Citations

Abstract Abstract 479 Background: MLN9708 is an investigational, oral, potent, reversible, and specific 20S proteasome inhibitor, which immediately hydrolyzes to MLN2238, the biologically active dipeptidyl leucine boronic acid. In preclinical studies, MLN2238 has shown faster proteasome dissociation and greater tissue penetration than bortezomib. Current phase 1 data indicate that oral administration of single-agent MLN9708 was generally well tolerated, with no grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy, and showed signs of antitumor activity in some patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone demonstrated a 100% partial response or better (≥PR) rate in patients with previously untreated MM, providing the rationale for evaluating oral MLN9708 in place of bortezomib in this combination. Here we report phase 1 data from the first combination study of MLN9708 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01217957). Methods: Primary phase 1 objectives were to determine the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of weekly MLN9708 in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone; secondary objectives included characterization of the pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of MLN9708, assessment of PK interaction and response. Adults aged ≥18 years with ECOG performance status of 0 to 2, and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function were eligible. Patients with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy or prior/concurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism were excluded. Patients received oral MLN9708 weekly on days 1, 8, and 15, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1–21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, for up to twelve 28-day cycles. Patients received thromboprophylaxis with aspirin or low molecular weight heparin. Transplant-eligible patients could undergo stem cell transplant after six cycles. MLN9708 dose escalation, from a starting dose of 1.68 mg/m2, followed a 3+3 scheme based on the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated according to NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Response was assessed according to modified EBMT criteria. Results: At data cut-off (June 29, 2011), 10 patients have been enrolled and treated: three each at 1.68, 2.23, and 2.97 mg/m2 and one at 3.95 mg/m2; median age was 66 years (range 59–77). Patients completed a median of 3 cycles (range 1–6), with three having received 6 cycles; treatment is ongoing in six patients. A DLT of grade 3 fainting was observed in a patient treated at 3.95 mg/m2. The MTD has not yet been reached; the current cohort is receiving 3.95 mg/m2. Drug-related AEs included rash in four patients (two maculopapular, two erythematous); vomiting and fatigue in three patients each; and diarrhea, constipation, and nausea in two patients each. Grade 1 treatment-related peripheral neuropathy was reported in one patient. Serious AEs were seen in four patients: one at 3.95 mg/m2 (DLT of grade 3 fainting), one at 2.23 mg/m2 (grade 3 DVT) unrelated to MLN9708, and two unrelated at 1.68 mg/m2 (grade 3 hypotension; grade 3 gastrointestinal hemorrhage resulting in discontinuation). Two patients required lenalidomide dose reductions to 15 mg due to erythematous rash; no dose reductions were required for MLN9708 or dexamethasone. There were no on-study deaths. Of nine response-evaluable patients, all nine achieved ≥PR, including three very good PR (VGPR) and one complete response. Time to response was rapid; all responders achieved a ≥50% decrease in M-protein in cycle 1, and best response was reached by the end of cycle 4. No patient has progressed to date. One patient with confirmed VGPR discontinued at cycle 6 to undergo stem cell transplant. Conclusions: MLN9708 administered weekly in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone appears to be generally well tolerated in previously untreated MM patients at the MLN9708 dose levels studied, with evidence of antitumor activity in the dose-escalation cohorts. Evaluation continues to determine the MTD of MLN9708 in this combination. Updated results, PK data, assessment of PK interaction, and PD data will be presented. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Use of the investigational agent MLN9708 for the treatment of previously untreated multiple myeloma. Richardson:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding. Hui:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Gupta:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Di Bacco:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2865 Poster Board II-841 BACKGROUND: The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, which has been shown to be an essential cellular degradative system in myeloma cells, can also regulate bone formation through its effects on osteoblast differentiation. Retrospective analysis of variation of ALP during treatment with bortezomib indicates a close correlation between myeloma response and serum ALP levels which multiple studies have shown to be of bone origin. To determine if this effect is a class effect of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), this