Rajkumar, S. Vincent

Abstract Background Suppression of uninvolved immunoglobulins is a common finding in multiple myeloma and the preservation of uninvolved immunoglobulins at diagnosis is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival. However, little is known about the impact of myeloma treatment on levels of uninvolved immunoglobulins, and the link between changes in uninvolved immunoglobulins during therapy and treatment response, disease progression and survival. Methods We identified patients who received therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at our institution between 2001 and 2014, and who had data available on absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and quantitative uninvolved immunoglobulins (Ig) before commencing treatment. The ALC and levels of uninvolved Ig after 4 cycles of therapy were abstracted from the electronic medical record; patients who switched or stopped treatment, or died, before this time point were excluded. To assess change in ALC, the percentage difference in ALC between baseline and 4 cycles was calculated; for uninvolved Ig, the average of the percentage difference between baseline and 4 cycles for each uninvolved Ig (IgA and IgM for IgG myeloma, IgG and IgM for IgA myeloma, IgG and IgA for IgM and IgD myeloma, and IgG, IgM and IgA for light-chain only myeloma) was calculated. Treatment response at 4 cycles was retrospectively assigned according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined as time from start of initial therapy to start of next line of therapy or death (if no additional treatment was received). A landmark analysis was used to calculate overall survival (OS) from the date of follow-up after 4 cycles of therapy. The Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, and log rank tests were used to detect differences in medians, proportions, and survival times respectively. Results A total of 421 patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 63 years (range 33-91), 254 patients (60.3%) were male and median follow-up was 6.5 years (95% CI 5.6-7.3); the vast majority of patients had IgG (n=247 [58.7%]), IgA (n=98 [23.3%]) or light-chain only myeloma (n=68 [16.2%]). First line therapy comprised of pulse-dose dexamethasone (DEX, n=92 [21.9%]), lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, n=176 [41.8%]), bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, n=22 [5.2%]), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD, n=84 [20.0%]), and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, n=47 [11.2%]). Across the entire cohort, the median change in ALC and uninvolved Ig after 4 cycles of treatment was -11.0% (range: -92.7 to +718.8) and +9.0% (-77.7 to +1094.4) respectively; treatment with VCD was associated with the greatest median declines in ALC (DEX: -0.1%; RD: -9.9%; VD: -20.8%; VCD: -40.9%; VRD: -15.3%) and uninvolved Ig (DEX: -0.5%; RD: +15.5%; VD: +44.0%; VCD: -14.0%; VRD: +76.0%, both p<0.001). Conversion from suppression to normalization of the primary uninvolved Ig (IgA in IgG myeloma, and IgG in all other myeloma types) after 4 cycles was seen more frequently with the use of RD (13.1%) and VRD (12.8%) compared to DEX (4.7%), VCD (1.3%), or VD (4.8%), χ2=21.8, p=0.040. When considering only patients in whom the primary uninvolved Ig remained suppressed between baseline and 4 cycles, a ≥25% reduction in the primary uninvolved Ig occurred more frequently with the use of DEX (51.5%) and VCD (34.5%) compared to RD (24.8%), VD (23.5%) or VRD (25.7%), χ2=15.1, p=0.005 (Table 1). Although an average reduction in uninvolved Ig between baseline and 4 cycles (ΔIg<0) was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving very good partial response (VGPR) of better on multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex and treatment regimen (OR=0.40 [0.24-0.63], p<0.001), there were no differences in TTF (2.0yrs vs. 2.0yrs, p=0.783) or OS (8.0yrs vs. 8.0yrs, p=0.721) between patients with ΔIg<0 (n=169) and those with ΔIg≥0 (n=222). Conclusions Myeloma treatments produce differential impacts on immune parameters, with VCD causing the greatest reduction in lymphocytes and uninvolved Ig, implying general targeting of plasma cells, in comparison to lenalidomide, which appeared to be more tumor-specific with relative sparing of lymphocytes and uninvolved Ig. While an average decrease in uninvolved Ig was an independent predictor of a lower likelihood of achieving VGPR or better after 4 cycles of therapy, it was not associated with a shorter TTF or poorer OS. Disclosures Kumar: BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide has demonstrated excellent activity in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, multiple myeloma (MM). Between November 2007 and March 2012, we enrolled 285 patients with relapsed MM on 5 sequential phase 2 trials; patients received pomalidomide at 2mg or 4 mg daily with weekly dexamethasone (Pom/dex). The approved dose of pomalidomide is 4 mg for 21 of 28 days. We wished to compare efficacy, tolerability and long-term outcomes between cohorts treated with 2 mg or 4mg daily continuously and 4mg daily for 21/28 days. Methods: After excluding two ineligible patients, 283 patients with lenalidomide refractory, relapsed MM from 5 sequential cohorts were analyzed. These patients were divided into 3 groups: Group1 received Pom 2mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 69), Group 2 received Pom 4 mg for 28/28 day cycle (N= 95) and Group 3 received Pom 4mg for 21/28 day cycle (N= 119). All patients received oral dexamethasone given 40 mg daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Response was assessed by the IMWG Uniform Response criteria. All patients received aspirin 325 mg daily for DVT prophylaxis or full dose anticoagulation. Results: The median age was 63 years (32-85); 35% were female. The median time from diagnosis was 53 months and the median number of prior regimens was 4. 127 (46%) had high-risk molecular markers. Prior therapies (% received) included lenalidomide (100%), thalidomide (46%), bortezomib (78%), autologous stem cell transplant (71%), and allogeneic transplant (4%). The median follow-up is 16.4 months (3.2-64.4). Forty eight percent are alive and 26% remain progression free; 15 patients are continuing to receive treatment. Frequency of AEs by groups are shown in Table 1. The most notable difference is grade 3+ neutropenia seen in 39% of group 1 and 56% and 57% of groups 2 and 3. Confirmed responses of PR or better were seen in 29% (group1), 35% (group2) and 24% (group3). Median duration of response (DOR) was 14.1 months (group1), 14.5 months (group2) and 10.2 months (group3). Median PFS was 5.5 months (group1), 6.9 months (group2) and 4.3 months (group3). Although the dose level cohorts were sequential rather than randomized, we compared OS between the dose levels in an exploratory manner. There was no significant difference in OS between dose levels (p=0.26). Median overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months (group1), 21.9 months (group2) and 16.0 months (group3). Conclusions: Pom/dex is active and well tolerated even in heavily pretreated patients Responses are durable. Response rates and overall toxicity are similar between the 2 mg and 4 mg doses. Neutropenia is more common in those receiving doses of 4mg daily or for 21/28 days compared to those receiving 2 mg daily. Table 1. All Grades Grade 3+ 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day 2mg 28 Day 4mg 28 Day 4mg 21 Day Anemia 68% 58% 74% 14% 15% 27% Lymphopenia 22% 51% 11% 16% 32% 8% Neutropenia 71% 82% 77% 39% 57% 56% Thrombocytopenia 51% 61% 63% 10% 9% 23% Leukopenia 59% 77% 72% 26% 38% 39% Pneumonia 7% 11% 12% 6% 7% 11% Fatigue 51% 65% 60% 9% 5% 8% Neuropathy 28% 32% 28% 0% 3% 0% Elevated Blood Glucose 10% 21% 8% 4% 6% 3% Pneumonitis 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% VTE (Thrombosis) 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% Secondary Malignancy 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Figure1. Kaplan Meier Overall Survival Curves Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Bergsagel:Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; OncoEthix: Research Funding; MundiPharma: Research Funding. Stewart:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Cytogenetic evaluation using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) at the time of diagnosis is essential for initial risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Despite the absence of cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities a subset of patients does experience poor overall survival comparable high-risk disease (i.e. median overall survival less than three years after diagnosis). We aimed to identify demographic, clinical, and cytogenetic characteristics predicting poor three-year overall survival in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics. Methods: We studied 428 patients who were diagnosed with multiple myeloma between July 2004 and July 2014 at Mayo Clinic Rochester, underwent FISH evaluation within six months of diagnosis, and received treatment with novel agents (immunomodulator, proteasome-inhibitor, or a combination thereof). Patients with high- and intermediate-risk cytogenetics as well as patients lost to follow-up within three years were excluded. High-risk cytogenetics were defined as del(17p), t(14;16), and t(14;20). Intermediate-risk cytogenetics were defined as t(4;14) and gain(1q). Bone marrow aspirates were evaluated for deletions, monosomies, trisomies, and tetrasomies using chromosome- or centromere-specific FISH probes. IGH rearrangements were evaluated using an IGH break-apart probe and evaluating up to five potential partners (FGFR3, CCND1, CCND3, MAF, and MAFB). A multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was used to assess the associations between the parameters of interest and three-year overall survival. Discrimination and calibration of the model were evaluated using the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. The odds ratios of the identified predictors were rounded up to the next integer and assigned as points in a scoring system. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-point and associated test performance characteristics. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (31 - 95), 259 (61%) of the patients were male. The median overall survival was 7.4 years (6.1 - 8.6) for the entire cohort (n = 428), 10.5 years (8.3 - NR) for those who survived at least three years (n = 327, 76%), and 1.6 years (1.2 - 1.7) for those who did not survive three years after diagnosis (n = 101, 24%). The factors associated with poor three-year overall survival and the derived scoring system are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Patients with multiple myeloma and standard-risk cytogenetics are a heterogeneous group. One fourth of the patients are experiencing less than three years of overall survival after diagnosis. Stage, age, extent of bone marrow involvement, karyotype, and platelet count at the time of diagnosis were helpful in identifying patients at risk for poor three-year overall survival. These findings emphasize the importance of further risk stratification in this patient population and warrant external validation. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: A recent study revealed an antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of propranolol on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Our previous small matched case-control study showed longer survival in patients with propranolol and other beta-blockers (BB) intake than those without. This larger scale study was conducted to confirm the positive association of BB and MM survival. Methods: We identified 1971 newly diagnosed pts seen at Mayo Clinic between 1995 and 2010. Cardiac medication usage after diagnosis of MM was extracted from patient records and categorized based on BB intake. Cause of death was collected with death due to MM as the primary interest event and death due to cardiac disease or other reasons as competing risk events. The primary outcomes were MM disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Cumulative incidence functions and Kaplan-Meier method were used to estimate the 5-year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of MM death and OS rate, respectively. DSS and OS were compared by Gray's test and log-rank test, respectively. Multivarable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted cause-specific HR (HRCSadj.) and hazard ratio (HRadj.) for DSS and OS, respectively, adjusting for demographics, disease characteristics, diagnosis year, and various chemotherapies. Results: 930 (47.2%) of MM patients had no intake of any cardiac medications; 260 (13.2%) had BB only; 343 (17.4%) used both BB / non-BB cardiac medications; and 438 patients (22.2%) had non-BB cardiac drugs. Five-year CIR of MM death and OS rate were shown in table. Superior MM DSS was observed for BB only users, compared to patients without any cardiac drugs (HRCSadj., .53, 95% confidence interval [CI], .42-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj., .49, 95% CI, .38-.63, padj.<.0001). Patients received both BB and other cardiac drugs also showed superior MM DSS than non-cardiac drugs users (HRCSadj.., .54, 95% CI, .44-.67, padj.<.0001) and non-BB cardiac drug users. (HRCSadj., .50, 95% CI, .40-.62, padj.<.0001). MM DSS does not differ between BB users with and without other cardiac drugs (padj.=0.90). Multivariable analysis showed the same pattern for OS. None of the MM therapies impacted the differences in DSS and OS among BB intake groups (interaction padj.>.60). Conclusion: MM patients with BB intake showed reduced risk of death due to MM and overall mortality compared to patients who used non-BB cardiac or never used cardiac drugs. The result warrants further investigation for anti-cancer effect of BB in MM. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract The treatment of multiple myeloma is evolving rapidly. A plethora of doublet, triplet, and quadruplet combinations have been studied for the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. Although randomized trials have been conducted comparing older regimens such as melphalan-prednisone with newer regimens containing drugs such as thalidomide, lenalidomide, or bortezomib, there are few if any randomized trials that have compared modern combinations with each other. Even in the few trials that have done so, definitive overall survival or patient-reported quality-of-life differences have not been demonstrated. Therefore, there is marked heterogeneity in how newly diagnosed patients with myeloma are treated around the world. The choice of initial therapy is often dictated by availability of drugs, age and comorbidities of the patient, and assessment of prognosis and disease aggressiveness. This chapter reviews the current data on the most commonly used and tested doublet, triplet, and quadruplet combinations for the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma and provides guidance on choosing the optimal initial treatment regimen.

Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation is an effective treatment modality for patients with multiple myeloma. While most of the patients relapse after ASCT with a median time to progression of 2 years, there is a significant heterogeneity in the duration of response. It has been hypothesized that the effect of high dose alkylator therapy used for conditioning may have a dual effect on the myeloma cells as well as marrow microenvironment. It is also known that hematopoiesis, especially thrombopoiesis, depends to some extent on signals form the marrow microenvironment. We examined if there was any relationship between delayed platelet engraftment and outcome after ASCT. Methods: We examined the outcomes in a group of patients undergoing ASCT for myeloma at our institution to compare the response duration to platelet engraftment kinetics. We studied 687 patients undergoing ASCT with melphalan conditioning followed by peripheral blood stem cell transplant. Results: Among the 687 patients undergoing ASCT, 200 pts (29%) achieved a platelet count of 50,000 by day 21 (early group) and the rest achieved this level after 21 days or never engrafted (late group). The median time to progression (TTP) among the late group was 24.8 months (95% CI; 19.6, 30 months) vs. 16.8 months (95% CI; 15.1, 18.6 months) for the late group (p < 0.001) (Figure). Patients in the late engraftment group were more likely to achieve a complete response compared to the early group; 39% vs. 30%, p = 0.02. In a multivariate analysis examining factors predicting for longer time to progression after ASCT, delayed platelet engraftment was independent of transplant within 12 months of diagnosis, CR with ASCT, absence of cytogenetic abnormalities, B2M < 3.5 mg/L and a plasma cell labeling index < 1% at the time of ASCT (Table). Conclusions: In this study, we have demonstrated for the first time a relationship between delayed platelet engraftment after ASCT and the duration of response following ASCT. This intriguing finding raises several hypotheses. It is possible that the delayed platelet engraftment is a marker of marrow microenvironment dysfunction secondary to high dose therapy, given the role of marrow microenvironment on thrombopoiesis. It is possible that this is a surrogate marker for the biological effectiveness of the melphalan dose, which can affect the other cells in the marrow microenvironment as well. It is likely a reflection of the marrow microenvironment dependence on the myeloma cells for its survival. These findings should be confirmed in other larger patient groups. Predictors of progression Variable Hazard Ratio P Platelet Engraftment > 21 days 0.80 (0.60, 0.96) 0.02 Late transplant (>12 months from diagnosis) 1.6 (1.3, 2.0) <0.01 Plasma cell labeling index > 1% 1.9 (1.5, 2.4) <0.01 Complete response 0.41 (0.33, 0.51) <0.01 Abnormal Cytogenetics 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) <0.01 B2M > 3.5 1.2 (0.96, 1.5) 0.12 Figure Figure

Abstract Background: Pomalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD®) that has been approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combinations of IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors offer the potential for deeper and more durable responses due to enhanced efficacy. Preliminary results of a phase 1 study of twice weekly bortezomib with pomalidomide have been reported with promising results (Richardson, ASH 2012). This phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) as well as safety and efficacy of the combination of pomalidomide, once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVD) in patients with relapsed, lenalidomide refractory, MM. Patients and methods: We included patients with relapsed MM who had 1-4 prior lines of therapy and were resistant or refractory to lenalidomide. In the phase I portion of the trial, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide 4 mg days 1-21 PO, bortezomib 1.0mg/m2 days 1,8,15, and 22 IV or SQ and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1,8,15, and 22 PO, given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3mg/m2 for dose level 2 and and was adopted for the phase 2 portion. The primary aim of the phase I cohort was to determine the MTD of the combination, and for the phase II cohort was to evaluate the confirmed response rate (PR, VGPR, or CR) in relapsed refractory MM. Response was assessed by the IMWG criteria and toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v4.0. Results: 50 patients were accrued between March 2012 and July 2014 (dose level (DL)1: 3, DL 2: 6, Phase II: 41). We describe results in 47 patients treated at MTD and phase II. Median age was 66, 51% were female and median time from diagnosis to study was 46 months (15-142). Twenty five percent had mSMART defined high-risk status. Median number of prior regimens was 3. All patients had prior lenalidomide, 68% had stem cell transplant, 17% received thalidomide, 56% had alkylators and 57% had bortezomib. With median follow up of 9 months, 72% remain progression free, 96% are alive and 66% remain on treatment. The most common AEs at least possibly attributable to the combination were anemia, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia; however, the majority of these were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 AEs (regardless of attribution) that occurred in at least 3 patients included neutropenia (29), leukopenia (15), lung infection (6), lymphopenia (8) dyspnea (3) and syncope (3). DVT/PE occurred in one patient. Among the 42 patients who were evaluable, confirmed responses (PR, VGPR, or CR) were seen in 34 (81%) including sCR (3), CR (5), VGPR (8), PR (18). Confirmed responses were seen in 9 of 11( 82%) high risk patients. Median progression free survival was 17.7 months (95%CI: 9.5-NA). Conclusions: PVD is a highly effective combination in patients refractory to lenalidomide with confirmed responses in over 80%. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced the tolerability and convenience of this regimen. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy or DVT. PVD is a highly attractive option in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Lust:Senesco: PI Other. Fonseca:Medtronic, Otsuka, Celgene, Genzyme, BMS, Lilly, Onyx, Binding Site, Millennium, AMGEN: Consultancy, patent for the prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease. He also has sponsored research from Cylene and Onyx Other, Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E4A03 demonstrated the superiority of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEX; Ld) over LEN and high dose DEX (LD) in newly diagnosed MM (Rajkumar SV, Lancet Oncol, 2010). This led to the universal acceptance of Ld as a standard induction regimen. More recently, the FIRST study demonstrated the superiority of Ld as continuous therapy vs Ld given x 18 cycles and melphalan-thalidomide-prednisone x 12 cycles proving continuous Ld should be considered standard of care (Benboubker L, NEJM, 2014). Upon completion of four cycles of therapy, patients enrolled in E4A03 had the option of proceeding to ASCT or continuing on their assigned Ld or LD. A prior post-hoc retrospective landmark analysis (Siegel DS, Abstract, Blood 2010) comparing outcomes of early ASCT vs. no early ASCT showed that in patients <65, 65-70, and >70, the survival with early ASCT at 3 years appeared higher, supporting the role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. This analysis is the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned study. Methods: A post hoc, retrospective landmark analysis was performed evaluating overall survival (OS) by early ASCT vs. no early ASCT overall and within age subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival distributions and Cox regression for hazard ratio (HR) estimates. The landmark analysis included only patients surviving the first four cycles of therapy. Results: 21% of patients opted for early ASCT (n=90). At baseline (four cycles prior), early ASCT patients were younger (median 57.5y vs 66y), more fit (ECOG PS 0 45% vs 56%) and with less aggressive disease (ISS Stage 3 12% vs 28%). Median treatment duration was 7.6m for no early ASCT patients. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year survival probability estimates were higher for early ASCT vs. no early ASCT at 99%, 93%, 91%, 85%, and 80% vs. 94%, 84%, 75%, 65%, and 57%. The median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 5.8 years, respectively (Table 1). The survival hazard ratio (HR) for early ASCT was 0.55 [95%CI (0.38-0.80)]. In a further subgroup analysis of patients </= 65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 79% [95%CI (67-87)] vs. 62% [95%CI (54-69)], respectively. In patients </= 65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 7.4 years and the survival HR was 0.74 [95%CI (0.48-1.15)]. For patients >65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 83% [95%CI (56-94)] vs. 52% [95%CI (45-59)], respectively. In patients >65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached versus 5.2 years and the survival HR was 0.38 [95%CI (0.17-0.87)]. In all age groups, overall response rate was similar prior to the decision of proceeding with ASCT vs. no early ASCT. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, early ASCT retained marginal significance. Conclusions: The landmark analysis demonstrated that patients opting for ASCT after induction Ld/LD had a higher 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5- year survival probability and improvement in median OS regardless of DEX dose density. Results were stronger within the older age cohort and upheld in adjusted models. Limitations include lack of randomization and data on salvage therapy. At a time when lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction is gaining worldwide acceptance in all age groups, early ASCT is safe and efficacious and should remain a standard of care for newly diagnosed MM even in the era of novel therapies. Table 1. Survival Probabilities (Time from Registration) for all Patients Included in the Landmark Analysis Median 1 year 2-year 3-year 4-year 5-year N Events Median (Yrs)(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) No Early ASCT All 341 195 5.78(5.11 - 6.59) 22 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96) 53 0.84 (0.80-0.88) 84 0.75 (0.70-0.79) 119 0.65 (0.59-0.69) 144 0.57 (0.51 - 0.62) Early ASCT All 90 34 NR 1 0.99 (0.92 - 1.00) 6 0.93 (0.86 - 0.97) 8 0.91 (0.83 - 0.95) 13 0.85 (0.76 - 0.91) 18 0.80 (0.69 - 0.87) NR = not reached Disclosures Biran: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Vesole:Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: The serum free light chain (FLC) ratio is a readily available laboratory test that has independent prognostic significance in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) (Blood2005;106:812–17) and solitary plasmacytoma (Blood2006;108:1979–83). The purpose of this study was to determine if the FLC ratio will be of prognostic value in multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: We used a well characterized cohort of 1027 newly diagnosed MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic from January 1, 1985 to December 31, 1998 (Mayo Clin Proc2003;78:21–33) to ensure adequate follow up. Archived serum samples from blood drawn within 30 days of initial diagnosis were available on 790 of the 1027 patients. Quantitation of serum free κ and λ concentrations was performed on the archived sera by immunonephelometry, using specific antibodies on a BNII nephelometer. FLC ratio was calculated as κ /λ, i.e., free κ concentration divided by free λ, reference range 0.26–1.65. If the FLC ratio is >1.65, κ is considered to be the “involved” FLC and λ the “uninvolved” FLC, and vice versa if the ratio is less than 0.26. Incorporation of FLC into the International Staging System (ISS) was assessed in 576 of 790 patients (73%), in whom samples or data were available to estimate the ISS. Results: 790 patients (median age 66 years) were studied. The FLC ratio was outside the reference range in 95.1% of patients. The median involved κ and λ concentrations were 37.1 and 71.3 mg/dL, respectively. A cut-point κ /λ FLC ratio of <0.03 or >32 was chosen for further modeling analysis on the basis of its separation of the cohort into two roughly comparable parts. Overall survival was significantly inferior in patients with an FLC ratio <0.03 or >32 (n=479 patients) compared to those with an FLC ratio that was 0.03–32 (n=311 patients), with median survival of 30 versus 39 months, respectively, P<0.001 (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.12–1.54). The FLC ratio (<0.03 or >32) retained independent significance after adjusting for the International Staging System (ISS) (P=0.03). The FLC ratio made the most significant contribution to predicting prognosis in patients with ISS Stage 2 (n=265 pts), separating