Citations

Background Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5, is an effective treatment for complement-mediated thrombotic microangiopathy (CM-TMA), also known as atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Although lifelong therapy has been suggested, the optimal treatment schedule is unknown, while eculizumab discontinuation does not universally lead to relapse. Data evaluating risk factors associated with an increased risk of CM-TMA recurrence following eculizumab withdrawal are scarce. Prior to the eculizumab era, complement genetic studies have been used to assess morbidity and mortality in patients with CM-TMA. Our aim was to assess the impact of complement gene variants on CM-TMA relapse rate (RR) after eculizumab discontinuation. Methods Search protocols were developed for the Ovid and PubMed databases to identify existing reports on CM-TMA and eculizumab withdrawal published before February 1st 2020. Cases were cross-referenced to eliminate duplicates. Inclusion criteria included patients diagnosed with CM-TMA who had undergone eculizumab discontinuation. Reasons for exclusion were patients with no follow-up after eculizumab withdrawal and patients lacking complement gene testing. Patients undergoing eculizumab dose extension, but not discontinuation, were not included. Results Fifteen studies including 557 individuals were retrieved. Of these, 363 (65.2%) were excluded as outlined in Figure 1 and 194 cases were included in the final analysis with a global RR of 28.9% (n=56). Distribution based on gene impacted and variant type are presented in Table 1. RR was highest among patients with CFH variants (52.5% to 60%) -particularly if involving exon 22 or nonsense mutations-, MCP/CD46 variants (38.9% to 45%) -particularly if affecting splice regions-, and cases with multiple concomitant variants (57.1%) -particularly those including CFH or a CFH-CFHR1 Hybrid (Table 2). Patients with relapse were more likely to have the presence of a complement variant (p<0.001), history of previously resolved CM-TMA events (p=0.022), younger age (mean age 22.4 years for patients with relapse vs. 32.33 years for patients without relapse; p=0.002) and, within those with detected variants, multiple vs. single variants (p=0.002) and CFH-inclusive variants (p=0.003). On univariate analysis, complement gene variants (OR 4.217 95%CI 1.97-9.026; p<0.001), age <30 years (OR 2.346 95%CI 1.159-4.749; p=0.018), and presence of multiple variants (OR 2.06 95%CI 1.172-3.621; p=0.012) or CFH-inclusive variants (OR 3.111 95%CI 1.443-6.71; p=0.004) were associated with increased odds of CM-TMA relapse, while no prior history of additional CM-TMA events was the only factor associated with lower RR (OR 0.327 95%CI 0.123-0.87; p=0.025). Presence of complement variants (OR 4.48 95%CI 1.132-17.724; p=0.033) and CFH-inclusive variants (OR 3.045 95%CI 1.136-8.159; p=0.027) were independently associated with increased RR on multivariate analysis (Table 3). Conclusion Relapse after eculizumab discontinuation is rare in cases with no genetic variants identified but can increase to more than 80% in high-risk subgroups. Complement genetic testing is not required for CM-TMA diagnosis or for initiation of complement inhibiting therapy; however, our results demonstrate the value of complement genetic testing when stratifying risk of patients for consideration of eculizumab discontinuation. Disclosures Sridharan: Alexion: Honoraria.

