Citations

Abstract Introduction The 2-3 fold excess risk of multiple myeloma (MM) among family members of cases suggests a heritable contribution to risk. Recently, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified two genome-wide significant and one promising novel loci associated with multiple myeloma risk. To confirm these associations and identify additional novel risk loci, we performed a four-center, genome-wide association meta-analysis. Methods A fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis which included a total of 1248 cases and 1485 controls, all of European descent, genotyped and analyzed at four separate centers with samples contributed by 10 studies. After quality control and imputation using the 1000 Genomes Project, the analysis included ∼9.5 million variants (λ=1.024). Associations between (single nucleotide polymorphisms) SNP genotypes and MM risk were evaluated under a log-additive model of inheritance, with each study adjusting for age, sex, and up to 10 principal components to control for population stratification. Promising results were replicated in an independent set of 1587 cases and 1770 controls using TaqMan, for a total of 2835 and 3255 cases and controls, respectively, in a combined meta-analysis. Results The discovery meta-analysis did not reveal any genome-wide significant associations (defined as p<5 x 10-8). We used a novel pruning algorithm to identify the top 35 most promising single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to advance to replication. We successfully genotyped 22 SNPs in the replication set. In the combined discovery and replication meta-analysis, rs1345359 at 12q23.1 was the most strongly associated SNP (P=9 x 10-8, Table 1). The variant allele C was associated with reduced risk (odds ratio discovery set [OR]= 0.69, OR replication set = 0.78, OR combined = 0.74). A second locus at 20q13.2 (rs150220835), was associated with a two-fold increased risk (P=1.22 x 10-6), a borderline increased risk (P=0.0900) and 45% increased risk (P=2.44 X 10-5) in the discovery, replication, and combined analysis sets respectively (Table 1). We also confirmed the association between MM risk and two previously published SNPs (rs4487645, p=0.0007and rs105251, p=0.0044) (Broderick et al., Nat. Genet., 2011). The third previously suggested SNP (rs6746082) was of nominal significance (p=0.0517) in the meta-analysis. Discussion We confirmed the association between MM risk and two previously published SNPs and identified a possible association with a novel SNP in chromosome 12q23.1 (rs1345359). This SNP is not located in a gene nor associated with biofeatures in ENCODE, thus further examination of correlated SNPs is necessary to identify a functional SNP linked to this locus. We also found suggestive evidence for a second locus at 20q13.2 requiring additional replication. Larger studies would improve risk variant discovery for this rare hematologic malignancy. Disclosures: Wolf: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millenium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Anderson:Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder , Scientific Founder Other.

Abstract Abstract 445 Background: Carfilzomib is a proteasome inhibitor that irreversibly binds its target and has a favorable toxicity profile that has shown significant activity in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), leading to recent FDA accelerated approval. To achieve rapid and deep response in patients eligible for stem cell transplant, we combined carfilzomib with the regimen of cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone (CTD). We recently reported the results of the Phase I component of the trial (in which no MTD was reached) followed by the initial Phase II trial; however, with increasing evidence for the safe and effective use of higher doses of carfilzomib, we now report results from dose escalation extension of the Phase II trial. Methods: Newly diagnosed myeloma patients intended for stem cell transplant were eligible. All patients were treated on a 28 day cycle with Carfilzomib IV Days 1,2,8,9,15,16 (see Table 1 below for dosing per cohort) along with Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 PO Days 1,8,15, Thalidomide 100 mg PO Days 1–28 and Dexamethasone 40 mg PO Days 1,8,15,22. We initially conducted a Phase I run in trial of 6 patients with no DLT observed before expanding to the Phase II portion of the study. The initial phase II regimen is shown below – as no DLTs were observed, we have now fully accrued to the Phase II dose level +1. Treatment was for 4 cycles with expected SCT post induction. The primary endpoint of the trial is the proportion of patients who have ≥very good partial response (VGPR) to treatment. All patients received herpes zoster prophylaxis and ASA daily. Results: A total of 38 patients have been accrued to the trial, 6 in the initial Phase 1, 21 in the initial Phase II, and the remaining at dose escalated cohorts. We are reporting the 27 patients who have completed therapy and will update with the dose escalated cohorts. Median age was 65 (range 27–74) and 52% were female. ISS Stage was advanced (II-III) in 56%. Best overall response rate during 4 cycles of CYCLONE at dose level 0 is 96%: CR 29%, VGPR 46%, PR 21% (1 pt achieved MR). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher at least possibly related to CYCLONE occurred in 12 (44%). Most commonly reported non hematological toxicities (all grades) included fatigue (67%), constipation (56%), lethargy (41%) somnolence (37%), malaise (30%) depressed level of consciousness (22%); however, grade 3/4 toxicities occurring in >5% were uncommon: thromboembolic event 11%) and muscle weakness (7%). Two cases of pneumonia required hospitalization. Eight patients (30%) developed grade 1 sensory neuropathy; no higher grade or painful neuropathy was evident. There were no cardiac events seen in greater than 5% of patients. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicities included neutropenia (15%) and lymphopenia (7%). All patients advancing to SCT successfully collected stem cells. One patient died on study from pneumonia. Conclusion: The 4 drug CYCLONE regimen is highly efficaceous with a response rate after only 4 cycles of 96% (75% ≥VGPR, 29% CR) at the current dosing level of carfilzomib IV 20/27 mg/m2 in newly diagnosed myeloma. Toxicities are manageable, with only grade 1 neuropathy and minimal cardiac or pulmonary toxicity. Increasing the dose of carfilzomib is feasible and updated results of dose escalated cohorts will be reported at 20/36 and 20/45 mg/m2. Disclosures: Bergsagel: onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Carfilzomib is a proteasome inhibitor that irreversibly binds its target and has been validated as both relapse and upfront therapies for multiple myeloma. To optimize pre transplant response, we combined carfilzomib with the widely accessible backbone of cyclophosphamide-thalidomide-dexamethasone (CTD). We previously reported results of the Phase I component of the trial (in which no MTD was reached); we now report results for the MTD and fully accrued expansion cohorts at the MTD of the CYCLONE trial NCT01057225. Methods Newly diagnosed myeloma patients intended for stem cell transplant were eligible. All patients were treated on a 28 day cycle with carfilzomib IV Days 1,2,8,9,15,16 (see Table below for dosing per cohort) along with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 PO Days 1,8,15, thalidomide 100 mg PO Days 1-28 and dexamethasone 40 mg PO Days 1,8,15,22. The initial phase I/ II regimen is shown below – as no DLTs were observed, we increased dosing of carfilzomib to 36 and then 45mg/m2 and have now nearly fully accrued to the Phase II dose level +1 (27mg/m2) and expansion MTD (36mg/m2). Treatment was for 4 cycles with planned SCT post induction. The primary endpoint of the trial is the proportion of patients who have ≥very good partial response (VGPR) to treatment. All patients received herpes zoster prophylaxis and ASA daily. Results A total of 54 patients have been accrued to the trial, 6 in the initial Phase 1, 21 in the initial Phase II (CFZ 27mg/m2), and 27 at CFZ 36-45mg/m2. Median age was 63 (range 27-77) and 52% were male. ISS Stage was advanced (II-III) in 57% The overall partial response rate or better following 4 cycles of CYCLONE at dose level 0 or greater is 91%: CR 18%, VGPR 58%, PR 16%, MR 2%, SD 4%. One patient withdrew from the trial after cycle 1. At dose level 2, 3/7 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity in cycle 1 including: grade 3 alanine aminotransferase increase (possibly related); grade 3 infusion reaction (probably related); and grade 4 heart failure with grade 3 dyspnea, atrial fibrillation, and fatigue (all possibly related). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed in 6 patients at dose level 1 and thus DL1 was deemed the MTD. Across dose levels, adverse events are fully evaluable in 48 patients. AEs of grade 3 or higher at least possibly related to CYCLONE occurred in 26 (54%) – 35% non hematological and 33% hematological. Most commonly reported non hematological toxicities (all grades) included fatigue (63%), constipation (46%), elevated creatinine (27%), hyperglycemia (27%), lethargy (25%) peripheral sensory neuropathy (25% - all grade 1), and somnolence (21%); however, grade 3/4 toxicities occurring in >5% were uncommon: hypertension (8%), thromboembolic event (6%) and hyperglycemia (6%). Three cases of pneumonia required hospitalization. There were no cardiac events seen in greater than 5% of patients. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicities included lymphopenia (23%) and neutropenia (17%). All patients advancing to SCT successfully collected stem cells. One patient died on study from pneumonia. 90% completed at least 4 cycles. With median follow-up of 16 months (range 0-64), 1-year PFS was 90% and 1-year OS was 98%. Conclusion The 4 drug CYCLONE regimen is highly efficacious with an overall response rate after only 4 cycles of 91% (76% ≥VGPR) at the dosing level of carfilzomib IV 20/27-36 mg/m2 in newly diagnosed myeloma. Toxicities are manageable, with only grade 1 neuropathy and minimal cardiac or pulmonary toxicity. CYCLONE is a combination that results in rapid and deep responses with minimal neuropathy prior to stem cell transplant. Comparative studies of this regimen with longer duration of therapy (as induction or consolidation) at the defined MTD should be considered. Disclosures: Mikhael: Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Reeder:Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Costa:Otsuka: Research Funding. Stewart:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract Abstract 3895 Poster Board III-831 A genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) screen led to the identification of 11q aUPD in patients diagnosed with various subtypes of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), e.g. chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (aCML) and myelofibrosis (MF) (Grand et al., Blood 2009;113:6182). Further molecular analyses revealed acquired activating point and length mutations in CBL exons 8 and 9 in 10% of CMML, 8% of aCML and 6% of MF cases. Most variants were missense substitutions in the RING or linker domains that abrogated CBL ubiquitin ligase activity and conferred a proliferative advantage to 32D cells overexpressing FLT3. In this study, 160 patients with BCR-ABL and JAK2 V617F negative MPNs were screened for CBL mutations by PCR and direct sequencing. Eighteen known (Y371H, L380P [2x], C381R, C381Y [2x], C384Y, C396Y, H398P, H398Q, W408C, P417H, F418L, R420Q [5x]) and four new (F378L, G397V, I423N, V430M) missense mutations affecting fourteen residues were identified in 20 patients. Two patients harbored two different mutations. The clinical phenotype could be characterized more precisely in 17 patients. Median age was 68 years (range 59–85) with a slight female predominance (f, n=10; m, n=7). Striking hematological features were leukocytosis (14/17; 82%; median 29,000/μl, range 4,500-141,000) with continuously left-shifted granulopoiesis (blasts, promyelocytes, myelocytes, metamyelocytes) in 85% and elevated monocytes (median 2,500/μl, range 630-10,656) >1,000/μL in 88% (15/17) of patients. Eosinophilia (>1,500/μL) was rare (3/17, 18%). Anemia (normal values: f, Hb <12g/dL; m, Hb <14g/dL) was present in all 17 patients (f, median 10g/dL, range 8.7-11.8; m, median 11.2g/dL, range 8.6-12.9). Platelets did not exceed 300,000/μL in any patient while 11/17 (65%) patients presented with thrombocytopenia (median 125,000/μL, range 18,000-271,000). Splenomegaly was present in 11/17 patients (65%) and LDH was elevated (median 304U/L, range 189-729) in 9/17 patients (52%). Bone marrow histology and immunohistochemistry were available from 12 patients. Relevant features were hypercellularity, marked granulopoiesis and microlobulated megakaryocytes without clusters in 11/12 patients (92%), respectively. Increased fibres were seen in 8/12 (67%) patients of whom one showed severe fibrosis. Clinical follow-up was available from 17 patients. Thirteen patients (76%) have died because of progression to secondary acute myeloid leukemia/blast phase (n=7), cytopenia-related complications (n=2) or for unknown reasons (n=4) after a median of 23 months (range 3-60) following diagnosis. In conclusion, point mutations of CBL exons 8 and 9 are present in approximately 6-12% of BCR-ABL and JAK2 V617F negative MPNs. They are associated with a distinct clinical and hematological phenotype presenting with myeloproliferative features allowing diagnosis of a proliferative subtype of CMML rather than aCML or MF in the majority of cases. Patients with left-shifted leukocytosis, monocytosis, anemia and lack of thrombocytosis who are negative for BCR-ABL and point or length mutations of JAK2 should be routinely screened for CBL mutations. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Combination regimens incorporating bortezomib (VELCADE®, Vc), lenalidomide (REVLIMID®, Rev), dexamethasone (Dex) and cyclophosphamide (Cy) (Vc–Dex, Rev–Dex, Vc–Dex–Rev [VDR], and Vc–Dex–Cy [VDC]), have all shown substantial activity in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). A combination of all four agents (VDCR) may result in even greater activity. This randomized multi-center 3-arm phase I/II EVOLUTION study is investigating the efficacy and safety of VDR, VDC, and VDCR as initial therapy in previously untreated MM patients (pts). We now report safety and efficacy results from the phase l dose-escalation portion of the study, which sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the VDCR regimen. These results represent the first clinical data with this novel 4-drug combination that includes bortezomib, lenalidomide, an alkylator, and a corticosteroid. Methods: Pts received Vc 1.3 mg/m2 IV (d 1, 4, 8, 11), Dex 40 mg PO (d 1, 8, 15), Rev 15 mg PO (d 1–14), plus Cy 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 mg/m2 PO (d 1, 8) for up to eight 21-d cycles, followed by Vc 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 42-d maintenance cycles. Pts received prophylactic antibiotics, acyclovir, transfusion support and concomitant anticoagulants as required. Eligible pts wishing to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2, and discontinue therapy for ASCT any time after cycle 4. The MTD was defined as the highest dose of Cy in combination with VDR resulting in ≤1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in 6 pts. A DLT was defined as: platelet count <25,000/mm3 lasting >7 days or any platelet count <10,000/mm3; grade 4 neutropenia lasting >7 days; any ≥grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity considered to be related to Cy except for inadequately treated nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, or any toxicity resulting in a >2 week treatment delay. Results: Twenty-six pts were enrolled; 1 pt was not dosed due to a heart problem and was excluded (dose level 4) and 4 pts were not evaluable for DLT. In the 25 treated pts, median age was 61 years (range 49–79); 52% were male; 48% had ISS Stage lI and 4% Stage III disease, and 44% had KPS ≤80%. At data cut-off, 11 pts remain on treatment and 9 have undergone successful ASCT. To date, median treatment duration is 4 cycles (range 2–11). Two pts experienced DLT: 1 grade 4 febrile neutropenia at dose level 4 (Cy 400 mg/m2), and 1 grade 3 herpes zoster virus reactivation despite antiviral prophylaxis at dose level 5 (Cy 500 mg/m2). The recommended phase II dose of Cy in the VDCR regimen was the highest planned dose of 500 mg/m2. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were constipation (64%), fatigue (60%), and nausea (52%). Hematologic toxicities were acceptable, with grade 3 neutropenia in 16% of patients, grade 4 in 4%, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 4%. Peripheral neuropathy (56%), included 8% grade 3 but no grade 4; no deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism events were reported. Overall rate of serious AEs was 40%; the only SAE reported in >1 pt was febrile neutropenia (2 pts). Best responses to date by International Uniform Response Criteria are shown in the table. Preliminary response rates are: 100% ≥PR, 68% ≥VGPR, 32% CR/nCR, 28% CR/stringent CR and 20% sCR. Ten pts have undergone stem cell mobilization with median CD34+ yield of 4.95×106/kg. Conclusions: VDCR was well tolerated and hematologic toxicities were manageable. The current study shows that the VDCR regimen is feasible and highly active in newly diagnosed myeloma and merits further testing in clinical trials. Enrollment to the 3 arms (VDR, VDC and VDCR) of the phase ll portion of the study and testing for minimal residual disease by flow cytometry are ongoing. Best unconfirmed response to date with VDCR Dose level 1 2 3 4 5 Cyclophosphamide dose, mg/m2 100 200 300 400 500 Enrolled 3 4 4 8 7 Treated 3 4 4 7 7 Still on treatment – 1 1 2 7 Best unconfirmed response to date CR (sCR) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 1 (1) VGPR (nCR) 1 – 3 (1) 4 2 PR – 3 – 1 4

Abstract Background Voriconazole is a common antifungal medication used in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) patients. In solid organ transplantation, multiple studies have associated the use of voriconazole with the development of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) post-transplant, but its association with SCC in allo-HSCT patients is unknown. We sought to determine this association. Methods After IRB approval, Mayo Clinic’s transplant database (2007-2012) was accessed and electronic charts of allo-HSCT patients were retrospectively reviewed. Voriconazole exposure was defined as exposure to voriconazole at any time during treatment of primary disease, prior to or following HSCT. Cumulative voriconazole exposure was defined as total days of voriconazole use following HSCT; days were not required to be consecutive. Two time-dependent voriconazole exposure variables were defined: (1) history of voriconazole exposure (yes/no) over time, and (2) cumulative days on voriconazole over time. Results 404 patients underwent allo-HSCT during this timeframe, and 381 patients (table 1) were included in the final analysis. 23 patients were excluded (8 patients received multiple transplants, 9 patients were treated under pediatric protocols, 6 patients lacked research consent). 312/381 received voriconazole; other antifungal therapy included fluconazole (n=40), posaconazole (n=23), anidulafungin (n=1), and caspofungin (n=5). Median duration of cumulative days of voriconazole was 214 (range 2 -1553). SCC developed in 26/312 exposed to voriconazole and in 1/69 who received alternative antifungals. Cumulative incidence of SCC at 1 year was 3%, 2 years was 8%, 3 years was 13%, 4 years was 14%, and at 5 years was 19% (figure 1). Cumulative days of voriconazole use was found to be a risk factor for the development of SCC, and this relationship persisted in a multivariate model using previously identified risk factors (gender, age at transplant, TBI conditioning regimen, skin cancer pre-HSCT, chronic GVHD) as covariates (HR 1.859 for each 180 days of use, p<0.001). History of prior voriconazole exposure was not associated with an increased risk of SCC after covariate adjustment (HR 2.436, p=0.2369). Conclusion This is the first study to establish cumulative days of voriconazole use as a risk factor for SCC development following allo-HSCT, and may help guide appropriate antifungal prophylaxis in this patient population which is already at an increased risk of developing skin cancers. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Fludarabine plus busulfan (FB) and fludarabine plus melphalan (FM) are two commonly used reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). A recent analysis showed that both regimens had similar overall survival (OS) but relapse incidence (RI) was significantly higher with FB with a trend towards higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) in FM (Baron et al., Cancer 2015). However, that cohort included patients treated with oral and intravenous busulfan without pharmakokinetic targeting of intravenous which may impact anti-leukemic activity. Aim: Compare transplant related outcomes of FB vs. FM using intravenous (IV) busulfan targeted to the area under the curve (AUC). Methods: After due IRB approval, patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) receiving RIC-SCT from 2008-2014 were identified. All baseline and laboratory features were retrospectively extracted. Busulfan dose in FB was 0.8 mg/kg IV for 10 doses with therapeutic AUC target of 900-1500 mcmol/L (min). All patients received T-cell replete grafts. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using Pearson's chi-squared and Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, respectively. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared using the log-rank test. Cumulative incidence was computed as competing events using Grey's model. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression modeling. Results: A. Baseline characteristics and AUC monitoring: 134 pts were identified (47 FB and 87 FM). Median follow up of the entire cohort was 40 months (0-63.3) and at last follow up, 60% and 29% have died or relapsed, respectively. Baseline characteristics stratified according to conditioning regimen are shown in table 1. Younger age (60 yrs FB vs. 61 yrs FM, p = 0.015) and a trend towards a higher CMV R-/D- status (28% FB vs. 14% FM p = 0.064) were the only significant differences identified. All patients in the FB group received intravenous busulfan and 46/47 patients had evaluable AUC data with a range of 732-1354 mcmol/L (min). A total of 19 patients were outside of range, all <900 mcmol/L (min) and required a median dose increase of 28.1% (3.3-50.2%) B. Engraftment and toxicity data: The median time for platelet engraftment was 19 days (0-48) for FB vs. 16 days (14-183) for FM (p = 0.0023) whereas the median time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) engraftment was 18 days (7-30) for FB and 15 days (11-40) for FM (p = 0.077). Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV, III-IV acute GVHD and chronic GVHD at 2-yr was 57.3%, 11% and 52.8% for FB and 48.6%, 17% and 63.4% for FM (p = 0.73, 0.4 and 0.21, respectively). Two patients in the FM group died of cardiac causes (heart failure and sudden cardiac arrest). No cases of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome were observed in either arm C. Transplant outcomes: A significantly higher 2-yr relapse incidence (RI) was associated with FB vs. FM at 35.6% vs 17.3%, respectively (p = 0.0058). 2-yr progression free survival (PFS) was also significantly lower in the FB vs. FM at 51.2% vs. 65.1%, respectively (p 0.031). However, 2-yr OS and NRM was similar for FB vs. FM (53.1% and 22.9% vs 63.9% and 21.9%, respectively p = 0.26 and 0.89). Necessitating a dose adjustment based on AUC did not increase the risk for relapse or affect NRM. In multivariate analysis, FB was associated with increased RI with hazard ratio (HR) 2.29 (1.07-4.88; p = 0.033). Other factors significantly associated with RI on multivariate analysis were secondary/therapy related disease with HR 2.84 (1.34-6.02; p = 0.0067) and CR1 vs. other with HR 0.39 (0.17-5.32; p = 0.019). The significance of the results remained unchanged after exclusion of MDS patients (data not shown) Conclusion: Despite AUC dose adjustment, FB compared to FM was associated with increased RI with a similar OS and NRM. AUC dose adjustment did not impact transplant outcomes and its routine use in RIC should be further evaluated. Given the wide use of FB as a conditioning regimen, these important observations should be prospectively studied in a randomized fashion. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Wolf:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract Abstract 621 Background: Two- and three-drug regimens incorporating bortezomib (Velcade®, V), lenalidomide (Revlimid®, R), dexamethasone (D), or cyclophosphamide (C) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Combining all four drugs in a single regimen (VDCR) may further enhance efficacy. Published results from the phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the non-comparative, multi-center EVOLUTION study showed that the VDCR regimen was highly active and generally well tolerated (Kumar et al Leukemia 2010). Here we present updated results from the phase 2 portion of the trial, focusing on efficacy and safety of the VDCR, VDR, and VDC regimens. Methods: Previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to one of four treatment groups receiving up to eight 21-d cycles of VDCR (V 1.3 mg/m2 d 1, 4, 8, 11; D 40 mg d 1, 8, 15; R 15 mg d 1–14; C 500 mg/m2 d 1, 8), VDR (VD as in VDCR but with R 25 mg d 1–14), VDC (VDC as in VDCR), or VDC-mod (as for VDC but with an additional dose of C on d 15) as induction therapy, followed by four 42-d maintenance cycles of V 1.3 mg/m2 (d 1, 8, 15, 22) (all treatment arms). Patients eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) could undergo stem cell mobilization any time after cycle 2 and SCT any time after cycle 4. The primary endpoint was the combined complete response (CR) + very good partial response (VGPR) rate; secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Responses were assessed according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform criteria using an automated computer algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the CTCAE v3.0. Results: Patient characteristics were similar among the groups with respect to age, performance status, ISS stage, and proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetic features. Patients received a median of 5, 6, 6, and 6 treatment cycles in the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively; 65%, 60%, 52%, and 47% of patients had dose reductions of any drug. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, respectively, 52%, 62%, 58%, and 65% of patients completed treatment; 31%, 43%, 24%, and 41%, respectively, underwent SCT. In the phase 2 response-evaluable patients (n=132), all treatment regimens showed substantial efficacy, with CR+VGPR rates of 59% (VDCR), 50% (VDR), 41% (VDC), and 59% (VDC-mod) (Table) (includes pre-transplant responses only in SCT patients). Of MRD-assessed patients, 46% (21/46) of those who achieved CR (including sCR) or nCR were MRD-negative; 48% (10/21), 75% (9/12), 0% (0/7) and 33% (2/6) in the VDCR, VDR, VDC and VDC-mod arms, respectively. Median time to first response was similar across arms (range 1.6–1.8 months); median time to best response of CR+VGPR was 4.0 months (VDCR), 3.4 months (VDR), 5.1 months (VDC), and 3.1 months (VDC-mod). Median duration of response has not been reached in any arm to date. All treatment regimens were generally well tolerated. In the VDCR, VDR, VDC, and VDC-mod arms, at least one grade ≥3 AE was observed in 81%, 76%, 79%, and 88% of enrolled patients, respectively; serious AEs were experienced by 42%, 40%, 21%, and 41% of patients, and AEs resulting in study discontinuation were reported for 19%, 17%, 12%, and 6% of patients. The five most common all-grade AEs across all treatment groups were fatigue (range 47–67%), nausea (36–67%), constipation (40–62%), diarrhea NOS (42–65%), and neutropenia (19–52%). The incidence of grade ≥3 (grade ≥2) peripheral neuropathy (PN) was 13% (40%) in the VDCR arm, 14% (45%) VDR, 9% (48%) VDC, and 18% (41%) VDC-mod; there was no grade 4 PN. Rates of grade ≥3 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia were 42%/10% for VDCR, 7%/7% VDR, 36%/12% VDC, and 65%/18% VDC-mod. Conclusions: All regimens appear highly active and generally well tolerated in previously untreated MM patients. The four-drug combination did not result in a substantial increase in response rate and was associated with a modest increase in the incidence of hematologic toxicities. Continuous weekly C in the VDC regimen was associated with high response rates and rapid responses, comparable to the VDR and VDCR arms. Outcome data will be presented following longer follow-up. Disclosures: Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. Flinn:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Celgene: Research Funding. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Noga:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ortho-Centicor: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stewart:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Rifkin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Speakers Bureau; Dendreon: Speakers Bureau. Wolf:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech and Multiple Myeloma Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; OrthoBiotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Estevam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Mulligan:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Shi:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Webb:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment.