Citations

Abstract Introduction: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate approved in the United States (US) and Europe as a monotherapy for triple-class refractory adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis of DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) data examined relationships between corneal exam findings (superficial punctate keratopathy and/or microcyst like epithelial changes), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and direct patient-reported ocular symptoms per the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. This approach could provide insight into the relationship between corneal exam findings, BCVA, and ocular symptoms and their impact on quality of life to help determine if BCVA decline and symptoms could guide dosing. Currently, in the US, eye exams with eye-care professionals (ECPs) are required for each belamaf treatment, which can add to patients' therapy-related burden. Identifying a surrogate marker for results from corneal exam findings would help providers determine if dosing adjustments are necessary. Methods: Eye exams (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment using the Snellen chart) were performed on all patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) by ECPs at baseline (BL) and before each dose, administered q3w. Corneal exam findings (keratopathy) and BCVA were assessed per protocol-defined criteria, and grade (GR) assessment was based on the worst finding in the worse eye. BCVA and keratopathy grading were relative to BL. Patient-reported ocular symptoms and vision-related functioning, as per the OSDI, were used to evaluate the impact of treatment-related ocular toxicity. The OSDI is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that assesses eye symptoms and effects on vision-related function in the past week and was performed in all patients before each belamaf dose. Items 1-5 address the frequency of eye-related symptoms (eg, painful or sore eyes, blurred vision) while items 6-9 address the frequency of functional limitations (eg, driving at night or reading). OSDI was considered positive, clinically meaningful, and potentially associated with treatment when at least one question 1-5 (ie, sensitivity to light, gritty or painful eyes, blurred or poor vision) was reported as experienced "all of the time" and at least one question 6-9 (ie, driving at night, reading, working with PC, or watching TV) was reported as experienced "most of the time." Results: Overall, GR 3-4 (severe) keratopathy was observed only 5% of the time in patients who did not report frequent ocular symptoms as measured by the OSDI questionnaire (no items 1-9 ≥ "most of the time"). A further breakdown of the questions revealed that, in patients who reported no items 1-5 "all of the time" AND no items 6-9 ≥ "most of the time" (OSDI negative), GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed only 6% of the time (Table). When considering individual OSDI items, in patients who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any of the OSDI eye-related symptoms or functional limitations, GR 3-4 keratopathy was observed ~3%-7% of the time while GR 0-2 (mild) keratopathy was observed ~23%-34% of the time. Similar results were observed in patients with BCVA ≤20/30 at BL who reported "no deterioration from BL" for any eye-related adverse events (AEs) or functional limitations (GR 3-4 keratopathy: ~2%-6% of the time; GR 0-2 keratopathy: ~19%-28% of the time); patients with worse visual acuity at BL (BCVA >20/30) who reported "no deterioration" for items 1-9 had lower incidence of GR 3-4 and GR 0-2 keratopathy (~0%-1% and ~3%-8%, respectively). Conclusions: The results from this hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis suggest that hematologists/oncologists may be able to use clinical indicators/tools (eg, ocular symptoms, the OSDI tool) as potential surrogate markers for eye exam results to help determine whether dosing changes are needed. This approach will be explored in trials with other belamaf dose regimens that are currently under evaluation. If the results are validated, it may be possible for hematologists/oncologists to manage belamaf dose modifications, due to ocular AEs, without a confirmatory eye exam by the ECP, reducing the patient burden. Funding Source: GSK (205678). Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Badros: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Rodríguez-Otero: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: 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; Kite: 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; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and other expenses. Cohen: BMS: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Other: Personal fees and other association with, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees and other association with; Janssen: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Manier: Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Voorhees: Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay: 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; 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; AbbVie: 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; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin: Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Chari: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weisel: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Farooq: Five Prime Therapeutics/Amgen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Jeng: OysterPoint: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eyegate: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chng: Abbvie: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Aslan: Research Funding. Lee: Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopetides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Berdeja: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; SecuraBio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Jadhav: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tosolini: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Eliason: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Palumbo: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Lonial: Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trudel: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen Canada: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Terpos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

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 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 Abstract 2878 Poster Board II-854 Background: Significant advances have been made in the treatment of myeloma with the introduction of thalidomide, its analogue, lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. While these new drugs have improved the outcome of patients with myeloma, the disease still remains incurable. Effectiveness of upcoming new therapies will need to be assessed in the context of anticipated outcome with the currently available therapies. However, given the rapid pace of development over the past decade, outcome of patients who have relapsed on the new therapies remain unclear. Methods: In order to further study this group of patients, we undertook a study of patients who have relapsed on or are refractory to one of the IMiDs (thalidomide or lenalidomide) as well as bortezomib. A total of 300 cases from 8 sites in the US, 5 sites in Europe and one site in Asia were identified for this study. Enrolled patients had relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, per the EBMT or IMWG response criteria, after at least 2 prior treatments. Patients were refractory to bortezomib, defined as having no response on a prior bortezomib-containing regimen or experiencing disease progression within 60 days of a bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients also should have relapsed, refractory, intolerant, and/or ineligible in the opinion of the investigator, to other therapies, including an IMiD (thalidomide or lenalidomide). Clinical and laboratory data pertaining to the time of diagnosis and from the time of individual relapses were obtained from the clinical records. The date patients satisfied the above entry criteria was defined as time zero. Results: The current analysis includes the first 119 patients with complete data available. The median age at initial diagnosis was 59 years (range, 31-86 yr); 71% were males. The ISS stage distribution at diagnosis was 33%, 39% and 28% for stages 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 19 patients (37%) had high risk disease by FISH [t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p] or by cytogenetics [del 13, hypodiploidy]. The median time from diagnosis to time zero was 3.8 yrs (range 0.2-18.7 yr) and the median reported lines of therapy before time zero was 2. 74% patients had at least 1 autologous stem cell transplant prior to becoming eligible for the study. Following time zero, 77 (65%) pts had a treatment recorded, including an autologous SCT in 21 (18%), with the treatment regimen starting at a median of 1 month after time zero. A variety of treatment regimens were utilized beyond time zero (median=1; range 0-7). Thirty-two (27%) patients had a response any time following time zero, and only 8 had a subsequent response. Response to the first treatment, or supportive care for patients not treated, recorded following time zero included minor response or stable disease (n=14; 12%), PR (n=17, 14%), and VGPR or better (n=6, 5%). Patients treated with SCT had a higher rate of PR or better compared to patients receiving other treatments (85%; 17/20 vs. 26%; 15/57). In a multivariate analysis, the only significant predictor of a PR or better after time zero was younger age (<60 yrs). The median overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS) were 6 mos (95% CI, 4-7 mos) and 1 month (95% CI,1-2 mos) respectively. In a multivariate analysis normal creatinine predicted for a better overall survival and having an IgG M protein type predicted for better EFS. A complete analysis from all 300 patients will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This study confirms the poor outcome of patients once they become relapsed and refractory to agents that have become the mainstay of myeloma therapy. The findings highlight the incurable nature of the disease and urgent need to develop newer effective therapeutic agents for this group of patients, who currently do not have effective treatment options. Disclosures: Kumar: CELGENE: Research Funding; MILLENNIUM: Research Funding; BAYER: Research Funding; GENZYME: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Research Funding. Jagannath:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Laubach:Novartis: . Palumbo:Ortho Biotech, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: 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, Speakers Bureau; Keryx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Durie:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 2877 Poster Board II-853 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, treatment with lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) was superior to high-dose dexamethasone in terms of both response rates and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results suggest that the combination lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) compared to the RD regimen yields significantly better 2-year overall survival (OS) (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) has been investigated in a phase I/II study showing promising results (Palumbo A et al, J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4459-4465). The goal of this case –control study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of the lenalidomide/dexamethasone (len/dex) combination vs MPR as primary therapy for newly diagnosed elderly MM patients, to determine the additive value of melphalan compared to a regimen of lenalidomide plus corticosteroid. Patients and methods: Data from 51 newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in Italy in a phase I/II dose-escalating trial, from January to October 2005, with MPR, were analyzed. For comparison of their outcome, 37 patients were identified among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from March 2005 to December 2008 who received len/dex as primary therapy and were enrolled in phase II or III trials. Patients treated with MPR received 9 monthly cycles of oral melphalan (doses ranging from 0.18 to 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4), prednisone (2 mg/kg on days 1-4) and lenalidomide (doses ranging from 5 to 10 mg/day on days 1-21). After 9 cycles, patients started maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg, days 1-21) until relapse or progression. Patients treated with len/dex received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus dexamethasone, either at low-dose (n=17) (40 mg orally days 1, 8, 15, 22) or at high-dose (n=21) (40 mg orally on days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20). Treatment was continued until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity, or could be stopped at the physician's discretion. Patients (n=13) were allowed to receive transplant if they wished and were deemed eligible. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: On intention-to-treat analysis, 15.7% versus 23.7% patients, respectively in the MPR and in the len/dex group, (p=0.342) achieved a complete response, and 43.2% vs 47.4%, (p=0.691) achieved at least a very good partial response. Time-to-progression (TTP) (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.55-1.98; p=0.903), PFS (median: 24.7 vs 27.5 in MPR and len/dex groups, respectively; HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.55-1.92; p=0.926) and OS (2-year OS: 86.2% in MPR group vs 89.1% in len/dex, HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.38-1.98; p=0.730) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. No significant differences in TTP, PFS and OS were reported when MPR patients were compared with the subgroup of patients treated with low-dose dexamethasone plus lenalidomide. Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to MPR patients and len/dex pair mates receiving lenalidomide plus low/dose dexamethasone, matched according to age and sex, and who did not received transplant. The toxicity profile was different in the two groups. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities were more common with MPR compared with len/dex, in particular neutropenia (66.7% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001) and thrombocytopenia (31.4% vs 2.6%, p < 0.001), respectively. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal events (13.2% vs 2.0%, p= 0.080), thrombotic events (13.2 vs 5.9, p= 0.279) and fatigue (10.5% vs 3.9%, p= 0.395) were more common with len/dex compared with MPR. Conclusion: Results of this case-control study show that both MPR and Rd are efficacious regimens for elderly MM patients. Data need however to be carefully evaluated and randomized control trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzyme: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Musto:celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Petrucci:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Boccadoro:jansen Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; pharmion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Purpose: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is increasingly recognized as a major complication of thalidomide (T; Thal) and lenalidomide (R; Rev) based therapy for multiple myeloma. Estimated incidence varies widely in the literature. There is no consensus on specific risk factors, indications for thromboprophylaxis or the agent of choice for DVT prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus among members of the IMWG. Patients and Methods: A survey was electronically mailed to 67 IMWG members on July 21, 2006 and consisted of 24 multiple-choice questions. Results: Twenty-three IMWG members (34%) sent in their responses by the cut-off date. All (100%) felt that DVT was an important question, but most (95%) did not avoid Thal/Rev based therapy because of the DVT risk. Overall results are summarized in the Table below. A majority of physicians felt that concomitant therapy with high dose dexamethasone (90% of physicians), alkylators (55%), doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin (90%), and erythropoietin (75%) increase the risk of DVT associated with Thal or Rev based therapy. Aspirin (81 mg or 325 mg per day) was the preferred choice of prophylaxis when necessary. However, 65% of respondents preferred warfarin to a therapeutic INR or LMW heparin if either doxorubicin or liposomal doxorubicin was added to the regimens. Most (95–100%) felt that DVT prophylaxis was not indicated for: VAD, MP, bortezomib +/− dexamethasone regimens. Seventy-five percent felt it to be safe to resume therapy with Thal/Rev after therapeutic anticoagulation. Most (95%) believed randomized trials were needed. Conclusion: DVT is recognized as a major clinical problem associated with Thal/Rev containing regimens. Most respondents felt that the DVT risk did not warrant any prophylaxis when either Thal or Rev were used as single agents. Aspirin was the preferred form of DVT prophylaxis for most Thal/Rev containing regimens, except when doxorubicin/liposomal doxorubicin or melphalan were added. Additional responses will be analyzed both electronically and by conference call prior to the meeting. Therapy Estimated incidence of DVT (% respondents) Choice of thromboprophylaxis (% respondents) Single agent thal <5% (61%) None (65%) Single agent Rev <5% (80%) None (65%) Thal-Dex 10–20% (52%) Aspirin (60%) Rev-Dex 10–20% (48%) Aspirin (60%) MPT 10–20% (65%) Aspirin (40%) R-MP 5–10% (57%) Aspirin (70%)