Gertz, Morie A.

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: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as >30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria >0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, >60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P<0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: 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; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: 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; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; 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. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP >650 pg/mL or BNP >150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, >60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value <0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P<0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P<0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P<0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (>30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: 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; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare, progressive, and typically fatal hematologic disorder caused by plasma cells that produce misfolded AL protein, resulting in deposits of amyloid in tissues and organs that cause organ dysfunction and failure. Birtamimab is an investigational monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize circulating soluble amyloid and deposited insoluble amyloid, thus promoting the phagocytic clearance of amyloid deposits. In 2018, the global phase 3 VITAL study in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients was terminated based on a futility analysis of the composite primary endpoint (time to all-cause mortality [ACM] or time to cardiac hospitalization >90 days after first study drug infusion); the final hazard ratio (HR) numerically favored birtamimab + standard of care (SOC) over placebo + SOC (0.835, 95% CI 0.5799, 1.2011; p=0.330). Post hoc analysis of ACM over 9 months revealed a pronounced survival benefit (HR=0.413, 95% CI 0.191, 0.895; p=0.025; Figure) in a subgroup of patients at high risk for early mortality (Mayo stage IV). At 9 months, the proportions of surviving patients were 74% and 49% in the birtamimab + SOC and placebo + SOC groups, respectively. Post hoc analyses of secondary endpoints in this subgroup also supported clinical and functional benefits of birtamimab + SOC, with clinically meaningful improvements observed in health-related quality of life (assessed with 36-Item Short Form Health Survey version 2; SF-36v2) and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance (both nominal p<0.05) at 9 months. Across all birtamimab clinical trials, no drug-related deaths, dose-limiting toxicities, or major risks were identified. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of birtamimab + SOC versus placebo + SOC in Mayo stage IV patients with AL amyloidosis by assessing time to ACM over 9 months. Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled AFFIRM-AL study will enroll up to 150 Mayo stage IV patients with newly diagnosed, untreated AL amyloidosis. Patients will receive either 24 mg/kg intravenous birtamimab or placebo every 28 days (both arms will also receive SOC, defined as concomitant chemotherapy with a first-line bortezomib-containing regimen). Patients will be randomly assigned 2:1 to birtamimab or placebo and will be stratified at randomization based on their 6MWT distance (<300 meters vs ≥300 meters). The primary efficacy endpoint of AFFIRM-AL is time to ACM using a log-rank test. Secondary endpoints are change from baseline to month 9 in SF-36v2 and 6MWT distance. Safety endpoints include adverse events, clinical laboratory observations, and immunogenicity analyses. An interim efficacy analysis is planned when ~50% of the events have occurred. Results: Given the >50% relative risk reduction for ACM observed in the post hoc analysis of VITAL for the AL amyloidosis subpopulation of patients with Mayo stage IV disease, the phase 3 AFFIRM-AL study is designed to confirm this effect of birtamimab under a Special Protocol Assessment agreement with the US FDA. Conclusion/Summary: Effective treatments to improve survival in AL amyloidosis are needed, particularly for patients with advanced cardiac involvement, as median overall survival for those with Mayo stage IV disease is approximately 6-9 months. Birtamimab is the only investigational therapeutic in which a survival benefit has been observed, in a post hoc subgroup analysis of VITAL in patients with AL amyloidosis with advanced cardiac involvement. AFFIRM-AL is expected to initiate in mid-2021. (NCT04973137) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gertz: Alnylam, Amgen, Annexon, Appellis, Celgene, Ionis/Akcea, Janssen, Medscape, Physicians Education Resource, Prothena, Research to Practice: Other: personal fees; Spectrum: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Teva, Johnson and Johnson, Medscape, DAVA oncology: Other: speaker fees; Pharmacyclics, Proclara: Other: Advisory Board; i3Health: Other: development of educational materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties. Tripuraneni: Prothena Biosciences Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties: related to birtamimab (NEOD001). Kinney: Prothena Biosciences Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties: related to birtamimab (NEOD001).

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.