Citations

Abstract Abstract 824 There is no standard therapy for MM relapsing after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). A second AHCT can result in additional progression-free survival (PFS). Nonmyeloablative/reduced intensity conditioning (NST/RIC) allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) has the advantages of a tumor-free graft and the potential of a graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect. Few studies have compared second AHCT vs. NST/RIC AlloHCT. We compared the outcome of second AHCT or NST/RIC AlloHCTafter relapse from prior AHCT in patients with MM reported to the CIBMTR from 1995–2008. Recipients of planned tandem transplants, AlloHCT for graft failure or second malignancies and myeloablative alloHCT were excluded. 137 patients underwent second AHCT and 152 underwent NST/RIC AlloHCT (32 HLA-identical sibling and 120 unrelated donor). The table below illustrates clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. AlloHCT recipients were significantly younger (median 53 years [yrs] of age vs. 56 yrs in the AHCT cohort (p < 0.001). The groups were similar in Karnofsky performance score (KPS) and gender. Conditioning regimens differed between groups. In the AHCT cohort, 85% were melphalan based. In the NST/RIC alloHCT cohort, 38% received melphalan + other drugs and 24% received total body irradiation +/− other drugs but no melphalan (p <0.001). Time from 1st to 2nd transplant was significantly shorter for the AlloHCT cohort (30 vs. 23 months, p = 0.014). Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVH) was 35% at 60 days while chronic GVHD was 44% at 36 months.Patient CharacteristicsAutologousAllogeneicP-valueNumber of patients137152Age at 2nd transplant, median (range), years56 (28–65)53 (32–65)0.001*Gender Male84 (61)90 (59)0.720Karnofsky Score pre-transplant ≥90%68 (50)76 (50)0.884Time from 1st to 2nd transplant, months, median (range)30 (6–122)23 (6–78)0.014* 6–24 months44 (32)78 (51)0.001* >24 months93 (68)74 (49)OutcomesTreatment-related Mortality (TRM)12 months2 (1–5)13 (8–19)<0.001*60 months4 (2–8)15 (10–21)<0.001*Relapse/Progression12 months51 (43–58)72 (64–79)<0.001*36 months82 (76–88)80 (73–86)0.655Progression-free survival12 months47 (40–54)15 (10–21)<0.001*36 months13 (9–19)6 (3–10)0.038*Overall Survival (OS)12 months83 (77–89)51 (42–58)<0.001*36 months46 (37–54)20 (14–27)<0.001*60 months29 (21–38)9 (5–15)<0.001**Significant difference The most common cause of death in both cohorts was progression of MM. On multivariate analysis risk of death was higher for alloHCT (HR 2.38, p < 0.001), KPS < 90 (HR 1.96, p < 0.001), and year of transplant (2004 or earlier, HR 1.77, p = < 0.001). AlloHCT was associated with significantly higher risk of TRM (HR 7.14, p < 0.001). Durie-Salmon Stage III was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 2.70, 95% CI: 1.93–3.80, P<0.001) and treatment failure in the alloHCT group (HR 3.05, 95% CI: 2.20–4.22, p < 0.001). We conclude that patients with MM who underwent NST/RIC alloHCT after AHCT failure experienced higher TRM and lower probability of survival compared with those who received second AHCT. Because genetic risk data were not available for these patients, we cannot exclude the possibility that the alloHCT population was a higher risk population. Despite this limitation, our data demonstrate that the value of alloHCT after relapse from prior AHCT is limited. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract The treatment and natural history of smoldering myeloma has been an area of intense preclinical and clinical study. Historical attempts to treat these patients have not demonstrated benefit, likely as a consequence of lack of attention to the vast heterogeneity contained within the diagnosis. More recent risk criteria from both US and Spanish investigators have identified a cohort of smoldering myeloma patients at high risk for progression in a short time, using different methodology. Recently the PETHEMA group published a randomized clinical trial testing lenalidomide/dexamethasone vs observation among high risk smoldering patients, and demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of progression free and overall survival favoring early intervention. However, the risk criteria utilized a highly sensitive method of flow cytometry, a test not routinely available in the US. It is not clear that the group of patients defined in the PETHEMA study share similar outcomes with those defined as high risk using the ECOG/Mayo criteria. A recent publication demonstrated only 25% overlap for the highest risk smoldering patients when using either the PETHEMA or the ECOG criteria. To further evaluate the potential benefit of early intervention in a high risk smoldering cohort, the ECOG myeloma group designed a phase II/III trial testing the safety and efficacy of single agent lenalidomide. We report here on the safety and efficacy of the phase II portion of the trial. The phase II group of patients received lenalidomide alone at a dose of 25 mg days 1-21 every 28 days. The primary endpoint for the safety study was the rate of any treatment-related grade 4-5 non-hematologic toxicity plus grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) observed within 6 cycles of treatment. Patients were to be diagnosed with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) within the past 12 months, as confirmed by both of the following: bone marrow plasmacytosis with >= 10% plasma cells or sheets of plasma cells and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio (<0.125 or >8.0) by serum FLC assay. Patients must have had measurable levels of monoclonal protein. Patients must have had no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia (i.e. >= 11 mg/dL). Among the final phase II cohort (n=44 patients), 55% were female, and 43% were 65 years and older. Enrollment began in January 2011 and lasted 2 years with the last patient completing 6 cycles of treatment in August 2013. The median treatment duration of the entire cohort is 13.5 cycles (range 1-30 cycles). Mean percentage lenalidomide dose over the first 6 cycles was 94, 89, 82, 79, 76, 72. With a median follow up of 17 months, 2 patients had progression on therapy. Fifteen patients are off treatment for the following reasons: disease progression (n=2), AE/complication (n=5), death (n=2), patient withdrawal/refusal (n=5), other (n=1); 6 of the 15 patients ended treatment before completing 6 cycles. Of 44 patients assessed for toxicity, 11 patients [25.0%, 95% CI: (13.2%-40.3%)] experienced worst grade treatment-related non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher based on CTCAE v4, with neutropenia and fatigue being the most frequent. This includes 2 fatal deaths (MI and TE). Two patients [4.6%, 95% CI: (0.1%-15.5%)] experienced a serious adverse event as defined for the purposes of the phase II toxicity analysis that included treatment-related grade 4-5 non-hematologic toxicity or any grade 3 toxicity affecting vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) during the first 6 cycles of treatment. Twelve patients achieved partial response or better [33.3%, 95% CI: (15.0%-42.8%)] along with 25 patients reporting stable disease. Lenalidomide has shown promise in the treatment of high-risk smoldering myeloma and based on this analysis, accrual to the phase III portion is ongoing. In the context of the encouraging data from the PETHEMA group, completion of the phase III portion of this study is needed to validate their findings using a different criteria, and using a steroid sparing approach. This study was coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (Robert L. Comis, M.D., Chair) and supported in part by Public Health Service Grants CA23318, CA66636, CA21115, CA13650, CA32102 and from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. Disclosures: Lonial: Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: 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.

Abstract Abstract 504 Background: There is limited data on the outcomes of AHCT for MM as a salvage approach following relapse after an initial (upfront) AHCT. We analyzed the outcomes of second salvage AHCT for relapsed MM. Methods: From the CIBMTR database we identified 187 patients (63% male) who had second AHCT (AHCT2) as salvage for MM relapsing after a prior AHCT (AHCT1). Planned tandem AHCT and AHCT2 within 6 months after AHCT1 were excluded. Cumulative incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and the probabilities of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and multivariate analysis performed using proportional hazards models. Results: Median age at transplant was 57 (range 28–72) and 59 years (range 28–74) respectively at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Median follow up after AHCT2 was 47 months (range: 3–97). The proportion of IgG, IgA and free light chain subtypes was 48, 20 and 18% respectively. Durie Salmon stage at diagnosis was stage I (6%), II (21%), III (59%) respectively. Seven and 13% had serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Conditioning regimen was single agent melphalan was in 78% and 84% for AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. At the time of AHCT2, majority (60%) were chemotherapy resistant compared with 80% patients with sensitive disease prior to AHCT1. Median time from AHCT1 to relapse was 18 months, with 32% relapsing within the first year, 29% in the second year, 19% in the third year and 19% beyond the third year after AHCT1. There was heterogeneity in the time to AHCT2 after relapse although 67% had AHCT2 within a year after relapse (median 7 months). Median between AHCT1 and AHCT2 was 32 months with the majority (69%) beyond 24 months. After AHCT2, day 28 engraftment rates of neutrophils and platelets were 96% (95% CI: 93–98) and 88% (95% CI: 83–92). Complete remission (CR) rates after AHCT1 were 43% whereas it was only 25% following AHCT2. After AHCT2, cumulative incidence of relapse at 1, 3 and 5 years was 51, 82, and 91% respectively. After AHCT2, one year NRM was 2%. PFS was 47%, 13% and 5% and OS was 83%, 46% and 29% at 1, 3 and 5 years respectively. In multivariate analysis, those relapsing within 36 months of AHCT1 had a higher risk of relapse (HR 1.58, p = 0.036) and higher risk of treatment failure and inferior PFS (HR1.52, p= 0.04). Mortality was higher for those relapsing early after AHCT1 (<36 months, HR 1.91, p = 0.02). OS was superior and mortality lower for AHCT2 performed after 2004-08 (HR 0.61, p=0.02). Conclusion: AHCT2 can be safely performed in relapsed MM with the best outcomes observed in later relapses (>36 months from AHCT1). OS has improved since 2004, but NRM, relapse and PFS after AHCT2 were not impacted by year of AHCT2. Thus the improved OS likely reflects greater availability of novel agents for post AHCT progression. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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

Abstract Introduction Multiple Myeloma is not a single disease. There is increasing support for risk classification in combination with treatment decision making because of its impact on clinical outcomes. Here we demonstrate additional evidence of the prognostic value of SKY92, an established genetic marker of high risk Multiple Myeloma in a multicenter collection of samples with undisclosed treatments. Materials Methods A public GEP dataset (MMRC, MMGI portal) contained 114 cases of untreated Multiple Myeloma and was used for SKY92 high risk OS prediction (Kuiper et al. Leukemia 2012). In collaboration with MMRC, OS (with a minimum of at least 2 year follow-up) was collected for 91 of 114 cases for the purpose of this analysis. Briefly, CD138-positive plasma cells had been purified prior to total RNA extraction and subsequent gene expression profiling on Affymetrix U133Plus2.0 GeneChips. The 91 cases represented 9 different clinical sites and their CEL files were normalized as a single batch against a reference cohort of 329 cases after which the SKY92 risk scores were determined as either standard risk or high risk. Results SKY92 resulted in 19 high risk (20.9%) versus 72 standard risk (79.1%) cases in the unselected 91 case-cohort. Comparisons with other high risk GEP signatures will be performed. The OS analysis (Figure 1) shows that the HR cases have significantly shorter survival (Hazard Ratio 11, p = 7 x 10-5). Table 1 shows that high risk patients had more elevated B2M (26.3% vs 13.9%), more low albumin (26.3% vs 16.7%) and more high creatinine (26.3% vs 11.0%). There was no difference between high and standard groups in diagnosis dates (not shown). Cause of the 16 (84.2%) deaths among the high risk cases, and 21 (29.1%) deaths among the standard risk cases indicates that high risk contains less disease progression deaths (57.1% vs 31.3%), and more unknown deaths (56.3% vs 23.8%). Conclusions The SKY92 classifier identified 19 of 91 cases (21%) as high risk, recapitulating the percentage of high risk in previously studied cohorts (Kuiper et al. 2012). Moreover the hazard ratio of 11 when events up to 24 months or 8.18 when all events are considered, emphasizes the unmet medical need of high risk cases identified with SKY92 as 69% of all deaths within 2 years (9/13 death events) were in this category. Acknowledgments This research was performed within the framework of CTMM, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, project BioCHIP grant 03O-102. Rafael Fonseca is a Clinical Investigator of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Fund. This work is supported by grants R01 CA83724, ECOG CA 21115T, Predolin Foundation, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center and the Mayo Foundation. Disclosures: van Beers: Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Van Vliet:Skyline Diagnostics: Employment. Anderson:celgene: Consultancy; onyx: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; sanofi aventis: Consultancy; oncopep: Equity Ownership; acetylon: Equity Ownership. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, 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, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Celgene: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cephalon: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Millennium: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other; Onyx: Clinical Trial Support Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Reece:Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zimmerman:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Fonseca:Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Binding Site: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Cylene: Research Funding; Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease: Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease, Prognostication of MM based on genetic categorization of the disease Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 532 Primary Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a rare plasma cell disorder characterized by an aggressive clinical course. The efficacy of autologous and allogeneic HCT in PCL is uncertain due to the small number of patients that have been reported in the literature. To determine the potential for long-term disease control using HCT in PCL, we performed a retrospective review of 160 patients with primary PCL who received autologous (n=107), allogeneic (n=52) or syngeneic (n=1) HCT and were reported to the CIBMTR between 1995 and 2006. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Cumulative incidence estimates of non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, acute and chronic GVHD were calculated. Median age at the time of autologous HCT was 57 years (range, 32-74 years) and allogeneic HCT was 48 years (range, 24-62 years). Median time from initial treatment to autologous HCT was 7 months and allogeneic HCT was 6 months. At the time of transplant, in the autologous HCT group, 19% patients were in complete remission, 56% in partial remission and 1% had relapsed/progressive disease; in the allogeneic HCT group, 17% were in complete remission, 46% in partial remission and 10% had relapsed/progressive disease. In the allogeneic HCT group, 83% of the patients received myeloablative conditioning regimens and 17% received nonmyeloablative/reduced-intensity conditioning. The rate of acute GVHD was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22%-49%) and the rate of chronic GVHD at 3 years was 27% (95% CI, 13%-40%). After a median follow-up of 38 months, 20 of the 52 patients (38%) are alive in the allogeneic HCT group and 68 of the 107 pts (64%) are alive in the autologous HCT group (Figure 1). Progressive disease accounted for 38% of the deaths in the allogeneic HCT group and 86% of the deaths in the autologous HCT group. The outcomes are summarized in table 1. The remarkable overall survival of patients after autologous HCT in this analysis is noteworthy and indicates that autologous HCT is a safe and acceptable treatment option for patients with primary PCL. Although relapse rates are lower, allogeneic HCT carries a much higher risk of NRM and should be considered primarily in the context of a clinical trial. Disclosures: Lonial: Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 54 Despite its curative potential, the role of allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) in MM has been limited by high treatment related mortality (TRM). Autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) thus remains the standard of care for eligible patients (pts) with MM. Recently interest in allo-SCT has been increasing due to the incurable nature of MM, better risk stratification models, improved supportive care and finally the increasing experience with less toxic reduced intensity conditioning. We analyzed the trends in practice of allo-SCT for MM over the past two decades. A total of 1211 pts undergoing allo-SCT for MM between 1989 and 2005, reported to the CIBMTR were analyzed in three cohorts based on year of allo-SCT: 1989–1994 (n=346), 1995–2000 (n=285), and 2001–2005 (n=580). Probabilities of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence estimates of TRM and relapse were calculated. Patient characteristics are summarized in table 1. Patients transplanted in the later cohort (2001–2005) were of higher age with 53% above age 50 years (vs. 12% in 1989–1994). There was decreasing use of myeloablative regimens and bone marrow grafts over time (82% vs. 62% vs. 9% for myeloablative regimens and 99%, 62% and 13% for marrow grafts respectively). Increasing number of pts in the later cohort received an auto-SCT prior to allo-SCT (Table 1). The proportion of unrelated allo-SCTs increased over time (5% vs. 21% vs. 33%). Graft versus host (GVH) prophylaxis changed over time with increasing use of cyclosporine with agents other than methotrexate and increasing use of ATG in the recent years. Median survival increased over the three time periods from 1989 – 2005: 11.1 months (mos.) vs. 12.2 mos vs. 20.3 mos. The 100 day mortality decreased steadily over successive time periods; 35% (95% CI; 29–31), 29% (24–35) and 19% (16–23) respectively. Similarly, the TRM at 5 years remained steady between the first two periods, but decreased in the last period (40 & 48% vs. 29%). The incidence of chronic GVHD increased in the later cohort but the incidence of acute GVHD was similar over the years. While PFS was the lowest for the most recent group (15% at 5 years), the overall survival at 5 years was similar among the groups (30, 32, and 29 mos). Long term PFS at 10 years was 18% in the 1989–1994 cohort and 17% in 1995–2000. Long term OS at 10 years was 23% in 1989 – 1994 and 1995–2000 cohorts. Results are summarized in table 1. A clear trend towards reduced intensity conditioning, unrelated donor SCT, use of PBSC grafts and selection of older patients was noted. There was increasing use of tandem auto-allo SCT with an increasing proportion of patients with a prior auto-SCT. While the TRM has decreased significantly in the last cohort, this did not translate into an improvement in survival primarily because of increased risk of relapse in the latter cohort. Long term (>10yr) progression free survival which may approach a cure has remained unchanged over the past two decades at <20%. Disclosures: Lonial: Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 53 Prior studies have demonstrated a graft-versus-malignancy effect following allogeneic HSCT that is variably linked to acute or chronic GVHD. Although a graft vs. Myeloma (MM) effect has been shown after myeloablative allogeneic HSCT, a higher treatment related mortality (TRM) risk leads to inferior survival compared with autologous HSCT. Non-myeloablative (NMA) and reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) approaches are used to reduce the risk of TRM while preserving the graft vs. MM effect. The clinical benefit of lower intensity conditioning regimens is thus especially dependent on the impact of acute or chronic GVHD on graft vs. MM effect and TRM. We analyzed the outcomes of 177 matched sibling allogeneic HSCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR between 1997 and 2005 following NMA (n=120) or RIC (n=57) performed within 18 months of diagnosis. Median age was 50 (range 24-69) years and 62% were Durie-Salmon Stage III. Tandem autologous followed by allogeneic HSCT (autologous+ allogeneic) recipients (n=105) were more likely to receive NMA conditioning vs. recipients of an upfront allogeneic HSCT (n=72). Majority (98%) received peripheral blood stem cell grafts. Outcomes at a median follow-up of 36 (3 - 98) months are summarized in table 1. In order to assess the impact of GVHD on outcomes, Cox proportional hazards regression models were built with GVHD as the main effect treating it as a time dependent covariate (Table 2). Other covariates in the multivariate models included age, sex, performance status, IgG vs. non IgG myeloma, disease status and chemosensitivity, prior lines of chemotherapy, donor-recipient sex match, NMA vs. RIC and year of transplant. AGVHD was associated with an increased risk of TRM. Tandem autologous + allogeneic HSCT was associated with reduced relapse risk (RR= 0.49, p=0.008). AGVHD had no impact on relapse/progression of MM while cGVHD was associated with a reduced risk of relapse (Figure. 1). The protective effect of cGVHD on relapse was significant in the non IgG MM subgroup. AGVHD had no impact on PFS whereas cGVHD was associated with superior PFS and lower risk of treatment failure. Later year of HSCT was also associated with superior PFS. Overall survival was not affected by cGVHD while recipients of tandem autologous + allogeneic HSCT had a higher mortality in the presence of aGVHD (RR=3.60, p= 0.01). After matched sibling allogeneic HSCT for MM, aGVHD is associated with a higher risk of TRM whereas cGVHD decreases the risk of relapse and improves PFS. The effect of cGVHD may vary with the type of MM with greater impact in non IgG MM. Further study to identify subtypes of MM susceptible to an immune mediated graft vs. MM effect is suggested. Disclosures: Lonial: Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 430 Background: Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a feature of multiple myeloma (MM) itself as well as a debilitating side effect and major dose-limiting toxicity of thalidomide (THAL) and bortezomib (BTZ) (Chaudry et al, J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2008). Although the mechanism of BTZ-induced PN (BIPN) is unknown, PN may not be a proteasome inhibitor class effect. Carfilzomib (CFZ) is a highly selective proteasome inhibitor with activity in relapsed or refractory MM. CFZ overcomes BTZ-resistance in vitro (Kuhn et al, Blood 2007), lacks the off-target activities of BTZ (Kapur et al, Blood 2008), and does not cause neurotoxicity in long-term chronic (e.g. up to 9 months) animal toxicology studies (Kirk et al, Blood 2008). In Phase I and 1b/2 trials (total n=138), CFZ was not associated with dose-limiting PN. Here we report on the experience of CFZ treatment from two ongoing Phase 2 trials in relapsed or refractory MM. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MM received CFZ, 20 mg/m2 IV, Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 in a 28-day cycle for up to 12 cycles on studies PX-171-003 and PX-171-004. Neuropathy history, neurological physical exam and PN-related quality of life data (FACT-GOG/NTx v 4.0 scores) were collected at screening. Prospective neurological exams and subjective reporting of PN using the FACT-GOG/Ntx subscale v.4 questionnaire occurred every 2 cycles until study discontinuation to proactively assess for PN. Adverse Event (AE) data were also collected. AEs reported as ‘neuropathy peripheral', ‘neuropathic pain', ‘neuropathy', and ‘peripheral sensory neuropathy' were included as PN. AE reports of ‘paraesthesias' and ‘dysesthesias' were counted separately. Results: To date, baseline data are availabel for 136 patients. At screening, 73 (54%) patients had active PN, including 64 (47%) with Grade (G) 1 and 9 (7%) with G2. 111 (82%) patients had a history of PN which was attributed to prior chemotherapy, 86 cases of which were attributed to either THAL or BTZ. THAL was implicated in 57 cases, BTZ in 45 cases, and both THAL and BTZ in 17 cases. For 27 of these patients, PN was the primary reason for THAL or BTZ discontinuation. The mean number of CFZ doses was 27 (4.5 four-week cycles) and 27 (20%) patients completed at least 8 cycles. Peripheral neuropathy AEs (all grades) were reported in 21 (15%) patients; 12 (9%) cases were considered possibly related to CFZ. Grade ≥ 3 PN was reported in only 3 (2%) patients. In one patient, the Grade 3 neuropathy lasted from treatment days 2 to 3 (i.e., < 36 hours) and resolved; the patient continued on CFZ at full dose for 30 days before discontinuing study due to progressive MM. In a second patient, Grade 3 neuropathy occurred on study day 91. The dose was reduced from 20 mg/m2 to 15 mg/m2, at the same twice-weekly frequency; the PN resolved to G1 and the patient continued on therapy until day 133. The third patient had G3 PN that occurred from days 260-281 and resolved to G1 while still on full dose CFZ. This patient completed the full 12-cycle protocol (∼1 year CFZ treatment). Paraesthesias and dysesthesia were reported in 10 (7%) patients; all were G1 or 2. There were no missed doses or CFZ treatment discontinuations due to PN, paraesthesias or dysesthesias. Comparative FACT-GOG/Ntx subscale scores were availabel for 95 patients. There was no statistically significant change in FACT-GOG/NTx scores from baseline to the end of the study. Neurological exams did not identify any additional peripheral neuropathy beyond those reported as AEs. Conclusions: In MM patients receiving CFZ therapy, reports of PN, paraesthesias and dysesthesia are generally mild and do not result in missed doses or CFZ discontinuation, allowing long-term treatment and prolonged disease control. These data, along with the experience from other clinical trials, indicate that PN is not a class effect of proteasome inhibitors. Disclosures: Vij: Proteolix: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang:Proteolix, Inc.: Research Funding. Stewart:Genzyme, Celgene, Millenium, Proteolix: Honoraria; Takeda, Millenium: Research Funding; Takeda-Millenium, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy. Lonial:Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria. Jakubowiak:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Belch:Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Le:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment. Cruickshank:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment. Bennett:Proteolix: Employment. Molineaux:Proteolix, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siegel:Celgene: 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.