Citations

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study (NCT02412878) has shown a favorable benefit-risk profile of once-weekly carfilzomib (K) at 70 mg/m2 over twice-weekly K at 27mg/m2 plus dexamethasone (d) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) (Moreau. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:953-964). Once-weekly significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with twice-weekly (median 11.2 vs 7.6 months [mos]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.88; P=0.0014). Herein, we present a subgroup analysis of once-weekly vs twice-weekly Kd by previous therapy in pts with RRMM. Methods: 478 pts with RRMM, previously treated with 2 or 3 prior therapies including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent were randomized 1:1 to receive either once-weekly (n=240) or twice-weekly (n=238) Kd. The once-weekly group received K (30-min intravenous infusion [IV]) on days (D) 1, 8, and 15 of all cycles (20 mg/m2 on D1 [cycle 1]; 70 mg/m2 thereafter). The twice-weekly group received K (10-min IV) on D1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 (20 mg/m2 on D1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 27 mg/m2 thereafter). All pts received d at 40 mg/m2 on D1, 8, 15 (all cycles), and 22 (cycle 1-9 only). Treatment was given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptably toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The study secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. PFS, ORR, and safety outcomes by prior lines of therapy are shown in the Table; PFS curves by prior lines are shown in the Figure. With a median follow-up time of 12.6 mos in the once-weekly group and 12.0 mos in the twice-week group, PFS for pts with 2 prior lines (N=241) was 12.1 mos vs 7.6 mos (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.86). Median PFS for pts with 3 prior lines (N=237) was 8.9 mos for once-weekly vs 7.9 mos for twice-weekly (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.15). ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.9% vs 40.8% (OR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.47, 4.14) in pts with 2 prior lines and 62.9% vs 40.7% (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.46, 4.17) in pts with 3 prior lines. In the 2 prior lines group, 9.5% vs 3.2% of pts had a complete response or better with once- vs twice-weekly Kd respectively. Complete responses or better in pts with 3 prior lines were obtained in 4.8% of pts receiving once-weekly and no pts with twice-weekly Kd. In A.R.R.O.W., 401 (83.9%) pts had prior lenalidomide (LEN) exposure. Median PFS for once- vs twice-weekly was 11.1 mos vs 7.4 mos (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.94) for LEN exposed pts and NE (not estimable) vs 9.4 mos (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.21) for pts without prior LEN exposure. ORRs for once- vs twice-weekly were 62.3% vs 39.2% (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.72, 3.84) in pts with prior LEN exposure, and 66.7% vs 47.7% (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: (0.86, 5.58) in pts without prior LEN exposure. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59.1% vs 65.0% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, and 75.6% vs 58.0% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts with 3 prior lines of therapy. The incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs of interest by prior lines can be found in the Table. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 69.3% vs 60.2% (once- vs twice-weekly) of pts with prior LEN, and 57.6% vs 68.2% (once- vs. twice-weekly) of pts without prior LEN. Conclusions: Once-weekly Kd resulted in a favorable benefit-risk profile regardless of the number of prior lines. Although the median PFS was prolonged in both groups, pts with 2 prior lines achieved a greater benefit, underlining the need for using once-weekly Kd early to optimize outcomes for pts with RRMM. Safety profiles were consistent with previous findings and reports. Importantly, low incidences of heart failure were reported across all subgroups and no additional toxicities were found. As described for other K-based regimens, efficacy of K can be further enhanced by being used in earlier lines of therapy for pts with RRMM. This subgroup analysis further confirmed the positive results from A.R.R.O.W. of using once-weekly Kd at 70 mg/m2 regardless of prior therapies and should be considered an additional option to treat pts with RRMM. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stewart:Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy. Lazzaro:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Cavo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Iskander:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zahlten-Kumeli:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mateos:GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

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

Abstract Introduction: Cytogenetic abnormalities in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) are of prognostic importance and can be associated with poor outcomes (Bergsagel, Blood, 2011). The FIRST trial is a pivotal phase 3 study with the largest data set in transplant-ineligible pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This subanalysis evaluates the impact of cytogenetics on outcomes in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM continuously treated with lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous). Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: Rd continuous, Rd18 (Rd for 18 cycles [72 weeks]), or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT; for 12 cycles [72 weeks]). Cytogenetics were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Pts were categorized into cytogenetic risk groups according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria. High-risk cytogenetics included del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16); all other pts were categorized as non-high risk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparators were Rd continuous vs MPT), and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 762 of 1623 pts from the intent-to-treat population had validated cytogenetic profiles, with 142 pts in the high-risk group and 620 pts in the non-high-risk group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across cytogenetic risk groups (Table 1). The median follow-up for OS was 40.2 months for the 762 pts in this analysis (data cutoff, March 03, 2014). In the non-high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 19.4 months with Rd continuous and 16.6 months with both Rd18 and MPT. In the high-risk group, median duration of treatment was 10.0 months with Rd continuous, 8.2 months with Rd18, and 12.0 months with MPT. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 24% reduced risk of death or progression compared with MPT and an even greater 32% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics (Table 2). In non-high-risk pts, median PFS was 31.1 months with Rd continuous compared with 21.2 and 24.9 months with Rd18 and MPT, respectively (Figure). However, in high-risk pts, the observed numerical median PFS favoring Rd18 is mainly due to small pt numbers influenced by long runners (n = 5), and the greatly overlapping 95% CIs from all 3 arms show the difference is likely to be minimal. Rd continuous treatment resulted in a 28% reduced risk of death vs MPT overall and a 34% reduced risk in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. OS was similar across treatment arms for high-risk pts. ORRs in all cytogenetic risk groups favored Rd continuous vs MPT. In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, higher-quality responses were also observed with Rd continuous vs MPT treatment. Similar results were seen with Rd continuous compared with Rd18, although OS and ORR benefits overall and in pts without high-risk cytogenetics were not as pronounced. In all 3 treatment arms, adverse events were consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. Conclusions: Rd continuous treatment resulted in PFS and OS benefits vs MPT in pts with validated cytogenetic profiles. This was largely due to PFS and OS improvements in pts without high-risk cytogenetics. In the high-risk group, the longest PFS was observed with Rd18 treatment and OS was similar across treatment arms. Despite being on the continuous vs fixed duration treatment arm, high-risk pts on Rd continuous received a shorter duration of treatment than those on MPT, which may explain why PFS favored MPT vs Rd continuous. Higher response rates were observed with Rd continuous vs MPT, regardless of cytogenetic risk, and greater quality responses were observed in pts with high-risk cytogenetics. The safety profile of Rd continuous was manageable and consistent between cytogenetic risk groups. Results support Rd continuous as a standard treatment option for pts with NDMM who are ineligible for transplant, especially those without high-risk cytogenetics. Additional PFS and OS benefits may be achieved in pts with high-risk cytogenetics when Rd continuous is used as a backbone for combination therapy with a novel agent. Promising activity in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities has been demonstrated using this approach (Lonial et al, N Engl J Med, 2015; Stewart et al, N Engl J Med, 2015). Disclosures Hulin: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria. Reece:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding. Catalano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Adboard. Qiu:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Schots:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Marek:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yiu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Ixazomib is the first orally administered PI studied in the clinic. The feasibility of combining ixazomib weekly and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in the first all-oral PI- and immunomodulatory drug-containing triplet regimen was evaluated in a phase 1/2 trial of 65 pts with newly diagnosed MM. Results indicated a 90% ORR (62% ≥VGPR) using ixazomib 4 mg (recommended phase 2/3 dose), with a manageable safety profile, including 14% gr ≥3 skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders and limited (4% gr 3) peripheral neuropathy (PN) (Kumar et al, Lancet Oncol 2014). These data provided the rationale for phase 3 investigation of IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with RRMM in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter study. Methods Adults with RRMM after 1-3 prior lines of therapy who were not refractory to prior lenalidomide or PI-based therapy were randomized 1:1 to receive ixazomib 4 mg or matching placebo weekly on d 1, 8, and 15, plus lenalidomide 25 mg PO on d 1-21 (dose reduced for renal impairment per local label/practice) and dexamethasone 40 mg PO on d 1, 8, 15, and 22, in 28-d cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior therapies (1 vs 2/3), PI exposure (naïve vs exposed), and ISS disease stage (I/II vs III). Cycles were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was PFS as assessed by an independent review committee blinded to treatment, per IMWG criteria. Key secondary endpoints were OS and OS in high-risk pts with del(17). Sample size was determined to provide 80% power for the OS endpoint and adequate power to test PFS. Three interim analyses (IAs) and a final analysis were planned to test PFS and OS; here, we report data from the first IA, the final analysis for PFS. Results 722 pts were randomized (360 IRd; 362 Rd). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; overall median age was 66 yrs (30-91), 70% were PI-exposed, 88% were ISS stage I/II, 59% had received 1 prior therapy, and 77%/11%/11% were relapsed/refractory/relapsed and refractory, with 6% primary refractory. Based primarily (97%) on central laboratory evaluation, 19% had high-risk cytogenetics by FISH (del(17), t(4;14), or t(14;16)), including 10% del(17). Prior therapies included 69% bortezomib, 45% thalidomide, and 12% lenalidomide. The study met the primary endpoint at the first IA (median follow-up 14.8 vs 14.6 mos with IRd vs Rd), demonstrating a 35% improvement in PFS with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.742; p=0.012; Table). In pts with high-risk cytogenetics, the PFS HR was 0.543 with IRd vs Rd (HR 0.596 in pts with del(17)), with a median PFS similar to the overall IRd group, indicating ixazomib may overcome the negative impact of cytogenetic alterations. OS data were not yet mature. Key response data are shown in the Table. Pts received a median of 13 (1-26) vs 12 (1-25) cycles of IRd vs Rd; 55% and 52% of pts remained on treatment. With IRd vs Rd, 68% vs 61% of pts had gr ≥3 AEs (driven by thrombocytopenia), 40% vs 44% had serious AEs, 13% vs 11% discontinued all study drugs due to AEs, and 3% vs 5% died on treatment. AEs observed with IRd were consistent with reported safety profiles for the individual agents. Common gr ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (19% vs 16%), anemia (9% vs 13%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 5%), and pneumonia (6% vs 8%). Gastrointestinal events included 42% vs 36% diarrhea (6% vs 2% gr 3), 26% vs 21% nausea (2% vs 0% gr 3), and 22% vs 11% vomiting (1% vs <1% gr 3). PN rates were 28% vs 21% (2% vs 2% gr 3), 35% vs 21% had rash events (4% vs 1% gr 3), 4% vs 6% had renal failure (2% vs 3% gr ≥3), and 4% vs 3% had heart failure (2% vs 2% gr ≥3). Conclusion At this first prespecified IA, addition of ixazomib to Rd in pts with RRMM increased median PFS to 20.6 from 14.7 mos without a substantial increase in overall toxicity, including cardiac and PN toxicity. Benefit with IRd was also noted in pts with high-risk cytogenetics, including those with del(17), in whom median PFS was similar to all IRd-treated pts indicating that ixazomib may have a favorable impact on the adverse prognosis associated with genetic mutations. If approved, this all-oral combination of IRd may become a new standard of care in this setting. Table. Key efficacy data IRd Rd HR / OR Median PFS, mos 20.6 14.7 HR 0.742; 95% CI: 0.587-0.939; p=0.012 Confirmed ORR, % 78.3 71.5 OR 1.44; p=0.035 CR 11.7 6.6 OR 1.87; p=0.019 ≥VGPR 48.1 39.0 OR 1.45; p=0.014 Median time to first response (ITT analysis), mos 1.1 1.9 Median duration of response (≥PR), mos 20.5 15.0 Disclosures Moreau: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Investigational proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Masszi:Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bahlis:Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sandhu:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ganly:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medipics: Equity Ownership. Baker:Janssen-Cilag New Zealand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stoppa:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Simpson:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Gimsing:Amgen: Honoraria. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Lin:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Berg:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. DiBacco:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hui:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Richardson:Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The initial therapies for multiple myeloma have changed significantly in the recent years with routine incorporation of combinations containing IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. However, patients with MM invariably relapse after their initial treatment and undergo successive therapies for continued control of their disease. The increasing access to new therapies for treatment of relapsed disease has led to improved survival of patients with MM. Many recent phase 3 trials have studied the impact of new agents on outcome of patients with MM who are relapsing after the initial lines of therapy for relapsed disease. However, the natural history of relapsed myeloma earlier in the course of relapsed disease has not been studied in detail. Patients and methods: We designed a global, multicenter, retrospective study to examine the current treatment approaches for initial relapses in MM and patient outcomes following application of successive treatment regimens. Patients with multiple myeloma who experience a first relapse between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2011 were identified at participating sites. Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses up to and including the third relapse will be obtained from the clinical records. The first date of treatment with an anti-myeloma regimen for first disease relapse was termed time zero (T0). Results: Three hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled; median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range: 35 - 86), 59% were male. Patients were enrolled from North America (33%), Europe (35%) or Asia (32%). The patients were diagnosed between 1997 and 2011 and the median time to T0 from diagnosis was 23.9 months (range: 0.8 - 131.9 months). An IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide), bortezomib or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the initial therapy in 63%, 36% and 51% of patients, respectively; 93 (33%) patients had stem cell transplantation as part of initial treatment. The median follow up from the study entry was 56 months; 117 were alive at the time of data extraction. A second line, third line and fourth line of treatment were recorded in 307, 163 and 84 patients respectively. An IMiD (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide), proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib) or alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) was part of the therapy for first relapse in 50%, 59% and 33% of patients, respectively. The responses to the regimens after T0, the TTNT, PFS and OS to each line of therapy are provided in the Table. Conclusion: The current study provides an assessment of the current treatment approaches used for initial treatment of MM and the salvage treatment options utilized. The study again demonstrates the progressively shorter duration of disease control with each successive treatment regimen, reflecting ongoing development of drug resistance. The overall survival of over 3 years from the time of therapy for first relapse highlights the impact of the newer therapies that have been introduced for this disease. Table. Treatment outcomes after initial relapse Endpoint 2nd line therapyN=307 3rd line therapyN=163 4th line therapyN=84 Partial response or better Median in Months (95% Confidence Interval) Overall Survival 36.1 (30.2, 42.4) 18.4 (14.5, 26.8) 12.6 (10.4, 19.0) Progression-Free Survival 13.4 (11.8, 15.8) 8.3 (6.5, 11.2) 6.4 (5.0, 8.1) Time to Next Treatment 15 (12,17) 9.8 (7.4, 12.0) 6.6 (5.8, 8.7) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; TEVA: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lahuerta:Janssen Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Takeda, Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Onyx, Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3989 Background: Treatment patterns of multiple myeloma (MM) vary across the globe, mostly dictated by the availability and patient access to different drug therapies. The outcomes of patients with MM, especially relapsed myeloma can be significantly affected by the availability of newer treatments, as well as potential biological differences related to ethnicity. We have previously shown that the outcome of patients relapsing after therapy with bortezomib (Bz) and one or more of the IMiDs remain poor with the currently available treatments and represent a difficult group of patients to treat. We undertook the current analysis on a set of patients from United States, several European countries and South Korea. Methods: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study that enrolled 294 patients with relapsed MM, from 14 sites (122 from Europe, 107 from US, and 65 from Korea). Patients were refractory to Bz, defined as no response to prior Bz-containing regimen or disease progression within 60 days of a Bz-containing regimen. Patients were also relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible, to treatment with an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). Clinical and laboratory data from diagnosis and individual relapses were collected along with details of all MM drug therapies before and after T0. Responses were assessed by IMWG or EBMT criteria. The goal of the study was to compare the characteristics of patients who satisfy the above inclusion criteria, the therapies employed prior to and after T0 and clinical outcome among these patients from different parts of the world. Results: The mean (median, range) time to reaching T0 from diagnosis was 4.5 (4.0, 12.8), 4.2 (3.2, 18.6), and 3.2 (2.8, 9.6) years from diagnosis for patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, P=0.021. The mean (median, range) number of therapies for the three groups were 8 (8, 13), 4 (4, 10), 5 (4, 7), respectively; P<0.001. The response rates (>=PR) to the initial therapy at diagnosis were 56%, 77% and 49% respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts. Overall 220 patients had at least one therapy after T0, and 114 (52%) had a novel agent (Bz, len or thal) containing regimen as their first treatment after T0. Patients in US were more likely to receive additional therapies after the first post-T0 therapy; 62%, 32%, and 12% of patients from US, Europe and Korea, respectively, began a second post-T0 regimen within 2 years following time zero. The median number of therapies post T0 was 2, 1, and 1 for patients in US, Europe and Korea respectively. The response rates to the first regimen after T0 were 15%, 33% and 19% for the US, European and Korean cohorts, and were similar between those receiving a regimen with one of the novel drugs compared to rest. Patients younger than 60 years and those with prior transplants were more likely to respond to post T0 regimens. The median time to progression or death from T0was similar for the three patient cohorts, 5 months (Figure 1A). The median overall survival (95% CI) from T0 was 13 months (10, 16), 7 (5,9) and 8 (4,9) respectively for the US, European and Korean cohorts (Figure 1B). Conventional prognostic factors, especially the ISS stage was predictive of OS post T0. Additionally, presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a shorter overall survival. Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrate significant differences between different parts of the world in terms of the treatment patterns both in the setting of initial therapy as well as treatment of relapsed disease. Patients in the US were more likely to receive multiple regimens both before and after T0. This is likely a reflection of increasing numbers of new drugs that have gone into clinical trials and thus enhancing options. The study further highlights the poor outcome of patients who have relapsed after the new drugs, irrespective of the geographical location. Disclosures: Kumar: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Richardson:Millennium: ; Celgene: ; Johnson & Johnson: ; Novartis: ; Bristol Myers Squibb:. Moreau:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board, Honoraria; Janssen: Advisory board, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Siegel:Merck: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Palumbo:celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Single-agent carfilzomib has shown encouraging activity in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who harbor high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (Jakubowiak et al, Leukemia 2013;27:2351-56). The phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391; N=792 patients) demonstrated that progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd), compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) (Stewart et al, N Engl J Med 2015;372:142-52). We present a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of KRd vs Rd in the ASPIRE study according to baseline cytogenetic risk status. Methods: Adults with RMM (1-3 prior lines of therapy) were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to KRd or Rd. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the KRd arm received carfilzomib as a 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (starting dose, 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; target dose, 27 mg/m2 thereafter) during cycles 1-12; carfilzomib was omitted on days 8 and 9 during cycles 13-18 and was discontinued after 18 cycles. All patients received lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety. Cytogenetic risk status was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. The high-risk group consisted of patients with the genetic subtype t(4;14) or t(14;16) or with deletion 17p in ≥60% of plasma cells, according to central review of bone marrow samples obtained at study entry. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with known baseline cytogenetics. The cutoff value of 60% for the proportion of plasma cells with deletion 17p was used on the basis of recommendations from the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2 (Munshi et al. Blood 2011;117:4696-700). Results: A total of 792 patients were randomized to KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). In patients with known baseline cytogenetics, baseline cytogenetic risk status was similar between the treatment arms (high-risk: KRd, 24.6%; Rd, 23.4%; standard-risk: KRd, 75.4%; Rd, 76.6%). Efficacy outcomes by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Median PFS in the high-risk group (n=100) was 23.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.5-24.2) for KRd vs 13.9 months (95% CI: 9.5-16.7) for Rd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.639; 95% CI: 0.369-1.106). Median PFS in the standard-risk group (n=317) was 29.6 months (95% CI: 24.1-not estimable) for KRd vs 19.5 months (95% CI: 14.8-26.0) for Rd (HR: 0.657; 95% CI: 0.480-0.901). ORRs were 79.2% (KRd) vs 59.6% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 91.2% (KRd) vs 73.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. In the high-risk group, 29.2% (KRd) and 5.8% (Rd) of patients achieved a complete response (CR) or better, including 16.7% (KRd) and 3.8% (Rd) with a stringent complete response (sCR). In the standard-risk group, 38.1% (KRd) and 6.5% (Rd) of patients achieved ≥CR, including 15.0% (KRd) and 3.5% (Rd) with an sCR. Median DOR in the high-risk group was 22.2 months for KRd vs 14.9 months for Rd. Median DOR in the standard-risk group was 30.4 months for KRd vs 20.4 months for Rd. The rate of grade ≥3 adverse events was 89.1% (KRd) vs 78.4% (Rd) in the high-risk group, and 85.6% (KRd) vs 84.5% (Rd) in the standard-risk group. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest (dyspnea, hypertension, acute renal failure, cardiac failure, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral neuropathy) by cytogenetic risk status are presented in the Table. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, treatment with KRd resulted in a median PFS of nearly 2 years, which was a 9-month improvement relative to that in patients treated with Rd. Treatment with KRd also led to a 10-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd in patients with standard-risk cytogenetics; similar reductions in the risk of progression or death with Kd vs Vd were observed in both cytogenetics risk groups. Treatment with KRd also led to higher response rates, greater response depth, and a longer DOR compared with Rd in patients with high- or standard-risk cytogenetics. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMM, irrespective of baseline cytogenetic risk status, and improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease. Disclosures Fonseca: Celgene: 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; BMS: 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; 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; Novartis: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rosiñol:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: 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, Other: institutional funding for support of clinical trial conduct, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; SkylineDx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria. Bensinger:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acetylon: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Kukreti:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Ortho: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Tonda:Onyx: Employment. Obreja:Amgen Inc: Employment. Moreau:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: The anti-apoptotic proteins BCL-2 and MCL-1 promote multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Bortezomib (BTZ) can inhibit MCL-1 activity by stabilizing the MCL-1 antagonist, NOXA. Venetoclax is an orally bioavailable, highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor, which enhances BTZ efficacy in MM xenograft models. This Phase 1 study evaluates venetoclax with BTZ and dexamethasone (Dex) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Objectives include safety, pharmacokinetics, preliminary efficacy and maximum therapeutic dose of venetoclax with BTZ and Dex. A fixed dose of venetoclax ranging from 50 to 800 mg PO daily, according to dose cohort assignment, was given in combination in cycles (C) 1-11 and alone in C12 and beyond. Dose escalation decisions were made using the continual reassessment method. Pts received BTZ (1.3 mg/m2 SC, days [D] 1, 4, 8, 11) and Dex (20 mg PO, D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) in cycles (C)1-8 (21D), then BTZ + Dex (D1, 8, 15, 22) in C9-11 (35D). Results: Forty-one pts were enrolled as of June 15, 2015 (pts in each cohort: 50 mg, n=3; 100 mg, n=5; 200 mg, n=6; 300 mg, n=7; 400 mg, n=6; 500 mg, n=7; 600 mg, n=5; 800 mg, n=2). Median age was 65 (38-79); 15/26 F/M. 14 were ISS stage I, 11 stage II, 11 stage III, 5 missing. Median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (1-15). Thirty-five pts had received prior BTZ (10 refractory), 34 prior lenalidomide (22 refractory); 29 had undergone stem cell transplantation. Based on FISH analysis, 5 pts had MM with t(11;14); 3 with t(4;14), 20 with del 17p, and 10 with del 13q. Treatment-emergent AEs occurring in ≥20% of pts were constipation (37%), diarrhea (37%), thrombocytopenia (32%), asthenia (29%), insomnia (29%), anemia (27%), peripheral neuropathy (27%), dyspnea (24%), peripheral edema (22%), and nausea (20%). Grade 3/4 AEs in ≥10% of pts were thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (17%). SAEs occurred in 18 pts; SAEs in ≥2 pts were cardiac failure, embolism, pyrexia, respiratory failure, sepsis, thrombocytopenia (n=2 each, no SAEs were venetoclax-related). Twenty-nine pts have discontinued treatment: 23 due to PD, 2 due to AEs [adenocarcinoma; cardiac and respiratory decompensation attributed to Dex (DLT at 300 mg)], and 4 withdrew consent. Three deaths occurred (all due to PD). No TLS occurred. In preliminary PK analyses (n=41), dose-normalized venetoclax exposure when given with BTZ+Dex was similar when compared to venetoclax monotherapy in MM as well as CLL and NHL pts. Forty of 41 pts were evaluable for efficacy. All responses occurred in BTZ sensitive or naïve pts. Median (range) duration or response was 5.9 (0-14.1) months in all pts, 8.5 (2.3-11.4) months in BTZ naïve pts, and 4.7 (0-14.1) months in BTZ-sensitive pts. Conclusions: Venetoclax with BTZ and Dex has an acceptable safety profile in heavily pretreated MM pts; no new safety signals were identified compared to other venetoclax studies. These early data suggest the combination of proteasome and BCL-2 inhibition resulted in anti-tumor activity. Responses were observed only in pts naïve or sensitive to prior BTZ (ORR = 100% and 58%, respectively) and occurred in all dose cohorts. The study is currently enrolling pts in the 1000 mg dose escalation cohort. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Venetoclax is an investigational drug that is not yet approved in this indication. Roberts:AbbVie and Genentech: Research Funding; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research: Employment. Agarwal:Amgen, Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene, Onyx: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Research Funding. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Janssen, Noxxon, Sanofi, BMS, Skyline: Consultancy; Celgene, Millennium, Onyx, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi: Research Funding. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding. Darden:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morris:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Salem:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Enschede:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verdugo:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Humerickhouse:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The anti-apoptotic protein BCL-2 has been implicated in mediating the survival of multiple myeloma (MM) cells. Venetoclax is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable small-molecule BCL-2 inhibitor. Venetoclax induces cell death in MM cell lines in vitro and primary MM samples ex vivo. Certain genetic subtypes of MM cells are particularly sensitive to venetoclax, including t(11;14) cells, which express a high ratio of BCL2 to MCL1 (venetoclax resistance factor). The current Phase 1 study evaluates safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Primary objectives are to evaluate safety, PK, and recommended phase two dose; other objectives include assessing preliminary efficacy and the impact of chromosomal abnormalities. In dose-escalation (DE) cohorts, venetoclax was given orally daily at 300, 600, 900, or 1200 mg after a 2-week dose ramp-up (3+3 design). Patients in the safety expansion (SE) cohort received 1200 mg daily after ramp-up. All patients were monitored for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS). Results: As of June 17, 2015, 37 patients were enrolled in the study: 30 from DE cohorts and 7 from the SE. Median (range) age was 66 years; 19 (51%) were female. Fourteen were ISS stage I, 13 stage II, 8 stage III, 2 unknown. The median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 6 (1-19). Thirty-two had prior bortezomib (20 refractory), 35 lenalidomide (18 refractory), and 26 had prior stem cell transplant. Fourteen patients had t(11;14), 4 had t(4;14), 5 had del 17p, and 17 had del 13q. Adverse events (AEs) in ≥20% of patients were nausea (49%), diarrhea (38%), vomiting (30%), anemia (27%), fatigue (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs (≥10%): thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (19%), neutropenia (11 %). Serious AEs (≥2 patients): pyrexia (n=3), cough, malignant neoplasm progression, and sepsis (2 each); 2 (upper abdominal pain and anemia) were possibly related to venetoclax. Thirty (81%) patients have discontinued venetoclax: 24 due to PD, 3 for AEs (worsening shortness of breath, hypokalemia, and nausea), 2 withdrew consent, 1 due to death (brain hemorrhage following injury). Four deaths occurred (2 due to PD, 1 due to brain hemorrhage, 1 due to pneumopathy). Two of the 6 patients in the 600 mg cohort experienced DLTs of upper abdominal pain and nausea with abdominal pain. No patients met the criteria for laboratory or clinical TLS. Based on preliminary PK (n=21), the mean Cmax and AUC24 were ~dose-proportional at all studied doses (300, 600, 1200 mg) except 900 mg, and dose-normalized venetoclax exposure in MM was similar to that in CLL and NHL pts. Thirty-two of the 37 patients were evaluable for preliminary efficacy (Table). Two patients, both t(11;14), achieved a complete response (1 at 600 mg and 1 at 900 mg). Responses were first achieved at 1.8 and 1.1 months and were maintained for 9.7 and 9.0 months, respectively (900 mg pt remains in CR). Among the 16 patients receiving 1200 mg in the DE or SE cohort, 6 of whom had t(11;14), 5 achieved SD, 6 experienced PD, and 5 are not yet evaluable. Conclusions: Venetoclax monotherapy had a tolerable safety profile in heavily-pretreated relapsed/refractory MM, and no new safety signals were observed compared to other venetoclax studies. The study continues to enroll in the SE cohort at 1200 mg. Responses (including CR) and longer time on venetoclax were observed in t(11;14) patients. These early results suggest that venetoclax has single agent activity, most prominently in t(11;14) patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Skyline, BMS, Onyx, Noxxon,: Other: Consultant, no compensation,; Skyline, Noxxon: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Venetoclax is an investigational drug that is not yet approved in this indication.. Vij:Takeda, Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene, Onyx, Takeda, Novartis, BMS, Sanofi, Janssen, Merck: Consultancy. Kaufman:Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Mikhael:Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding. Moreau:Takeda: Other: Adboard; Janssen: Other: Adboard; Celgene: Other: Adboard; Novartis: Other: Adboard; Amgen: Other: Adboard. Alzate:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morris:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dunbar:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agarwal:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leverson:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Enschede:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Humerickhouse:AbbVie: Employment, Equity Ownership. Touzeau:AbbVie: Research Funding.