Introduction Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been used for treating multiple myeloma (MM) for over three decades and is generally reserved for patients younger than 65 years of age. The definition of transplant eligible is ill-defined and different centers have different policies to determine which patients are transplant eligible. Some centers have an age cut-off, others use clinical judgment, and some use various frailty scores (a scoring system based on comorbidities and physical and cognitive assessments) aiming to objectively assess transplant eligibility. There are limited data about outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years. Aim To report on outcomes of ASCT in a cohort of patients with MM aged 75 years or older. Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive MM patients aged ≥ 75 years that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Stem cell transplantation at our center is routinely performed as an outpatient, with patients being hospitalized when deemed clinically necessary upon physician review. Results Between October 2005 and March 2020, 46 patients aged 75 years or older, received an ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The median hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was 0 (range 0-6) with 8 patients having HCT-CI of 5 or 6. Median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 6.45 months (IQR 5.2-10.52) and 54% received reduced intensity conditioning with melphalan 140 mg/m2. All patients except one (that was treated with dexamethasone only) received induction with novel agents (listed in table 1) and 6 patients (13%) received doublet induction. All others received triplet induction. 46% of patients completed the ASCT without requiring hospitalization and 54% (n=25) of patients required hospitalization with a median duration of hospital admission of 9 days (IQR 5-13). Reasons for hospitalization included fever or infection (32%), cardiac arrhythmia (36%) and dehydration (32%). Overall response rate was 100% with a complete response seen in 57% of patients and 16 patients achieving MRD negative sCR. Median overall survival and progression free survival for the cohort were 82 months and 33 months, respectively. One patient died within 100 days of transplant representing a 2% 100-day mortality rate. Univariable cox regression model that evaluated the effect of gender, high risk cytogenetics, hemoglobin, renal function and melphalan dose did not detect any variable that was predictive of OS or PFS (Table 3). Conclusions ASCT is efficacious and can be safely delivered in the outpatient setting in carefully screened patients aged 75 or above. An arbitrary cutoff for age should not be used to exclude patients from ASCT, rather a careful assessment of "physiological age" including performance status and co-morbidities is required by an experienced treating team. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; 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; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other.

AbstractThree sets of criteria (International Society of Amyloidosis [ISA], Palladini and Kastritis) were independently developed for staging, progression and response criteria to predict renal survival in patients with AL amyloidosis. We evaluated these criteria using a cohort of 495 newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients with renal involvement using time to event competing risk analysis at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Only Palladini and Kastritis had a staging system and both predicted a higher risk of end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the stage III vs stage I patients but only the Palladini model was predictive for stage II patients. At 3 months, risk of ESRD was significantly higher for Palladini and ISA renal progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8 [95% CI: 1.5–5.3, p = .001] and 2.5 [CI: 1.4–4.6, p = .004, respectively]), but renal response was not significantly protective; conversely, the risk of ESRD was not significantly higher for the Kastritis renal progression, but was significantly protective for the Kastritis renal responders (HR 0.38 [95% CI: 0.17–0.84], p = .017). Both progression and response with ISA, Palladini and Kastritis criteria were predictive of ESRD at 6 months and 12 months. While the Palladini staging criteria at baseline, and the ISA and Palladini criteria for progression at 3 months performed better than the Kastritis criteria at baseline and 3 months post‐treatment, the Kastritis criteria performed better for response 3 months after treatment. All three sets of criteria performed well at and after 6 months post‐treatment. These differences are important when choosing endpoints for clinical trials.

AbstractInduction therapy for multiple myeloma with bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (d) (VRd) was traditionally administered as bortezomib given twice weekly on a 3 week cycle. A modified schedule of weekly bortezomib has been adopted over time to decrease treatment burden for patients and reduce treatment‐emergent neuropathy. This study evaluates the response rates and outcomes with different schedules of bortezomib in VRd administered for first‐line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with upfront VRd from June 30th 2008 to December 31st 2018, for variations of bortezomib administration. Five hundred and fifty‐five (555) NDMM patients met inclusion criteria; median age 63 years and 61% men. Bortezomib was administered twice weekly every 21 days in 43%, once weekly every 21 days in 41% and once weekly every 28 days in 16%. Though peripheral sensory neuropathy was more frequent with twice weekly dosing (P = .002), this group achieved shorter time to best response (P = .01). Weekly every 21‐day treatment saw higher VGPR or better rates (P = .02). However, with median follow up time of 37 months (IQR 22–56), we found no difference in PFS or OS among the groups. While small differences in response rates were found among the varying administration schedules of bortezomib administration, there was no significant effect on PFS or OS. Given that VRd remains a first line standard of care option for newly diagnosed MM, in the absence of a large trial comparing bortezomib dosing schedule modifications, these results are helpful in supporting current practices of once weekly administration.

AbstractIntroductionLittle is known on continued response following completion of therapy in light chain (AL) amyloidosis.MethodsWe studied 373 AL amyloidosis patients who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) to first‐line therapy.ResultsBy end of therapy (EOT), 46% of patients achieved a CR and 54% a VGPR. With no further therapy, 17.5% of patients were upstaged from VGPR to CR (delayed CR), with a median of 9 months. Compared with CR and VGPR at EOT, patients with a delayed CR were characterized by higher proportion of t(11;14) and lower rate of trisomies. Autologous stem cell transplant was more frequent in the delayed CR group. Patients with a delayed CR were characterized by minimal residual disease negativity and organ response rates similar to patients with CR at EOT and higher than patients achieving VGPR at EOT. Patients with a delayed CR had a longer PFS/OS compared to patients with CR or VGPR by EOT (median PFS 149 vs 92 vs 52 months, P < .001; 10‐year OS 87% vs 71% vs 56%, P < .001).ConclusionsThis study characterizes delayed CR in AL amyloidosis, highlights its prognostic impact which is at least similar to those who achieved CR at EOT, and underlines another aspect of response monitoring.

SummaryMeasurable residual disease (MRD) assessment by marrow‐based next‐generation flow cytometry (NGF) following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) may lead to false‐negative results due to patchy marrow involvement and extramedullary disease in patients with multiple myeloma. We assessed the value of simultaneous MRD evaluation with NGF and serum matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (MASS‐FIX). Of all 61 complete responders who were NGF‐negative for MRD, around day‐100 post ASCT, 59% were MASS‐FIX‐positive. At median follow‐up of 26 months, 69% of MASS‐FIX(+)/NGF(−) patients were alive and progression‐free versus 96% of MASS‐FIX(‐)/NGF(−) patients, P = 0·02. MASS‐FIX, a simple peripheral blood‐based assay complements marrow‐based NGF to accurately prognosticate patients with myeloma.

Introduction: In general, the use of an immunomodulator (IMiD), proteasome inhibitors (PI) and dexamethasone (dex) for the treatment of MM is associated with better outcomes. The management of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging due to difficulty in managing their co-morbidities and inability to tolerate treatment side effects. We evaluated therapies and outcomes of elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with MM who were &gt;75 years old treated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2004 to January 2018. We included patients who were treated on clinical trials as well as off-trials. Patients were classified as receiving treatment with IMiD+PI+dex, alkylator+PI+steroid, IMiD+dex, PI+dex, alkylator+IMid+steroid, and other (alkylator with steroid or steroid only). Treatment response was documented as well as the progression-free (PFS), defined as the time from therapy initiation to disease relapse or death from any cause and overall survival (OS), defined as the time from start of treatment to death from any cause. A multivariate analysis for factors affecting OS was done including the following variables: being on a triplet combination (alkylator+PI+steroid, IMid+PI+dex, or alkylator +IMiD+steroid), revised international staging system (R-ISS)(stage 3 vs. 1-2), bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC%)(&gt;60% vs. ≤60%), and receiving treatment during or after 2010 vs. before 2010. Analysis was done for patients treated off-trials, as well as, including trial patients. Results: We identified 394 patients with MM who were &gt;75 years old and 246 (62%) were male. For non-trial patients (n=350), IMiD+dex (32%) was the most commonly used regimen followed by alkylator with steroid or steroid only (20%), alkylator+PI+steroid (18%), and IMid+PI+dex (13%). The remaining patients were treated with PI+dex (12%) and alkylator +IMiD+steroid (5%). Forty-four patients (11%) were treated in clinical trials with alkylator+IMid+steroid (47%), IMiD+dex (25%), IMiD+PI+dex (14%), and alkylator+PI+steroid (14%). The median follow up was 45.9 months with an interquartile range of 28.2 to 75.6 months. Overall, achieving very good partial response or complete response was more likely in patients who were treated with an IMid+PI+dex (58%) or alkylator+PI+steroid (47%), compared to in other therapies (5-30%)(P&lt;0.0001). The PFS and OS for non-trial patients are displayed in Figure 1 (A,B) and for all, including trial patients in (C,D). Overall, the median OS was significantly longer in patients who were treated with a triplet in non-trial as well as all patients. In a multivariate for OS including non-trial patients, predictors for better OS included receiving a triplet (HR: 0.63, P=0.02) and not having an R-ISS stage 3 (HR: 0.39, P=0.001). This was also found when including trial patients (using a triplet, HR: 0.65, P=0.01 and not having an R-ISS stage 3, HR: 0.35, P=0.0002). Conclusion: In MM patients &gt;75 years old, being able to receive triplet therapy is associated with better survival. This study provides better understanding of the natural history of MM outside of trials in the elderly age group. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Dingli:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Abbvie: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee. Kumar:Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, 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; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; 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; Janssen Oncology: 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; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy.

Background: Oncolytic virotherapy is a novel immunomodulatory therapeutic approach for relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies. The Indiana strain of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) has been engineered to encode interferon beta (IFNβ) and sodium iodine symporter (NIS) to produce VSV-IFNβ-NIS. The virally encoded IFNβ serves as an index of viral proliferation and enhances host anti-tumor immunity. The NIS is inserted as a reporter gene into the viral genome to enable noninvasive monitoring of viral spread using PET/CT imaging. Here we present results of Arm A (patients with low tumor burden) of the Phase I clinical trial (NCT03017820) of intravenous administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS for patients (pts) with relapsed refractory hematological malignancies: MM, AML, and TCL. Methods: This was a classical 3+3 phase I trial, starting at 5x10^9 TCID50 (50% tissue culture infectious dose) level 1 through 1.7x10^11 TCID50 dose level 4 given as a single IV dose. The primary objective was determining the maximum tolerated dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS alone; secondary objectives include estimating the safety profile and preliminary efficacy. Correlative objectives include monitoring the pharmacodynamics of viral replication through SPECT/CT imaging with NIS gene, viremia, virus shedding and changes in the immune profile of peripheral blood leukocytes. Adverse events (AEs) are reported based on CTCAE v4; cytokine release syndrome (CRS) grading was based on Lee (Blood 2014; 124(2):188-195) criteria. Results: From April 2017, 12 pts have received IV VSV-IFNβ-NIS in Arm A: MM (7), TCL(4) and AML(1); 3 pts were treated at each dose level (DL) 1 to 4. At DL1, there were five grade 3 hematologic AEs (leukopenia [1], neutropenia [1], lymphopenia [3]) and no grade 3+ non-hematologic AEs. At DL2, three grade 3 hematologic AEs (anemia [2], lymphopenia [1]), four grade 4 hematologic AEs (neutropenia [1], leukopenia [1], lymphopenia [1] and thrombocytopenia [1]). There was 1 event of grade 2 CRS at DL2, two grade 3 non-hematologic AEs (nausea [1], dehydration [1]). At DL3, there was one grade 4 hematologic AE (neutropenia [1]), three grade 3 hematologic AEs (lymphopenia [2], leukopenia [1]), and one grade 3 non-hematologic AE (vasovagal reaction [1]). One grade 2 and grade 1 CRS by Lee criteria were observed. At DL4, there were three grade 3 hematologic AEs (lymphopenia [1], neutropenia [1], thrombocytopenia [1]), and three grade 3 non-hematologic AEs (AST increase [1], skin infection [1], soft tissue infection [1])and two grade 2 CRS. There were no dose limiting toxicities. There was one partial response (DL2) and one complete response (DL4); 3 pts had stable disease, 7 pts progressed. The MM pts receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS at DL4 had stable disease. Six of the 7 MM pts demonstrated transient reduction in serum level of involved free light chain (LC) after VSV-IFNβ-NIS infusion, with median 20.4% reduction of the involved LC within 48 hrs. Viremia was detectable in all pts at the end of infusion, to varying levels at 30 mins, 1, 2, 4, 24, 48h or 72 hrs post infusion. No persistent viremia was observed. No infectious virus was recovered in buccal swabs or urine and neutralizing anti-VSV antibodies were present by day 29. The IFN levels were detectable within 30 minutes of infusion and peaked between 4 and 48 hrs. The pts with a diagnosis of TCL mounted higher hIFNβ levels within 48 hrs. Remarkably, the TCL pt with CR (DL4) mounted a peak hIFNβ response of 18213.3pg/ml at 48 hrs post infusion, approximately 15-fold higher than any other pt enrolled in the study; and highest neutralizing antibody titer (1:40960). Conclusion: VSV-IFNβ-NIS can be safely administered by intravenous infusion in pts with hematological malignancies, up to a dose level of 1.7 x 1011 TCID50, without dose limiting toxicities and no CRS higher than grade 2. In this small phase 1 study, pts with T-cell lymphoma demonstrated the strongest signal of response, with one confirmed partial response at DL2 and one complete response at DL4. IFNβ is an early biomarker of tumor susceptibility; the magnitude of IFNβ elevation appears to correlate with treatment response. There were no confirmed responses in pts with MM, but the 20.4% transient reduction in LC suggests that combination strategies with VSV-IFNβ-NIS may result in deeper and sustained responses in MM. Future trials investigating combination strategies with immune modulatory drugs are being planned. Disclosures Peng: Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. Witzig:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Celgene: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Appellis: 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; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; i3Health: Consultancy; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Kumar:Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. OffLabel Disclosure: This describes of administration of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Genetically Engineered to Express NIS and human interferon, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic malignacies

Background: The past two decades have seen an explosion in the development of new drugs for the treatment of myeloma, and previous studies have shown that these advances have translated into improved survival. It is unclear if we have continued to maintain the pace of improvement in the recent years. We designed this study to examine the patterns of survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM, specifically examining the impact on patient subgroups by age and disease risk. Patients and Methods: We included patients with newly diagnosed MM, who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 2004 and 2018. We grouped them into three 5-year groups: group 1 (2004-2008), group 2 (2009-2013) and group 3 (2014-2018) to assess the trends over time. Only those who were seen within 6 months of diagnosis were included in the current cohort. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed using clg based approach as previously described and high risk (HR) was defined as those with t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) and del17p. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the prognostic impact of various clinical and laboratory factors. Results: The study cohort had 3783 patients: 61% were male, median age was 64 years (range 22-96), 47% were ≥65 and 14% ≥75 years. There was no change over time in the median age or the gender distribution. No clear trends were evident across the groups in terms of the disease characteristics including high risk status. The patients in the cohort were divided into three 5 year groups: Group 1(2004-2008; n=1045), Group 2(2009-2013; n=1237) and Group 3(2014-2018; n=1501). The initial treatment regimen changed over time to include proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) based regimens with a PI-IMiD combination being 2%, 18% and 55% respectively in groups 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 1). The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 6.8 years (95% CI; 6.5,6.9), and for groups 1, 2 and 3 were 13 years, 8 years and 3.2 years respectively. The median OS for the entire group was 6.8 years (95% CI; 6.4, 7.2). The median OS from diagnosis has improved over time with the groups 1, 2, and 3 having a median OS (95% CI) of 5.5 years (5.1, 6.1), 7.3 years (6.7, 8.0) and NR respectively(P=0.0001) (Figure 2). We specifically looked at the 1, 2 and 3-year survival over the years and found a steady trend for improvement (Figure 3). When examining trends by age, those under 65 years had improvement in survival from group 1 to 2; median OS was 7.3 years, 10 years and NR for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (P=0.0001) . Those above 65 had major improvement from group 2 to 3; median OS was 4.4 years, 5.2 years and NR for groups 1,2 and 3 respectively (P=0.0001). When examined by FISH risk status, improvement in OS was seen among with Standard Risk (SR) status, especially during the last 5-year period. The median OS for patients with HR status was 3.5 years, 4.5 years and NR (P=0.07); and 7.6 years, 8.6 years and NR in patients with SR status (P=0.0012) for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Conclusion: In a large cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM, we have been able to demonstrate sustained improvement in OS over the years, likely driven by introduction of new drugs and continued use of transplant. The impact of newer generation of drugs, especially monoclonal antibodies is not reflected in this analysis and will likely become obvious over the next five years. The data will help identify the areas that require focus for continued improvements in order to derive the maximum impact on outcomes. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Russell:Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. Lin:Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy. Kumar:Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; 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; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments.