome 15s demonstrating that the D15Z4 FISH probe failed to correctly enumerate the number of chromosome 15 centromere signals. Of the samples with a monosomy 15 result, the median African ancestry was 76.2% (95% percentiles: 77.5%-89.0%), while the median African ancestry of the non-monosomy 15 cohort was 2.3% (95% percentiles: 0%-87.7%) (). Although not all patients with >50% African ancestry had evidence of monosomy 15, 26/31 (83.9%) of patients with monosomy 15 had >50% African ancestry. Accordingly, patients with African ancestry (similarity ≥ 0.70) had 8.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 3.73-17.25, P = 9.92 X10 -8) increased possibility to have monosomy 15. Of cases with monosomy 15, 22 (71.0%) had an IGH rearrangement with the most prevalent IGH partner being CCND1. The incidence of t(11;14) was greater in the monosomy 15 group (13/31:41.9%), in contrast to the non-monosomy 15 group (330/1200=27.5%) (P = 0.12). Conclusions: We report a polymorphic variant of the chromosome 15 centromere resulting in a false-negative FISH result using the D15Z4 FISH probe. Surprisingly, the false-negative FISH result was not uniformly distributed among patients and was highly enriched in individuals of African ancestry. This may be due to a variation of the chromosome 15 alpha satellite in some individuals that prevents the D15Z4 FISH probe from sufficiently binding (O'Keefe, Genome Research, 2000). Although this study focused on identification of monosomy 15, the incidence of a false-negative result is likely greater than we have reported in this study since we did not evaluate cases that had a true trisomy 15 that was reported as normal chromosome 15 enumeration by FISH. This study highlights a critical need to ensure diagnostic reagents have equal performance for all patients independent of their ancestry. Evaluation of genomic events using unbiased approaches such as whole genome sequencing may circumvent some of these limitations. Disclosures Elhaik: DDC: Consultancy. Baird: DDC: Current Employment. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: 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.

Abstract Background: Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disorder characterized by multisystem deposition of misfolded immunoglobulin light chains produced by clonal plasma cells. Hematologic and organ responses with treatment have been shown to correlate with survival as early as 3 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Our group recently developed and validated a model integrating organ and hematologic responses for assessment of treatment outcomes at 6 months. Although current organ response criteria do not consider the depth of organ response, this has been shown to have prognostic utility in newly diagnosed patients. So, we designed this study to evaluate a composite hematologic and organ scoring system that also considers the depth of organ response at 1 to 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Methods: We included patients with AL amyloidosis who had at least one major organ involvement (cardiac, renal and/or liver involvement) and who had not started a second line treatment by 6 months from the time of initiating first-line treatment. For each patient, we calculated an organ response score and a hematologic response score at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. A score was assigned for each depth of hematologic response as follows: complete response=0, very good partial response=1, partial response=2, and no response/progressive disease=3). To calculate organ response, a score was assigned to each organ based on the depth of organ response (Muchtar et al. 2018): non-evaluable=0, complete response=1, very good partial response=2, partial response=3, and no response=4. The final organ response score was obtained by calculating the average of the individual involved organ scores. We then calculated the composite hematologic and organ response (HOR) score by adding the organ and hematologic responses at each interval and compared overall survival (OS) between patients with HOR score ≤ 5 (group 1) and those with score > 5 (group 2). Results: The cohort included 730 patients diagnosed with AL amyloidosis between February 10 th, 2006 and July 9 th, 2019. Median age was 63 (IQR: 56-69), and 65% were male. The involved light chain was Lambda in 75% of cases. Cardiac, renal, and liver involvement were found in 81%, 61%, and 17% of patients, respectively. Among all patients, 28% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation during their disease course. The median follow up in the entire cohort was 7.0 (95%CI: 6.4-8.0) years and OS was 3.6 (95%CI: 2.6-4.4) years. At 1 to 4 months, we observed a statistically significant difference in OS between patients with HOR score ≤5 vs. >5. However, there was no difference in OS between the 2 groups at 5 and 6 months. These results are presented in Table 1. Conclusion: A composite hematologic and organ response score that takes into consideration the depth of organ response can discriminate 2 groups of patients with distinct survival outcomes as early as 1 month from treatment initiation and maintains its predictive ability for up to 4 months. The lack of predictive ability beyond 4 months in this study may be due to limited sample size especially in group 2 as more patients achieve deeper responses with time. This approach can provide the basis for early changes in treatment but needs validation in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; 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; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring. Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dingli: GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

AbstractGain of 1q22 at diagnosis portends poorer outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM), but the prognostic significance of acquired 1q22 gain is unknown. We identified 63 MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic from 1/2004 to 12/2019 without 1q22 gain at diagnosis who acquired it during follow up and compared them to 63 control patients who did not acquire 1q22 gain with similar follow up. We also compared outcomes in the acquired 1q22 gain group with outcomes in 126 patients with 1q22 gain present at diagnosis. The incidence of acquired 1q22 gain was 6.1% (median follow‐up 6.8 years); median time to acquisition was 5.0 years (range: 0.7–11.5 years). Abnormalities on baseline fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) included trisomies (54%) and monosomy 13 (39%); 16 (25%) had high‐risk (HR) translocations or del(17p). Median progression‐free survival with front line therapy was 29.5 months in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 31.4 months in control patients (p = .34) and 31.2 months in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .04). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 10.9 years in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 13.0 years in control patients (p = .03) and 6.3 years in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .01). Presence of HR FISH at baseline increased risk of 1q22 gain acquisition. We demonstrate that acquisition of 1q22 gain is a significant molecular event in MM, associated with reduced OS. Among HR patients for whom this clonal evolution is determined, a risk‐adapted approach and/or clinical trial should be considered.