Citations

AbstractMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease despite incorporation of novel agents. Venetoclax, a B‐cell lymphoma 2 (BCL‐2) inhibitor is approved for some hematologic malignancies but not yet for MM, although clinical trials have shown efficacy in patients with MM, particularly those harboring t(11;14). We reviewed the medical records of relapsed and/or refractory MM patients to study the efficacy and safety of venetoclax used outside of clinical trials at Mayo Clinic between December, 2016 and March, 2019. The data cut‐off date was August 06, 2020. We identified 56 patients of whom 42 (75%) harbored t(11;14). The median number of prior therapies was six (range 1–15) and 14% of patients had received ≥10 prior lines of therapy. Fifty‐three (95%) patients were refractory to an immunomodulatory drug and proteasome inhibitor. Venetoclax was used as monotherapy or doublet, in combination with dexamethasone in 55% (n = 31) and a triplet or quadruplet in 45% of patients. No patient experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Overall response rate in 52 evaluable patients was 44%. The median time to best response was 2 months and median duration of response was 13.6 months. The median PFS for the entire cohort was 5.8 (95% CI 4.9–10.3) months and median OS was 28.4 (95% CI 14.6‐not reached) months. The presence of t(11;14) was associated with improved PFS (median 9.7 months vs. 4.2 months, p = 0.019) and OS (median not reached vs. 10.8 9 months, p = 0.015). Venetoclax demonstrates encouraging activity in heavily‐treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM, particularly the t(11;14) patient‐population.

e20016 Background: An elevated serum LDH level is an adverse prognostic factor in NDMM. However, this category includes quantitative serum LDH levels that range from just over the upper limit of normal (ULN) to levels that may be 2 or more-fold higher than the ULN. This binary classification of serum LDH level of “normal versus elevated” fails to discriminate between the different disease biology that exists among NDMM patients with elevated serum LDH levels. Thus, we attempted to further stratify NDMM patients by the level of their serum LDH and determine its impact on OS. Methods: The cohort included patients diagnosed with NDMM from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 2003 - 2017 who were treated with novel agent induction therapy and had serum LDH levels measured at the time of diagnosis. The serum LDH levels were stratified into three levels: Normal (LDH < 222 U/L), Elevated (LDH 223-444 U/L), and Very Elevated (LDH >444 U/L or >2x upper limit of normal). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and compared via the log-rank method. Results: The cohort consists of 1,196 NDMM patients with a median age of 65 (22 – 95). R-ISS classification and cytogenetic risk were available for 968 and 970 patients respectively. The median serum LDH level was (162 U/L (3- 1260)) and an elevated LDH was present in 199 patients (17%). The median OS for patients with normal (N = 997; 83%), elevated (N = 170; 13%) and very elevated (N = 29; 3%) LDH levels were 76 months, 57 months and 23 months respectively (P < 0.001). The impact of these different levels of LDH on OS by R-ISS stage and cytogenetic risk is shown in the Table. Conclusions: A very small subset of NDMM patients has very elevated LDH levels that confer an exceptionally poor OS irrespective of R-ISS stage and cytogenetic risk. Future studies elucidating their disease biology responsible for such poor OS outcomes are warranted.[Table: see text]

