Citations

Objective: To establish international benchmark values for relevant outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Summary Background Data: For safe adoption of surgical innovation, robust quality control is essential. Benchmarking is a validated tool for assessing surgical performance. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmark values for robotic Whipple as top priority. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple between 2020-2023 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Reference centers were required to perform ≥15 cases/year, be scientifically active in the field, and maintain a prospective database. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Benchmarks were established for 13 outcome parameters. Result: The benchmark cohort comprised 418 patients from 12 centers across four continents. Benchmark values were: conversion rate ≤4.3%, transfusion rate ≤2.1%, 6-month mortality ≤2.2%, major complications ≤23.2%, and CCI® ≤20.9. Clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grade B/C) and hemorrhage (grade B/C) rates were ≤23.6% and ≤12.7%, respectively. For pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n=123), the benchmark for lymph node yield was ≥20. Higher surgical difficulty was associated with increased overall postoperative morbidity (R 2 =0.38, P =0.019), higher center caseload with reduced pancreas-specific complications (R 2 =0.28, P =0.044). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4 mm (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.82), anticoagulation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99), and indication other than PDAC (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.68, 3.27). Conclusions: This study establishes the first international benchmarks for robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic outcomes and morbidity comparable to open surgery with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is considered incurable. Despite improved outcomes with novel agents, including BCMA-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and bispecific antibodies, patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) often have poor prognoses. LINKER-MM1 (NCT03761108) is a global, single-arm, Phase 1/2 study of linvoseltamab, a BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with RRMM who were either triple-class exposed (TCE; previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody) during ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOTs), or triple-class refractory to these therapies. Here, we present comparisons of clinical outcomes from LINKER-MM1 with those of a current, international, real-world (RW) external control arm (ECA; NCT05673967). Methods The ECA was derived from 16 academic sites of the International Myeloma Foundation International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) (N=203; 309 eligible LOTs) and compared with linvoseltamab (N=105; Phase 2 200 mg cohort). Patients in the ECA initiated ≥1 anti-MM therapy after meeting key LINKER-MM1 eligibility criteria. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to select 1 LOT per patient and balance the ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; IMWG criteria) determined by an independent central review committee (ICRC) based on myeloma laboratories. An independent data review committee reviewed comparability of cohorts and endpoint assessments prior to conducting comparative analyses. Results Median follow-up was 14.3 months for the linvoseltamab cohort (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2024) and 13.4 months for the ECA. After weighting, 15 prognostic factors were balanced between cohorts. Patients in the ECA received 68 distinct regimens, most commonly CAR T-cell therapies (11.3%) and ADCs (10.3%). After balancing the cohorts, patients in the ECA evaluable for response had ICRC-assessed ORR of 46.3% (40.8% by treating physician assessment), among whom 24.0% had very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). When including patients who died without evaluable response, ECA ICRC-assessed ORR was 44.2%. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher ICRC-assessed ORR (69.5% vs 46.3%, odds ratio [OR] 2.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-3.69]) and rate of ≥VGPR (62.9% vs 24.0%, OR 5.37 [95% CI 3.61-8.49]) compared with ECA regimens. Conclusion Despite current use of novel therapies, there is no well-established RW standard of care (SOC) for patients with TCE RRMM treated at IMWG sites. To our knowledge, this is the first RW ECA study in MM with a high percentage of anti-BCMA therapies and response ascertainment for all patients by ICRC. Linvoseltamab induced significantly higher response rates, including rate of ≥VGPR, compared with current RW SOC therapies, highlighting its potential as a highly effective treatment in patients with TCE RRMM.

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.

8095 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable and invariably relapses after initial therapy. There is no uniform approach to management of relapsed MM and is dictated by type of initial therapy and the response seen, and availability of new drugs. The outcomes associated with current approaches have not been systematically examined. Methods: We enrolled 383 patients (pts) with myeloma who had a documented relapse between Jan 2007 and June 2010, including 220 from Europe, 106 from Asia, and 31 from South America and 26 from North America. Time Zero (T0) was defined as date of treatment after first relapse. Results: Across the study, 61% were male and 49% were over 65 years at T0. ISS stage distribution at diagnosis included 26, 40 and 33% of patients in stages 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among regimens used at first relapse; bortezomib (Btz) containing regimens were most common (54%), followed by lenalidomide (Len, 25%) and cyclophosphamide (21%). The overall response rate (>=PR) to first therapy after relapse was 58% including 14% with a CR. There was a progressive decrease in the response rates with successive regimen; 45%, 30% and 15% for regimens 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Len use was considerably lower in the Asian cohort, while Btz use was comparable across the regions. The median PFS from T0 was 13 mos and OS was 35 mos, for the entire cohort. The PFS to first salvage regimen was similar across the regions, while OS was shorter for the Asian and South American cohorts. In a univariate analysis, ISS stage 3, presence of cytogenetic abnormalities, history of plasma cell leukemia or extramedullary disease (EMD), bone marrow PC% > 33% and presence of renal insufficiency were all associated with a shorter PFS as well as shorter OS (P<=0.01). In a multivariate model, ISS stage 3 and presence of EMD were most associated with short OS. Conclusions: Median PFS for current second line regimens, typically containing Btz or Len appear to be 1 yr with an OS from first relapse of about 3 yrs. The OS from first relapse is nearly double that seen in a cohort of patients in first relapse prior to introduction of new drugs. Clear-cut regional differences can be seen in terms of patterns of drug use and likely reflect drug availability and healthcare costs.

Abstract Abstract 3980 Background: Nearly half of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are over 70 years at the time of diagnosis. While the survival of patients with myeloma has improved in the last decade, several studies have suggested no significant change for the elderly patients. These patients often have other comorbidities and are less likely to tolerate standard treatment approaches. We retrospectively studied the treatment patterns, outcomes, and prognostic factors in patients over 75 years of age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 212 patients who were older than 75 years from among 1545 patients seen at the Mayo Clinic within 90 days of diagnosis during 1999 to 2008. We only included 139 patients in whom complete treatment details were available. RESULTS: The median age was 80 years (range: 76–94) with 20 (14%) patients older than 85 years; 79 (57%) were male. Thirty-five patients (25%) had a history or coexistence of one or more malignancies. Chromosome analysis and FISH were performed in 65% and 22% respectively. Abnormal cytogenetics were seen in 30 (33%) of the 90 tested patients. The median survival of the 139 elderly patients was 27 months (95% CI: 20∼35) compared to 62 months (56∼68) for 1,290 patients ≤ 75 years of age seen during the same period. Sixty-nine (50%) patients received one or more novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib) and showed longer median survival (40 months vs 13 months) compared with those not receiving these agents (p=0.0008). Age over 85, initial poor performance score > 1, thrombocytopenia, elevated serum LDH or beta2-microglobulin, response more than stable disease to first therapy resulted in inferior survival. Among them, only performance status had the persistent significance in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Older patients receiving newer therapies appear to have a better outcome, which is still lagging behind the younger patients. A poor performance score at diagnosis predicts for eventual poor outcome. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, 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. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik: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; Millenium: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.