Citations

Abstract Oral cyclophosphamide and prednisone is a convenient regimen in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM), with a partial response (PR) rate of 40% and median progression-free survival of 19 months in our retrospective analysis of patients in first or second relapse after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (Trieu Y, et al, Mayo Clin Proc2005; 80: 1582). We sought to enhance the efficacy of this regimen by adding oral lenalidomide (Revlimid®), a potent anti-myeloma agent, in a phase I-II trial. The CPR regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide on days 1, 8 and 15, lenalidomide on days 1–21, and prednisone 100 mg every other day in a 28-day cycle. ASA 81 mg/day was given to all patients (pts) as prophylaxis for DVT. Three dose levels were evaluated using a 3 by 3 dose escalation design. Between 11/2007–07/2008, 15 pts with relapsed/refractory MM were entered onto study. Median age was 60 (45–78) years and 60% were male. Immunoglobulin subtype was IgGκ:λ in 10:1; IgA κ:λ in 2:1 and κ light chain in 1. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (1–3) and 14 had undergone previous ASCT, including double transplants in 2 pts. Prior therapy also included thalidomide in 3 (20%) and bortezomib in 6 (40%). FISH cytogenetics were available in 9, but none had 13q deletion, t(4;14) or p53 deletion. At the time of protocol entry, median β2-microglobulin level was 222 (92–325) nm/L, albumin 38 (35–46) g/L, creatinine 78 (50–100) μmol/L, platelet count 230 (93–318) x 109/L and ANC 2.5 (1.9–9.0) x 109/L. Protocol treatment is summarized in Table 1. Dose level N Cyclophosphamide dose (mg/m2) Lenalidomide dose (mg) Prednisone dose (mg) Median # cycles given 1 3 150 15 100 9 2 3 150 25 100 6 3 6 300 25 100 4 3 (expanded) 3 300 25 100 1 Dose limiting toxicity was not observed during cycle 1 at any of the dose levels and the maximum tolerated dose of this regimen has not yet been reached at the highest dose level planned; all pts remain on active therapy. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was seen in 1 pt (cohort 2) and neutropenia in 4 pts (1 in cohort 1, 1 in cohort 2 and 2 in cohort 3) and were managed with dose reduction and/or growth factor support. No episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred in any pt. Only 1 pt experienced varicella zoster; routine antiviral prophylaxis was not used. Other grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were uncommon and included abdominal pain/bacteremia in 1 pt in cohort 1, hypokalemia in 1 pt in cohort 2, and DVT in 1 pt in cohort 3. Mild grade 1/2 constipation (47%), muscle cramps (33%) and fatigue (33%) were also noted. To date, best response includes the following: dose level 1 (1 near complete remission [nCR], 2 PR); dose level 2 (3 PR); dose level 3 (4 PR, 2 minimal response [MR]); expanded cohort 3 (1 MR, 2 too early). We conclude: 1) the combination of full doses of the agents in CPR can be given in a 28-day cycle with minimal toxicity; 2) the overall response rate (nCR + PR + MR) in 13 evaluable pts to date is 87%; 3) no pts have progressed in this preliminary analysis; 4) longer follow-up is required to assess the long-term efficacy of this regimen.