e20000 Background: In the novel agents’ era, refractoriness to induction in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is relatively rare. This population remain an unmet need and are often excluded from clinical trials. In the current era, chemotherapy-induced stem cell collections are used at Mayo Clinic in “poor responders” to induction, such as patients that progress prior to ASCT or patients with significant disease burden after induction. Methods: This is a retrospective study that includes all MM patients the underwent chemo-mobilization between January 2012 and September 2020 at Mayo Clinic. We compared our cohort to a cohort of 125 matched patients that were transplanted over the same time period and underwent mobilization with G-CSF and “on-demand” plerixafor. We matched the cohorts by level of response by IMWG at pre-transplant evaluation. Results: 125 newly diagnosed MM patients who received novel agents’ induction and had a poor response to induction were mobilized using IV intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide (83%) or VDT-PACE (17%) plus G-CSF and “on-demand” plerixafor. The median PFS and OS of the chemo-mobilized cohort were 16 months (95% CI 11-20) and 47 months (95% CI 37-71), respectively. Patients receiving chemo-mobilization had higher stem cell yields than the growth factor only cohort (median 9.88X106 cells/kg versus median 8.77X106 cells/kg, respectively (P<0.001)). The safety profile of chemo-mobilization was favorable, with no difference between the two groups in length of hospitalization during ASCT (P=0.95), days to neutrophil or platelet engraftment, and risk of bacteremia (P=0.38). 29% of the chemo-mobilized cohort and 66% of the matched cohort required plerixafor for adequate mobilization (P<0.001). Conclusions: Chemo-mobilization enhances stem cell collection in MM patients with a suboptimal response to induction and reduces the need for plerixafor without adversely impacting the post-transplant clinical course. [Table: see text]

Abstract Comparative data guiding initial therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an infrequently encountered non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, are sparse. We evaluated three commonly used rituximab‐based frontline regimens: rituximab‐bendamustine (R‐Benda); dexamethasone, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (DRC); and bortezomib, dexamethasone, rituximab (BDR) in 220 treatment‐naïve patients with WM, seen at Mayo Clinic between November 1, 2000 and October 31, 2019. The median follow‐up was 4.5 (95%CI: 4–5) years. The R‐Benda cohort (n = 83) demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR: 98%), in comparison to DRC (n = 92, ORR: 78%) or BDR (n = 45, ORR: 84%) cohorts, p = 0.003. Similarly, longer progression‐free survival (PFS) was evident with R‐Benda use [median 5.2 vs. 4.3 (DRC) and 1.8 years (BDR), p < 0.001]. The time‐to‐next therapy (TTNT) favored R‐Benda [median, not‐reached, 4.4 (DRC) and 2.6 years (BDR), p < 0.001). These endpoints were comparable between the DRC and BDR cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was similar across the three cohorts, p = 0.77. In a subset analysis of 142 patients genotyped for MYD88 L265P mutation, the ORR, PFS and TTNT were unaffected by the patients' MYD88 signature within each cohort. In conclusion, ORR, PFS and TTNT with R‐Benda are superior compared to DRC or BDR in treatment‐naïve patients with active WM. The patient outcomes with any one of these three regimens are unaffected by the MYD88 L265P mutation status.

Abstract The utility of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia-international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) in predicting outcomes of individuals with Rai 0 stage CLL and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is unclear. We identified 969 individuals (415 MBL and 554 Rai 0 CLL; median age, 64 years; 65% men) seen at Mayo Clinic between 1 January 2001 and 1 October 2018, and ascertained time to first therapy (TTFT) and overall survival (OS). After a median follow up of 7 years, the risk of disease progression needing therapy was 2.9%/y for MBL (median, not reached) and 5%/y for Rai 0 CLL (median, 10.4 years). Among patients with low, intermediate, and high/very high-risk CLL-IPI risk groups, the estimated 5-year risk of TTFT was 13.5%, 30%, and 58%, respectively, P&lt; .0001 (c-statistic = 0.69); and the estimated 5-year OS was 96.3%, 91.5%, and 76%, respectively, P&lt; .0001 (c-statistic = 0.65). In a multivariable analysis of absolute B-cell count with individual factors of the CLL-IPI, the absolute B-cell count was associated with shorter TTFT (hazard ratio [HR] for each 10 × 109/L increase: 1.31; P&lt; .0001) and shorter OS (HR: 1.1; P = .02). The OS of the entire cohort was similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population of Minnesota (P = .17), although Rai 0 CLL patients with high and very high-risk CLL-IPI score had significantly shorter OS (P= .01 and P= .0001, respectively). The results of this study demonstrate the ability of CLL-IPI to predict time from diagnosis to first treatment (an end point not affected by therapy) in a large cohort of patients whose only manifestation of disease is a circulating clonal lymphocyte population.