this category of patients into those with 5 year survival rates of 20.5% (FLC ratio <0.03 or >32; n=152 pts) versus 35.2% (FLC ratio 0.03–32; n=113 pts), P=0.02. We studied the additional prognostic value of the serum FLC to the variables used in the ISS by defining FLC ratio <0.03 or >32, Sβ2M ≥3.5 g/L, and serum albumin <3.5 g/dL as three risk factors in a risk-stratification model. Patients with 0, 1, 2, or 3 risk factors had significantly different overall survival, with median overall survival times of 51, 39, 30 and 22 months, respectively, P<0.001. Conclusions: The serum FLC ratio at initial diagnosis is an important predictor of prognosis in myeloma. We show that the serum FLC ratio can be incorporated into the ISS, providing the greatest prognostic value in ISS Stage 2 patients, as well as providing a new risk-stratification model.

Abstract Background Conflicting results have emerged, especially with respect to the impact on overall survival (OS), from trials evaluating lenalidomide maintenance (LM) therapy after induction therapy alone or post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing outcome data from LM trials to evaluate role of lenalidomide as maintenance strategy in MM. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases and abstracts through June 2013 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LM vs. placebo/no maintenance. Single arm studies were excluded. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model for clinical endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), OS, response rate (RR) and adverse events (AEs), including second primary malignancies (SPMs). Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 2. We assessed between-study heterogeneity with the Cochran Q test and quantified its extent with the I2 statistic. Results Overall, five RCTs, with data extractable from four phase III trials (3 publications and 1 abstract) were identified (n= 1935). All studies were RCTs with an adequate randomization. MRC MM XI study was excluded from analyses as survival data are not available. Two placebo controlled trials (IFM 05-02, CALGB 100104) addressed the role of LM post-ASCT, one placebo-controlled trial (MM-015) studied LM therapy in the non-transplant setting and the remaining trial (RV-MM-PI209) had a 2 X 2 design comprising of both ASCT and non-transplant randomized arms followed by a second randomization of LM versus no maintenance. There was no heterogeneity for estimate of PFS results (Cochran Q, p=0.68; I2=0%), but considerable heterogeneity for estimate of OS (Cochran Q, p=0.09; I2= 55%), among the studies. There was significant prolongation of both PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.41–0.58, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95, p=0.013) with LM vs. placebo/no maintenance (Figure 1). Best response during maintenance was reported only in 2 studies and odds of responding (very good partial response or better) were not significantly different with LM (OR 1.28, p=0.3). Grade 3-4 AEs data were available from 3 trials for calculation of pooled OR with LM compared with placebo. We observed a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of SPMs with LM (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31–3.04; p=0.001). Patients on LM were more likely to have grade 3-4 AEs than placebo: neutropenia (OR 4.9, p<0.001), thrombocytopenia (OR 2.7, p<0.001), fatigue (OR 2.3, p=0.01) and venous thromboembolism (OR 3.2, p=0.02). Odds of discontinuing treatment were also significantly higher in patients on lenalidomide (OR 2.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates significant improvement in PFS and modest improvement in OS with LM. There is an increased risk of grade 3-4 adverse effects, including SPMs with LM. Substantial heterogeneity for estimate of OS among protocols is a limitation of this analysis. Lack of uniform access to lenalidomide upon disease progression in the placebo/no maintenance arms of the constituent studies should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate effect estimates for OS in this meta-analysis. OS: Cochran Q p=0.09, I2=55%, substantial heterogeneity PFS: Cochran Q p=0.68, I2=0%, minimal heterogeneity Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Onyx: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.