Citations

Abstract Background: Immunomodulatory agents and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trial E4A03 demonstrated the superiority of lenalidomide (LEN) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEX; Ld) over LEN and high dose DEX (LD) in newly diagnosed MM (Rajkumar SV, Lancet Oncol, 2010). This led to the universal acceptance of Ld as a standard induction regimen. More recently, the FIRST study demonstrated the superiority of Ld as continuous therapy vs Ld given x 18 cycles and melphalan-thalidomide-prednisone x 12 cycles proving continuous Ld should be considered standard of care (Benboubker L, NEJM, 2014). Upon completion of four cycles of therapy, patients enrolled in E4A03 had the option of proceeding to ASCT or continuing on their assigned Ld or LD. A prior post-hoc retrospective landmark analysis (Siegel DS, Abstract, Blood 2010) comparing outcomes of early ASCT vs. no early ASCT showed that in patients <65, 65-70, and >70, the survival with early ASCT at 3 years appeared higher, supporting the role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. This analysis is the long-term follow-up of the aforementioned study. Methods: A post hoc, retrospective landmark analysis was performed evaluating overall survival (OS) by early ASCT vs. no early ASCT overall and within age subgroups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival distributions and Cox regression for hazard ratio (HR) estimates. The landmark analysis included only patients surviving the first four cycles of therapy. Results: 21% of patients opted for early ASCT (n=90). At baseline (four cycles prior), early ASCT patients were younger (median 57.5y vs 66y), more fit (ECOG PS 0 45% vs 56%) and with less aggressive disease (ISS Stage 3 12% vs 28%). Median treatment duration was 7.6m for no early ASCT patients. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year survival probability estimates were higher for early ASCT vs. no early ASCT at 99%, 93%, 91%, 85%, and 80% vs. 94%, 84%, 75%, 65%, and 57%. The median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 5.8 years, respectively (Table 1). The survival hazard ratio (HR) for early ASCT was 0.55 [95%CI (0.38-0.80)]. In a further subgroup analysis of patients </= 65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 79% [95%CI (67-87)] vs. 62% [95%CI (54-69)], respectively. In patients </= 65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached vs. 7.4 years and the survival HR was 0.74 [95%CI (0.48-1.15)]. For patients >65, 5-yr survival probability of those who had early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was 83% [95%CI (56-94)] vs. 52% [95%CI (45-59)], respectively. In patients >65, median OS in the early ASCT vs. no early ASCT was not reached versus 5.2 years and the survival HR was 0.38 [95%CI (0.17-0.87)]. In all age groups, overall response rate was similar prior to the decision of proceeding with ASCT vs. no early ASCT. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline prognostic factors, early ASCT retained marginal significance. Conclusions: The landmark analysis demonstrated that patients opting for ASCT after induction Ld/LD had a higher 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5- year survival probability and improvement in median OS regardless of DEX dose density. Results were stronger within the older age cohort and upheld in adjusted models. Limitations include lack of randomization and data on salvage therapy. At a time when lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction is gaining worldwide acceptance in all age groups, early ASCT is safe and efficacious and should remain a standard of care for newly diagnosed MM even in the era of novel therapies. Table 1. Survival Probabilities (Time from Registration) for all Patients Included in the Landmark Analysis Median 1 year 2-year 3-year 4-year 5-year N Events Median (Yrs)(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) Events Survival Probability(95% CI) No Early ASCT All 341 195 5.78(5.11 - 6.59) 22 0.94 (0.90 - 0.96) 53 0.84 (0.80-0.88) 84 0.75 (0.70-0.79) 119 0.65 (0.59-0.69) 144 0.57 (0.51 - 0.62) Early ASCT All 90 34 NR 1 0.99 (0.92 - 1.00) 6 0.93 (0.86 - 0.97) 8 0.91 (0.83 - 0.95) 13 0.85 (0.76 - 0.91) 18 0.80 (0.69 - 0.87) NR = not reached Disclosures Biran: Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Fonseca:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Applied Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Vesole:Idera Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Williams:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

e19525 Background: Rearrangements of the immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGH) on chromosome 14 are identified by FISH in about 15-20% of patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Historically there is variation on the significance on prognosis of these rearrangements: typically, t(4;14), t(14;16) and t(14;20) have high risk (HR), and t(11;14) have standard risk (SR). A recent study (Kaufman et al, Leukemia. 2016 30:633-9) suggests that t(11;14) may confer a worse prognosis We report the prognostic significance of t(11;14) in a single-institution MM cohort. Methods: 87 pts with t(11;14) by CD 138 selected FISH at diagnosis were identified, pts without symptomatic MM were excluded. Cox regression was used for statistical analysis. Progression free survival (PFS), and overall survivals (OS) from diagnosis and post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 62 years, 45 pts (52%) were male, and 24 pts (27%) had ISS 3. All pts received either a proteasome inhibitor or an immunomodulatory agent, and 42 (48%) received triplet treatment as induction. Sixty-nine (79%) pts had ASCT, and overall response rate (ORR, partial response or better) post ASCT was 73%. For pts with HR FISH (defined as t(14;16), p53 del, 1q21 gain or 1p del) compared to SR FISH, the ORR post ASCT was 70% vs 77% (p = 0.67). OS from diagnosis was 93% at 3 years, 74% at 4 years and 51% at 5 years. Seven patients (8%) developed plasma cell leukemia, and there was no association between HR and SR FISH (p = 0.66). In multivariate analysis, ISS stage was an independent risk factor for mortality; pts with stage 3 had 7.3 times (CI: 1.16-36.4) and 5.7 times (CI: 1.63-20.0) the risk of mortality than pts with stage 1 and 2. Having an ASCT reduced mortality by 87% (CI: 0.04-0.41). Conclusions: Despite the use of novel therapies the OS at 5 years of our pts with MM was not significantly improved compared to SEER data from 1992-2013 (51% vs 48.5%). Pts with t(11;14) who had ASCT had increased survival compared to those who did not. Our results suggest that t(11;14) may confer a worse prognosis. Further prospective studies evaluating the risk of t(11;14) are warranted.

8044 Background: Racial disparities of FISH abnormalities in multiple myeloma (MM) have been well described in whites (W) but partially described in minorities (M) (Paulus et al, ASH 2016, 4432). We aimed to explore racial-based differences of FISH abnormalities using the largest cohort of m to date. Methods: CD-138 selected FISH was done on 799 consecutive patients (pts). Pts without symptomatic MM, and biopsy >6 months after diagnosis were excluded. The abnormalities evaluated included standard and intermediate risk: IGH rearrangements (IGH r), t(4;14), t(11;14), and high risk: t(14;20), t(14;16), del13q, del 17p, 1q21. Chi-square was used for statistical analysis. Due to smaller numbers, all m (Hispanic (H), Black (B), Asian (A) and Other (O)) were included into the same group for statistical analysis. Results: 482 pts were eligible, 343 (71%) were W, 52 (10%) H, 50 (10%) B, 19 (3%) A, and 18 (3%) O. Median age was 65 years, 54% were male, and 26% ISS stage 3. There were no were no statistically significant differences in FISH abnormalities between the m (Table1). Overall W had more abnormalities in IGH r, t(4;14), t(11;14), t(14:20), 1q21 gain compared to M. Most notably W had more IGH r (39% vs 28%; p=0.019) and t(11;14) (20% vs 12%; p=0.024). There were no statistically significant differences between W and m in the high risk FISH abnormalities. Conclusions: We had significant differences in FISH compared to M. W had more IGH r and t(11;14) than M, and there was no difference in high risk FISH abnormalities between W and M. This study confirms the biological racial disparities that exist in minorities with MM. Further studies with more inclusion of minorities are needed to elucidate these disparities and its effects on risk stratification and outcomes. [Table: see text]