Abstract The utility of systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after treatment has not been explored. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used systems are of prognostic value at 3 and 6 months of starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration from diagnosis impacts survival. This is a retrospective study including Mayo Clinic patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2019; 536 and 204 patients had restaging data for at least 1 system at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 3 months, median overall survival (OSs) were 11.8, 10.8, 4.6, and 1.1 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, median OSs were 11.8, 9.0, 5.2, and 0.8 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 6 months, median OSs were not reached (NR), NR, 5.4, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, OSs were NR, NR, 4.6, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Worsening stage at 3 or 6 months was associated with worse survival than retaining baseline stage. In conclusion, the current staging systems can be used for restaging at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Migration to higher stage predicts poor prognosis.

Introduction: Cardiac involvement is one of the main predictors for survival in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Biomarkers such as Troponin T and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are used routinely for detecting cardiac involvement. In addition echocardiogram (ECHO) is used to determine septal and left ventricular wall thickness and strain. Most patients with AL present with preserved ejection fraction (EF) however, the outcomes of AL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with decreased EF are not very well described. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. All patients had an ECHO done before ASCT and the EF was documented. In our practice, the threshold for performing ASCT is an EF &gt;40%. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who had an EF &lt;55% compared to patients with an EF ≥55%. The baseline characteristics were compared between patients with high and low EF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse, or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age&gt;65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC) ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10%, organs involved &gt;2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010, and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55%. Results: We identified 716 patients and 69 (10%) had an EF&lt;55%, with most (n=63, 91%)having cardiac involvement . Compared to patients with EF ≥55%, patients with EF &lt;55% were more likely to have Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 (58% vs. 22%, P&lt;0.0001) and more likely to have thicker interventricular septum (median 14 vs. 12 mm, P&lt;0.0001). The day 100 transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher in patients with EF &lt;55% compared to EF ≥55% (19% vs. 6%, P=0.0006). In patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4, the day 100 TRM was higher in patients with an EF&lt;55% compared to EF ≥55% (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with EF &lt;55% compared to patients with EF ≥55% (Figure 1 A,B). Evaluating PFS and OS according to EF specifically in Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 patients is displayed in Figure 1 (C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4, P=0.006), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10% (HR: 1.5,P=0.0005), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.7, P=0.01), ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.7, P=0.01), and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55% (HR: 1.5, P=0.02). For OS, age &gt;65 vs. ≤65 years (HR:1.4, P=0.04), Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 1.96, P&lt;0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.5, P&lt;0.0001), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10% (HR: 1.8, P=0.03), ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.5, P&lt;0.0001), and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55%(HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: Having an EF &lt;55% is associated with a higher day 100 TRM and is an independent predictor for PFS and OS in patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing ASCT. Disclosures Sidiqi: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

Background: Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has shown efficacy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed light chain (AL) amyloidosis, and the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is a commonly used regimen in AL. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved, and the combination of ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is an all oral effective regimen for the treatment of multiple myeloma. This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen in patients with AL, who have not received any therapy. Patients and methods: Newly diagnosed patients with biopsy proven AL amyloidosis, with organ involvement requiring therapy, were enrolled if they had measurable disease (Serum immunoglobulin free light chain ≥5 mg/dL AND abnormal serum free light chain ratio) and adequate organ function. Patients with severe organ involvement were excluded (Alkaline phosphatase &gt;750 U/L, creatinine clearance &lt;30 mL/min or NT-ProBNP ≥ 7500 ng/dL). Treatment consisted of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; cyclophosphamide 500 mg PO weekly and dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly for twelve 28-day cycles, followed by ixazomib maintenance (days 1, 8, 15) at the last tolerated dose till progression. The primary objective was to determine the hematologic response rate of ixazomib, used in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in patients with previously untreated AL. A one-stage binomial design was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the hematologic response rate is at most 30% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 50%, with 85% power and 9% type I error. Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, median age was 67 (range 38-78) years; 69% were male. Organ involvement included cardiac in 23 (65.7%), renal in 19 (54.3%), and nervous system involvement in 5 (14.3%). At data cutoff 8 patients still remain on study with a median follow up of 4.4 months for those who are alive. Across the trial a median of 4 cycles (range 0-23) of treatment have been completed; the most common reason for going off study was institution of alternate therapy in 17 patients (63%). The overall hematologic response was 57% (20/35) and included amyloid CR in 5 (14%), VGPR in 9 (26%) and a PR in 6 (17%) patients. Confirmed organ responses have been observed in 5 patients so far, 2 each for cardiac and renal and 1 hepatic. The median PFS and OS have not been reached; 4 patients had hematological progression; 6 patients (17%) have died. Across 193 cycles of treatment administered, dose modification was required in 5, 3, and 10 patients, respectively, for ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. A grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE), at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 41% of patients. The figure shows the maximum grade of adverse events for individual patients seen in more than one patient across the study. Conclusions: The all-oral regimen of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone is active in patients with previously untreated AL amyloidosis with hematologic responses observed in 57% of patients, including complete responses. Organ response has been observed but will likely need longer follow up for accurate assessment, given the delay in organ responses in this disease. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted. Disclosures Gertz: Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding.

Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and dexamethasone is the current standard induction therapy for myeloma. Daratumumab (Dara), a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, is highly effective in treating myeloma and improves response rates and progression free survival (PFS) when added to PI or IMiD. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an effective, all oral, induction regimen that has been studied in phase 2 and 3 trials. We designed this trial to examine the feasibility and efficacy of adding daratumumab to the IRd regimen as well as early discontinuation of dexamethasone in two sequential cohorts of patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated MM who had measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled, irrespective of their autologous stem cell transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response to IRD-Dara combination. A one-stage binomial design was utilized in each cohort independently to test the null hypothesis that the complete response rate is at most 25% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 45%, with 89% power and 9% type I error. Treatment involved 28-day cycles consisting of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21, dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly and Dara 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks thereafter during induction (12-cyles) followed by Dara-ixazomib maintenance (maximum 24 cycles). Cohorts A (n=38) and B (N=40) comprised the study population, with dexamethasone discontinued after two cycles in Cohort B. Results: Baseline demographics and patient disposition are outlined in the table. Among those who have gone off study, 9 and 5 patients, respectively in Cohort A and B went off for progression, while 11 and 8 patients in the respective arms discontinued treatment for an alternative therapy, most frequently a transplant. Responses were rapid and deepened over the duration of treatment as shown in the figure; 32% of patients in Cohort A and 28% of patients in Cohort B achieved a complete response; 29% and 23%, respectively, achieved a marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status. After a median follow up was 31.4 months for Cohort A and 18.2 months for Cohort B, median PFS has not been reached in either cohort. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 58% of patients in Cohort A (hematologic in 47% and non-hematologic in 26%) and 50% of patients in Cohort B (hematologic 43%, non-hematologic 20%). The most common toxicities included fatigue, neutropenia, lymphopenia, peripheral neuropathy and nausea. Stem cells were collected in 30 and 31 patients in Cohorts A and B respectively; median (range) of CD34 cells/kg were 8.5 (2.8, 15.9) x 106and 7.0 (2.9, 12.1) x 106, with plerixafor used in 83% and 94% of patients, respectively, in Cohorts A and B as per our standard of care "on-demand" approach based on blood CD34 count. Conclusion: Dara-IRd is an active regimen in newly diagnosed MM, with high overall rates of response and deep responses that improved over time with therapy. Early discontinuation of dexamethasone does not appear to impact the depth, rate or kinetics of response. The toxicities were manageable, with dose modifications. All patients were able to collect stem cells when required, though majority needed plerixafor. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Sanofi: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.