Citations

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Persons of African ancestry (AA) have a 2-3-fold higher risk of multiple myeloma (MM) than persons of European ancestry (EA). Like other B-cell malignancies, genome-wide association scans (GWAS) have identified MM risk variants in the HLA region in persons of EA. We conducted a case-control analysis with data from the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)1comprising MM patients typed for bone marrow transplant to donor controls matched by race-ethnicity, and found associations between specific HLA alleles/haplotypes and MM risk that varied by race and ethnicity. To confirm our results and identify additional novel signals, we have now investigated associations between HLA alleles and haplotypes and MM risk in the African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS) Cohort. Methods: The source of subjects was the AAMMS, in which AA MM patients were identified from 10 cancer centers and 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) Program cancer registries in order to identify genetic risk factors for MM among AAs. A GWAS was conducted using the Illumina Human Core BeadChip array on DNA samples from 1,305 AA MM patients in the AAMMS comparing results to those from 7,078 AA controls with GWAS data generated from the Illumina 1MDuo2. The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were imputed to classical HLA variants using HIBAG. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate HLA associations, adjusting for sex, age and the first 2 principal components. P-values were adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR) for each locus group. Results: We did not identify any single HLA alleles associated with MM risk among AAs. However, several B*07:02-containing haplotypes were associated with MM risk (odds ratios [OR] ranging from 2.38 to 2.64 and FDR P-values ranging from 1.43 x 10-6 to 3.57 x 10-8). We found associations between MM risk and genotypes containing DRB3*02:02, including DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01+ DRB3*02:02~DRB1*11:01 (OR=1.93, PFDR= 9.36 x 10-5) similar to those observed in the NMDP study1. Novel findings included associations between MM risk and HLA Class I haplotypes B*53:01+ B*57:01 (OR=1.94, PFDR= 0.003) and C04:01~B*53:01+C*06:02~B*57:01 (OR=1.96, PFDR= 0.0050). Results from an ongoing meta-analysis between the two data sets (one based on an imputed GWAS and one based on NMDP HLA typing) will be presented. Conclusions: This study is the second to examine HLA alleles and risk of MM among AA's and is by far the largest. We confirmed a previously observed association between an HLA Class II DRB3 variant and MM risk and confirmed an association with B*07 haplotypes previously observed among EAs1. We also identified novel associations between other HLA Class I haplotypes and MM risk in AA's. Because HLA is highly polymorphic, many HLA alleles are rare variants for which genetic associations are difficult to detect without very large sample sizes. Further investigation with large sample sizes will be necessary to refine these associations in order to better identify the underlying causal alleles and determine the functional significance of these HLA associations. 1Beksac M, Gragert L, Fingerson S, et al.: HLA polymorphism and risk of multiple myeloma.Leukemia. 2016 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.199. 2Rand KA, Song C, Hwang AE, et al. Genetic susceptibility markers of multiple myeloma in African-Americans. Abstract # 2030, 56th Annual American Society of Hematology Meeting, San Francisco, California, 2014. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Nooka:Spectrum, Novartis, Onyx pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Zonder:Pharmacyclics: Other: DSMC membership; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 4055 Introduction: Approximately 15% of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) exhibit a t(4;14) translocation that results in constitutive activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) in the absence of ligand. This translocation has been strongly linked with a poor prognosis and short survival compared with pts without this translocation. Dovitinib (TKI258) is an RTK inhibitor that has demonstrated in vitro inhibitory activity against FGFR (including FGFR3), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), with IC50values of approximately 10 nM. Tumor growth inhibition was observed in xenograft tumor models of MM treated with dovitinib. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dovitinib in pts with relapsed or refractory MM that is either t(4;14) positive or negative. Patients and Methods: Adult pts who had received at least 2 prior antimyeloma regimens and who had relapsed or were refractory to their last treatment regimen were enrolled in this multicenter, open-label, 2-stage, phase 2 trial. Pts were evaluated for t(4;14) status at the baseline visit and classified according to the result into either a t(4;14)-positive or a t(4;14)-negative group. Dovitinib was administered at a dose of 500 mg/day on a 5-days-on/2-days-off schedule. Response was characterized as per the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. The primary endpoint was extended overall response rate as defined by the rate of pts with best overall response of complete response, very good partial response, partial response, or minor response. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate, progression-free survival, and pharmacokinetics. After disease progression, pts had the option to continue treatment with the addition of low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg every 7 days) with M-protein levels at the time of progression considered as the new baseline. Results: A total of 43 pts were enrolled in this study; 26 pts were t(4;14) negative, 13 were t(4;14) positive, and 4 pts had unknown/indeterminate t(4;14) status. Median age was 63 years. Most pts (86%; n = 37) had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. No objective responses were observed in either group of pts. Due to the apparent lack of efficacy, the study did not proceed to stage 2. The following observations are based on the preliminary data. In the t(4;14)-negative group, median duration of exposure to the study drug was 4.0 weeks, and 9 of the 26 pts (35%) had stable disease, 13 (50.0%) had progressive disease, and 4 (15%) were not evaluable. Due to slow enrollment and lack of efficacy among the earlier enrolled t(4;14)-positive pts, enrollment for the t(4;14)-positive group was closed prematurely. Among the 13 enrolled t(4;14)-positive pts, median duration of exposure to the study drug was 8.7 weeks. Best responses were stable disease for 8 pts (62%), disease progression for 3 pts (23%), and unknown for 2 pts (15%). Among both groups, the most common adverse events of any grade, regardless of study drug, were nausea (67%), diarrhea (58%), vomiting (51%), fatigue (47%), thrombocytopenia (33%), and anemia (28%). Most of the nonhematologic events were mild. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (26%) and anemia (23%). The principal reasons for discontinuation of dovitinib monotherapy were disease progression (72%) and adverse events (19%). Six pts continued on the dovitinib plus dexamethasone regimen; 1 pt is ongoing, and 5 pts discontinued due to disease progression (n = 4) and adverse events (n = 1). Conclusion: Dovitinib was found to have no or minimal single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory myeloma irrespective of t(4;14) status. Although the patient numbers are small, the rate of patients with stable disease during study treatment who may have had a clinical benefit was higher in the t(4;14)-positive group, suggesting that this subgroup may be a candidate to explore combination treatment of dovitinib with other agents, such as proteasome inhibitors. Gastrointestinal toxicity, while mostly mild, remains a challenge, and timely monitoring and supportive care during dovitinib treatment may alleviate these symptoms. Dovitinib may be a promising agent for combination therapies to improve prognosis of patients with t(4;14)-positive MM. Disclosures: Scheid: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reece:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Spencer:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kalimi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Cai:Novartis: Employment. Shi:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Scott:Novartis: Employment. Stewart:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Background:Despite recent advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and new treatment options are needed to continue to improve patient outcomes. This is the first randomized, phase 3 trial of an anti‐CD38 antibody in combination with pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d) in RRMM.Aims:The primary objective of this phase 3 trial (NCT02990338) was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody targeting a specific epitope, combined with Pd versus (vs) Pd in RRMM.Methods:Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4 mg PO days 1–21; 40 mg [20 mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36–86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2–11); estimated GFR: <60 ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high‐risk cytogenetics. At median follow‐up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44–0.81), P = 0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P < 0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10−5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461–1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3 h at 1st inf. and 2.8 h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3–4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd.Summary/Conclusion:Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone, with a manageable safety profile. Isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM.

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image

LBA4 Background: Daratumumab (D), a human anti-CD38 IgGκ mAb, induces deep and durable responses with a favorable safety profile in RRMM pts. We report a pre-specified interim analysis of the first randomized controlled study of D (CASTOR; NCT02136134). Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of bortezomib (V)/dexamethasone (d) (V: 1.3 mg/m2sc on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; d: 20 mg po on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) ± D (16 mg/kg iv qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Primary endpoint was PFS. Results: 498 pts (DVd, 251; Vd, 247) were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-10). 66% received prior V; 76% received prior IMiD; 48% received prior PI and IMiD; 33% were IMiD-refractory; 32% were refractory to last line of prior therapy. With median follow-up of 7.4 months, D significantly improved median PFS (61% reduction in risk of progression) and TTP for DVd vs Vd (Table). D significantly increased ORR (83% vs 63%, P <0.0001), and doubled rates of ≥VGPR (59% vs 29%, P <0.0001), and ≥CR (19% vs 9%, P= 0.0012) for DVd vs Vd, respectively; median duration of response was NR vs 7.9 months, respectively. Most common (>25%) AEs (DVd/Vd) were thrombocytopenia (59%/44%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (47%/ 38%), diarrhea (32%/22%) and anemia (26%/31%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (>10%) were thrombocytopenia (45%/33%), anemia (14%/16%), neutropenia (13%/4%). 7%/9% of pts discontinued due to a TEAE. D-associated infusion-related reactions (45% of pts) mostly occurred during the first infusion; most were grade 1/2 (grade 3/4, 9%/0%). Conclusions: D significantly improved PFS, TTP, and ORR in combination with Vd vs Vd alone. DVd doubled both VGPR and sCR/CR rates vs Vd alone. Safety of DVd is consistent with the known safety profile of D and Vd. The addition of D to Vd should be considered a new standard of care for RRMM pts currently receiving Vd alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134. [Table: see text]