Citations

Abstract Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract Introduction Multiple Myeloma is not a single disease. There is increasing support for risk classification in combination with treatment decision making because of its impact on clinical outcomes. Here we demonstrate additional evidence of the prognostic value of SKY92, an established genetic marker of high risk Multiple Myeloma in a multicenter collection of samples with undisclosed treatments. Materials Methods A public GEP dataset (MMRC, MMGI portal) contained 114 cases of untreated Multiple Myeloma and was used for SKY92 high risk OS prediction (Kuiper et al. Leukemia 2012). In collaboration with MMRC, OS (with a minimum of at least 2 year follow-up) was collected for 91 of 114 cases for the purpose of this analysis. Briefly, CD138-positive plasma cells had been purified prior to total RNA extraction and subsequent gene expression profiling on Affymetrix U133Plus2.0 GeneChips. The 91 cases represented 9 different clinical sites and their CEL files were normalized as a single batch against a reference cohort of 329 cases after which the SKY92 risk scores were determined as either standard risk or high risk. Results SKY92 resulted in 19 high risk (20.9%) versus 72 standard risk (79.1%) cases in the unselected 91 case-cohort. Comparisons with other high risk GEP signatures will be performed. The OS analysis (Figure 1) shows that the HR cases have significantly shorter survival (Hazard Ratio 11, p = 7 x 10-5). Table 1 shows that high risk patients had more elevated B2M (26.3% vs 13.9%), more low albumin (26.3% vs 16.7%) and more high creatinine (26.3% vs 11.0%). There was no difference between high and standard groups in diagnosis dates (not shown). Cause of the 16 (84.2%) deaths among the high risk cases, and 21 (29.1%) deaths among the standard risk cases indicates that high risk contains less disease progression deaths (57.1% vs 31.3%), and more unknown deaths (56.3% vs 23.8%). Conclusions The SKY92 classifier identified 19 of 91 cases (21%) as high risk, recapitulating the percentage of high risk in previously studied cohorts (Kuiper et al. 2012). Moreover the hazard ratio of 11 when events up to 24 months or 8.18 when all events are considered, emphasizes the unmet medical need of high risk cases identified with SKY92 as 69% of all deaths within 2 years (9/13 death events) were in this category. Acknowledgments This research was performed within the framework of CTMM, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, project BioCHIP grant 03O-102. Rafael Fonseca is a Clinical Investigator of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Fund. This work is supported by grants R01 CA83724, ECOG CA 21115T, Predolin Foundation, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center and the Mayo Foundation. Disclosures: van Beers: Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Van Vliet:Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Anderson:celgene: Consultancy; onyx: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; sanofi aventis: Consultancy; oncopep: Equity Ownership; acetylon: Equity Ownership. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Celgene: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cephalon: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Millennium: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Onyx: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Reece:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Cylene: Research Funding; Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Background BT062 (Biotest AG Dreieich, Germany) is an antibody-drug conjugate, comprising the anti-CD138 chimerized MAb (nBT062) and the maytansinoid DM4 as cytotoxic agent. Once bound to CD138 on a target cell, the conjugate is internalized and releases DM4, leading to target cell death. CD138 (Syndecan-1) is highly overexpressed on various solid tumors and in hematological malignancies, and represents one of the most specific target antigens for identification of multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Data from two studies investigating BT062 as single agent demonstrated an acceptable tolerability profile and evidence of clinical activity in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and/or refractory MM (1, 2). Preclinical studies showed enhanced anti-MM activity when BT062 was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len/Dex). Based on these data, a Phase I/IIa study in MM was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BT062 in combination with Len/Dex. Objectives To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RPTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and anti-MM activity of increasing doses of BT062 (days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) in combination with Len (25 mg, daily on days 1-21) and low dose Dex (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM. Methods This is a prospective, open label, dose-escalation, multicenter Phase I/IIa study. The Phase I part includes dose escalation, and the Phase IIa the expansion of the MTD or RPTD cohort. Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed and/or refractory MM who have failed at least one prior therapy were eligible to participate. Prior treatment with Len and/or Dex was allowed. Patients with clinical response (or no evidence of progressive disease) and without unacceptable toxicities were eligible for additional treatment cycles. Patients were enrolled in cohorts of at least 3 at each dose level; DLT in the first cycle triggered cohort expansion. Toxicities were assessed by CTCAE v4 and clinical response was assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Results As of July 2013, a total of 15 patients have received BT062 at dose levels of 80 mg/m2 (N=3), 100 mg/m2 (N=6) or 120 mg/m2 (N=6). Two patients at the highest dose level discontinued study due to toxicity (DLT), another patient withdrew consent. The other 12 patients remain on treatment; median duration 144 days (range 8–385). The median number of prior therapies was 4 (range 1–11), 87% of patients had prior Len exposure, and 50% were Len/Dex refractory. The maximum administered dose (MAD) has been reached at 120 mg/m2, with mucosal inflammation (CTC grade 3) as DLT in one, and anemia (CTC grade 3) in a second of the 6 patients treated at this dose level. About 85% of reported Adverse Events (AE) were of CTC grade 1 or 2. The most common reported AEs were fatigue, hypokalemia, and diarrhea. Amongst the 9 patients currently evaluable for efficacy, responses were observed across all dose levels with a overall response rate (ORR) of 78%; including 1 patient with complete response (120 mg/m2), 1 patient with very good partial response (80 mg/m2), and 5 patients with partial response (80 and 100 mg/m2). Two other patients achieved disease stabilization, resulting in a clinical benefit in 100% of the evaluated patients. Interestingly, partial response was observed in 3 patients refractory to prior treatment with Len/Dex. The MTD has been defined as 100 mg/m2 and is currently expanded to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of BT062 at the RPTD. Conclusion Preliminary data from this ongoing study indicate that BT062 is well tolerated in combination with Len/Dex at dose levels that induce responses in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, including Len/Dex-refractory patients. Updated results on safety and efficacy will be presented. References 1. Jagannath et al, BT062, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Directed Against CD138, Shows Clinical Activity in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Blood. 2011; 118: Abstract 305. 2. Heffner et al, BT062, an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Directed Against CD138, Given Weekly for 3 Weeks in Each 4 Week Cycle: Safety and Further Evidence of Clinical Activity. Blood. 2012; 120: Abstract 4042. Disclosures: Somlo: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NIH: Research Funding; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Heffner:Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Siegel:Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Munshi:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Ruehle:Biotest AG: Employment. Chavan:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Patel:Biotest Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Rothenburger:Biotest AG: Employment. Wartenberg-Demand:Biotest AG: Employment. Haeder:Biotest AG: Employment. Anderson:Gilead: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Equity Ownership.

Abstract While extensive, the genetic studies of DLBCL tumors to date have primarily focused on somatic mutations that are associated with development of lymphoma, i.e., driver mutations. Identification of key genetic events that impact and/or predict response to therapy and clinical outcome of lymphoma patients has not been accomplished. In an exploratory study, we used whole-exome sequencing to identify novel biomarkers that can predict which patients have an aggressive form of DLBCL, and therefore would likely benefit from a different and more aggressive treatment plan. Using whole-exome sequencing data from 54 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, we evaluated the association of somatic coding single nucleotide (cSNV) and copy number (CNV) variants with aggressive DLBCL. All patients were treated with R-CHOP or immunochemotherapy, and disease aggressiveness was based on relapse, with patients classified as having aggressive disease (AD) (n=13, defined as treatment failure, relapse, or progression within 24 months of diagnosis) versus non-aggressive disease (n=41, defined as achieving at least 24 months of relapse-free survival). An in-house algorithm, patternCNV was used to detect somatic CNVs. Logistic regression was used to assess statistical significance. In the cSNV analysis, 24 genes were found to be significantly (p ≤ 0.05) associated with AD. Of these genes, CIITA (p=0.01) was previously identified as a mutational target in DLBCL and is a recurrent gene fusion partner in lymphoid cancers. Metacore analyses showed that seven of these genes, including CIITA, can be placed in the same regulatory network centered around CREB1. Interestingly, the CREB binding protein (CREBBP) is a known target of pathogenic mutations in DLBCL. In the CNV analyses, we identified 245 gene amplifications and 209 gene deletions associated with AD (p ≤ 0.05). Deleted genes were localized in three major chromosomal regions, 6p22.3-6p22.1 (26 genes), 6q13-6q16.3 (31 genes), and 6q21-6q24.2 (86 genes). In the CNV amplification analysis, the genes were localized in two major chromosomal regions, 3q12.3-3q29 (90 genes) and 19q13.12-19q13.43 (122 genes). We also quantified the association of each regional deletion/amplification with patient outcome. As expected, each deleted region was univariately