retrospective study analyzed variation of ALP in relationship to myeloma response during treatment with carfilzomib, the first in a new class of selective epoxyketone PIs that has demonstrated encouraging safety and efficacy in two phase 2 studies of relapsed or refractory myeloma patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of serum ALP was performed on relapsed or refractory myeloma patients enrolled on two phase 2 studies (PX-171-003 and PX- 171-004) evaluating the safety and efficacy of single agent carfilzomib. We analyzed data from 38 patients in the first cohort of the PX-171-003 study, a relapsed and refractory myeloma trial for patients who have received ≥ 3 prior therapies including bortezomib and an IMiD and 29 patients in PX-171-004, a relapsed or refractory myeloma trial that included bortezomib naïve patients. All patients received 20 mg/m2 of carfilzomib on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled. The median age was 63 years with a median time since diagnosis of 4.6 years, 52% were male, 84.% had relapsed after autologous transplants, 82.% were previously exposed to bortezomib, and 92% were previously exposed to an IMiD. Sixty seven patients with ALP data were evaluable for response. In PX-171-003 the ORR (≥PR) was 18% and the clinical benefit response (CBR; ≥MR) was 26%, while in PX-171-004 the ORR was 35.5% overall and 57% in bortezomib naive patients. ALP increment from baseline, which was most evident during the second cycle of treatment, was statistically different in patients who achieved ≥VGPR compared to all others on Days 1 (P=0.0049) and 8 (P=0.006) of Cycle 2. In all patients achieving a VGPR or better, ALP increased more than 15 units per liter at Cycle 2 Day 1 over baseline An ALP increase over the same period of time was seen in 26 %, 13%, and 11% of patients achieving PR, MR, and SD, respectively. None of the patients with progressive disease exhibited a similar increase. Our study indicates that response first assessed on Day 15 of Cycle 1 parallels the ALP elevation which returned to baseline levels at the end of Cycle 3. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis on a subset of patients in these ongoing phase 2 studies of single agent carfilzomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma suggests that elevation in ALP may be associated with best response. Taken with previous publications describing bortezomib treatment, these results suggest that this specific anabolic bone phenomenon could be a class effect of proteasome inhibitors. These phase 2 studies are ongoing with a higher dose of carfilzomib (27 mg/m2) being evaluated. The data from this small subset analysis suggests that further exploration of this relationship is warranted. Disclosures: Zangari: Milllennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; OrthoBiotech: Honoraria; Optum Health: Honoraria; Educational Concepts Group, LLC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Proteolix: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Proteolix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Wang:Proteolix: Honoraria, Research Funding. Belch:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding. Singhal:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Btz (VELCADE®) is approved for patients (pts) with relapsed MM. This study characterized PK/PD of btz at 2 doses (1.0, 1.3mg/m2) after single- and multiple-dose administration, and evaluated their relationship. 24 pts with relapsed MM and creatinine clearance ≥50mL/min were randomized to btz 1.0 (n=12) or 1.3mg/m2 (n=12) on D 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-D cycle (C). Pts could continue therapy for ≥8 Cs if beneficial. PK/PD samples were drawn at multiple time points on D1 and D11 of C1 and C3 over 48h. Plasma concentrations of btz were similar following administration of 1.0 and 1.3mg/m2; differences in mean plasma Cmax and AUC values were within the degree of intersubject variability (Table). There was a decrease in clearance and an increase in terminal half-life of btz on D11 vs D1 of C1.The volume of distribution of btz suggests extensive peripheral tissue distribution. After single or repeat administration, mean maximum percent inhibition of 20S proteasome activity (vs baseline) in whole blood was 70–84% and 73–83% for the 1.0 and 1.3mg/m2 doses, respectively. The percentage of pts who had >90% inhibition was greater in subsequent doses vs first dose. Reversibility of 20S proteasome inhibition in whole blood was demonstrated. PK/PD modeling revealed an exposure-response relationship, with Emax and EC50 values consistent across study days. These results confirm btz is a potent inhibitor of the 20S proteasome. The efficacy of single-agent btz has been explored and validated in the pivotal phase 2 SUMMIT and phase 3 APEX trials at 1.3mg/m2, and explored in the phase 2 CREST trial at 1.0mg/m2. Complete safety and efficacy data by dose will be presented. Mean±SD PK parameters of btz in plasma 1.0mg/m2 1.3mg/m2 1.0mg/m2 1.3mg/m2 D1/C1 (n=11) D11/C1 (n=12) an=5;bn=11;cn=10;dn=7;en=11;fn=9 Tmax (h) 0.13±0.13 0.11±0.06 0.07±0.03 0.20±0.29 Cmax (ng/mL) 56.7±36.3 112±122 106.2±46.7 88.6±47.6 AUC48h(ng·h/mL) 26.5±12.4 34.6±19.8 82.8±35.9b 82.4±28.6b AUClast (ng·h/mL) 22.6±12.6 31.5±18.6 137±106 122.2±67.4 CL (L/h) 102.1±48.1 111.6±73.6 23.2±17.8 28.0±19.8 Vβ (L) 1976±2498a 2015±2974d 1659±752c 2415±1711 t1/2λz(h) 30.7±44.8a 11.5±12.7d 78.9±50.9c 75.6±49.9 D1/C3 (n=12) D11/C3 (n=12) Tmax (h) 0.12±0.12 0.10±0.05 0.16±0.17 0.10±0.05 Cmax (ng/mL) 66.5±42.6 120.3±70.7 83.9±69.3 114.9±98.3 AUC48h(ng·h/mL) 66.4±24.1 79.4±24.5b 101.6±58.2b 85.2±18.7f AUClast (ng·h/mL) 74.8±35.8 86.0±27.6 227±181 160.7±67.1 CL (L/h) 32.2±19.0 32.1±15.4 15.1±13.9 18.2±9.2 Vβ (L) 1852±951d 2059±1231 3294±2993e 2505±1641 t1/2λz (h) 39.9±14.4d 49.1±34.6 193±169e 108.6±64.8

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines for MM list many alternative therapeutic options with an equivalent category of evidence but lack recommendations on the best approaches for individual patient cases. To provide clinicians with expert guidance on treatment options for defined patient scenarios, we developed and updated an interactive, online decision aid that allows users to enter specific disease and patient characteristics, enter their planned treatment, and then compare their choice of therapy with those of an MM expert panel for that scenario. Here we report data from the most recent version (2015) of this tool, capturing changes in expert recommendations and treatment trends for MM over time and evaluating the impact of this online tool on clinical care. Methods Each of 3 annual updates to the tool were developed with input from a panel of 5 MM experts. The individual experts provided treatment recommendations for multiple patient scenarios across the settings of induction therapy, maintenance therapy, and therapy for relapsed/refractory MM. A series of pull-down menus allowed users to select individual patient and disease characteristics identified by experts as important to consider when making treatment choices. These characteristics included: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (for induction therapy only), results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, risk of renal insufficiency or peripheral neuropathy, previous therapy and depth of response (for maintenance and relapsed/refractory settings), and cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction (for relapsed/refractory setting). Users were then asked to state their intended management approach for that particular patient scenario. Once completed, recommendations for that scenario from each of the experts were displayed, and users were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their treatment choice. Results Expert recommendations spanning the continuum of care were compiled in October 2012, November 2013, and March 2015 for the 3 different MM tool updates. As for earlier versions of the MM tool, each of the experts in the 2015 update provided recommendations for 32 case scenarios for induction therapy, for a total of 160 possible induction recommendations. Comparing overall induction therapy recommendations the use of bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone was approximately 40% in both 2013 and 2015, whereas the use of carfilzomib-containing regimens increased from 5% to 17%. None of the experts chose regimens with melphalan as induction therapy in 2015. In the relapsed/refractory setting, the use of newer therapeutic approaches continued to grow especially in the setting of patients who did not respond to induction therapy or relapsed within 6 months. For example, in those with prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, the selection of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone by experts rose from 11% to 38% from 2013 to 2015 with pomalidomide and lenalidomide selected for 20% to 25% of cases in the most recent tool. For prior IMiD and PI, the experts selected a new combination of pomalidomide with a PI (either bortezomib or carfilzomib) and dexamethasone in 55% of the case scenarios in 2015. To date, 170 different clinicians sought guidance on more than 259 patient case scenarios using the 2015 decision support tool. In the subset of cases (n = 104) in which users reported how the tool affected their management of patients with MM, 68% indicated the expert recommendations either confirmed or changed their intended treatment (22% changed; 46% confirmed), whereas 17% indicated that there would be barriers to implementing the expert recommendations, and 5% said they disagreed with the experts' recommendations. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence. Our data show that interactive online therapy decision aids that provide expert recommendations to clinicians for specific case scenarios can aid decision making and capture practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment. Preliminary data suggest that most clinicians using the online decision aid either confirmed or changed their treatment approaches for specific MM patient case scenarios based on expert recommendations. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Axiom: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Lonial:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Mortimer:AstraZeneca: Other: spouse is an employee of and has equity ownership in.

Abstract Background: Triplet regimens combining a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and a steroid have been shown to be active and well tolerated in previously untreated MM pts. Extended treatment represents an alternative paradigm to induction followed by ASCT in this setting; however, agents for continuous therapy need to be convenient and well tolerated. The investigational agent ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be studied clinically. Phase 1 studies have indicated single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory MM and shown ixazomib to be well tolerated with a manageable safety profile, including limited peripheral neuropathy (PN) (Richardson PG et al, Blood 2014; Kumar SK, et al, Blood 2014). Weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone has been investigated in a phase 1/2 study in previously untreated MM pts (NCT01217957); treatment comprised triplet induction therapy followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance therapy. Results of induction therapy have been previously reported (Kumar SK, et al, ASH 2012). Here we report phase 2 efficacy and safety data in pts receiving ixazomib maintenance. Methods: In phase 2, pts aged ≥18 yrs with measurable disease and no grade ≥2 PN received oral ixazomib 4.0 mg on d 1, 8, 15, lenalidomide 25 mg on d 1–21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on d 1, 8, 15, 22, for up to twelve 28-d induction cycles, followed by maintenance ixazomib on d 1, 8, 15 every 28 d until progression at the dose last tolerated during induction. Transplant-eligible pts could discontinue from study for ASCT after 6 cycles. The primary objective was CR+VGPR rate. Responses were assessed by IMWG criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.02. Results: Fifty pts were enrolled in phase 2; 29 discontinued during induction (cycles 1–12), primarily to undergo ASCT (n=14) or due to AEs (n=6) or pt withdrawal (n=4). Twenty-one pts received ixazomib maintenance therapy (cycle ≥13); 13 (62%) were male, and median age was 68 (range 34–77) years. At data cut-off (June 11, 2014), pts had received a median of 27 treatment cycles (range 15–32), including both induction and maintenance, with a median treatment duration of 26.6 mos (range 13.4–29.6). Mean ixazomib relative dose intensity was 95% and 89% in the induction and maintenance phases, respectively. The mean ixazomib dose administered during maintenance was 3.6 mg weekly. At data cut-off, 11 (52%) pts remained on ixazomib maintenance. Among 49 evaluable phase 2 pts, 44 (90%) achieved ≥PR, including 29 (59%) ≥VGPR. All 21 pts who received ixazomib maintenance had responded to induction therapy. Overall best confirmed/unconfirmed responses in the 21 pts included ≥CR in 11 (52%, of which 4 [19%] were stringent CRs [sCR]), ≥near-CR in 13 (62%), and ≥VGPR in 15 (71%), plus 6 (29%) PR. Responses were rapid and improved during treatment. Median time to first response (≥PR) was 0.99 mos (range 0.92–5.78) and to best response was 7.46 mos (range 1.02–24.74); 33% of pts improved their response during maintenance, including 2 VGPR to near-CR, 3 VGPR to CR, 1 VGPR to sCR, and 1 CR to sCR. At data cut-off, median duration of response was 26.5 mos (range 5.6–26.6+). Among 15 pts achieving ≥VGPR, 5 (33%) had progressed; median duration of ≥VGPR was 23.0 mos (range 3.7–26.1+). All pts were alive after follow-up of 24.6–30.3 mos, including a median follow-up from start of maintenance of 16.9 mos (range 12.9–18.9). Ixazomib maintenance was well tolerated; 15 (71%) pts had drug-related AEs, with only 2 (10%) pts with grade 3 drug-related AEs (hypokalemia, thrombocytopenia) and no grade 4 AEs. The most common (>1 pt) grade 1–2 drug-related AEs were diarrhea (n=8, 38%), nausea, pain in extremity (each n=3, 14%), anemia, and headache (each n=2, 10%). No PN was reported. Serious AEs were reported in 3 (14%) pts during maintenance, including grade 3 acute myocardial infarction, grade 3 pneumonia, and grade 3 orthostatic hypotension; all were considered not related to treatment. Only 1 pt required an ixazomib dose reduction due to an AE (neuralgia). Conclusions: These data indicate that single-agent ixazomib maintenance for up to 1.5 yrs was feasible and generally well tolerated, improved responses following ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction, and contributed to durable responses (median >2 yrs) in previously untreated MM pts not undergoing ASCT. The results support the ongoing phase 3 trial of ixazomib in the maintenance setting (NCT02181413). Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline Diagnostics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone and as maintenance therapy for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma.. Niesvizky:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hamadani:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding. Stewart:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Vescio:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Speakers Bureau; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Berg:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Liao:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Hui:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Richardson:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: p38a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) mediates production of proinflammatory cytokines and other factors including PGE-2 induced RANKL and IL-1 induced IL-6. SCIO-469 inhibits p38a MAPK blocking synthesis of Il-1ß, PGE2, VEGF, MIP-1α and TNFα thus reducing in vitro MM tumor growth and survival, and drug resistance. Objectives: Assess efficacy, safety, tolerability of SCIO-469 as M or MB in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: Pts were treated with SCIO-469 alone (60 mg po tid)and assessed on Days 15, 30, 52 and 73. Bortezomib (1.0–1.3mg/m2 d 1,4,8,11 q21d) was added to M for PD or SD. Pts who had clinical benefit on either M or MB at Day 73 were allowed to continue on extension study for up to a total of 168 d, to further evaluate efficacy and saftey of M or MB. Results: 62 pts were enrolled: 39 M, 23 F, median age was 63 years (range 48–84), D-S stage at Dx: I (6%), II (32), III (60%%); median time from diagnosis to treatment 3.1 years; median # prior Rx = 5; including 29% with > 6; 71% prior transplant. 27 had received prior bortezomib and 17 were considered refractory. All 62 pts received study drug; 34 pts received MB at some time during the treatment period. 5 of the 28 (18%) pts treated with M and 25 of 34 (74%) pts treated with MB continued on the extension study. Median time on study was 77.5 d (range 7–304) for M and 180.5 d (range 34–275) for MB. Best response (EBMT; Blade 1998) to M was stable disease in 24% of pts; the best response to MB was 9/34 PR (26%), 2/34 MR (6%),3/34 SD (9%). Median time to progression (TTP) was 50 days for M compared to 140 days for MB. Safety/Tolerability: Adverse events on M were tabulated separately from those on MB. Neutropenia was minimal, < 3% with either regimen; anemia (47 vs 29%) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 16%) were more prevalent with MB vs M, respectively. Epistaxis, fatigue and diarrhea were seen in > 15% of pts receiving M. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, abdominal pain, fatigue, pyrexia, anorexia, URI, arthralgia, muscle cramp, dizziness, peripheral neuropathy and headache occurred in > 15% pts receiving MB. 10 pts died on study, 9 during primary phase and 1 during extension phase. 3 deaths were the result of sepsis, the remaining 7 were due to progressive disease. Conclusions: SCIO-469, 60 mg tid, as monotherapy or in combination with Bortezomib was well tolerated. Although there were no objective responses in M (compared to 32% (11/34) in MB-including 4 patients who had failed prior bortezomib), 24% had stable disease at the end of monotherapy. Further studies to refine the dose of SCIO-469 as monotherapy and of SCIO-469 in combination with other agents are warranted.

Abstract Background: BT062 (Biotest AG, Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a CD138-binding chimerized antibody and the cytotoxic maytansinoid, DM4. It is designed to target and kill CD138-positive cancer cells. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly expressed on a number of solid tumors and hematological malignancies and is one of the most reliable markers for multiple myeloma (MM) cells. BT062 was previously evaluated as a monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory MM and found to have an acceptable tolerability profile with preliminary evidence of activity (Heffner et al, Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042). Phase I/IIa testing was initiated with BT062 in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex). The combination was well tolerated at BT062 doses up to 100 mg/m², defined to be the recommended Phase 2 dose (RPTD), and induced meaningful responses, including in patients previously treated with both Len and bortezomib (Bort) (Kelly et al, Blood. 2014; 124: Abstract 4736). Based on these promising results, further investigation of BT062 in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and dex was initiated in patients with prior Len and Bort exposure, a patient population known to have a poor outcome. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and activity of BT062 (on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 4-week cycle) used in combination with dex (20-40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) or Pom (4 mg, daily on days 1-21) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: This is a prospective, open label, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The RPTD of BT062 in combination with Len/dex was defined to be 100 mg/m², and 38 patients were treated with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD. An additional 17 patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex at the BT062 RPTD. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed/refractory MM were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len, Pom, and/or dexamethasone (any dose) was allowed. To qualify for treatment with BT062/Len/dex at the BT062 RPTD, patients must have received at least one but no more than six prior therapies.To qualify for treatment with BT062/Pom/dex, patients must have received at least two prior therapies, including both Len and Bort, and progressed on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy, with no limit on number of prior therapies. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of disease progression) without unacceptable toxicities were eligible to receive additional treatment cycles. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4. Clinical response was assessed by the investigator according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results: Sixty-four patients have received BT062 in combination with dex and Len or Pom in this ongoing study. The combinations have been generally well tolerated, with approximately 90% of adverse events (AEs) reported CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs reported are diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Forty-seven patients have received BT062 with Len/Dex (3 at 80 mg/m², 38 at 100 mg/m², 6 at 120 mg/m²), with 8 patients still on treatment. Among these 47 patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.4 months. Forty-three patients completed at least two treatment cycles and were evaluable for response. Of these patients 33 achieved a partial response (PR) or better, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 77% and a median duration of response (DOR) of 21.0 months. Thirteen of the evaluable BT062/Len/dex-treated patients had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 54% among these patients, including 1 complete response (CR), 4 very good partial responses (VGPR) and 2 PRs. Seventeen patients were treated with BT062/Pom/dex, all had prior exposure to both Len and Bort and progressed on or within 60 days of their last therapy. ORR was 79%, with 4 VGPR and 7 PR among the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy. Median PFS has not been reached after 7.5 months median follow up, with 7 patients still on treatment. Updated safety and activity data will be presented. Conclusion: BT062 has been found to be well tolerated when used in combination with Len/dex or Pom/dex, with encouraging activity even in patients with Len- and Bort-pretreated disease progressing on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy. Disclosures Kelly: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria. Somlo:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Heffner:Millennium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Madan:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Barmaki-Rad:Biotest AG: Employment. Rühle:Biotest AG: Employment. Herrmann:Biotest AG: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncoprep: Equity Ownership; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennuim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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.

Abstract Introduction Tumor specific somatic mutations can potentially influence patient response to targeted immunotherapies. Since somatic mutations generate neoantigens, novel tumor-specific peptides can be processed, loaded into MHC class I molecules, and presented to T-cells as potentially immunogenic targets. Indeed, both somatic mutation burden and neoantigen burden have been correlated with responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitor blockade in highly mutagenic advanced melanoma and lung cancer. However, correlation of response with mutation and neoantigen burden has not been reported for cancers of lower characteristic mutational burden such as multiple myeloma (MM). Indeed early results of checkpoint inhibitors in MM have been underwhelming. We therefore wished to better understand the mutation and neoantigen landscape of MM patients as it relates to responsiveness to current and future therapies. Materials/Methods Somatic mutation burden, neoantigen load, and response to therapy was obtained using interim data from theCoMMpassstudy (NCT01454297), a study by the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation that collects longitudinal clinical and molecular data on 1,000 newly diagnosed MM patients from baseline through treatment and disease progression. Next-generation exome sequencing data was used to call somatic mutations andbioinformaticallydetermine patient specific HLA type. Neoantigen binding affinity was predicted for all unique patient specific somatic missense mutation and HLA allele combinations using a well validated neural network and machine learning based algorithm. Binding affinity of the corresponding non-mutated peptide was also predicted to identify mutated neoantigens witha high binding affinity while the wild type counterpart has low predicted binding affinity. Results For 627 patients with available sequencing and clinical data, mutation and neoantigen profiles were created. Within this population, the mean overall canonical somatic mutation load was 405.84 (s=608.55) mutations per patient. These mutations included 38,222 unique missense mutations in 12,994 genes. The mean somatic missense mutation load was 64.51(s=95.29) mutations per patient including immunoglobulin genes (52.70, s=94.85 excluding immunoglobulins). There was a positive linear correlation between mutation burden and neoantigen burden. The mean neoantigen load using thresholds of mutant peptide binding affinity (half maximal inhibitory concentration, IC50) less than 500nM was 69.57 (s=124.76) neoantigens (58.53, s=123.58 excluding immunoglobulins). Limiting binding affinity of wild type peptide sequence to greater than 500nM decreased the mean neoantigen load to 23.84 (s=53.55) neoantigens (20.74, s=53.28 excluding immunoglobulins). Progression free survival (PFS) following induction therapy was used to determine correlates of mutation burden excluding immunoglobulin mutations with response. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significantly shorter PFS time in patients with greater than average tumor somatic missense mutation load (N=126) relative to those with less than average mutation load (49.1% vs. 73.0% PFS at 2yrs, p=0.0055, Figure 1) Similarly, patients with greater than average neoantigen load (N=164) had significantly shorter PFS relative to those with less than average neoantigen load (48.0% vs. 74.2% PFS at 2yrs, p=0.00259, Figure 2). Moreover, patients with both high mutation and neoantigen load (N=85) had significantly shorter PFS relative to those with less than average mutation and neoantigen load (45.3% vs. 72% PFS at 2yrs, p= 0.0168). Conclusion While mutation and neoantigen load has been correlated with response to targeted immunotherapies in highly mutated solid tumors, we report here a negative correlation between mutation, neoantigen load and MM patient survival. This indicates that a high mutation andneoantigen load negatively impacts survival of myeloma patients under current standard of care. It is hypothesized that this is because current treatments fail to recruit T cell immunity necessary to exploit tumor neoantigens fundamental to immune-mediated killing of cancer cells. This presents an encouraging basis for pursuing targeted and personalized immunotherapies for multiple myeloma, especially for patients with a higher mutational burden. PFS and mutation load. PFS and mutation load. PFS and neoantigen load. PFS and neoantigen load. Disclosures Lonial: BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Background In 2015, the FDA approved 5 new agents and/or combination regimens for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. In addition, new clinical data support using new regimens in the first-line setting. This rapid expansion of available treatment options has greatly increased the complexity of treatment decisions for patients in this disease setting. Clinical practice guidelines list multiple preferred treatment options for MM and can be challenging to apply to specific patients with a mixture of presenting features. Since 2013, we have developed and updated an MM online decision support tool designed to provide clinicians with expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the tool over the years has shown that experts rapidly integrate new data and available agents into practice whereas many tool users do not. Here we report data from the most recent version (2016) of this tool, capturing the impact of the rapid expansion of new therapies on expert treatment recommendations. Methods In June 2016, a panel of 5 experts provided treatment recommendations for 688 case scenarios across 3 settings: induction, maintenance, and R/R disease. These distinct scenarios were defined by key patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation, results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, previous therapy and response, and preexisting comorbidities. To use the tool, these patient and disease factors and the intended treatment for that specific patient were entered through drop-down menus to display the expert choices for that case. Users were then asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on planned treatment. Results We compared expert recommendations from the 2 most recent versions of our MM tool, compiled in March 2015 and June 2016, to assess the impact of the new data and FDA approvals on treatment patterns. The experts are generally not recommending these agents as induction or maintenance therapy. Three out of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone as induction therapy for preexisting peripheral neuropathy (PN) and 1 expert recommended ixazomib-based regimens as induction and maintenance therapy for patients with high-risk cytogenetics and both renal insufficiency and PN. The new agents did have a substantial impact on expert recommendation in the R/R setting. In the 2016 tool, the type of previous therapy was the primary factor affecting expert selections, whereas the number of previous lines of therapy (1-3 vs >3) had minimal impact in the R/R setting. For example, in patients refractory to previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, regimens containing either elotuzumab (30%) or daratumumab (25%) were selected frequently by experts with pomalidomide-containing regimens recommended in another 40% of these specific cases. In the 2016 tool, the use of lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone without a newly approved agent was not recommended by any expert in the R/R setting, although it had been recommended by experts in 25% of R/R case scenarios in the 2015 tool. For patient scenarios refractory to previous immunomodulatory drugs and PIs, the experts recommended daratumumab-based regimens in 67.5% of the cases in the 2016 tool whereas the use of carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone fell from 45% in 2015 to 10% of the cases in 2016. None of the experts recommended regimens with panobinostat as their preferred choice in any patient scenario in either 2015 or 2016. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence and FDA approvals. Our data show that newly approved therapies are having a large impact on expert recommendations for specific case scenarios in the relapsed/refractory MM setting. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data that captures practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Kesios: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Acetylon: Other: Scientific Founder; Sonofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 2-3-fold higher risk of multiple myeloma (MM) than persons of European ancestry (EA). Like other B-cell malignancies, genome-wide association scans (GWAS) have identified MM risk variants in the HLA region in persons of EA. We conducted a case-control analysis with data from the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)1comprising MM patients typed for bone marrow transplant to donor controls matched by race-ethnicity, and found associations between specific HLA alleles/haplotypes and MM risk that varied by race and ethnicity. To confirm our results and identify additional novel signals, we have now investigated associations between HLA alleles and haplotypes and MM risk in the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) Cohort. Methods: The source of subjects was the AAMMS, in which AA MM patients were identified from 10 cancer centers and 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) Program cancer registries in order to identify genetic risk factors for MM among AAs. A GWAS was conducted using the Illumina Human Core BeadChip array on DNA samples from 1,305 AA MM patients in the AAMMS comparing results to those from 7,078 AA controls with GWAS data generated from the Illumina 1MDuo2. The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were imputed to classical HLA variants using HIBAG. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate HLA associations, adjusting for sex, age and the first 2 principal components. P-values were adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR) for each locus group. Results: We did not identify any single HLA alleles associated with MM risk among AAs. However, several B*07:02-containing haplotypes were associated with MM risk (odds ratios [OR] ranging from 2.38 to 2.64 and FDR P-values ranging from 1.43 x 10-6 to 3.57 x 10-8). We found associations between MM risk and genotypes containing DRB3*02:02, including DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01+ DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01 (OR=1.93, PFDR= 9.36 x 10-5) similar to those observed in the NMDP study1. Novel findings included associations between MM risk and HLA Class I haplotypes B*53:01+ B*57:01 (OR=1.94, PFDR= 0.003) and C04:01~B*53:01+C*06:02~B*57:01 (OR=1.96, PFDR= 0.0050). Results from an ongoing meta-analysis between the two data sets (one based on an imputed GWAS and one based on NMDP HLA typing) will be presented. Conclusions: This study is the second to examine HLA alleles and risk of MM among AA's and is by far the largest. We confirmed a previously observed association between an HLA Class II DRB3 variant and MM risk and confirmed an association with B*07 haplotypes previously observed among EAs1. We also identified novel associations between other HLA Class I haplotypes and MM risk in AA's. Because HLA is highly polymorphic, many HLA alleles are rare variants for which genetic associations are difficult to detect without very large sample sizes. Further investigation with large sample sizes will be necessary to refine these associations in order to better identify the underlying causal alleles and determine the functional significance of these HLA associations. 1Beksac M, Gragert L, Fingerson S, et al.: HLA polymorphism and risk of multiple myeloma.Leukemia. 2016 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.199. 2Rand KA, Song C, Hwang AE, et al. Genetic susceptibility markers of multiple myeloma in African-Americans. Abstract # 2030, 56th Annual American Society of Hematology Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2014. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Nooka:Spectrum, Novartis, Onyx pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Zonder:Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.