Abonour, Rafat

Abstract Abstract 3165 Background: Accrual to large oncology group studies in the United States is often slower than planned, especially in less common malignancies such as Multiple Myeloma (MM). To improve the treatment of patients with MM, it is essential that we address the barriers to accrual (BtA) to national clinical trials. The NCI Myeloma Steering Committee (MYSC) formed the Accrual Working Group (AWG), charged to analyze this problem. Methods: The members of the MYSC have developed a list of 10 potential BtA to NCI MM-CT under the leadership of the AWG at meetings conducted in person and by monthly telephone conference. This list was distributed via Survey Monkey among investigators and research staff of the SWOG, ECOG/ACRIN and Alliance research bases for the purpose of ranking the perceived importance of the 10 selected BtA. Responses based on a 0–5 Likert Scale were analyzed as continuous and categorical. For the latter, responses were grouped: Impedes Accrual – No (0,1), Yes (2–5); Significantly Impedes Accrual – No (0–3), Yes (4,5). Results: 246 survey responses were received. 50 participants who indicated that they had never attempted to or actually never enrolled a patient into a MM-CT were excluded. Of 196 responders, 61% had enrolled at least 5 patients, 43% practiced in academic centers (A) and 57% in community centers (C). 26% identified themselves as research staff, 74% as primarily physician investigators including Principal Investigators (12%). 78% have current access to NCI MM-CT. 46% identified their research base affiliation with SWOG, 20% with ECOG/ACRIN, 17% with Alliance, 17% as CTSU, NRG and other. The majority of survey responders confirmed agreement in the perception that all 10 identified BtA impede accrual, ranging from 60–84% depending on the specific barrier identified, while significant impediment to accrual ascribed to these BtA ranged from 22–47%. The perceived barriers most often cited as impeding accrual were (1) spectrum of available treatment options, (2) level of reimbursement for clinical trial related expenses and (3) patient‘s need for prompt treatment intervention (84%, 80%, 76% respectively). The first two barriers along with the requirement that patients receive their treatment exclusively at the NCI designated treatment site were rated most often as significantly impeding accrual (37%, 47%, 34% respectively). The first two were also identified most often as perceived BtA independent of practice setting (A, C), type of research engagement (physician investigator, research staff) and level of experience with MM-CT. Interestingly, the perception that patients must receive their treatment at the NCI designated treatment site and competing industry sponsored clinical trials were substantially more often cited as impeding accrual in academic centers compared to community centers and by physician investigators compared to research staff. The complexity of required diagnostic work up and the complexity of the treatment protocol and follow up testing were substantially more often cited as BtA in the community setting and by research staff compared to their peers in the academic setting and by physician investigators. The NCI MYSC AWG has proposed specific solutions to potentially lower perceived BtA. These include guidelines to allow protocol specific administration of commercially available agents by the patient‘s local oncologist, a simplified diagnostic work up and treatment plan and eligibility inclusion of patients who have received up to one cycle of specified urgent therapy prior to enrollment in MM-CT. Conclusions: We have queried experienced clinical investigators and research staff on 10 potential MM-CT specific BtA and found substantial consensus among responding participants in this survey. There are apparent differences in perceived BtA between the respondents from academic and community centers as well as between research staff and physician investigators. These data suggest that a structured approach to identification of BtA to clinical trials is feasible and creates opportunities to overcome them. This may have application to clinical trials across other diseases and may also lead to improvements in accrual. Disclosures: Barlogie: Celgene, IMF, MMRF, Millennium, Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene, IMF, Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene, Novartis, NCI, Millennium, Onyx, Icon: Research Funding; GEP: Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 3150 Introduction. Affordability of health care in the United States (US), and the impact of patient insurance coverage on it have been shown to be associated with the delivery and timeliness of access to care. With increasing costs of novel therapies in hematology and oncology, this concern has been raised in hematologic cancers. This analysis evaluates whether the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with active, symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the US varies by their insurance coverage as they initiate treatment. Methods. Baseline data were collected in Connect MM®, a prospective observational registry initiated in September 2009 involving centers in the US. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was reported by patients in the clinic at enrollment, within two months of diagnosis. Patients completed 3 psychometrically validated instruments: the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). Standard analyses were conducted of each instrument given clinical characteristics at that time. Patients were characterized as to the main source of their insurance coverage: Medicare, Medicaid or Commercial. The Medicare cohort included those with supplemental commercial coverage, and the Medicaid cohort included those with dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage. Reported mean BPI, EQ-5D and FACT-MM scores were analyzed by patient insurance coverage. Statistical significance of score differences among sub-cohorts was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1. Results. HRQOL data and insurance status were reported by 863 patients, enrolled from 189 centers. Patients were predominantly male (57%) and white (82%) with mean age at 67.0 (standard deviation [SD] 11.3) yrs. HRQOL scores by insurance status are presented: Overall FACT-MM results indicate that Medicaid insurance status is associated with greater decrement in baseline HRQOL compared to the other groups. Statistically significant differences are noted in the FACT-G general cancer HRQOL score, and its physical, social/family and emotional component scores. BPI data (on a scale of 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain] indicate that average pain may be worse among Medicaid patients compared to either Medicare or commercially insured patients. There are no statistically significant differences on EQ-5D scores (on a scale of 1 [no problem] to 2 [some problems] to 3 [incapacity] between cohorts based on insurance status. Conclusions. Initial results from the Connect MM® Registry indicate that HRQOL at baseline prior to initiation of treatment is worse among Medicaid patients compared to those with either Medicare or commercial coverage. This should be investigated to determine whether Medicaid patients are accessing care later in disease progression than others covered by Medicare or commercial insurance. Furthermore, future analyses should be conducted of patients by insurance coverage to determine whether status may be associated with access to medical care, subsequent clinical outcomes, and HRQOL over time. Results reported here should serve as a baseline reference. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Narang:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Khan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 5070 Introduction. Studies in the United States (US) have identified variation in incidence and survival of multiple myeloma (MM) patients of different races, and noted that MM is the most common hematologic cancer among African Americans. This analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients in the US as they initiate treatment with active, symptomatic MM varies by race. Methods. Data were collected in Connect MM®, a prospective observational registry begun in September 2009 involving centers in the US. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was reported by patients in the clinic at enrollment, within two months of diagnosis. Patients completed 3 psychometrically validated instruments: the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). Standard analyses were conducted of each instrument. Reported mean BPI, EQ-5D and FACT-MM scores were analyzed by patient race. Statistical significance of score differences was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1 in two ways: (1) among three different racial categories (White, Black and Other), and (2) between Blacks and non-Blacks. Hispanic/Latino patients and Asian patients comprise most of the Other cohort. Results. HRQOL data at baseline were reported by 916 pts, enrolled from 189 centers. Of these patients, 82% were White, 12% were Black, and 5% were of another race (Other). Among evaluable patients, the different race groups did not differ statistically by ECOG status or multiple myeloma stage (measured by either the International Staging System or the Durie and Salmon system). The three racial groups differed by age, with the mean (SD) age of Blacks (63 (11)) and Others (63 (13)) being less than that of Whites (68 (11), p<0.0001). Gender was trending, but not statistically significantly different, between races, with males comprising 58% of Whites, 52% of Blacks, and 46% of Others (p=0.1803). HRQOL scores by race are presented here: Overall FACT-MM results indicate that baseline HRQOL does not vary between races, as the main summary scores do not differ statistically, although the FACT-MM Total scores of Blacks and Whites are trending higher than those of Others. Only the emotional and social/family domain scores of the FACT-MM vary statistically, as Blacks show a worse mean score in the social/family domain and a better score in the emotional domain. BPI data (on a scale of 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain] do not show a statistically significant difference between races, and the same is true of the five EQ-5D domains (measured on a scale of 1 [no problem] to 2 [some problems] to 3 [incapacity]. Conclusions. Initial results from the Connect MM® Registry indicate that HRQOL at baseline prior to initiation of treatment does not vary by patient race. As such, these results may serve as a baseline reference for future analyses. In particular, as patients proceed through therapy, analyses should be conducted of patients by race, among other factors, to determine whether it may be associated with subsequent clinical outcomes and HRQOL over time. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terebelo:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Toomey:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Narang:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Khan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 38 INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide and bortezomib have moved into the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma leading to dramatically improved outcomes. As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG E4A03 clinical trial randomized newly diagnosed MM patients to lenalidomide with high-dose dexamethasone (LD) vs lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone (Ld) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). Upon completing four cycles of therapy, pts had the option of ASCT or continuing on the assigned therapy. The purpose of this abstract is to determine the outcome of patients on this trial pursuing early ASCT according to various age-groups. MATERIALS and METHODS: This is a post hoc, retrospective analysis of overall survival within age subgroups stratified by early ASCT status. This is a landmark analysis including only pts surviving the first 4 cycles of therapy. RESULTS: In all three age-groups studied, 1, 2, and 3-year survival probability estimates with ASCT were excellent (Tables 1, 2, and 3). For patients under the age of 65 who survived the first 4 cycles of therapy, overall survival at 3-years was 94% with early ASCT, 78% in pts continuing protocol therapy. Although direct comparison with patients not going to early transplant is not possible because the assignment to early ASCT versus no early ASCT was not randomized, survival with ASCT at 3-years appeared higher. While we attempt to correct for age, the differences may be influenced by other factors such as performance status, comorbidities, response to therapy, etc. The presumption that treatment related mortality (TRM) should be more problematic for older pts undergoing ASCT is addressed by looking at the >65 and >70yo cohorts. In the >65 age group, one-year mortality is similar between the early ASCT population and the no early ASCT population. In the >70 age group, no adverse impact of early ASCT was seen in the first year on overall survival but the sample size is extremely small. In all age groups early ASCT seemed to mitigate some of the survival disadvantage associated with randomization to the LD arm. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the strategy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone induction followed by early ASCT has a remarkably good outcome in terms of overall survival in all age groups studied and supports the continued role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. The risk of early mortality was notably low in the first year in all age groups. The risk of early mortality seems to increase at 2 years for the LD pts not choosing early ASCT and at 3 years for the Ld pts not choosing early ASCT. Selection bias makes it difficult to compare results for pts that chose early ASCT directly to the patients who did not receive early ASCT in this trial. As such, these results emphasize the need for randomized trials investigating the timing of ASCT in myeloma in the era of novel therapy. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front line therapy. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 308 Introduction: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has previously reported the superior 1 and 2 year survival of Ld versus LD as initial therapy in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). The 1 year and 2 year OS for Ld vs LD were 96% and 85% vs 88% and 78%, (p < 0.01), respectively. This despite higher ORR in LD vs Ld (79% vs 68%; p = 0.008). The difference in OS was predominantly due to early death in the LD group (5% vs 0.5%; p = 0.003). As a result of this analysis, Ld is now considered the standard of care. However, it should be noted that the majority of these deaths occurred in pts > 65. In this analysis, we evaluated the impact of age on dexamethasone dose intensity and OS. Methods: 445 pts were randomly assigned: 223 to LD and 222 to Ld. Pts were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis for OS. The pts were analyzed by age in 2 groups: < 65 and > 65 (the age corresponding to transplant eligibility outside the US). The pts > 65 were then further subdivided into >70 and > 75 yrs. Results are expressed as OS probability at 1 and 2 years post randomization. In addition, to eliminate the early death ‘penalty’ in the LD group in the original analysis, a landmark analysis was performed at 4 months. Results: Overall Survival Probability: Intent-to Treat Analysis Overall Survival Probability: 4 month Landmark Analysis Conclusions: As previously reported, OS in the trial at 1 and 2 years was superior with Ld. OS was not superior with LD compared with Ld in any age group despite a higher response rate. This was true even when using a landmark analysis to eliminate the 5% early deaths seen in the first 4 months of treatment. We conclude the following: 1) LD is not definitively superior to Ld in any age group; 2) Given the higher toxicity in the absence of a clear survival benefit with LD, Ld remains the best choice for all ages. This analysis confirms the original opinion that low-dose dexamethasone is the standard of care for all newly diagnosed MM pts, regardless of age. Disclosures: Vesole: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centorcor-Ortho-Biotech: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front-line therapy in multiple myeloma. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Intellikine: Consultancy. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) in combination with dexamethasone was approved in the US on June 29, 2006 for the treatment of subjects with multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. On February 28, 2005 based upon a positive interim analysis of two pivotal placebo-controlled Phase III studies, an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended the studies be unblinded and all subjects in both studies be given access to lenalidomide. In April 2005, the FDA in association with myeloma patient advocacy groups requested Celgene establish an expanded access program to make lenalidomide plus dexamethasone available to subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma while the treatment was awaiting approval. Aim: To provide lenalidomide to multiple myeloma subjects with a high likelihood of benefit and to obtain additional safety data. Methods: Subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that received at least 1 prior therapy were eligible. Subjects received 25 mg lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in 4-week cycles until disease progression was documented, study drug was discontinued, or lenalidomide became commercially available for this indication. Results: Between September 8, 2005 and July 25, 2006, approximately 1400 subjects in the US and Canada were enrolled into the study. A data snapshot taken March 17, 2006 demonstrated that 746 subjects had been enrolled, median age was 63 years, 60% were male, and 66.5% had Stage III disease. Median time on study was 7.1 weeks (0.1–24.4) and median daily dose was 20.5 mg. At least one Grade 3 or 4 adverse event was reported in 261 (35%) of the 746 subjects. Most commonly reported Grade 3–4 events were neutropenia (7.9% of subjects), thrombocytopenia (6.0%), fatigue (3.6%), anemia (3.5%), pneumonia (3.1%) and hyperglycemia (2.0%). These most commonly reported Grade 3–4 adverse events were the same as those found in the previous pivotal studies, however, their frequencies of occurrence were lower in the current study probably due to ongoing data collection and differences in study maturity. Likewise, the most commonly reported adverse events (all grades) were the same as those reported in the two previous pivotal studies. Conclusion: Preliminary data from this expanded access program in over 1400 subjects with multiple myeloma are consistent with results from two earlier Phase III pivotal studies. The EAP of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in multiple myeloma represents a model of how government, advocacy groups, healthcare providers and industry can work together to quickly provide treatment to subjects in need while a clearly active treatment regimen is awaiting approval.

Abstract Aim: A phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 months, with the null hypothesis being that the response rates in the two 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. All analysis were performed on an intent to treat basis. An independent DMC recommended release of study results. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 17 months. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities, including DVT/PE and infections, were significantly higher in the high dose dex arm (see Table). Overall survival (OS) at the second pre-planned interim analysis was significantly superior with lenalidomide plus low dose dex, P<0.001; one year survival 96% (Rd) versus 87% (RD). The 18 month survival rate is 91% versus 80%, respectively. OS differences in favor of the low dose dex arm were seen in pts <65 (P=0.022; one year rate 97% vs 92%) as well as pts 65 and older (P=0.002; one year rate 94% vs 83%), respectively. Sixty-one patients have died; 42 in the RD arm and 16 in Rd arm. The cause of death has been verified by detailed chart review in 38 patients. Of 29 verified deaths in the RD arm, 13 were due to disease progression, 6 thrombosis/embolism, 3 infection, 3 cardiac ischemia, 1 stroke, and 1 respiratory failure. Of 9 verified deaths in the Rd arm, 5 were due to disease progression, 2 infection, 1 thrombosis/embolism, and 1 cardiac arrest. Response rate data are expected to be available at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) in newly diagnosed MM. The increased mortality in Arm A is due to disease progression (myeloma deaths) as well as increased toxicity. This study has major implications for the use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM. Major Grade 3 or Higher Adverse Events Toxicity Arm A % Arm B % P value Neutropenia 10 19 0.01 DVT/PE 25 9 <0.001 Infections 16 6 <0.001 Any grade 3 or higher non-hematologic 49 32 <0.001 Any grade 4 or higher non-hematologic 20 9 <0.001 Deaths in first 4 months 5 0.5 0.006

Abstract Oral mucositis (OM) is a commonly occurring side effect in patients (pts) undergoing AHSCT. Velafermin, recombinant human fibroblast growth factor-20, is under investigation for the prevention of severe OM. Previous studies demonstrated that velafermin at 30 mcg/kg was well tolerated and was effective in reducing the incidence of severe mucositis. The primary objective of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study was to confirm safety and efficacy of 30 mcg/kg velafermin for prevention of severe OM incidence (grade 3/4 OM based on the WHO grading system). The secondary objective was to evaluate safety and efficacy of 10 and 60 mcg/kg doses to better define the therapeutic range. Pts were randomized to receive placebo or velafermin at 30, 10 or 60 mcg/kg in a 3:3:1:1 ratio 24–36 hrs after stem cell infusion. Randomization was stratified by study center and OM risk factors identified from the previous placebo controlled study in a similar population including conditioning regimen and body mass index (BMI ≥30). Pts with multiple myeloma or lymphoma (≥18 y.o.) receiving ≥2X106 /kg CD34+ cells following chemotherapy with or without Total Body Irradiation (TBI) were eligible. OM status and safety data were collected for 30 days post treatment while mortality and disease progression were followed for 1 yr. An interim analysis by a data monitoring committee (DMC) was planned to assess safety and efficacy after 50% of pts completed the 30 day treatment period. A total of 390 pts who received melphalan (200 mg/m2) (n=239), BEAM (n=129), TBI (n=15), or other (n=7) were randomized and 384 pts were treated. The study drug was well tolerated in general and no pts discontinued study due to drug-related adverse events. There were 93 serious adverse events (SAEs) in 78 (20%) pts and no drug-related death was reported. Five infusion-related SAEs were reported including vasovagal episode (2), syncope (2), and anaphylactoid reaction (1). All 5 episodes occurred on the day of study drug infusion and resolved on the same day with no sequelae. Based on review of the results from the interim analysis, which included safety and efficacy data from 200 pts, the DMC recommended that the study continue to completion as planned. The last pt has completed the 30 day study period. The un-blinded results of the OM efficacy endpoints from velafermin treated groups or placebo as well as 30-day safety information from all pts will be reported.

Abstract Introduction - With over 12,000 deaths from MM anticipated in 2016, nearly all patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) will become "quad refractory" to IMIDs (lenalidomide and pomalidomide) and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib and carfilzomib), and eventually "penta refractory" to anti-CD38 Abs (daratumumab and isatuximab), defining high unmet need populations. Selinexor, an oral selective XPO1 inhibitor, induces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibition of NF-kB, and inhibition of translation of several oncoprotein mRNAs such as c-myc and cyclin D. Selinexor showed potent induction of apoptosis of MM cells independent of p53 signaling. In phase 1 clinical studies, selinexor with low dose dexamethasone (Sd) demonstrated potent anti MM activity in pts with MM. Methods - This phase II clinical trial evaluated Sd in pts with MM refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide ("quad"), with a subset also refractory to an anti-CD38 Ab ("penta"). Inclusion required CrCL≥20 mL/min, ANC≥1000/µL, platelets ≥50K/µL (≥30K if plasma cells were ≥50% of marrow cellularity). Pts were treated twice weekly (BIW) with oral selinexor 80 mg for 6 or 8 doses per 28 day cycle and dexamethasone (dex) 20 mg BIW. All pts received 5-HT3 antagonists. The primary objective was to determine the overall response rate (ORR) per IMWG criteria and duration of response (DOR), both adjudicated by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). FISH analyses and gene expression profiling were performed on bone marrow aspirates. Results - 79 pts were enrolled: 48 quad (24 M/24 F, median age 62 yrs) and 31 penta (13 M / 18 F, median age 68 yrs). Both groups had a median of 7 prior treatment regimens including multiple dex-containing regimens. Baseline laboratory abnormalities included grade (Gr)≥3 anemia in 13% and Gr≥3 thrombocytopenia in 8%. Most penta pts received 8 doses / cycle (65%); most quad pts received 6 doses / cycle (83%). Common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) hematological: thrombocytopenia (72%, Gr 3/4 58%), anemia (48%, Gr 3 25%) and neutropenia (29%, Gr≥3 21%). TRAEs non-hematological: nausea (72%, Gr 3 6%), fatigue (62%, Gr 3 14%) anorexia (49%, Gr 3 3%), vomiting (43%, Gr3 4%), asymptomatic hyponatremia (42%. Gr 3 20%), diarrhea (42%, Gr 3 5%) and weight loss (33%, Gr 3 1%). There was one case of febrile neutropenia (1%) and one case of clinically significant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia (1%). Seventy pts have discontinued therapy: PD (73%), AEs (17%), physician/pt preference (1%) and 6 deaths (one case related to selinexor, intracranial bleed in pt with Gr4 thrombocytopenia). Nine pts remain on study. Efficacy was evaluated in 78 pts (1 pt did not have measurable disease). The IRC-determined ORR (≥PR) for all pts was 21%, including 5% VGPR. ORR was 21% for quad pts and 20% for penta pts. Clinical benefit rates (≥MR) were 32% (all), 29% (quad), and 37% (penta). Median OS was 9.3 months (mo) for all pts, >11 mo (median not reached) for responders (≥PR), and 5.7 mo for non-responders. Median DOR in responding pts was 5 mo, and median PFS in all pts was 2.1 mo. Baseline cytogenetics were assessed in 41 pts. The ORR in 18 pts with high-risk FISH abnormalities was 33% (Table 1). Notably, 3 of the 13 pts with a 17p abnormality responded (ORR 23%). Transcriptomic profiling revealed differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between responders and non-responders in both whole blood RNA and CD138+ bone marrow cells. Pathways enriched in responders included IL-6, IL-8 and IGF-1 pathways. Conclusions - Oral Sd is active in heavily pretreated pts with refractory MM, including those with MM refractory to anti-CD38 Ab and those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Response was associated with longer survival. The main toxicities of Sd are thrombocytopenia, nausea, anorexia, and fatigue. AEs were manageable with supportive care and dose interruptions/reductions. To our knowledge, this is the first report of anti-tumor activity in the penta-refractory MM population. This population of MM pts has exhausted all currently available treatment options and has an extremely poor prognosis and therefore requires new therapies. Expansion of this trial in this high unmet medical need, penta refractory population is planned. Table 1 Activity of Sd in Patients with High Risk MM Cytogenetics Table 1. Activity of Sd in Patients with High Risk MM Cytogenetics Disclosures Vogl: Constellation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Acetylon: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Baz:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda/Millennium: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Signal Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Nooka:Spectrum, Novartis, Onyx pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Richter:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Costa:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chari:Array Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Siegel:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Fonseca:Janssen: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Millennium, a Takeda Company: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Patent Pending: Patents & Royalties: The use of calcium isotopes as biomarkers for bone metabolisms; Patent: Patents & Royalties: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of FISH of the disease; AMGEN: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium, a Takeda Company: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millennium, a Takeda Company: Consultancy; Millennium, a Takeda Company: Consultancy; Patent: Patents & Royalties: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of FISH of the disease; Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Patent Pending: Patents & Royalties: The use of calcium isotopes as biomarkers for bone metabolisms; AMGEN: Consultancy; Patent: Patents & Royalties: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of FISH of the disease; Patent: Patents & Royalties: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of FISH of the disease; Patent Pending: Patents & Royalties: The use of calcium isotopes as biomarkers for bone metabolisms; Patent Pending: Patents & Royalties: The use of calcium isotopes as biomarkers for bone metabolisms; Celgene: Consultancy. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Employment. Picklesimer:Karyopharm: Employment. Friedlander:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Choe-Juliak:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment.

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.