associated with time to relapse: 6p22.3-6p22.1 (HR = 7.19, 95% CI: 2.66-19.46, p=1.33x10-5), 6q13-6q16.3 (HR = 4.44, 95% CI: 1.74-11.32, p=6.84x10-4), and 6q21-6q24.2 (HR = 5.42, 95% CI: 2.12-13.87, p=9.23x10-5) as well as the two amplification regions: 3q12.3-3q29 (HR = 4.60, 95% CI: 1.49-14.24, p=4.27x10-3) and 19q13.12 -19q13 (HR = 13.79, 95% CI: 4.39-43.34, p=2.81x10-8). Deletions at 6q21-6q24.2 have been previously reported in DLBCL and two tumor suppressor genes associated with lymphoma pathogenesis are localized in the region, TNFAIP3 (p=0.14) and PRDM1 (p=0.02), the latter of which was significantly associated with AD. However, the genes in the 6p21 locus that were most significant (p=0.002) were SLC22A16, GPR6, SOBP, MATTL24, DDO, and REV3L. SLC22A16, which also had cSNVs in two tumors, is an organic cation transporter that has been shown to transport chemotherapeutic drugs including doxorubicin. Successful drug response has been correlated with the level of activity and expression of this transporter in tumor cells. To determine if expression of SLC22A16 would have an impact on doxorubicin transport, and may therefore impact response to R-CHOP we overexpressed either an empty vector control or SLC22A16 in OCI-Ly7 DLBCL cells, which do not express endogenous SLC22A16 mRNA. We found that OCI-Ly7 cells expressing SLC22A16 have increased 14C-doxorubicin uptake and are more sensitive to doxorubicin-induced cell death when compared to the empty vector control cells. These data suggest that loss of SLC22A16 expression through gene deletion could impact the ability of DLBCL cells to respond to therapy and indicates an aggressive form of the disease. In summary, our data are the first to use whole exome sequencing to identify genetic variants associated with aggressive DLBCL, which will require replication in additional samples. Nevertheless, our data highlight the role for somatic CNVs in patient outcome and we biologically validate the potential impact of deletions in SLC22A16 at 6p21. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Current therapies for patients with r/r ALL who have had prior allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have very poor outcomes. Improvements in the therapeutic options available for adult r/r ALL are required. Blinatumomab is a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct that redirects cytotoxic T cells to lyse CD19-positive B cells. The aim of the present analysis was to characterize a subset of patients with r/r ALL and prior alloHSCT before treatment with blinatumomab from a large confirmatory open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study (Topp MS et al Lancet Oncol 2015;16(1):57-66). Methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) had Philadelphia chromosome-negative r/r ALL with 1 of the following negative prognostic factors: primary refractory, first relapse within 12 months of first remission, relapse within 12 months of alloHSCT, or second or greater salvage. Patients with active acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) were excluded. Patients were required to stop all immunosuppressive GvHD therapy within 2 weeks before starting blinatumomab. A total of 189 patients were enrolled and received blinatumomab by continuous intravenous infusion (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) for up to 5 cycles. The primary endpoint was complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CR/CRh) within the first 2 cycles. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and adverse events (AEs). Results: 64 (34%) patients had received alloHSCT before study enrollment; 10 patients had 2 prior alloHSCTs. Donor types primarily included 29 (45%) matched sibling and 31 (48%) unrelated, with 34 (59%) patients receiving myeloablative conditioning regimens (donor chimerism data were unavailable). Among those with prior alloHSCT, median age (range) was 32 (19-74) years. At baseline, 23 (36%) patients had 1 prior relapse, 24 (38%) had 2 prior relapses, and 17 (27%) had ≥3 prior relapses; 28 (44%) patients had relapsed post-alloHSCT. Of the 55 patients who had received previous salvage therapy, 38 (69%) had received salvage therapy after last alloHSCT and prior to blinatumomab. Median time (range) between the last alloHSCT and subsequent relapse was 6 (1-33) months. Median time from last prior alloHSCT to first dose of blinatumomab was 10 (3-40) months. Nineteen (30%) patients had a history of GvHD, and 42 (66%) had ≥50% bone marrow blasts at start of treatment as assessed by a central laboratory. Patients received blinatumomab for a median of 2 (1-5) cycles. Efficacy data are presented in Table 1. Overall, 45% (29/64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 33-58) of patients achieved CR/CRh within the first 2 cycles, with similar rates of remission also observed in the alloHSCT-naïve (42%; 52/125) group. With a median follow-up of 8.8 months, median (95% CI) OS was 8.4 (4.2-9.4) months for the 64 patients with prior alloHSCT treated with blinatumomab. Of the 29 responders (CR, n=18 and CRh, n=11), 22 (76%) had a minimal residual disease (MRD) response and 19 (66%) achieved a complete MRD response. Median RFS (95% CI) was 6.1 (5.0-7.7) months. 9/29 (31%) responders subsequently underwent another alloHSCT. In total, 56 (88%) patients had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, with the most frequent including neutropenia (22%), febrile neutropenia (20%), anemia (17%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). Six patients reported treatment-emergent GvHD (two grade ≥ 3) during blinatumomab treatment, 3 of whom had GvHD in skin. Eight patients had fatal treatment-emergent AEs, which included 1 due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 1 due to respiratory failure, and 6 due to infection/infestation; 1 of these (candida infection) was considered to be possibly related to treatment by the investigator. Of the subjects who had treatment-emergent fatal AEs, none were in remission at the time of death. Summary: In this heavily pretreated group of patients with r/r ALL and prior alloHSCT, single-agent blinatumomab was able to induce a CR/CRh rate of 45%, with an AE profile consistent with that previously reported. Post-alloHSCT patients who had relapsed performed equally as well as those without prior alloHSCT. To prolong remission in this poor outcome patient group, the addition of other immunotherapies to the treatment regimen may be considered for future investigations. Disclosures Stein: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Topp:Astra: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Goekbuget:Erytech: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Equity Ownership; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eusapharma/Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SigmaTau: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bargou:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Patent for blinatumomab; University of Wuerzburg, Germany: Employment; GEMoaB GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rambaldi:Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria. Zhang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zimmerman:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Forman:Mustang: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Gene Expression Profiling studies have resulted in signatures capable of providing robust prognosis for Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients, such as the EMC92 [SKY92, Kuiper et al. Leukemia 2012]. Recently, data from 4720 MM patients from the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4, UAMS-TT2, UAMS-TT3, MRC-IX, APEX and IFM trials were employed to assessed the majority of currently identified prognostic markers and their combinations (GEP, FISH, and biochemistry data, [Kuiper et al ASH 2014]). The "SKY92 + ISS" was identified and validated as the statistically most optimal (i.e. most significant and robust) prognostic marker combination for MM patients. The combination of the EMC92 (=SKY92) and ISS prognostic features proves to be a very powerful, unprecedented and straightforward prognostic system. It identifies four prognostic risk classes: low risk (ISS I-SKY92 standard risk (SR)), intermediate-low (ISS II-SKY92 SR), intermediate-high (ISS III-SKY92 SR) and high risk (ISS I-III, SKY92 high risk). Previously, the SKY92 has been validated on the 91 MM cases in the MMGI cohort [Van Beers et al. ASH 2013]. Here we present an extension of that validation with the SKY92 + ISS combination on the 78 MM cases for whom both GEP and ISS is available, by both assessing as the "4 risk group" model defined above, but also a "3 risk group" model (the two intermediate groups combined) as this may be more relevant and useful for clinical application. Materials and Methods A public untreated MM dataset (Multiple Myeloma Genomics Initiative, MMGI) had n=78 cases for which OS, GEP, and ISS were available for analysis. The prognostic markers SKY92 and ISS were applied as proposed [Kuiper et al ASH 2014] to classify cases into the risk categories. Results The risks for the 4 group classification model are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, and the 3 risk group model is shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. In the 4 group model, the intermediate-low group (SKY92 standard + ISS II) was a small and not significantly different (p=0.79) from the low risk. The intermediate-high group (SKY92 standard + ISS III) was also a small group, with significantly worse outcome compared with the low risk group (p=0.012). Although stratification into four groups was statistically superior in the training and validation data [Kuiper et al ASH 2014] the interpretability benefits from aggregation of the middle two groups [Fig 1 right]. Table 1. Classification results for the four risk groups (Fig 1 left) Risk group n % Median OS HR vs low risk SKY92 High Risk regardless of ISS 19 24 28.4 m 10.8 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-III 10 13 63.0 m 4.1 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-II 16 21 NR (0.8) SKY92 standard risk + ISS-I (low risk) 33 42 NR NA NR= Not Reached at 96 months, HR= hazard ratio Table 2. Classification results for the three risk groups (Fig 1 right) Risk group n % Median OS HR vs low risk SKY92 High Risk regardless of ISS 19 24 28.4 m 10.1 SKY92 standard risk + ISS-II/III 26 34 78.5 m (1.8) SKY92 standard risk + ISS-I 33 42 NR NA NR= Not Reached at 96 months, HR= hazard ratio, () not significant Conclusions By applying the SKY92 + ISS risk stratification model in an independent validation cohort of newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma patients, besides a high risk group of 19 patients (24%), a group of 33 patients (42%) with superior prognosis could be predicted (SKY92 standard risk and ISS I) that translated into 62% OS at 96 months. The 19 high risk (SKY92 high risk) cases had very poor prognosis (median survival of 28 months). The combination of SKY92 Standard Risk and ISS II and III seems useful for definition of "intermediate risk" although sample size currently is insufficient for significance compared to low risk. The intention is to also perform this validation on the relapsed samples from the MMGI cohort, once OS data has been collected. This validated risk model could play a role in the design of future treatment strategies for high and low risk MM patients. Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves on the 78 MMGI cases, split into four (left) or three (right) risk groups based on the combination of SKY92 + ISS. Hazard Ratios (HR) are from a Cox proportional Hazards model comparing a particular group to the low risk group. Figure 1. Kaplan Meier curves on the 78 MMGI cases, split into four (left) or three (right) risk groups based on the combination of SKY92 + ISS. Hazard Ratios (HR) are from a Cox proportional Hazards model comparing a particular group to the low risk group. Disclosures van Beers: SkylineDx: Employment. van Vliet:SkylineDx: Employment. de Best:SkylineDx: Employment. Chari:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biotest: Other: Institutional Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Consultancy, Other: Institutional Research Funding, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagganath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: 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, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria. Lebovic:Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reece:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Richardson:Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Stewart:SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Onyx/Amgen: 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; Bayer: 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; Millennium: 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; 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.

Abstract Abstract 2965 Background: Alkylating agents have been the mainstay of multiple myeloma (MM) therapy for decades and despite introduction of several new therapies, it continues to play a significant role in its management as part of various drug combinations. While melphalan has been the most commonly used alkylator in MM, recent studies have suggested significant activity for bendamustine, a bifunctional alkylator. The combination of lenalidomide and melphalan has been associated with high response rates in relapse and newly diagnosed MM. Based on these promising results we designed a trial to evaluate the maximally tolerated dose of lenalidomide and bendamustine when used in combination as well as the efficacy of the combination in relapsed disease. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM and measurable disease were enrolled on this phase 1/2 trial provided they had not more than 4 prior lines of therapy for MM, had adequate performance status and organ and hematological function. Patients refractory to lenalidomide were allowed to enroll. The primary objectives were to (i) to determine the MTD of bendamustine and lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in subjects with relapsed MM (phase 1) and (ii) to evaluate the confirmed response rate of bendamustine in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed MM (phase 2). Bendamustine (B) was administered on days 1 and 2 of a 28-day cycle at doses of 50–100 mg/m2. Lenalidomide (R) was given days 1–21 at doses of 15–25 mg daily. Dexamethasone (D) was administered at 40 mg weekly. Dose escalation was done using a 3+3 design and MTD was defined as one dose level below that resulted in >=2 DLTS among 6 patients. The primary end point for this trial was the proportion of patients with confirmed hematologic response (sCR, CR, VGPR, or PR) over the first 6 cycles of treatment. Results: A total of 72 patients were accrued to this study from March 2010 to May 2012: 21 patients in phase 1 and 51 in phase 2. The 6 patients from the MTD dose level of phase 1 were also included in phase 2. The median age of all 72 patients was 62.1 (range, 40–86) and 57% were male. Majority (75%) of patients had previously been exposed to lenalidomide and 69% had prior exposure to bortezomib. Median # of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1–5) and 74% of patients had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Patients have received a median of 4 cycles (range, 1–25), with 27 patients still continuing on active treatment. Disease progression led to study discontinuation in 22 (49%) and adverse events were the reason for discontinuation in 14 (31%). In phase I, two DLTs (Grade (Gr) 2 neuropathy and Gr 4 neutropenia) were seen at the highest dose level (100 mg/m2 B, 25 mg R), and the MTD was determined as 75 mg/m2 of B given days 1 and 2 and 25 mg of R days 1–21, along with D 40 mg weekly. Overall patients, 12/21 (57%) had a PR or better. In phase 2, 17 (40%) confirmed responses (>=PR) were seen among the 43 patients evaluable for response (received at least 6 cycles of treatment or have gone off study prior to 6 cycles); including 9 (21%) VGPR and 8 (19%) PR. An additional 5 patients had a minor response. Over all dose levels, a gr 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study was seen in 75% of patients. The most common toxicities were all hematological (thrombocytopenia and leukopenia), and most common non-hematological toxicity was infection. Prolonged time to recovery of blood counts was seen in a few patients, but majority of patients were able to tolerate the regimen with adequate dose reductions. Conclusion: The recommended dose of the combination for further studies is bendamustine at 75 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1–21 and dexamethasone days 1, 8, 15, 22; with cycles repeated every 28 days. The regimen is well tolerated with hematological toxicity being the most common and manageable with dose reductions. The regimen is effective with high response rates and durable responses seen. Updated results with response rates and time to event analyses will be available for the entire cohort at the time of meeting. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Krishnan:celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Novartis: Expert Testimony, Expert Testimony Other. Vij:Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 BACKGROUND: The introduction of novel agents and proteasome inhibitors, and advances in high dose therapy administration has made an impact on the survival outcomes for MM patients. However, HRMM still remains a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. Even with aggressive approaches such as the Total Therapy protocols, patients with poor genomic risk have a 2-year event-free survival of ~50% (Nair et al, Blood 2010). A randomized Phase I/II trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of adding immunotherapy into the first line for HRMM patients, comparing lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) with or without addition of elotuzumab (Elo), a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to SLAMF7/CS1. We are reporting on the Phase I portion of the study. PATIENTS & METHODS: The objective of Phase I was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of RVD-Elo. Both low/standard risk MM and HRMM patients were eligible. HRMM was defined by one or more of the following: (1) poor risk genomics by the Arkansas 70-gene model, (2) translocation (14;16), translocation (14;20) and/or deletion (17p) by florescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), (3) primary plasma cell leukemia and (4) serum LDH > 2 times normal levels. The treatment consisted of induction chemotherapy for 8 cycles with RVD-Elo (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14 of every 21-day cycle; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,4,8,11; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,8,15 cycles 1-2 then days 1,11 cycles 3-8) followed by dose-attenuated RVD-Elo maintenance (lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1-14; bortezomib 1.0 mg/m2 subcutaneously days 1,8,15; dexamethasone 12 mg orally days 1,8,15; elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously days 1,15) until disease relapse, progression or intolerance. Adverse events (AE) were recorded as per the NCI CTCAEv4.0. RESULTS: Eight newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled on the Phase I run-in study. Six patients (Figure 1) were evaluable for dose limiting toxicities (DLT) during Cycle 1 as per protocol. The median age of patients was 67 years (range: 56-79 years), with 67% ≥65 years, Hgb was less than 10 g/dL in 50%, creatinine was greater than 2 mg/dL in all patients. ISS stage distribution was 17% (I), 33% (II) and 50% (III). Deletion 13 was observed in 1 patient (17%). The most common AEs (all grades) were fatigue (100%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (83%), edema (83%), lymphopenia (66%) and leukopenia (50%). The most common Grade 3 AEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy (33%), one of which was a DLT, neutropenia (17%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). One Grade 4 lymphopenia was observed. All 6 patients have completed 8 cycles of RVD-Elo induction therapy and 5 patients have completed at least 4 cycles of RVD-Elo maintenance. Overall median days on therapy per cycle were 13 days during induction and 20 days per cycle during maintenance. Dose adjustments were made in 83% of patients for bortezomib, 83% for lenalidomide and 33% for dexamethasone. There were no dose reductions for elotuzumab, although three patients had 1 event each of dose delays/missed dosing attributable to AE/SAE from RVD. Efficacy data will be released at the time that the phase II study of RVD +/- Elo is mature. Discussion/Conclusion: The RVD-Elo is a safe well-tolerated regimen for newly diagnosed MM patients without major additive AE/SAE beyond what is already known about RVD. This is the first report of the only phase I experience combining the triple-drug regimen RVD with the monoclonal antibody Elotuzumab for newly diagnosed MM. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA180821, CA31946, CA21076, CA180799, CA21115, CA180820 and in part by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Disclosures Usmani: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Ailawadhi:Millennium: Honoraria. Shah:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenzweig:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Durie:IRC J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corp: Expert Board Committee Other; IRC Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DMC Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; JW Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.