Citations

Background: Lytic bone lesions are one of the most common clinical characteristics of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and identification of bone lesions help distinguish between patients with smoldering multiple MM and active MM. Given this, the most recent update of the diagnostic criteria for MM incorporates advanced imaging approaches for distinguishing between the two entities. Several small retrospective studies have compared conventional skeletal survey (SS) with whole-body low dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) scan or the CT portion of a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Conducting prospective studies comparing these two modalities side by side is limited by the radiation exposure. We undertook this study to provide a comparison between these two imaging modalities in terms of their ability to recognize lytic bone lesions in patients with MM. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients with the diagnosis of MM treated at Mayo Cinic Hospital during 2004- 2018. Patients were included if they had a conventional skeletal survey no more than 3 months before MM diagnosis or any time after diagnosis and also had a WBLDCT or PET-CT within a 12-month period following the skeletal survey. We chose this approach since it is unlikely that a patient would have had both modalities done at the same time as part of standard of care (SOC). This approach was also facilitated by a gradual change in our SOC for skeletal imaging from conventional skeletal survey to WBLDCT. To measure the robustness of our findings, we performed a sensitivity analysis in patients who had the exam ≤6 months apart. Proportions were compared using a chi-square test and survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan- Meier methodology and compared using log rank test. Results: The overall study cohort had 1040 patients, median age was 62 years at diagnosis (range, 24-94), 61% were male and 39% were female. The median time to the skeletal survey was 8 months from diagnosis (range, 0-160) and the median time to WBLDCT or PET-CT from SS was 2 months (0-12). A PET-CT was available in 789 (76%) of patients and WBLDCT in 251 (24%) of patients. Among the 300 patients with no lesions identified by SS, 188 (63%) had lytic lesions identified by CT, while in 60/740 (8%) patients with a positive SS did not have lytic lesions observed on the CT (p<0.0001). Overall, CT identified lytic lesions in 868 (84%) patients compared with 740 (71%) patients with lytic lesions seen on SS. Although the proportion of lytic lesions was slightly higher with PET compared to WBLDCT, the analysis did not reach statistical significance (65% vs. 56%; p = 0.17; Table 1a). After restricting the analysis to those with ≤6 months gap between low dose CT and SS (n=737), the result did not change (Table 1b). Further examination demonstrated that presence of lytic lesions by SS had no impact on OS from diagnosis, detection of lesions on the CT exam was associated with an inferior survival (112 vs. 81 months, p<0.0001). (Figure 1) Conclusion: Skeletal survey has been the screening technique of choice for evaluation of bone involvement in MM for decades. However, CT based approaches have higher sensitivity with lytic lesions identified in a higher proportion of patients. The prognostic value of lytic disease is evident with CT based detection, again suggesting that this provides a more accurate estimate of the skeletal disease burden. Low dose CT rather than conventional radiographs should be the modality of choice for monitoring disease-progression and diagnosing active multiple myeloma. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; 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:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; 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; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed MM can be quite symptomatic as a result of end organ damage related to MM as well as presence of other comorbidities in this relatively older patient population. Prior studies have shown that the performance score as well as other quality of life (QOL), frailty and comorbidities scores can have prognostic value in these patients. However, many of these questionnaires are lengthy and complex, and not practical in a busy outpatient practice. We implemented a three question symptom assessment score in 2010 in our outpatient practice. Here we present the results of the analysis looking at the impact of this measurement in patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients seen in the outpatient Hematology practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, were asked to grade the symptoms of fatigue, pain, and QOL on a 0 to 10 scale during the past 7 days, with 10 being the worst and the QOL on a similar scale but with 10 being the best. For the purpose of the current analysis the QOL score was reversed.These three scores were added for a total score. We looked at the impact of the baseline score as well as the score after four cycles of therapy, at the time of best response, and at the time of the first progression, wherever they were available. Survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for assessment of the impact of different prognostic variables. Results: Data from 735 patients with newly diagnosed MM seen at Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2018 were available from baseline. The median total score was 10 (0-30), and for fatigue, pain and QOL were 4, 3 and 7 respectively, all with range of 0-10. Based on the baseline scores, patients were grouped into tertiles (Group 1 with score < 8, group 2 with score 8 to 14 and group 3 with a score ≥ 15). There were 256 (34%), 272 (37%) and 207 (28%) patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The median overall survival (OS) (95% CI) from diagnosis was NR (7.9, NR), 7.7 (6.2, NR) and 5.4 (4.2, 6.9), respectively for groups 1, 2 and 3 (P < 0.0001) (Figure 1a). The prognostic value of the score was independent of age, FISH based risk status and the ISS stage. When evaluated after 4 cycles (n=325), the OS was significantly different for the 3 groups (P<0.01) (figure 1b). We then examined the impact of the score at best response to initial therapy (n=446) on OS from that timepoint and saw similar trend, but the results were not statistically significant (P=0.09) (Figure 1c). When evaluated at the time of first disease progression, the score again identified three groups with different OS from progression (P<0.001) (Figure 1d). Conclusions:Patient-reported outcomes are associated with survival in patients with MM. This simple, easy to complete patient-reported outcome 3-item scale can be easily completed in a busy practice and is a clinically useful tool to assess potential outcomes of patients at various disease stages, including at diagnosis and at relapse. Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; 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; 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; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction High risk (HR) multiple myeloma (MM) constitutes approximately 25 % of newly diagnosed patients and is a subgroup of MM patients that is variably defined. Patients with 17p deletion are considered HR and their optimal treatment approach has not been determined. Various strategies have been suggested to improve outcomes in MM patients harboring del 17p, including tandem transplants. Recently, the long-term outcomes of the phase 3 EMN02 trial were published with the study group receiving bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCd) induction prior to transplant. There are no data demonstrating that tandem transplant is applicable to the US population using induction containing immunomodulatory agents and bortezomib. Aim To report on outcomes of newly diagnosed MM patients with del 17p that underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods Retrospective study of all consecutive newly diagnosed MM patient with del 17p that underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were defined by the Mayo Medical Lab as 17p deleted and included if they met the following criteria: If 50 cells in the bone marrow sample and 10 cells with the deletion were identified (20%) or if the bone marrow sample had between 20-50 total cells and 20% cells with the deletion were identified. We excluded patients that relapsed prior to ASCT (as those patients were excluded in the EMN02 trial), patients that underwent ASCT more than 12 months from the diagnosis and patients that underwent tandem ASCT (defined as two consecutive ASCT within 180 days of each other without relapse in between). Consolidation treatment was defined as treatment given after transplant for up to six 28-day cycles and maintenance was defined as all treatment given after ASCT for more than 6 months. Combined maintenance was defined as maintenance regimens that included two novel agents. Results 116 patients with MM and 17p deletion underwent ASCT at Mayo Clinic between January 2013 and April 2020. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (IQR 57-68, range 34-76) years. Forty-five (39%) patients were over 65 years. Nine patients (8%) had triple-hit MM and 34 (29%) had double-hit MM. Median follow-up of the survivors was 33 months (IQR 21-54). Consolidation therapy was given to 36 patients (31%) and maintenance was given to 91 patients (78%). Seven patients relapsed before day 100. There was no difference in the OS (P=0.72) or PFS (P=0.1) between patients that received VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone) versus VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) induction (Figure 1). When comparing patients that received proteasome inhibitors (PIs)+ immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) as induction to patients that received VCd induction, PFS was longer for patients that received the PIs + IMiDs (HR 0.53 P=0.04, 95% CI=0.3-0.98) (Figure 2), however there was no OS difference (P=0.61). Maintenance therapy was given to 94 patients (81%). There was no OS (P=0.34) or PFS (P=0.36) difference between IMiD based and PI based maintenance, but there was a PFS advantage to patients that received two drug maintenance (HR= 0.41, P=0.037, 95% CI 0.14-0.95) (Figure 2). The median OS and PFS of the entire cohort were not reached and 29 months, respectively. Conclusions The outcomes of our patients were similar to that of the single arm ASCT in the EMN02 trial, and no difference in outcomes were found between patients that received VRd and VCd induction, suggesting that tandem transplants should be considered for 17p deleted MM patients. Dual novel agent maintenance therapy is important in improving outcome. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; 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; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; 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; 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Abbvie: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Sanofi: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee.

INTRODUCTION Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare, acquired, hematologic disease characterized by chronic complement-mediated hemolysis. Treatment with the C5 inhibitor eculizumab has resulted in a reduction in intravascular hemolysis (IVH) and improvements in morbidity and mortality. However, in a single-center cohort of patients with PNH receiving treatment with eculizumab, 72% remained anemic and 36% continued to require transfusions due to ongoing IVH and extravascular hemolysis (McKinley CE, et al.Blood. 2017;130(Suppl 1):3471; Risitano AM, et al.Front Immunol. 2019;10:1157). This study aims to describe the burden of illness in patients with PNH currently being treated with C5 inhibitors (eculizumab and ravulizumab). Overall, the study aims to understand the clinical and hematological outcomes associated with burden of illness in about 150 patients with PNH globally. In these preliminary analyses, the impact of PNH on hematologic and clinical measures is assessed from patients in the United States. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult patients ≥18 years of age in the United States with a self-reported diagnosis of PNH, recruited through a patient advocacy group. Inclusion criteria to complete the secure online survey included current treatment with either eculizumab or ravulizumab, informed consent, and agreement to adverse event reporting. This study was initiated in July 2020 and is ongoing. Results presented herein are preliminary. Impact of PNH on hematologic and clinical measures will be assessed using the following variables: diagnosis levels; and any patient history of blood transfusions, thrombotic events, renal impairment, fatigue, and other PNH-associated symptoms as well as dosing frequency and treatment patterns. For these preliminary analyses, descriptive statistics will be reported for patients who have completed the survey. RESULTS As of August 6, 2020, 58 adult patients with a median age of 52 years (range, 21-88) completed the survey, among which 78% were female. Current medications included eculizumab (n = 20 [34.5%]) or ravulizumab (n = 38 [65.5%]), as well as concurrent anticoagulants (n = 9 [15.5%]) and/or anti-thrombotics (n = 2 [3%]). Most patients initiated treatment with eculizumab (n = 20 [100%]) or with ravulizumab (n = 34 [90%]) ≥3 months before. Median (interquartile range) last known hemoglobin level for patients on eculizumab and ravulizumab was 9.3 g/dL (8.0-11.1) and 10.1 g/dL (8.9-11.5), respectively. Overall, 45 (82%) patients reported hemoglobin values <12 g/dL (eculizumab: 90%; ravulizumab: 78%). Forty (69%) patients reported having ≥1 red blood cell transfusion at any point during their disease. Within the previous 12 months, 53% and 26% of eculizumab- and ravulizumab-treated patients, respectively, had ≥1 transfusion, and 12% and 17% were unsure. Among those patients who had ever received ≥1 transfusion, 6% and 13% had >4 transfusions in the previous 12 months for eculizumab and ravulizumab, respectively. Seventeen patients (29%) reported ≥1 thrombotic event at any point during their disease. Seven patients reported thrombotic events over the previous 12 months; six were receiving ravulizumab. The majority (77%) of patients reported fatigue. Fatigue was reported by nearly 95% of eculizumab-treated patients and 68% of ravulizumab-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS Preliminary results from this burden of illness survey demonstrate that a majority of patients with PNH report remaining anemic, despite treatment with C5 inhibitors eculizumab and ravulizumab for a period of ≥3 months. Disclosures Dingli: Sanofi-Genzyme:Consultancy;Karyopharm Therapeutics:Research Funding;Bristol Myers Squibb:Research Funding;Millenium:Consultancy;Alexion:Consultancy;Apellis:Consultancy;Rigel:Consultancy;Janssen:Consultancy.Matos:Kantar:Current Employment.Lehrhaupt:Kantar:Current Employment.Krishnan:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Sarda:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Baver:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

INTRODUCTION Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare, acquired, hematologic disease characterized by chronic complement-mediated hemolysis. Treatment with the C5 inhibitor eculizumab has resulted in a reduction in intravascular hemolysis and improvements in morbidity and mortality. Even with the clinical benefit in PNH, eculizumab entails twice-monthly intravenous infusions in a hospital setting in most countries, adversely impacting patients' work productivity (Mastellos DC, et al.Semin Hematol. 2018;55(3):167-175). Lost productivity associated with eculizumab ranged from $344,000 in Russia to $4.3 million in the United States, without caregivers (Levy AR, et al.Blood. 2019;134(Supplement_1):4803). Furthermore, patients in a real-world study treated with eculizumab for 1 year experienced continued impairment in overall quality-of-life relative-to-normative reference scores for the general adult population (Ueda Y, et al.Int J Hematol. 2018;107(6):656-665). This study aims to understand the clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes associated with burden of illness in about 150 patients with PNH globally. In these preliminary analyses, productivity loss and quality of life (QoL) in patients with PNH currently being treated with C5 inhibitors (eculizumab and ravulizumab) are assessed in patients in the United States. METHODS This cross-sectional survey administered to adult patients in the United States, ≥18 years of age, with self-reported diagnosis of PNH, was initiated in July 2020 and is ongoing. Patients were recruited through a patient advocacy group. Inclusion criteria to complete the secure online survey include current treatment with either eculizumab or ravulizumab, and agreement to provide informed consent and adverse event reporting. To investigate the impact of PNH on employment and activity, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire was used. QoL was assessed using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue scale and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). For the preliminary WPAI-GH analysis presented here, descriptive statistics are reported for patients who have completed the survey thus far. Analyses examining the impact of PNH on FACIT-Fatigue, EORTC QLQ-C30, and other clinical outcomes assessments among patients on anti-C5 therapy are ongoing. RESULTS A total of 58 adult patients completed the survey as of August 6, 2020. Patients' median age was 52 years (range, 21-88) and 78% of patients were female. Twenty patients (34%) were on eculizumab and 38 (66%) were on ravulizumab. Most patients (93%) had initiated treatment ≥3 months prior to enrollment. In total, 23 (40%) patients reported that they were gainfully employed. Overall, 52% of employed patients reported missing hours of work in the prior 7 days due to their health problems (67% eculizumab and 43% ravulizumab). About 77% of working patients reported that their illness affected their productivity at work (89% eculizumab and 69% ravulizumab) due to the same reason. Employed patients reported an average of 13% (standard deviation, 21%) absenteeism (ie, work time lost due to being absent for illness in the previous week; eculizumab, 22% ± 29%, ravulizumab, 7% ± 12%). Patients reported 26 ± 27% impairment while working over the past 7 days (ie, presenteeism; eculizumab, 39 ± 31%, ravulizumab, 18 ± 22%). Total work productivity impairment was on average 32 ± 31% (eculizumab, 46 ± 35%; ravulizumab, 23 ± 24%). Nearly all patients (n = 54 [93%]) reported at least some impairment in their usual activities regardless of employment (eculizumab, 100%; ravulizumab, 90%). On average, patients reported 38 ± 23% of impaired activity in the previous week (eculizumab, 43 ± 20%; ravulizumab, 36 ± 25%). CONCLUSIONS Preliminary results from this burden of illness survey evaluating humanistic and economic outcomes in patients with PNH demonstrated substantial loss of work-related productivity, greatly diminished ability to work, and limitations in patients' usual activities while being treated with the C5 inhibitors eculizumab and ravulizumab. Disclosures Dingli: Karyopharm Therapeutics:Research Funding;Alexion:Consultancy;Bristol Myers Squibb:Research Funding;Janssen:Consultancy;Rigel:Consultancy;Apellis:Consultancy;Sanofi-Genzyme:Consultancy;Millenium:Consultancy.Matos:Kantar:Current Employment.Lehrhaupt:Kantar:Current Employment.Krishnan:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Baver:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.Sarda:Apellis:Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Introduction: Since 2018, immunoenrichment-based matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), termed MASS-FIX, has replaced standard gel-based immunofixation for the detection and isotyping of serum monoclonal proteins at Mayo Clinic. MASS-FIX can readily identify N-glycosylation of involved light chains (LC N-glycosylation) by its unique, polytypic spectral pattern. LC N-glycosylation is identified more commonly in light chain amyloidosis (AL) than other plasma cell disorders (PCDs), and is associated with an increased risk of progression from MGUS to both AL and other PCDs (Dispenzieri et. al. Leukemia 2020). Herein, we report the mass spectral characteristics and distribution of diagnoses among 222 patients with LC N-glycosylation detected during a 20 month period in our clinical lab. Methods: MASS-FIX was performed on patient samples as previously described (Kohlhagen et. al. Clin Chem Lab 2020). Demographics and laboratory data, including quantitative M-spike, serum free light chains (FLC), and quantitative immunoglobulins at the time of MASS-FIX were recorded. For patients with multiple samples during the study period, only the initial MASS-FIX was evaluated. 9195 unique patients had MASS-FIX performed from 7/24/2018 to 03/06/2020. Inclusion criteria for this retrospective study included: 1) consent for record review; 2) a monoclonal protein identified on MASS-FIX; 3) an underlying PCD. Patients were considered to have negative results (2211 in total) on MASS-FIX if: 1) no monoclonal protein was identified (1081, 49%); 2) the interpretation was "cannot rule out monoclonal protein" (945, 43%); 3) multiple, nonspecific spectral peaks were identified consistent with immune reconstitution (29, 1%); or 4) the only monoclonal protein identified was consistent with a therapeutic monoclonal antibody (156, 7%). The final positive cohort consisted of 4118 patients with definitive monoclonal proteins on MASS-FIX. Results: Two-hundred and twenty-two (5%) of the 4118 patients with a positive MASS-FIX had LC N-glycosylation. 202 patients (91%) had FLC assays performed. Of these, 110 (54%) were kappa LC restricted, 22 (11%) were lambda restricted, and 70 (35%) were normal. A quantifiable M-spike was identified in 110 patients (85%) of 129 patients who had serum protein electrophoresis performed. By MASS-FIX, 139 patients (63%) had an IgG isotype, 18 (8%) an IgA, and 55 (25%) an IgM. Two of these patients had a bi-clonal pattern in which both IgG kappa and IgM kappa LCs were N-glycosylated. 12 patients (5%) had monoclonal light chains with no corresponding heavy chain. Overall, 173 (78%) of 222 patients were kappa LC restricted and 44 (22%) were lambda. 189 patients (85%) had a monoclonal pattern, 18 (8%) had a bi-clonal pattern, and 3 (1%) had a tri-clonal pattern. The most common PCD diagnoses for the 222 patients with LC N-glycosylation were MGUS (45%), multiple myeloma (MM) (31%), and immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL) (8%). The percentage of MASS-FIX positive patients with LC N-glycosylation by diagnosis, stratified by kappa and lambda LC restriction, is illustrated in Figure 1. Cold agglutinin disease (CAD) had the highest relative percentage of patients with LC N-glycosylation, regardless of LC restriction. Eighteen AL patients (5%) had LC N-glycosylation; the percentage was higher in kappa restricted (13%) than lambda restricted AL patients (2%). Of note, LC N-glycosylation was not detected in patients with plasma cell leukemia, non-AL amyloidosis with associated MGUS, POEMS Syndrome or Castleman's Disease in this cross sectional sampling of patients. Conclusions: This retrospective study demonstrates that 5% of patients in a routine clinical setting with positive MASS-FIX have glycosylated LCs. Consistent with prior observations, CAD had the highest relative percentage of LC N-glycosylated patients. The percentage of AL patients with LC N-glycosylation in this cohort is lower than previously reported for newly diagnosed AL patients (Kumar et. al. Leukemia 2019), which is not surprising given that the current cohort study is a cross sectional evaluation of patients at various stages of diagnosis and treatment rather than a prevalence study. Further study will be done to exclude the presence of latent AL in patients with N-glycosylated LC and diagnoses of MGUS, SMM, MM, and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Disclosures Gertz: 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; 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; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: 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; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murray:The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding.

Introduction: The utility of amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after starting treatment has not been explored. Given the high early mortality in this disease, restaging remote from the diagnosis may have clinical value. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used staging systems are prognostic when applied at 3 and 6 months from starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration impacts survival. Methods: This is a retrospective study including patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis diagnosed between January, 1st 2006 and June, 30th 2019 and were seen in Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN within 90 days of diagnosis; the analysis included 535 and 301 patients who had restaging data available for at least one of the staging systems at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients were grouped into 4 stages using the 2015 European modification of the Mayo 2004 staging system based on values of cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin T and NTproBNP), and using the Mayo 2012 staging system based on cardiac biomarkers and the difference in serum free light chain concentration (dFLC). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of re-staging until death or last follow up. Results: Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 3 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was 11.8 [95%CI: 11.4-not reached (NR)], 10.8 (95%CI: 9.4-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 2.8-6.7), and 1.1 (95%CI: 0.7-2.6) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 3 months, OS was 11.8 (95%CI: 10.9-NR), 9.0 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.2 (95%CI: 3.3-6.1), and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.7-1.1) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1a &b). Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 6 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was NR (95%CI: NR-NR), 9.8 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.4 (95%CI: 3.2-9.0) and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.6-3.7) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 6 months, OS was NR (95%CI: 8.4-NR), NR (95%CI: 7.9-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 3.0-6.5), and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.2-1.8) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1c &d). On multivariate analysis, advanced (stage > 2) modified Mayo 2004 stage (HR: 1.6, P=0.004) and advanced (stage > 2) Mayo 2012 stage (HR: 2.4, P<0.001) at 3 months were associated with decreased survival independent of cardiac response, hematologic response, and transplantation status. Although advanced Mayo 2004 stage at 6 months was associated with decreased survival, it was not statistically significant (HR: 1.5, P=0.09). In contrast, advanced Mayo 2012 stage at 6 months was independently associated with decreased survival (HR: 2.1, P=0.02). For both systems, worsening stage at 3 months or at 6 months was associated with a worse survival than retaining the original stage. In contrast, improving stage as compared to remaining in same stage was not associated with better survival at 3 or 6 months (Table 1). When the analysis was restricted to patients who had an advanced stage at diagnosis, improving stage at 3 months was associated with longer survival compared to retaining the original stage, with both modified Mayo 2004 (10.8 vs. 3.3 years, P<0.001) and Mayo 2012 (8.1 vs. 2.6 years, P<0.001) staging systems. At 6 months, stage improvement was associated with longer survival than retaining the original stage when the modified Mayo 2004 staging system was used (NR vs. 5.0 years, P=0.02), but it was not statistically significant when the Mayo 2012 staging system was used (5.9 vs. 3.7 years, P=0.12). Conclusion: The modified Mayo 2004 and the Mayo 2012 staging systems have independent prognostic value when used for restaging after 3 and 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Migration to a higher stage from diagnosis predicts decreased survival, compared to retaining the same stage. Stage improvement is associated with a better OS in patients with advanced stage at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Alnylam, Intellia, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Prothena, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Consultancy; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; 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; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: 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; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; 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; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; 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; 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; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) tend to present at an older age. Frailty, resulting from comorbidities and reduced organ function, poses unique challenges to the management of WM in the elderly. Age above 65 years, is an established unfavorable prognostic factor in WM. However, data specifically pertaining to the very elderly patient population are scant. The impact of advanced age (≥75 years at diagnosis) on the clinical features and outcomes of patients with symptomatic/active WM were studied. Methods: Patients with active WM, evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1996 and December 2018 were included in the study. The characteristics and laboratory parameters at presentation of the cohort of patients with the age ≥75 years were compared to those of the younger (age <75 years) cohort. The median follow-up and overall survival (OS) were assessed from active disease to last follow-up or death using the Kaplan Meier method. Because older age is a confounding factor for deaths from unrelated causes, the cause-specific survival (CSS) was calculated. Deaths were deemed WM-related if patients died from progressive disease, transformation with antecedent WM, concomitant light chain (AL) amyloidosis, infection associated with WM or anti-WM therapy related toxicity, while patients who died from other causes were considered to have a WM-unrelated death. The patients who died from causes unrelated to WM were censored at death for CSS analysis. The OS of the cohort of the very elderly patients was compared to that of a cohort of the general US population, matched for age, sex as well as follow-up from the calendar-year of diagnosis, to assess the degree to which WM impacts survival. Results: Among 949 consecutive patients, with a median follow-up of 8.4 years [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 7.7-9.3 years] from active disease, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range: 31-93 years). Of 177 patients (19%) who were ≥75 years of age at the onset of active WM, 173 (98%) received anti-WM therapy. The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts (patients ≥75 years of age versus <75 years) are outlined in Table 1. The patients in the age ≥75 years cohort were noted to have lower IgM levels and serum albumin, and higher serum LDH and serum β-2 microglobulin compared to the age <75 years cohort. A higher proportion of patients in the age <75 years cohort had coexisting AL amyloidosis at diagnosis. The frequency of MYD88L265P mutation was similar between the 2 cohorts (p=0.2). During the 23-year period, there was an increase in the proportion of patients ≥75 years who were diagnosed with active WM (12% during the 1996-2003 period, 18% during 2004-2010, 25% during 2011-2018; P<0.0001). In the elderly WM cohort, the most frequently used frontline treatment was rituximab monotherapy (36%), followed by rituximab-alkylating agent-based regimen (31%). Of 177 patients with age ≥75 years, 89 (50%) patients were deceased at the time of last follow-up and 58% (52/89) of all deaths in age ≥75 years were attributable to WM. By contrast, 303 (39%) out of the 772 patients in the age <75 years cohort were deceased at last follow-up, with 73% (224/303) deaths attributable to WM. The CSS for patients with age ≥75 years was 10.9 years (95% CI: 7.3-11.7 years) versus 14.7 years (95% CI: 13.2-15.7 years) for age <75 years [Risk ratio 2.1(95% CI: 1.5-2.8); p<0.0001]. At the 1 and 2 year follow-up, WM-related mortality was 6.8% and 11.9%, respectively, for patients with age ≥75 years versus 2.6% and 4.9%, respectively, for the younger cohort. The median OS of patients with age ≥75 years from the diagnosis of active WM was 5.9 years (95% CI: 4.2-7.3 years) compared to the OS of 8.3 years for an age, sex and calendar-year-matched cohort, derived from the general US population (p<0.001), Figure 1. Conclusion: Patients who are ≥75 years of age at the time of diagnosis of active WM present with certain poor prognostic features, including higher serum LDH and β-2 microglobulin and lower serum albumin compared to their younger counterparts. The impact of advanced age is underscored by a poorer WM-specific survival for the subset of patients with the age ≥75 years compared to the younger cohort. Furthermore, although active/symptomatic WM is typically an indolent malignancy, it adversely affects OS of the very elderly patients as suggested by the comparison with an age, sex and calendar-year matched cohort of the general US population. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Janssen: Other: personal fee. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kumar:Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; 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; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: 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; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: 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. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.