Citations

Abstract Background: The presence of circulating plasma cells (CPCs) is associated with an adverse prognosis in multiple myeloma along the entire spectrum of disease. However, the impact of CPCs prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been defined in the era of novel agents. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the presence and number of CPCs before transplant using 6-color multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC). We also explored the additional prognostic implications of CPCs over the current paradigm for risk stratification at transplant, including high-risk (HR) cytogenetics and disease status at transplant by the IMWG criteria. Methods: A total of 1113 consecutive patients transplanted between 2007 and 2015 in Mayo Clinic were included in the study. Flow-cytometry of peripheral blood to identify clonal CPCs is routinely performed in all patients before ASCT in Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The mononuclear cells from peripheral blood samples are isolated by Ficoll gradient and subsequently stained with antibodies to CD19, CD38, CD45, CD138 and cytoplasmic kappa (κ) and lambda (λ) immunoglobulin light chains. Clonality is assessed by light chain restriction (κ:λ expression ratio of 4:1 [κ restricted] or <1:2 [λ restricted]). The target for collection is >150,000 cellular events. For samples where less than 150,000 clonal events are examined, the number of final clonal events is adjusted to 150,000 events. HR cytogenetics by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on bone marrow (BM) plasma cells was defined by one of the following abnormalities: t(4;14), del(17p), t(14;16), t(14;20) or +1q, detected at any time point from diagnosis to transplant. Patients who had insufficient plasma cells for FISH analysis in BM specimens were not included in the denominator to calculate the percentage of patients with HR cytogenetics. The primary end-points of this study were post-transplant response, PFS and OS. Result: CPCs were detected in 238 out of 1113 (21.4%) patients, with the median number of CPCs being 82 (range, 1-102381) per 150,000 events. The median age of patients at transplant was 62 years. A total of 1097 (99%) patients had received novel agent based induction therapy with PIs and IMiDs, including 458 (41%) patients who had received both PIs and IMiDs. 401 (36%) patients had received post-transplant maintenance or consolidation therapy. The frequency of t(4;14) in BMPCs was significantly higher in patients with CPCs compared to those without [15.2 vs 7.0% for t(4;14); P<0.001]. The median follow-up from transplant for survivors was 45 months. The 5-year OS rate in patients with and without CPCs was 34% (95% CI, 27-42) and 70% (95% CI, 66-74) respectively (P<0.001). After exploring several cut-offs for the number of CPCs per 150,000 events, we chose a simple pre-transplant risk stratification model: No CPCs (n=874; 78.5%), 0<CPCs≤400 (n=188; 16.9%) and CPCs>400 (n=51; 4.6%). The number of patients achieving stringent complete response post-transplant in groups with no CPCs, 0<CPCs≤400 and CPCs>400 was 310 (36%), 31 (16%) and 3 (6%) respectively (P<0.001). The median PFS in the 3 groups was 27 months (95% CI, 25-30), 15 months (95% CI, 13-18) and 6 months (95% CI, 4-10) respectively (P<0.001) and 5-year OS rates were 70% (95% CI, 66-74), 42% (95% CI, 34-51) and 12% (95% CI, 5-26) respectively (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS and OS are depicted in Figure I (A and B). In a multivariate model (Table I), the groups with 0<CPCs≤400 and CPCs>400 had an increased risk of death, independent of the presence of HR cytogenetics and disease status at transplant. Conclusion: Our study shows the strong negative prognostic impact of CPCs prior to transplant on post-transplant response and survival in MM in the era of novel agents. The proposed risk stratification model can be easily employed with simple equipment and should be routinely incorporated in the pre-transplant workup. Detailed epigenomic, genomic and transcriptomic analysis of CPCs is urgently needed to uncover the biological basis of resistance to both high-dose cytotoxic therapy and novel agents and identify potential avenues of targeted therapy against CPCs. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ionis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Melphalan based chemotherapy is commonly used for treatment of light chain amyloidosis (AL). Patients with AL often receive chemotherapy before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) if they have high plasma cell burden or while awaiting ASCT. Melphalan is an alkylator and can affect bone marrow stem cells. Limited data is available on the effect of melphalan on stem cell mobilization in patients with amyloidosis. This study aims to identify the impact of melphalan therapy on collection of stem cells and ASCT in amyloidosis. Methods: All patients with AL seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who underwent stem cell harvest were identified from an institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment, stem cell harvest and ASCT was extracted from the electronic medical records. Analysis was carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Results: Three hundred and seventy two patients with AL who met the inclusion criteria were identified, of whom 10% (n=38) received melphalan based chemotherapy prior to harvesting, 28.5% (n=106) received non-melphalan based chemotherapy and 61.3% (n=228) received no chemotherapy prior to stem cell collection. Bortezomib based regimens were the most common (78%, n=83) non-melphalan based chemotherapy. All three groups were similar in terms of median age at diagnosis (59.1 years), median age at collection (59.4 years), gender distribution (59% males, n=221) and type of involved free light chain (FLC), with lambda being more common (72.2%, n=268). Patients who received melphalan-based chemotherapy had more cardiac (73.8% vs. 45.2% vs. 46.4%, p=0.005) and renal (84.2% vs. 50.9% vs. 68%, p=0.0002) involvement compared to other chemotherapy and no chemotherapy groups, respectively. In contrast, patients who received non-melphalan based chemotherapy had higher plasma cell burden (15% vs. 6% vs. 10%, p< 0.0001) and greater difference between involved and uninvolved FLC (44.2 mg/dL vs. 13.3 mg/dL vs. 13.2 mg/dL, p< 0.0001) compared to melphalan and no chemotherapy, respectively. Median duration of melphalan based chemotherapy was shorter at 54 days (34.5 to 79.5) or estimated 2 cycles compared to 101 days (60 to 135.5) or estimated 4 cycles (p=0.0019). Despite shorter duration of chemotherapy, total stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was lower in patients who received melphalan based chemotherapy (5.54) compared to non-melphalan based chemotherapy (8.14) or no prior chemotherapy (7.94); p<0.0001. Similarly, day one stem cell yield (million CD34/kg) was the lowest in the melphalan group (2.71), followed by other chemotherapy group (3.63) and highest in no chemotherapy group (4.84); p<0.0001. This trend persisted for average stem cell yield per collection as illustrated in table 1. Filgrastrim (GCSF) alone was the most common mobilizing agent. However, patients with any chemotherapy prior to harvesting had higher utilization of plerixafor; 26.3% (n=10) in the melphalan group and 39.6% (n=42) in the non-melphalan group compared to 11.6% (n=27) if no prior chemotherapy (p<0.0001). However, no statistically significant difference was seen for melphalan vs. non-melphalan chemotherapy groups (p=0.44). In patients who underwent ASCT (85%, n=315), median stem cell dose (million CD34/kg) was different in the melphalan (3.66), non-melphalan (4.2) and no chemotherapy groups (4.44) (p=0.047), though the difference was not statistically significant amongst the 2 chemotherapy groups (p=0.34). There was also no difference in time to engraftment (table 1). Conclusions: Melphalan based chemotherapy, even if used for a short duration of time, significantly decreases both total stem cell yield and the yield on day one. It therefore has the potential to add to resource utilization with more collections needed. As much as possible, limited cycles of melphalan based chemotherapy or non-melphalan based treatment should be utilized in patients who are transplant eligible. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Chemotherapeutic options for patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) who are not transplant candidates include bortezomib based therapy, melphalan with dexamethasone, and less commonly, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). However, prospective clinical trial data comparing these regimens are lacking. This study aims to compare efficacy of bortezomib-based treatment to other therapies. Methods: All patients with AL seen within 90 days of diagnosis at our institution over a 10-year period (2006 to 2015) who did not undergo a stem cell transplant were identified from our institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up were extracted from electronic medical records. Analyses were carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as time to death, progression requiring treatment change or relapse requiring re-institution of treatment. PFS and overall survival was analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Seven hundred and twenty five patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 38% (n=275) received bortezomib containing regimens and 62% (n=450) received non-bortezomib based therapies. Bortezomib was used with dexamethasone in 24% (n=67) patients; and with other drugs, most commonly cyclophosphamide, in 76% (n=208) patients. Non-bortezomib treatment regimens included melphalan-based treatment in the majority (92%, n=414) followed by IMiDs with steroids and other drugs (8%, n=36). Baseline variables similar in both groups and their distribution in the entire cohort was as follows: gender distribution (63.3% males, n=459), median age of diagnosis (66.3 years, range 32.2 to 93.6), type of involved free light chain (FLC) (lambda 73%, n=523) and median plasma cell burden (10%, range 0 to 91). Median difference between the involved and uninvolved free light chain (dFLC) was higher in the bortezomib group (29 mg/dL vs. 23 mg/dL; p=0.017). There was no difference in organ involvement. In the bortezomib group, organ involvement was as follows: cardiac (81%, n=219), renal (62%, n=168) and hepatic (18%, n=48). In the non-bortezomib group, the rates of organ involvement were similar: cardiac (78%, n=346), renal (57%, n=247) and hepatic (19%, n=85). Median duration of first line treatment was similar in the 2 groups, with 178 days in the bortezomib cohort and 187 days in the non-bortezomib cohort. Response rates are illustrated in Table 1. Rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better response were higher in the bortezomib group (64 % vs. 54%, p=0.0002). Patients treated with bortezomib achieved VGPR faster with higher rates of VGPR or better response seen at 3 months (48% vs. 27%, p <0.0001) and 6 months (57% vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) after initiation of therapy compared to non-bortezomib treatment. Rates of organ response were similar amongst the 2 groups as shown in Table 1. However, median time taken to achieve a cardiac response was shorter in the bortezomib group (23 vs. 38 weeks, p=0.0026). In a multivariable model, bortezomib-based treatment and dFLC at diagnosis were predictors of VGPR. Relapse or progression requiring change in therapy was more common in patients treated with non-bortezomib based therapy (38%, n=143/372) compared to bortezomib-based treatment (28%, n=67/236); p =0.01). However, no difference in overall survival was observed in patients treated with bortezomib (2.2 years; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 3.3) vs. non-bortezomib therapies (1.7 years; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.5). Conclusion: Treatment with bortezomib-based regimens results in a deeper response including higher rates of early VGPR at 3 and 6 months from starting therapy. Moreover, these patients achieve cardiac response faster and have lower rate of relapse. However, no difference in overall survival was seen, which may be explained by subsequent use of bortezomib-based therapies in this population. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation is an integral part of myeloma therapy for patients who are able to undergo the treatment. While high dose melphalan has remained the typical conditioning regimen for ASCT in MM, recently there have been efforts to enhance the conditioning therapy by adding newer drugs to melphalan. Addition of bortezomib as well as carfilzomib have been attempted in phase 2 trials. Previous studies have shown that the combination of melphalan and total body irradiation (TBI) is an effective conditioning regimen. Pre-clinical studies have shown that bortezomib can sensitize MM cells to radiation, and based on this finding, we designed a clinical trial to examine the feasibility of combining low dose TBI with a combination of melphalan and bortezomib. Patients and Methods: The primary goal of the phase 1 study was to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of bortezomib that can be added to high dose melphalan and low dose TBI as part of conditioning chemotherapy in patients undergoing an ASCT for MM. The secondary goals were to examine the toxicities associated with addition of bortezomib to high dose melphalan and TBI in patients with MM and to determine the progression free rate at 1 and 2 years. Patients eligible to receive full dose melphalan conditioning regimen for ASCT were included as long as they had no more than 2 prior regimens and had not received a prior transplant. An accelerated design that was later converted to a standard 3+3 cohort design was used for dose escalation. Three patients were treated at a given dose level combination and observed for at least 36 days to assess toxicity. Melphalan 80 mg/m2 was given days -4, -3, with bortezomib at increasing doses given on day -5, -2 along with TBI of 200 cGY given on the same days of bortezomib, timed after bortezomib administration. Stem cells were infused day 0. Results: Eleven patients were enrolled; 6 were males, and the median age was 60 years. Median time from diagnosis was 5.4 months (range 3.4-7.0). Four dose levels were explored with increasing doses of bortezomib (0.7 mg/m2 to 1.6 mg/m2). No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The dose levels and the best response after ASCT are as shown in the Table. The overall response rate was 100%, including 7/11 with a CR or sCR. With a median follow-up of 12.5 months, two patients have progressed; median OS was not reached. Toxicity was mostly hematologic, with other AEs being grade 3 or less and attributable to the conditioning therapy. All patients engrafted their counts adequately. Conclusion: The combination of melphalan, bortezomib, and low dose TBI is a safe conditioning regimen in patients with MM with good efficacy. The regimen should be further examined in the phase 2 setting. Table Table. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract AL amyloidosis is a systemic disease with profound effects on organ function. However, despite the broad array of disease manifestations, the effect of AL amyloidosis on thyroid function is underreported. We explored the frequency of thyroid function abnormalities in 961 untreated AL amyloidosis patients seen in our clinic between 8/2005-8/2015, with emphasis on association with other organ involvement and tumor burden. Thyroid function was assessed using the thyroid stimulating hormone assay (TSH, normal range 0.3-5 mIU/L). If TSH was abnormal, measurement of free thyroxine (FT4) and thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies was routinely performed. Patients' median age was 62 [interquartile range (IQR) 56-69], 62% were male (Table). The median number of organs involved was 2 (IQR 1-3), 29% of patients had more than 2 involved organs. Seventy-seven percent of patients had cardiac involvement, 61% renal, 23% peripheral/autonomic neuropathy, 19% hepatic and 15% gastro-intestinal (GI) involvement. The median difference between involved and uninvolved light chains (dFLC) was 24.4 [interquartile range 10.6-65.2 mg/dL]. The median TSH was 3 mIU/L (range 0.1-50.1); 22% had levels above the normal range and 8% of patients had TSH greater than 7.5 mIU/L. Baseline characteristics by TSH ≤5 mIU/L and TSH >5 mIU/L subgroups can be viewed in Table. Patients with renal or hepatic involvement had higher TSH values compared to no renal or no hepatic involvement (3.2 vs 2.6 and 2.8 vs 3.8, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). There was a borderline significance for higher TSH in patients with >2 organ involvement compared to 1-2 affected organs (3.3 vs 2.8; P=0.05), with a strong trend for higher TSH for dFLC ≥18 mg/dL compared to dFLC<18 mg/dL (P=0.07). In patients with renal involvement, presence of proteinuria > 2 grams/day was associated with a higher likelihood of TSH >7.5 mIU/L (13% vs 5%; P=0.003). Free thyroxine (FT4) measurements were performed in 214 (22%) of patients with a median value of 1.1 ng/dL(range 0.3-72), 6% had levels below the lower limit (0.8 ng/dL). One-hundred and sixty five patients (17%) were screened for TPO antibodies, of which 16% (n=27) had an elevated titer. L-thyroxine (median dose 100 mcg/d, range 25-350 mcg/d) was already prescribed to 157 of the patients (16%) at their first visit, but duration of treatment prior to AL amyloidosis diagnosis could not be determined. Seventeen patients (1.5%) were prescribed amiodarone (median dose 200mg/d, range 100-400 mg/d), and although numbers were low, patients with amiodarone treatment had a TSH twice as high as patients without this treatment (6 vs 2.9 mIU/L, P=0.006). In conclusion, thyroid function abnormalities are frequent at the time of AL amyloidosis diagnosis and are influenced by type of organ involvement as well as disease burden assessed by dFLC and/or number of affected organs. Amiodarone, although infrequently used in this disease, can cause a profound disturbance in thyroid function among these patients. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kesios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Despite significant progress, MM remains an incurable disease. Synergistic activity of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) has been established in preclinical and clinical studies. Data with respect to combination of newer IMiDs and PIs are scant. Recently, a small study (n=32) found the novel therapeutic regimen consisting of carfilzomib, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (KPd) to be well-tolerated and active in RRMM patients, but only 7% of patients in that study had ECOG > 1. KPd has not been extensively studied outside of clinical trials. Therefore, we evaluated real-world outcomes of KPd in RRMM patients seen in our routine dysproteinemia practice. Methods Records of MM patients consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester from 01/ 2013 to 05/ 2016 were reviewed. Forty-five MM patients who received KPD in the R/R setting were identified and included in the analysis. The international uniform response criteria (IMWG 2006) were used to assess response rates. Additionally, minor response (MR) was assessed to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR or ≥MR). Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Duration of response was calculated for patients who have achieved a PR or greater response from time of first response to progression of disease. The time-to-event analyses were performed from the time of initiation of KPd therapy using the Kaplan-Meier method. All but one patient received K at 20/27 mg/m2 (days 1, 2, 8, 9 15, 16) dosing, P at 2 mg or 4 mg (day 1-21), and dexamethasone at 20 or 40 mg (day 1, 8, 15, 22), with 28-day cycles. Results The median age at KPd initiation was 65 years (range 29-75), 25 (56%) patients were males. 71% had an ECOG performance score of 0 to 1, and 29% had an ECOG >1. Forty percent were mSMART standard risk, while 60% were intermediate to high risk. Median time from MM diagnosis to KPd was 44 months (range 6-188), and the median number of prior treatment lines was 4 (range 1-14). Three (7%) patients were quadruple refractory to bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), P, and K. Ten (23%) were triple refractory to V, R, and P or K. Twenty seven (60%) were dual refractory to V and R. Table 1 shows prior treatment agents and refractoriness. The median duration of treatment with KPd was 2 months (range 0.3-16.4). KPd was used as a bridge to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in 5 patients. One patient discontinued therapy due to toxicity (infection, weakness). Response was evaluable in 44 patients. The median time to first response was 1.4 months (range 0.5-6). Overall response rate (ORR) was 36%, [stringent complete response (sCR) in 1 (2%) patient, complete response (CR) in 3 (7%) patients, very good partial response (VGPR) in 2 (5%) patients, partial response (PR) in 10 (22%) patients]. Minimal response (MR) was seen in 3 (7%), leading to a CBR of 43%, while an additional 10 (23%) patients had stable disease (SD). Progressive disease (PD) was noted in 15 (34%) patients. At the time of analysis 20 (43%) patients were deceased, all from PD. The median follow up from initiation of KPd was 16.3 months (95% CI: 8.6-19.4). The median overall survival (OS) from KPd was 16.1 months (95% CI: 10.6-20.4). Median OS for dual refractory was 15.6 (95% CI: 10.6-20.5). Median OS for triple/quadruple refractory was similar to those with lesser degree of refractoriness [19.1 (95% CI: 0.92 - 27.1) months vs 13.6 (95% CI: 8.9-20.5), p= 0.82]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.9-6.4) and the median time-to-next therapy (TTNT) was 3.5 months (95% CI: 2.2-6.7). The media duration of response was 12.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-19.6). The median OS from KPd for patients who achieved at least a PR was 20.4 months (95% CI: 13.6-NR), compared to 11 months (95% CI: 8.3-NR) for others (p=0.05). Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity was seen in 19 (42%) of evaluable patients [grade ≥3 neutropenia (29%), thrombocytopenia (31%) and anemia (22%)]. The most common non-hematologic adverse events were fatigue (38%), infections (31%), diarrhea (12%) and dyspnea (12%). Of the 4 (9%) patients who developed venous thromboembolism (VTE), two were on aspirin prophylaxis while the other two were not receiving any VTE prophylaxis. Conclusions KPd shows activity in RRMM patients although the short PFS reflects the challenges encountered with managing heavily pretreated and often less fit patients in the real world setting outside of clinical trials. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kumar:BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Hematologic response criteria for light chain amyloidosis (AL) requires that difference in involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) be at least 5 mg/dL (or 50 mg/L). However, many patients do not meet these criteria and are often excluded from clinical trials. These patients are challenging to follow clinically as organ response takes much longer and therefore response to treatment is difficult to evaluate in the first few cycles. This study aims to evaluate patients who had non-evaluable FLC (dFLC< 5 mg/dL) at diagnosis and compare them to those who had evaluable FLC (dFLC≥ 5 mg/dL). Methods: All patients with newly diagnosed AL seen within 90 days of diagnosis at our institution over a 10-year period (2006-2015) were identified from an institutional database. Data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up was extracted from electronic medical records. Analysis was carried out by chi-square and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal and continuous variables. Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as time to progression requiring treatment change or relapse requiring re-institution of treatment or death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 1336 patients meeting inclusion criteria, dFLC at diagnosis was known in 1290. 85.4% (n=1101) had dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL, while 14.6% (n=189) had non-evaluable FLC. Median age at diagnosis (65.2 vs. 63.9 years), gender distribution (males 56.1% vs.64.8%) and involved FLC (lambda: 72.2% vs. 72.9%) was similar in FLC < 5 mg/dL and FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL group. Cardiac (38.1 vs. 76.3%, p <0.0001) and liver (10.2% vs. 16.3%, p=0.03) organ involvement were less common in patients with non-evaluable FLC (table 1). NT-ProBNP was significantly lower in the group with dFLC < 5 mg/dL in patients with and without cardiac involvement, as was Mayo cardiac stage (table 1). A trend towards less gastrointestinal (GI) involvement (17.1% vs. 24%, p=0.09) was also seen with dFLC < 5 mg/dL. In contrast, a trend towards higher renal involvement was seen in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL (64.6% vs. 55.9%, p=0.08), though this was not statistically significant. Median 24 hour urine protein was significantly higher in all patients (with and without renal involvement) with dFLC < 5 mg/dL compared to dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL group (table 1). Treatment details are listed in Table 1. ASCT (autologous stem cell transplant) was utilized more commonly in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL compared to patients with dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL(43.2% vs. 26.1%, p <0.0001), including ASCT alone without chemotherapy (35.4% vs. 15.3%, p <0.0001).Rates of cardiac response (53.3% vs. 50.3%, p=0.88), and time to response (27.7 weeks vs. 35.6 weeks, p=0.67), were similar in both groups. Similarly, there was no difference in rates of renal and liver response and time taken to achieve a response (table 1). In patients with evaluable FLC, hematologic response was complete response (27.3%, n=245), very good partial response (21%, n=189), partial response (18%, n=160), no response (8%, n=74), progression (2%, n=15) and not known in 26.1% (n=216). In patients who had follow up data available, 30.6% (44/144) with dFLC < 5mg/dL experienced a relapse/progression with median PFS of 4.1 years (95% confidence interval (CI): 3 to 5.7), while 34.7% (304/875) with FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL experienced a relapse/progression with median PFS of 1.3 years (95% CI 1.1 to 1.5); p<0.0001. Median OS was higher in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL at diagnosis at 8.3 years compared to 2.4 years in patients with dFLC ≥ 5 mg/dL (p < 0.0001) as depicted in Figure 1. Conclusions: Patients with non-evaluable FLC at diagnosis have significant differences in organ involvement and survival compared to those with FLC ≥ 5 mg/dL at diagnosis. They have less cardiac and liver involvement and a trend towards less GI involvement, which may be secondary to low serum FLC burden and consequent less organ deposition. However, a trend towards higher renal involvement was seen in dFLC < 5 mg/dL group, with significantly higher urinary protein excretion. Loss of FLC in urine may result in lower serum FLC levels in this group. Survival was significantly better in patients with dFLC < 5 mg/dL, which may be explained by less cardiac involvement, lower cardiac stage and lower median FLC at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Noxxon: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Oprozomib (OPZ) is an oral epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor that selectively and irreversibly binds to its target. Preliminary findings of OPZ in pts with hematologic malignancies (HM) have been reported previously (Savona, ASH 2012, 203; Kaufman, EHA 2013, P223; Ghobrial, ASH 2013, 3184). Updated safety and efficacy results from the subset of pts with MM enrolled in this ongoing phase 1b/2 study in pts with HM are presented. Methods: This open-label, phase 1b/2 study (NCT01416428) is enrolling adult pts with HM who have relapsed after receiving ≥1 line of therapy. The primary objectives (phase 1b portion) are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety and tolerability profile of OPZ. The primary objective (phase 2 portion) is to determine the best overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR). In the phase 1b portion, OPZ is being administered once daily on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 of a 14-day cycle (2/7 schedule) or on days 1–5 of a 14-day cycle (5/14 schedule). The starting dose was 150 mg/day (mg/d); doses were escalated in 30-mg increments up to 330 mg/d. In the phase 2 portion, pts are receiving OPZ (240 mg/d) on the 5/14 schedule (initial phase 2 schedule opened to enrollment). For this report, all enrolled patients with HM are included in the description of the MTD while only the subset of patients with WM is included in the safety and efficacy results. Results: As of July 21, 2014, 106 pts with HM (including 68 pts with MM) were enrolled and treated with the OPZ tablet. Enrollment and baseline demographic information for pts with MM are presented in Table 1. Median treatment duration (phase 1b) was 21.3 weeks (range, 0.3–62.1; 2/7 schedule) and 10.1 weeks (range, 0.3–81.1; 5/14 schedule); preliminary median treatment duration in the ongoing phase 2 portion was 5.4 weeks (range, 0.7–26.7). In all patients with HM, the MTD for the 2/7 schedule was 300 mg/d and 240 mg/d for the 5/14 schedule. Of 3 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) on the 2/7 schedule, all 3 DLTs (including hypotension [300 mg/d, n=1], grade 3 diarrhea and grade 4 thrombocytopenia [330 mg/d, n=1 each]) were observed in pts with MM. Of 4 DLTs on the 5/14 schedule, 2 DLTs (grade 3 renal failure [180 mg/d, n=1] and grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome [270 mg/d, n=1]) were observed in pts with MM. The most common adverse events (AEs) in patients with MM are shown in Table 2. Grade 4 AEs included 8 pts (11.8%) with thrombocytopenia, 4 pts (5.9%) with anemia, and 1 pt each (1.5%) with sepsis, leukopenia, decreased platelet count, hyperkalemia, and acute renal failure. Two pts died from upper gastrointestinal bleeding (5/14 schedule, 240 mg/d). One pt (5%) on the 2/7 schedule (phase 1b), 3 pts (15%) on the 5/14 schedule (phase 1b), and 8 pts (30%) on the 5/14 schedule (phase 2) discontinued treatment due to an AE; 6 pts (29%) on the 2/7 schedule (phase 1b), 7 pts (35%) on the 5/14 schedule (phase 1b), and 11 pts (41%) on the 5/14 schedule (phase 2) had their dosage reduced at least once due to an AE. Thirty-four pts in the phase 1b portion were eligible for response. In the phase 1b portion, the ORR in 15 pts on the 2/7 schedule (all were carfilzomib [CFZ]-naïve) was 33.3%; the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 46.7% (3 very good partial response [VGPR], 2 partial response [PR], and 2 minimal response [MR]). Among 19 pts on the 5/14 schedule (phase 1b portion; all were CFZ-naïve), the ORR was 36.8%; the CBR was 42.1% (1 complete response, 2 VGPR, 4 PR, and 1 MR). In the 5/14 schedule (phase 1b), the ORR among bortezomib [BTZ]-refractory pts (n=7) was 14.3%. On the phase 2 portion (5/14 schedule), the ORR among CFZ-refractory pts (n=11) and CFZ-sensitive pts (n=12) was 27.3% (3 PR) and 33.3% (2 VGPR and 2 PR), respectively; the ORR among BTZ-refractory pts (n=12) was 25.0%. Conclusions: The MTD of OPZ was 300 mg/d in the 2/7 schedule and 240 mg/d in the 5/14 schedule; these MTDs were determined from all patients with HM. The most common grade 3 AEs were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting; grade 4 AEs were infrequent. Additional measures will be taken to improve gastrointestinal tolerability. Single-agent OPZ continues to have promising antitumor activity. Enrollment of pts with MM is continuing on the phase 2 study in both treatment schedules. Extended-release OPZ tablets will be introduced and assessed for safety, activity, and pharmacokinetics. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Vij: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Jannsen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Array: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib as treatment in multiple myeloma and solid tumors. Savona:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kaufman:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Ghobrial:BMS: Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Millennium: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other. Paner:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Jagannath:Millenium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Ortho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; im: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medicom Worldwide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Optum Health Worldwide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PER group: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jakubowiak:BMS: Advisory Board Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Advisory Board, Speaking, Advisory Board, Speaking Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory Board, Speaking, Advisory Board, Speaking Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria; Onyx: Advisory Board, Speaking Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Skyline Dx: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Mikhael:Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kapoor:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Neuman:Onyx: Employment. Lee:Onyx Pharmaceuticals, an Amgen subsidiary: Employment.

Abstract Background: Renal impairment is a common feature of multiple myeloma (MM) seen in over a quarter of newly diagnosed patients (pts). Studies have confirmed the presence of renal impairment (RI) as a strong predictor of inferior survival in MM. Some studies have also indicated that reversibility of RI is associated with improved survival. However, it is not clear if normalization of renal function improves the outcome to that expected for MM pts without RI at diagnosis. Methods: We evaluated 1,135 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed MM seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between December 2002 and January 2011. Renal function was assessed by the estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) which was calculated by the modified MDRD formula. We examined these pts for improvement in renal function based on their CrCl at diagnosis and their highest CrCl during their disease course. RI was defined as having a CrCl of < 60. Pts were categorized based on their renal function at diagnosis and response to therapy: Group 1- CrCl >60 at diagnosis, Group 2- CrCl <60 at diagnosis but improved to >60 after therapy and Group 3- CrCl <60 at diagnosis and remained <60 after therapy. The degree of restoration of renal function was evaluated according to the IMWG criteria. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences assessed using the log rank test. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range; 22 - 93) and 682 (60%) were male. The median follow up for the entire group from diagnosis was 73 mos (95% CI; 69 - 77). At diagnosis, 123 (11%) pts had a CrCl < 30, 322 (28%) had a CrCl of 30-59 and 690 (61%) had a CrCl >60. Most pts (N=754, 67%) received novel agent induction (NAI) therapy. The median PCLI was 0.7 (range: 0 – 22) and 91 (21%) pts had high-risk cytogenetics by FISH. The median OS for the pts with CrCl at diagnosis of < 30, 30-59 and >60 were 41 mos, 60 mos and not reached respectively (P < 0.001). Of the 445 patients with RI, the median absolute creatinine and CrCl at diagnosis were 1.6 mg/dL (range: 1 – 11) and 44 (range: 4 – 59) respectively. Among pts with RI, any improvement in CrCl was seen in 295 (66%) with median time to highest CrCl of 5 months and 228 (51%) had complete reversal of their RI. The median OS for pts with RI at diagnosis receiving and not receiving NAI therapy was not reached (NR) vs. 46 mos (P < 0.001). The median OS for Groups 1, 2 and 3 were NR, 60 and 49 mos respectively (Figure 1, P < 0.001). At a 6 month landmark analysis, the median OS for Groups 1, 2 and 3 were NR, 67 and 62 mos respectively (P < 0.001). The complete renal response and no renal response rates for pts with RI at diagnosis receiving and not receiving NAI induction therapy was (57% vs. 44%, P=0.004) and (29% vs. 39%, P=0.04) respectively. In a univariable analysis, presence of RI at diagnosis, no NAI therapy, older age, ISS stage 3, high-risk FISH, elevated PCLI, diagnosis prior to 2007 and increased LDH were found to predict for worse OS; however only older age (P<0.001), high-risk FISH (P=0.037) and lack of NAI therapy (P=0.023) retained their negative prognostic significance in a multivariable analysis. Conclusion: MM pts with RI treated with novel agent induction therapy demonstrate improved responses in their renal function and OS. The results also demonstrate improved outcome for pts with improvement in renal function, but it remains inferior to pts with normal renal function at diagnosis. These results have implications for early treatment strategies for pts at risk of developing renal insufficiency. Figure 1: OS based on improvement in CrCl upon receiving treatment Figure 1:. OS based on improvement in CrCl upon receiving treatment Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background FISH abnormalities including t(14;16), t(14;20), t(4;14) and the loss of P53 remain a common mechanism for classifying patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) as adverse risk. In contrast, trisomies in MM are associated with superior outcomes and may ameliorate the negative prognostic significance conferred by adverse FISH abnormalities. High dose therapy (HDT) consisting of high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation with consideration of maintenance therapy is a common treatment strategy for transplant eligible MM pts. However, there is limited information regarding the impact of various cytogenetic abnormalities, alone or in combination with trisomies, in the context of HDT, and the efficacy of maintenance approaches in the novel agent era. Aim To determine the clinical significance of FISH abnormalities in MM pts undergoing HDT and subsequent consideration of maintenance therapy in recent years. Methods We retrospectively examined a cohort of all pts with MM who underwent first HDT at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 2008 and 2012. Medical records were reviewed under IRB approval in accordance with the principals of the Helsinki declaration. FISH results were obtained from within 6 months of diagnosis (Dx), and if unavailable pts were excluded. Pts were considered for maintenance therapy following response assessment by their treating hematologist, typically around day 100 following HDT, and were categorized based on the intent of that discussion; length of maintenance and dose reductions were not evaluated. PFS and OS were calculated from date of transplant and OS was also estimated from Dx. Timing of HDT was restricted to within one year of MM Dx (early HDT). Results 300 pts had available FISH and underwent early HDT. Median age at dx was 60 (23-75), and median follow up from Dx was 40 months (7.5-90) with 229 (76%) alive at time of analysis. The median time to HDT from Dx was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.4-8.0). At the time of HDT 249 pts (83%) were in a partial response or better. Overall, 73 pts (24%) had adverse risk FISH from dx as described, 154 pts (51%) had at least one trisomy, and 32 pts (10.7%) had a concomitant adverse FISH abnormality and a trisomy. Of all pts, 112 (37%) received maintenance therapy of some sort, most commonly single agent lenalidomide (n=67 pts) or bortezomib (n=36). Of the 73 pts with adverse FISH, 54 (74%) received maintenance therapy following initial HDT compared with 58 of 227 pts (26%) with non-adverse FISH. Among pts with adverse FISH, median PFS and OS was 21 months (95% CI 16-24) and 57 months (95% CI 41-NR) respectively, compared with 24 months (95% CI 21-26) and not met respectively for pts with no adverse FISH (p =0.08 and p=0.04). The OS from Dx was 63 months (95% CI 46-NR) and not met, respectively for pts with adverse FISH and no adverse FISH (p=0.04). Among adverse FISH pts, PFS following initial HDT was improved with any maintenance therapy (23 months (95% CI 18-33) versus 13 months (95% CI 6-22), p=0.0016). OS was not statistically different among pts with adverse FISH whether or not they received maintenance therapy, both from date of HDT as well as from Dx. For pts with non-adverse FISH at Dx similar findings were observed, with an increase in PFS following HDT with any maintenance therapy (30 months (95% CI 23-48) versus 22 months (18-24)), without a difference in OS. Further analysis of the group of pts with adverse FISH status revealed the PFS benefit seen with maintenance therapy was greatest for a subgroup of pts with concomitant trisomies (29 months (95%CI 18-38) versus 14 months (95%CI 8-16) p=0.0003) as compared to pts with adverse FISH without concomitant trisomies (19 months (95%CI 13-35) versus 12 months (95% CI 3-24) p=0.204) (figure 1). However, OS either from HDT or Dx did not differ for pts with adverse FISH with or without concomitant trisomies regardless of maintenance status. Conclusions Our data support an improvement in PFS with maintenance therapy following initial HDT amongst adverse risk FISH MM pts, however no OS benefit was observed with maintenance therapy irrespective of FISH status. Among pts with adverse FISH, maintenance strategies improve PFS for pts with a concomitant trisomy. No PFS benefit was seen with maintenance therapy in pts without concomitant trisomies. Future trials of maintenance therapy post HDT should consider evaluating and reporting on the subgroup of adverse FISH pts with concomitant trisomies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline Diagnostics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.