Abstract p53 deletion by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been reported in about 10% of newly diagnosed patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) and has been associated with a poor prognosis. Previous data from our centre has demonstrated that the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of these pts after a single autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is only 16.9 and 48.2 months, respectively, compared to 24.4 and 76.6 mos, respectively, in all pts transplanted during the same time period (Mikhael et al, Blood2007; 110: abstract 953). Minimal information is available on the treatment (Tx) and course of these pts following disease progression. Therefore, we performed a retrospective review of all MM pts treated at our institution who were found to have p53 deletion. We identified 31 pts with relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) MM with this cytogenetic abnormality. At diagnosis, median age was 54 years (range, 31–70), hemoglobin 97 g/L (range, 67–149), creatinine 96 μmol/L (range, 28–1751), beta 2-microglobulin 314 nmol/L (range, 225–437), CRP 3 mg/L (range, 2–7) and LDH 205 U/L (range, 82–478); 58% were male. Immunoglobulin subtypes included: IgG (14 pts), IgA (8 pts), IgD (2 pts) and light chain only (7 pts). Concomitant cytogenetic abnormalities included 13q deletion in 68% and t(4;14) in 67% of pts evaluable. Thirty-nine percent developed plasma cell leukemia (PCL) at some point in the disease course, which was associated with a poor OS (p=0.005). All but 5 had undergone prior ASCT with a median time from diagnosis to ASCT of 8 (95% CI, 4–145) mos. Txs given for rel/ref MM consisted of the following regimens: thalidomide-based in 15, bortezomib-based in 12, lenalidomide-based in 11, alkylating agents in 9 and steroids only in 5 pts, and other regimens (D-PACE or investigational drugs) in 7 pts. The median follow-up from diagnosis in these pts is 45 (95% CI, 4–145) mos. The overall response rate (≥PR) (ORR), median PFS and median OS from the start of each regimen is shown below. Agent Median duration of Tx (mos) ORR(%) Median PFS (mos) Median OS (mos) Thalidomide 6.2 20% 5.0 11.9 Bortezomib 5.2 50% 5.6 36.1 Lenalidomide 10.6 60% 4.8 36.1 Alkylating agents 6.0 11% 5.1 30.0 Steroids 1.9 20% 1.9 33.4 Other 2.2 43% 6.3 33.4 We conclude: 1) Median PFS in pts with the p53 deletion is less than 6 months, with an OS of 2.5–3 yrs; 2) novel agents other than thalidomide produce the highest ORR in rel/ref MM with p53 deletion; 3) the short OS in the thalidomide group is likely related to the unavailability of other novel agents for subsequent relapses, as the majority of the pts were treated before 2004; 4) better strategies/drugs are required for these pts.

Abstract Introduction. The NCIC CTG is conducting phase II testing to establish the tolerability and estimate the efficacy of combining lenalidomide (L) + melphalan (M) over multiple cycles for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. We report the data from the preliminary safety phase of this trial. Methods. The MY.11 trial was initially designed as a randomized phase II test of M 9 mg/m2 given on days 1–4 (M9) plus either L 10 mg (L10) or 20 mg given on days 1–21 of a 28 day cycle. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included, but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted; our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF. A dose attenuation schedule was developed for neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia that was severe and occurred during the administration of L or was persistent and caused a delay in the next treatment cycle. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M. Prior to the randomized phase of the trial, a safety run-in phase testing M9+L10 in 6 patients was planned; closure of this arm was to occur if, during the first 3 treatment cycles, there were ≥ 3 H-DLTs or any non-hematologic serious adverse event (SAE) judged to be treatment related. Four of the planned 6 patients were entered; during their first 3 treatment cycles, each experienced a H-DLT and one died from sepsis. The study was therefore amended with the intent to conduct a randomized phase II test of M 4 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 15 mg days 1–21 (M4L15) and M 6 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 10 mg days 1–21 (M6L10). Prior to the randomized phase of testing, each regimen was tested in non-randomized safety run-ins that included 6 patients per arm. The same parameters as above for study arm closure were applied. If the M6L10 arm was closed, the trial would proceed to test M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21 (M5L10). Results. Six patients were enrolled to M4L15: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 4 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia and one other patient experienced an SAE related to hallucinations and multiple constitutional complaints. This arm was therefore closed to accrual. Six patients were enrolled to M6L10: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 3 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia. One of these patients was hospitalized with pulmonary edema and another with febrile neutropenia. This arm was therefore closed and the MY.11 trial amended to proceed as a single-arm phase II testing M5L10. Conclusion. Although M + L holds promise as an effective combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. The efficacy of the combination when given at tolerable doses remains to be established.

