Citations

8503 Background: Outcomes are poor in triple-class exposed RRMM patients (pts) who progress on immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and CD38 antibodies (mAbs). Ide-cel, a BCMA targeted CAR T cell therapy, showed promising tolerability and efficacy in RRMM pts in the phase I CRB-401 study ( NEJM2019;380:1726). We present primary efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase II KarMMa trial of ide-cel in RRMM (NCT03361748). Methods: Enrolled pts had ≥3 prior regimens (including IMiD, PI, and CD38 mAb) and were refractory to their last regimen per IMWG criteria. After lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2+ fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3), pts received 150─450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (target dose range). Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), and PFS. Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 128 received ide-cel. Median age was 61 y; median no. of prior regimens was 6; 84% were triple- and 26% were penta-refractory. Most pts (88%) had bridging therapy. At data cutoff (16 Oct 2019), median follow up was 11.3 mo. ORR was 73% and median PFS was 8.6 mo; both increased with higher dose (Table). All subgroups had an ORR ≥50%, including older and high-risk pts. Most common any-grade (Gr) toxicities were cytopenias (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 84%). CRS was mainly Gr 1/2; 5 pts (5%) had Gr 3, 1 had Gr 4, and 1 had Gr 5 (at 300 × 106). Neurotoxicity developed in 23 pts (18%); 4 (3%) Gr 3 and 0 Gr ≥4. Median peak CAR+ T cell expansion occurred at 11 d. Expansion was higher in responders and parameters (AUC0−28d, Cmax) increased with higher dose, with exposure overlap across doses. Persistence was durable, with CAR+ T cells detected in 29/49 (59%) and 4/11 pts (36%) at 6 and 12 mo. Conclusions: Ide-cel demonstrated deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated RRMM pts. Efficacy and safety reflected prior reports and support a favorable ide-cel clinical benefit-risk profile across the target dose range. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748 . [Table: see text]

8016 Background: MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival with D-Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of pt-reported outcomes alongside efficacy endpoints provides pt perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of HRQoL while on treatments (tx). Methods: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were completed by pts using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 mo during tx; interim results are presented for first 12 mo. Tx effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature. Results: Compliance rates were high and comparable at baseline ( > 90%) and through month 12 ( > 80%) for both groups (D-Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D-Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D-Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: -0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D-Rd was also observed in EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D-Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D-Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the tx groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D-Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D-Rd: -17.9 [95% CI: -20.7, -15.0], Rd: -11.0 [95% CI: -14.0, -8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D-Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning at cycle 12 in both tx arms, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Faster and sustained improvement in HRQoL was observed in pts treated with D-Rd vs Rd with similar findings reflected across pain subscale. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172.

8015 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with varying survival outcomes depending on the presence of certain genetic abnormalities. Common abnormalities include trisomies, translocations involving chromosome 14, and amplifications or deletions of chromosomes 1, 13, and 17. t(11;14), occurring in approx. 15% of patients (pts) with MM, is considered a standard risk abnormality, but recent data suggest that the prognosis may be inferior to what had been expected. This is of particular relevance as new therapeutic options such as the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax has been shown to be effective in t(11;14) pts. Methods: This was a multicenter study designed and conducted by the IMWG, to identify the outcomes of pts with t(11;14) using a retrospective cohort of pts. Pts with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 with t(11;14) identified on FISH performed within six months (mos) of diagnosis, and with treatment details available and if alive, a minimum of 12 mos of follow up, were enrolled. Results: The current analysis includes 848 pts with a median age of 64.4 years; 60.0% are male. The median follow-up from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 45.7 mos; 84.7% of the pts were alive at the last follow up. ISS stage distribution included: Stage 1 (35.3%), Stage II (38.9%) and stage III (25.8%). The distribution of FISH abnormalities included: del 13q (14.5%), 1q amp (12.1%), del 17p or monosomy 17 (6.1%). Pts received initial therapy with different regimens: IMiD-24.3%, PI-41.0%, both-20.8% and 13.8% had no novel agent. The drug classes by line of therapy are shown in table. An early stem cell transplant (SCT) was used in 40.8% of pts. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) after initial treatment was 15.0 (95% CI: 12.2 to 17.7) mos. The median overall survival from diagnosis for the entire cohort was 82.5 (95% CI: 73.5 to 95.8) mos. Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the outcomes of a large group of myeloma pts with t(11;14) abnormality. Pts receiving a combination if a PI and an IMiD appear to have the best survival outcomes and thse receiving an early SCT appear to have excellent survival with median OS approaching 10 years. Additional pts are being accrued to this study and additional analysis examining the variables affecting response duration and survival will be presented. [Table: see text]

8583 Background: Poor prognosis and therapy exhaustion have been associated with reduced QOL in RRMM. In MM-003, a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial, POM + LoDEX (n = 302) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; n = 153) in pts who failed lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) and progressed on their last therapy. This analysis evaluated QOL changes in these pts. Methods: To assess pt-reported outcomes, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed. Minimal important differences for 5 clinically relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (Global Health Status, Physical Functioning, Fatigue, Emotional Functioning, and Pain) were calculated as meaningful change thresholds (1 standard error of measurement) from baseline through cycle (C) 5. Time to QOL worsening was compared between arms using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Favorable trends were observed for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in each of the 5 relevant domains. The cross-sectional analysis indicated statistically or marginally significant (P < .10) differences favoring POM + LoDEX in Global Health Status (C2, 4), Physical Function (C2, 3, 4), Emotional Function (C2, 3, 4), and Fatigue (C2) scores. Longitudinal comparisons between arms confirmed the significance of score changes for Global Health Status (C2; P = .01), Physical Functioning (C3 and 4; P = .018 and .028, respectively), Emotional Functioning (C3; P = .018), and Fatigue (C5; P = .008) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX. HiDEX pts exhibited clinically meaningful worsening in Global Health Status and Physical Functioning scores vs. POM + LoDEX by C2 (P = .04) and C3 (P = .02), respectively. POM + LoDEX extended median time to meaningful worsening vs. HiDEX for Global Health Status (114 vs. 85 days, P = .05), Physical Functioning (174 vs. 106 days; P = .09), Fatigue (113 vs. 60 days; P = .02), Emotional Functioning (190 vs. 124 days; P = .04), and Pain (147 vs. 113 days; P = .2). Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts who failed LEN and BORT, POM + LoDEX resulted in better clinical outcomes as well as improvement in clinically relevant QOL measurements over the course of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

Abstract Introduction: Selinexor is a novel, oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1). Selinexor treatment results in nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibition of NF-kB, and translational suppression of several oncoprotein mRNAs (e.g., c-myc, cyclin D).Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and most patients (pts) eventually progress through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), anti-CD38 mAbs and others. The increased use of combinations in MM treatment, (PIs/IMiDs/mAbs), has led to a growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM (pts that have been treated with bortezomib (bort), carfilzomib (carfil), lenalidomide (len), pomalidomide (pom) and daratumumab (dara)). Active novel therapies with different mechanisms of actions are needed to address this unmet medical need. Part 1 of STORM enrolled pts with both quad- (bort, carfil, len, pom, treated MM) or penta-refractory MM and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 21% (Vogl et al, JCO 2018). Based on these findings, the Pivotal Part 2 of STORM was initiated, enrolling an additional cohort of 122 patients with penta-refractory MM. Methods: Pts with penta-refractory MM were treated with 80 mg selinexor plus 20 mg dexamethasone (Sd) twice weekly. Pts must have received an alkylator, bort, carfil, len, pom and dara, and had MM refractory to ≥1 PI, ≥1 IMiD, dara, a glucocorticoid, and their last therapy. Pts must have a total ANC ≥1000 mm3,platelets ≥50k/mm3 (or ≥75k if marrow plasma cells <50%), and creatinine clearance ≥20 mL/min. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints: duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) based on IMWG criteria. OS was also compared to a cohort of pts with PI, IMiD, dara refractory MM from the Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD), (ref: ASH 2018 abs ID: 116493),who met all the inclusion criteria for STORM. Results: As of 1-Jun-2018, 122 pts (71 M/ 51 F) were enrolled in 38 sites (US and EU). Pt characteristics were [medians (range)]: age 65 yrs (40-85); 7 (3 - 18) prior treatment regimens, 6.6 yrs (<1 - 23.4) from initial MM diagnosis.65 pts (53%) had high risk cytogenetics, 86 pts (70%) had prior dara in combination, 102 pts (84%) had prior stem cell transplantation, 2 pts had prior CAR-T therapy. All pts enrolled with progressive disease (PD), 72% of pts had increases (3% - 792%) in MM markers from screening to C1D1 (median 11 days). Frequently reported Sd treatment related adverse events (AEs) included (all grades, grades 3/4): thrombocytopenia (67%, 53%), nausea (67%, 10%), fatigue (68%, 21%), anorexia (50%, 2%), anemia (46%, 28%), and weight loss (46%, 0%). Eight pts remain on study and 114 pts discontinued treatment (most commonly for PD). There were 4 deaths on treatment: sepsis, respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, and an unrelated, unspecified cardiac event. IRC determined ORR (≥PR) was 26.2%, with 6.5% ≥ very good partial response, including 2 stringent complete responses (sCRs; MRD negative at 1:10-6 and at 1:10-4sensitivity). Both pts who relapsed after CAR-T achieved PRs. The CBR (≥minimal response, [MR]) was 39.3%, and 79% of pts achieved ≥stable disease (SD). Responses typically occurred within the first month. Medians: DOR 4.4 months (mo) (range <1 - 10 mo), PFS 3.7 mo, and OS 8.0 mo. Pts with ≥MR had significantly longer OS than pts with PD/NE (median not reached vs 1.9 mo, p=<0.0001). Compared to the FHAD cohort, STORM cohort had longer OS (Figure 1, HR 0.41, p=0.0001). Conclusions: Results of the pivotal STORM Part 2 in penta (PI, IMiD, dara)-refractory MM demonstrated that oral selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) was highly active with an ORR of 26.2%. Importantly, responses were rapid and deep with 2 patients achieving sCRs (both MRD negative) in these heavily pre-treated penta-refractory MM pts (median 7 prior regimens, 53% high risk). AEs are a function of dose/schedule/disease severity and can be managed with dose modifications and supportive care. No major organ toxicity was observed and AEs were typically transient and reversible. Sd is an all-oral, first in class mechanism with novel MOA and represents a potential therapeutic option to the growing number of pts with penta-refractory MM who have exhausted approved therapies. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Vogl:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Nooka:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Abbvie: 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. Cole:University of Michigan: Employment; Cancer Support Community myeloma advisory board: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Vij:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Raab:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Delforge:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Consultancy. Stewart:Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy; Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Mohty:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sylvain:Gilead: Other: scientific advisor board. Costa:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Picklesimer:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Li:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.