Citations

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.

SummaryIbrutinib is associated with durable responses in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM). We hypothesized that response depth is predictive of progression‐free survival (PFS) in WM patients treated with ibrutinib. Using landmark analyses, we evaluated response depth in two cohorts of WM patients treated with ibrutinib monotherapy. The learning cohort was composed of 93 participants from two clinical trials, and the validation cohort of 190 consecutive patients treated off clinical trial. Rates of partial response (PR) or better at six months in learning and validation cohorts were 64% and 71% respectively (P = 0·29). In the learning cohort, three‐year PFS rates for patients who attained PR or better at six monthsversusnot were 81% and 57% respectively (P = 0·009). In the validation cohort, three‐year PFS rates for patients who attained PR or better at six monthsversusnot were 83% and 54% respectively (P = 0·008). In multivariate analyses, attaining PR or better at six months was associated with superior PFS in the learning [hazard ratio (HR) 0·38;P = 0·01] and validation cohorts (HR 0·18;P = 0·004). Attaining PR at six months on ibrutinib emerges as an intermediate outcome of interest and should be validated as surrogate for PFS in clinical trials evaluating Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in WM.

Background: Clinical factors including previous history of AF, heart failure, hypertension, valvular heart disease, increased age and male gender increase the risk of AF in CLL patients (Shanafelt, Leukemia and Lymphoma 2017). Treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) such as ibrutinib has also been associated with an increased risk of AF in CLL. We evaluated the role of artificial intelligence electrocardiography (AI-ECG) in predicting ibrutinib-induced AF (and, for reference, AF unrelated to ibrutinib) in patients with CLL. Methods: We identified two cohorts of CLL patients using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database. Cohort 1 included patients evaluated within 12 months of CLL diagnosis who did not ever receive ibrutinib. Cohort 2 included patients who were treated with ibrutinib. The electrocardiographic signature of AF in sinus rhythm was detected by an AI-ECG algorithm previously developed using a convolutional neural network (Attia, Lancet 2019). The baseline AI-ECG AF score (positive defined as &gt;0.10 on a scale of 0-1 which offers best balance between sensitivity and specificity per Attia et al.) was computed based on ECGs obtained within 10 years prior to CLL diagnosis (Cohort 1) or 10 years prior to initiation of ibrutinib therapy (Cohort 2). Patients with AF at baseline, missing data, or with ECGs previously used to train the AI algorithm were excluded. Reverse Kaplan Meier diagrams were plotted for both cohorts grouped by AI-ECG positivity. Cox proportional hazards were fitted to assess the predictive ability of AI-ECG in both cohorts. Results: After screening 2,739 patients and applying exclusion criteria (126 patients had baseline AF) a total of 1,149 patients with median 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-9) baseline ECGs were included in the analysis (Figure 1A). Cohort 1 included 951 patients with a median follow up of 3.0 (IQR 0.6-7.0) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 546 (57%) patients. Cohort 2 included 198 patients with a median follow up of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-3.2) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 91 (46%) patients. In Cohort 1, the median age was 67 years (IQR 58-72), 681 (72%) of patients were men, 68% had low/intermediate risk CLL-International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 32% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. In Cohort 2, the median age was 69 years (IQR 62-75), 139 (70%) of patients were men, 13% had low/intermediate risk CLL-IPI, and 87% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. AF occurred during follow up in 164 patients (17%) in Cohort 1 and 46 patients (23%) in Cohort 2. In both Cohorts 1 and 2, a positive baseline AI-ECG significantly increased the incidence of AF during follow up (log rank &lt;0.001) (Figure 1B and C). Hazard ratios (for positive vs. negative AI-ECG) were 33.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.0-76.6) for Cohort 1 and 14.8 (95% CI 5.3-41.3) for Cohort 2. Conclusion: The addition of AI to a standard 12-lead ECG obtained during normal sinus rhythm - an inexpensive and ubiquitous test - predicts the occurrence of future AF in patients with CLL. This holds true irrespective of BTKi -based therapy and has important implications for the management of CLL patients. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:BMS: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Juno: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kay:Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Parikh:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding.

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: PCL is a rare and aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM). It is associated with high risk cytogenetics, aggressive disease biology and a dismal prognosis. Dara has revolutionized the treatment of MM leading to deep and durable responses as a single agent and in combination with other agents. We evaluated the efficacy of Dara-based regimens in the treatment of PCL. Methods: Clinical charts of primary and secondary PCL patients treated at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between 2012-2019 were reviewed. Survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Plasma cell leukemia was defined by ≥5% peripheral blood plasma cells and/or absolute plasma cell count ≥0.5 x109/L (based on IMWG consensus statement).1 Results: Thirty-one patients were identified (55% female) with a median age at PCL diagnosis of 66 y (range 38-83). Fifteen (48%) had primary (p) PCL, while 14 (52%) had secondary (s) PCL. Nineteen (61%) had high risk cytogenetics with 11 (45%) del 17p, 4 (13%) t(14;16), 14 (45%) 1q amplification/duplication and 3(10%) t(4;14). Twelve (39%) had t(11;14). Eighteen (58%) patients had undergone autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) with 12 (39%) having undergone AHCT following their diagnosis of PCL. Patients received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-9) prior to receiving Dara-based regimens; 15 (42%) were refractory to an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), 18 (58%) were refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and 10 (32%) were refractory to both. Twenty-eight (90%) were IMiD exposed, 31 (100%) were PI exposed. Eighteen (58%) were lenalidomide (R) refractory, 5(16%) were pomalidomide (P) refractory, 8 (26%) were carfilzomib (K) refractory and 13(42%) were bortezomib (V) refractory prior to receiving Dara. Four (13%) received Dara + chemotherapy, 8 (26%) received Dara + PI, 11 (35%) received Dara + IMiD, 5 (16%) received Dara + PI + IMiD and 4 (13%) received single agent Dara. Median follow up time was 26 months (m) (95% CI; 13-61) from diagnosis of PCL and 17m (95% CI; 10-23) from initiation of Dara. Overall response rate (ORR) to Dara-based regimens was 65% (20/31 ≥partial response). The median duration of response was 5.5m (95% CI; 5.6-12.7). The median time to first response was 1m (95% CI; 0.57-1.72) and the median time to best response was 1m (95% CI; 0.7-2.5). Since the start of Dara-based treatment, median progression free survival (PFS) was 4m (95% CI; 2-11, Figure 1A) and median overall survival (OS) was 9 m (95% CI; 5-21, Figure 1B). Patients with pPCL had superior PFS (19 m vs. 3m, p=0.0096) and OS (21 vs. 5m, p=0.0068, Figure 1C) following Dara-based treatment compared to those with sPCL, respectively. Being refractory to an IMiD, PI or both when receiving Dara did not affect PFS or OS. Patients with high risk cytogenetics had similar OS as compared to those with standard risk cytogenetics (8m vs.13m, p=0.89) following Dara-based treatment. After performing a landmark survival analysis at 3m, achieving ≥PR to a Dara-based regimen resulted in a trend towards superior OS (13m vs. 9 m, p=0.07, Figure 1D). Patients who underwent AHCT following the diagnosis of PCL had a superior OS (41m vs. 6m, p=0.020) however there were no PFS or OS differences whether Dara-based regimens were given before or after AHCT. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens induce a high ORR in patients with PCL with a rapid time to first response. However, the OS of patients with PCL, particularly sPCL remains dismal. Prospective trials for PCL patients using novel therapeutic strategies are warranted. 1Fernandez de Larrea, et al. Plasma Cell Leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria, and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Leukemia. 2013; 27(4): 780-791. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dingli:Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

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.