Abstract Background: We previously reported an 85% response rate with 54% CR/nCR using a combination of cyclophosphamide (Cy), prednisone, and bortezomib (BZ) in relapsed myeloma (MM). We now report a Phase II clinical trial using a combination of Cy, BZ, and dexamethasone (Dex) [Cybor-D] in newly-diagnosed MM. We then compare the activity of this combination with historical controls treated with our current induction standard of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (L-Dex). Methods: 30 patients have been enrolled on Cybor-D. Treatment consists of Cy 300mg/m2 p.o. days 1, 8, 15, and 22; BZ 1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, and 11, and Dex 40mg p.o. days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20. Prophylactic use of acyclovir, a quinolone and antifungal prophylaxis was highly recommended for all patients on study. Growth factors were allowed. As a relevant contemporaneous control for speed and depth of response, we used 33 patients treated on a recent Mayo Clinic trial of L-Dex (Rajkumar. Blood: 2005 106;4050–3). Response was defined according to IMWG criteria although in the current trial, bone marrows for confirmation of CR are not yet available on all patients. Results: At time of current analysis, 17 patients on Cybor-D were evaluable through at least one cycle for response and toxicity. Baseline characteristics included mean age of 57, 29% female, 41/24% ISS stage II/III. There were statistically more early stage patients on L-Dex; otherwise, baseline patient characteristics were similar. The mean % decline in monoclonal (M) protein from baseline following cycles 1–4 of Cybor-D were 71%, 90%, 93%, 96%. This compares favorably with L-Dex where equivalent % decline in M proteins were 66%, 77%, 80%, and 79%. Thus, in preliminary results, Cybor-D produces a more rapid initial decline and mean % reduction in M protein than L-Dex. Overall response rate (≥ PR) after one cycle of Cybor-D was 77% with 36% obtaining ≥VGPR (L-Dex 73% and 18% respectively). The % of patients obtaining ≥VGPR after each cycle was 36%, 64%, 77%, and 100% for Cybor-D as compared to 18%, 36%, 42%, and 33% for L-Dex. The overall ≥VGPR at the end of four cycles of Cybor-D is currently100% (≥ 66%nCR using older nomeclature). Major toxicities ≥ grade 3 for Cybor-D included hematologic (37%), hyperglycemia (15%) and neuropathy (11%). Conclusions: In summary, for newly-diagnosed MM patients, four cycles of Cybor-D produces more frequent, rapid and deep responses when contrasted with historical L-Dex controls. Further confirmation of response rates and effect on TTP will be required.

Abstract One potential approach to improve the results of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) involves the use of more potent induction regimens; the achievement of deeper remission pre-ASCT should translate into longer progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). To evaluate this hypothesis, we assessed the influence of the percent reduction in serum monoclonal protein (M protein) pre-ASCT in patients (pts) treated with dexamethasone-based regimens (most often VAD) on the best response, PFS and OS achieved after ASCT. Between 2000–2006, 376 pts with IgG (267) or IgA (109) non-progressive MM underwent ASCT. Median age was 59 (21–73) yrs; 60% were male. The median hemoglobin at diagnosis was 103 g/L, creatinine 98 μmol/L, β2-microglobulin 241 nmol/L and albumin 35 g/L. Maintenance therapy was given to 84 (22%) after ASCT and consisted of corticosteroids in 29, thalidomide in 10, both in 41 and other regimens in 4 pts. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the per cent reduction in M protein after induction therapy: group A, ≥ 99%; group B, 90–98%; group C, 50–89%; group D, < 50%. Post-ASCT responses included complete remission (CR), very good partial remission (VGPR) (≥ 90% reduction in M protein), PR (≥ 50% reduction) and stable disease (SD). Median follow-up from diagnosis is 37.4 mos and from ASCT 24.1 mos. For all pts, the median OS from diagnosis is 90.8 mos (95% CI 73.9–129.1 mos) and from ASCT 63.9 mos (95% CI 50.8–69.4 mos), while the median PFS from ASCT is 21.3 mos (95% CI 19.1–23.3 mos). Maintenance therapy had no significant effect on PFS (p=0.49) or OS (p=0.59). The post-ASCT results in evaluable patients according to the percent reduction in M protein after induction therapy are summarized below. We conclude: High-grade remissions after dexamethasone-based induction therapy are uncommon, with only 2% achieving ≥ 99% and 13% achieving 90–98% reduction in serum M protein; post-ASCT CR and VGPR rates were higher in these 2 groups; there was no significant difference in PFS or OS-based on protein response prior to transplant; whether newer induction regimens, which incorporate novel agents and which produce more CRs and VGPRs before ASCT, will confer better PFS and OS post-ASCT will be of great interest. Table 1 Group N CR (%)1 VGPR (%)1 PR (%)1 SD (%)1 Median PFS (mo)2 Median OS (mo)3 1p<0.001;2p=0.77;3p=0.79 A 7 50 50 Not reached Not reached B 47 19 64 17 23.3 Not reached C 232 14 17 68 1 20.7 59.1 D 87 11 7 54 28 21.1 69.4 Figure Figure Figure Figure

Abstract Background: Single autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is considered the standard of care for younger multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts). However, it is not curative and virtually all patients will ultimately relapse. As more options, such as biological therapy, are available to treat relapsed disease, the role of a second ASCT as salvage therapy is unclear. Method: Retrospective review of all MM pts who received a 2nd ASCT as salvage therapy at Princess Margaret Hospital. Results: Between February 1997 and June 2007, 61 MM pts received a second ASCT for relapsed MM at our institution. Median age was 56 yrs (range 35–71) at second transplant. 37 pts (61%) were male. Immunoglobulin subtype included IgG (36), IgA (14), light chain (6), nonsecretory (3), IgM(1) and IgD (1). Transplant conditioning regimen for first transplant was high dose melphalan (MEL) 140–200 mg/m2 in 51, MEL/etoposide(E)/TBI in 4, and MELl/TBI in 2. 2nd ASCT conditioning consisted of MEL + TBI +/− E in 2, MEL alone in 58 and Busulfan/Cyclophosphomide in 1. The median time from diagnosis to first transplant was 9.7 months (2.0–74.2). The median time to relapse after the first transplant was 32.6 months (9.7–85.6), with a median interval between transplants of 45.1 months (19.7– 115). Two transplant-related deaths occurred (3%). Response to first transplant was 4 CR (8%), 34 PR (68%), 2 MR (4%) and 10 SD (20%). Nineteen pts went on to maintenance therapy between transplants. Response to second transplant was 4 CR (8%), 41 PR (80%), 5 SD (10%) and 1 PD (2%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.8 months (0–63.8) while median overall survival (OS) was 4.2 years (0–7.0) after 2nd ASCT. The relationship between progression-free interval after 1st ASCT and the outcome of the 2nd ASCT is summarized Table 1. Patients can be stratified into two groups, those with a disease free interval of less than or greater than 24 months. The use of maintenance therapy did not differ between the two groups, 6 (40%) in patients with PFS ≤24 months and 13 (28%) in patients with PFS >24 months. Conclusions: 2nd ASCT is a feasible and safe salvage therapy in patients with relapsed MM. 2nd ASCT is effective in providing a median progression free survival of 1.25 years and median overall survival of 4.2 years after 2nd ASCT - results that compare favourably with other salvage approaches. Patients with a longer disease free interval after 1st ASCT experience a better progression free survival and overall survival after 2nd ASCT. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider a 2nd ASCT if the time to progression is greater than 2 years after first ASCT. Outcomes Based on Time to Progression Post 1st ASCT PFS post 1st ASCT # of pts median PFS post 2nd ASCT PFS post 2nd ASCT1 Median OS post 2nd ASCT OS post 2nd ASCT2 1 p< 0.005, 2 p< 0.05 ≤24 months 15 12.7 months 1 year: 46% 3.5 years 1 year: 85% 2 year: 11% 2 years: 76% 3 years 0% 3 years: 63% 4 years: 31% > 24 months 46 19.8 months 1 year: 74% 5.9 years 1 year: 91% 2 year: 45% 2 years: 82% 3 year: 31% 3 years: 65% 4 years: 55%

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 616 Background: We have shown the three drug combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CyBorD) to be highly active therapy in newly diagnosed myeloma while allowing stem cell harvest and transplantation (Reeder et al. Leukemia 2009; 23:1337-1341). However, twice weekly bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone have been shown to cause significant toxicities. In a prospective Phase II we modified CyBorD by using bortezomib once weekly and reducing the dexamethasone to “low dose dex” after the first two cycles in an attempt to reduce toxicity (cohort 2). We report the efficacy and toxicity of this modified regimen and compare the results to standard CyBorD (cohort 1). Patients and methods: 63 untreated symptomatic patients were enrolled on this Phase II trial (33 on cohort 1 and 30 on cohort 2). All are evaluable for response and toxicity. Treatment on cohort 2 consisted of oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 and IV bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg by mouth days 1-4, 9-12, 17-20 in cycles 1 and 2, then 40 mg po days 1, 8, 15, 22 in cycles 3 and beyond. Cohort 1 used standard dosing of bortezomib and high dose dexamethasone throughout. Each cycle was 28 days. Acyclovir and a quinolone antibiotic prophylaxis were routinely used. Patients were evaluated for response and toxicity every cycle and were offered stem cell harvest and transplant after the 4th cycle but could continue up to 12 cycles maximum. Results: The median age for all 63 patients was 61 (36-74) years and 48% were female. Durie-Salmon stages were 47% II and 50% III and ISS stages I 43%, II 36%, and III 21%. Twenty-four percent of patients were genetic high risk (t(4;14) or deletion 17). Cohorts I and II were matched for age, gender and ECOG PS. ISS stages were higher in cohort 1 than cohort 2 (II/III 67% vs. 44%). The intent to treat (ITT) ORR (≥PR) for all 63 patients (cohorts 1 and 2) is 90% with 60% ≥VGPR. For cohort 2 (modified CyBorD) the ITT overall response (≥PR) was 93% (CR: 5, nCR: 7, VGPR: 6, PR: 10) with 60% ≥VGPR and 40% ≥ nCR. Those completing all 4 cycles of therapy had 92% ORR (24/26) and 65% (17/26) ≥VGPR. A comparison of response rates in cohorts 1 and 2 is shown in table 1. These high and comparable response rates were associated with fewer grade 3+ adverse events (AE's) than in cohort 1 (37% vs. 48%) and no grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN). The median follow-up for all 63 patients is 12.4 (2.8-29.2) months and 95% of patients are alive with 87% free from progression. Conclusions: Modified CyBorD with weekly bortezomib and reduced dexamethasone retains the high activity seen in standard CyBorD, but is less toxic and more convenient. Interestingly, this modified regimen allowed higher overall doses of bortezomib (5.2 vs. 6.0 mg/m2 per cycle) yet overall neuropathy rates were similar. This combination of a weekly alkylating agent with bortezomib and dexamethasone is well tolerated and produces high response rates in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Disclosures: Reeder: Millennium (MPI): Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Reece:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Hentz:Millennium (MPI): Research Funding. Fonseca:Otsuka: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy. Bergsagel:Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Stewart:Proteolix: Honoraria; Millennium (MPI): Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3861 Poster Board III-797 Previous studies have reported that multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with t(4;14) identified by FISH who are treated with a single ASCT as part of first-line therapy have worse outcomes than those lacking this adverse cytogenetic marker; two trials have described a median progression-free survival (PFS) of only 8-9 months and median overall survival (OS) of 18 mos in this setting (Chang H, et al. Bone Marrow Transplant 2005; 36: 793; Gertz M, et al. Blood 2005; 106: 2837). Since the novel agent bortezomib appears to have efficacy in patients with t(4;14), we designed a phase II protocol in which pts receive induction with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, bortezomib and dexamethasone (DBD) x 4 cycles, followed by post-induction therapy with oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1,8 15, 22 with bortezomib 1.5 mg/m2 days 1,8,15 and prednisone 100 mg q 2 days of a 28-day cycle (CyBor-P) x 8 additional cycles. Maintenance therapy with dexamethasone (dex) 40 mg/month was then administered until progression. Although elective stem cell collection was recommended after induction, routine ASCT was not performed in the absence of disease progression. Between February 2008-August 2009, 153 newly diagnosed MM pts were screened for t(4;14) in 7 Canadian centers, and 14 (9%) were found to be positive by FISH. Four did not meet the critieria for symptomatic MM, 2 had received ≥ 2 mos of prior therapy while 8 were entered onto study. One of these was later determined to have a variant abnormality of chromosome 4 but not t(4;14) and underwent ASCT after induction; this pt is included in the safety analysis only. The median age was 56 (49-69) and 43% were male. The median percent nuclei positive for t(4;14) was 30% (10-41%), serum β2-microglobulin 394 nmol/L (190-1695) and albumin 34 g/L (28-39); one pt had ISS stage 1,3 had stage 2 and 3 had stage 3 MM. Immunoglobulin subtype included IgGκ in 2 and IgAκ in 2 and IgAλ in 3. All pts have completed DBD induction, with the best response in the 7 evaluable pts consisting of PR in 2 and VGPR in 5; one in PR progressed quickly after induction and has achieved nCR after D-PACE followed by ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance. Four are receiving post-induction therapy with CyBor-P currently, with VGPR in 3 and PR in 1. No SAEs or grade3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia has occurred; other toxicities were mild, with grade 2 skin toxicity noted in 37.5% and grade 2 neurotoxicity observed in 7.4%. All pts are alive at a median follow-up (F/U) of 8 mos (2-11), and 6 (86%) are free of progression. We conclude: 1) the incidence of t(4;14) in newly diagnosed MM pts appears to be lower than the 15% anticipated; 2) 28% of newly diagnosed pts with this entity have asymptomatic MM; 3) preliminarily, DBD induction has resulted in ≥ PR in all pts although 1 progressed quickly; 4) this bortezomib-based regimen is very well-tolerated; 5) longer F/U is required to determine the PFS and OS with this approach. Disclosures: Reece: Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Use of bortezomib as part of initial therapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and dexamethasone. Piza Rodriguez:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Belch:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shustik:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Bahlis:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. White:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Kukreti:Celgene: Honoraria. Stewart:Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy. Trudel:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding.