Search

Two Letters to Blood address the risks of COVID-19 in populations with precursors of hematological disease. In the first article, Miller and colleagues report on whether clonal hematopoiesis of intermediate potential (CHIP) is associated with adverse outcomes with COVID-19, finding no association between CHIP and 28-day mortality while providing data indirectly linking IL-6 signaling and patient outcomes. In the second article, Ho and colleagues investigate the outcomes of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) with COVID-19, reporting that one-fourth had a severe infection and that on multivariable analysis, adverse outcomes are more likely if immunoparesis is present.

Introduction: Factors contributing to the antitumor activity of systemic oncolytic virotherapy (OV) include (i) generalized innate immune activation due to virus infusion; (ii) direct oncolytic and/or immune-mediated destruction of OV infected tumor cells due to intratumoral spread of the virus infection; (iii) collateral boosting of tumor antigen-specific T cell responses that target uninfected tumor cells. We investigated the relative contributions of these 3 factors T cell lymphoma (TCL) patients (pts) responding to a single intravenous infusion of Voyager-V1, an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) encoding IFNβ and sodium iodide symporter (NIS) on NCT03017820. Of relevance, the virally encoded IFNβ enhances tumor specificity, boosts proinflammatory activity & serves as a convenient serum biomarker of infection. Methods: In a first in human trial, a single infusion of Voyager-V1 was administered to 15 pts with relapsed refractory hematologic cancers; 4 dose levels (DL) were tested (5x10 9, 1.7x10 10, 5x10 10, 1.7x10 11 TCID50); 7 pts had TCL. Cytokine levels and CRS symptoms were determined as a measure of generalized immune activation; serum IFNβ levels were monitored as a pharmacodynamic biomarker of virus infection; antitumor T cell responses were measured using ELISPOT assays. Results: Of 8 TCL pts, 3 had RECIST responses: PR at DL 2, a CR & PR at DL 4. Most pts experience short lived CRS typically resolving within 24 hours of virus infusion. Serum IFNβ levels increased post-therapy in all pts, typically peaking by 24 hours post virus infusion and returning to baseline by median day 10. T cell responses could not be accurately determined in most cases due to suboptimal T cell viability and/or function after thawing of frozen PBMC. Factors contributing to tumor regression in each of the responding pts appeared to differ significantly, as exemplified by the case reports below. Pt (I) with CTCL experienced grade 1 CRS followed by brisk regression of multiple cutaneous lesions. The PR lasted 3 mo, after relapse of an eye lesion, but responses at other sites deepened after the relapsed lesion was irradiated; pt remained off active therapy for the next 2 yrs. Peak serum IFNβ 4 hours post infusion was only 182 pg/ml suggesting that disease response may have been driven by nonspecific innate immune activation associated with the virus infusion. Pt (IV) (CD30+ PTCL/ cutaneous relapse) had short lived grade 2 CRS, then developed signs of IFNβ toxicity with AST elevation and thrombocytopenia. Oral ruxolitinib was administered for 5 days as IFNβ toxicity mitigation leading to normalization of AST and platelets. All PET-avid tumors regressed completely. This CR continues 16 months post virus infusion. Peak serum IFNβ was 18,213 pg/ml strongly suggesting that response was driven by extensive intratumoral amplification of the virus and oncolytic tumor destruction. Robust CTL responses to tumor neoantigens were detected in this pt at baseline indicating that collateral boosting of tumor-specific T cells may have been responsible for the long term maintenance of this CR Pt (V) (CD30+ PTCL) had short lived grade 2 CRS followed by response at all disease sites (including complete normalization of an enlarged FDG-avid spleen). Her PR ended after 6 months due to relapse in cervical lymph nodes. Peak serum IFNβ level was modest, 600 pg/ml & sustained over 48 hours suggesting slower intratumoral spread of the virus infection. The deepening of the response long after resolution of the oncolytic phase points strongly to a contribution from antitumor CTL but the assay was technically unsatisfactory in this pt. Conclusion: Analysis of the correlative data supports that intravenous Voyager-V1 therapy can recruit diverse antitumor effector mechanisms to impact tumor response in pts with heavily pretreated TCL. Importantly, intratumoral virus amplification, which results in high circulating concentrations of IFNβ, does not necessarily lead to tumor regression perhaps because of defective immune cell recruitment and/or activation in some tumors but not in others. This will be further evaluated in future study participants by performing CTL assays on fresh, rather than frozen PBMC. In conclusion, a single IV infusion of Voyager-V1 shows highly promising activity against treatment refractory TCL and should be further advanced as a new single-shot or combination therapy for this therapeutically challenging indication. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic virus in clinical trial for systemic administration in hematologic malignancies

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is frequently accompanied by renal impairment (RI) in 30-40% patients at presentation (Dimopoulos et al, IMWG 2010). As per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG), RI is defined as Creatinine clearance (CrCl) Methods We retrospectively reviewed records for MM patients with a new diagnosis of MM who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 1/2004 and 12/2018. RI was defined as per IMWG criteria. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square test and continuous variables using Wilcoxon test. Overall Survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and difference between groups was assessed using log-rank test. Results In our cohort of 2702 patients, median age at diagnosis was 65 (range, 22-96) years and 61% were males. Number of patients with CrCl RI was present in 557 (21%) of patients at the time of presentation. On univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with RI at diagnosis were higher age, ECOG PS ≥2, hemoglobin< 10 g/dL, calcium >11 mg/dL , LDH >222 U/L, β-2-microglobulin >5.5 mg/L, free light chain ratio >100, uric acid >8 mg/dL, higher ISS stage and cytogenetics [gain 1q, t (14;20), absence of any trisomy] as shown in table 1. However, on multivariate analysis, only elevated serum calcium >11 g/dL (OR: 11.5; 95%CI:1.78-74.9; p=0.01) and free light chain ratio>100 (OR: 4.17; 95%CI:1.29-13.4; p=0.016) had significant association with RI. The RI group had inferior OS when compared to patients with no RI at diagnosis (4.5 years vs 7.7 years, p-value Looking at trends over time, the rate of RI at presentation had not changed. Over the last two decades, OS for the CrCl Conclusion In our cohort of 2702 patient, frequency of RI at baseline was 21%, which corroborates with previous studies. Hypercalcemia and serum free light chain ratio were found to be independent factors associated with RI. RI at diagnosis is associated with inferior survival, however, use of novel agents in this population has led to improvement of patient outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: Belantamab mafodotin (BLMF) is a first-in-class, antibody-drug conjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen on myeloma cells. BLMF was approved for use in patients (pts) with advanced multiple myeloma (MM). Due to the risk of ocular toxicity, it is made available through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy. It is speculated that monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF), the cytotoxic payload of BLMF may be internalised by the corneal epithelium via an off-target mechanism, leading to epithelial changes. In the pivotal DREAMM-2 trial, only 1% of pts permanently discontinued treatment due to keratopathy. Data regarding BLMF-induced ocular toxicity following its commercial availability since August 2020, are sparse, and in this context, we evaluated our clinical experience with BLMF to determine the impact of its ocular toxicity on outcomes when utilized outside of stringent clinical trial settings. METHODS: We reviewed records of pts with advanced MM who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic between 09/01/2020-07/01/2021 and initiated on BLMF monotherapy following a baseline ophthalmic examination that was also performed prior to each dose, and as needed for worsening ocular symptoms. Data pertaining to ocular symptoms, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and corneal examinations were collected and analyzed with respect to patient outcomes. Adverse events were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. RESULTS: Thirty-four pts, with median age of 67 (range:49-90) years who received BLMF at the approved 2.5 mg/kg dose as their first infusion and completed at least one cycle were included. All patients were instructed to use preservative-free lubricant eye drops at least 4 times a day, starting with the initial infusion and continuing until the end of therapy, and avoid contact lenses. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 8 (range: 2-15). The median time to BLMF initiation from the diagnosis of MM was 7.5 (range: 1.3-19.7) years. The median follow-up from initiation of BLMF was 7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.7-8.6] months, and the median number of BLMF doses administered was 2 (range: 1-6). Twenty-seven (79%) pts experienced ocular toxicity, comprising keratopathy [n=25 (74%)] and/or decreased visual acuity [n=21 (62%)]. Table 1 outlines the keratopathy-related details. Thirteen pts (38%) developed symptomatic xerophthalmia. A clinically significant decrease in BCVA of equal or worse than 20/40 in the better-seeing eye was observed in 12 (35%) pts at a median of 1.7 (95%CI: 1.4-2.2) months of commencing BLMF. In 7 (58%) pts, it improved to better than 20/40 within a median of 3 (range: 0.7-4) months from the time of documentation of impaired BCVA following withholding treatment (n=5), with or without subsequent dose reduction or its permanent discontinuation (n=2). Treatment was permanently discontinued in 5 (15%) pts after a median of 3 doses due to grade ≥2 keratopathy. It was withheld in 9 (26%) due to grade ≥2 keratopathy. Four (12%) pts required dose reduction due to keratopathy (Table 1). Of 14 pts in whom BLMF was held or permanently discontinued due to keratopathy, 10 (77%) had disease progression within a median of 1 month (range 0.4-2.5) following BLMF interruption. Among 11 pts (32%) responded to BLMF, 45% developed grade 2 or higher keratopathy after the first dose compared to 13% of pts who were refractory to BLMF (n=23). The median duration of response was 4 (95%CI: 0.7-NR) months. Among responders, 2 pts (18%) had to permanently discontinue BLMF due to keratopathy, with subsequent progression from partial remission at 1.4 and 4.6 months following its discontinuation. Additionally, 73% of responders required dose withholding due to keratopathy and of those, 50% had evidence of disease progression within a median of 1.2 month (range: 0.7-1.7) following BLMF interruption. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS : Despite efficacy in pts with advanced MM, in routine practice, ocular toxicity of BLMF is a major challenge and a deterrent to its continuous use. While frequent ocular toxicity-related interruptions were observed at expected rates, permanent treatment discontinuation due to keratopathy was observed in a higher proportion of pts than that encountered in the DREAMM-2 trial. Larger prospective studies are warranted to accurately discern the effects of ocular toxicities on outcomes of pts treated with BLMF. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patel: Emmecell: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Senju Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Santen, Inc.: Consultancy. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: AbbVie: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy. Bergsagel: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Background: Achievement of a complete response (CR) to therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) early in disease course correlates with improvement in clinical outcomes, reflective of therapeutically sensitive disease biology. While depth of response is known to impact overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the effect of known prognostic variables at baseline including FISH risk and International Staging System (ISS) score outside of clinical trial settings is not well described. We sought to determine the impact of known prognostic variables in MM including FISH and ISS risk in the context of NDMM patients achieving a CR to therapy and to also examine additional predictors of outcome among this cohort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 1869 NDMM patients who had ≥ 2 consecutive monoclonal protein immunofixation (IFE) studies in the serum and urine available within 24 months from diagnosis. We identified the number of patients who had ≥ 2 negative serum and urine IFE as a surrogate for achieving CR (N=461), since a bone marrow biopsy is not routinely performed to confirm CR in the non-trial setting. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to compare median PFS and OS between patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR and a multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for known prognostic variables. A cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the prognostic impact of baseline FISH (high risk vs. standard risk) and ISS scores (3 vs.1 and 2) on PFS and OS, among patients achieving a CR vs. non-CR, and identify additional prognostically significant variables within the CR cohort. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort (n=1869) was 64 months (range: 1-199). The median time from diagnosis to achievement of CR among the CR cohort was 9.8 months (0.20-23.8 months). The median PFS for CR (n=461) vs. non-CR (n=1408) patients was 42.0 vs. 29.3 months (p 75 years, HR 2.7 (1.54-4.8; p=.0005); male gender, HR 1.5 (1.1-2.02; p=.008); serum albumin Conclusion: Attainment of an early CR in NDMM confers improvement in PFS and OS. Our study confirms these findings and suggests that achievement of CR neutralizes the impact of baseline FISH and ISS risk on PFS and OS. Among the CR cohort, age> 75 years, male sex, non-IgG involved heavy chain, and hypoalbuminemia at the time of CR predict for inferior overall survival. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy. Kumar: Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) that are refractory to a proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiDs) and CD38/SLAMF7 directed monoclonal antibodies are commonly referred to as triple class refractory (TCR). This is an increasingly common clinical problem and here we present the outcomes, prognostic markers and response to therapy for patients with TCR disease. Methods: Consecutive patients with MM diagnosed between 01/01/2013 and 12/31/2018 and seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN were included in this study after institutional review board approval. Refractoriness to therapy was defined as progression or non-responsiveness (failure to achieve at least a minimal response) to therapy within 60 days of discontinuation of therapy, based on the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus definition. Patients meeting the definition for refractory disease for at least 1 PI (bortezomib, carfilzomib or ixazomib), 1 IMiD (lenalidomide, pomalidomide or thalidomide) and 1 monoclonal antibody (daratumumab, isatuximab or elotuzumab) were considered to have TCR disease and included in the study population. The first date when patients satisfied the above-mentioned criteria for TCR was used to calculate the follow-up, progression free survival (PFS) and OS for TCR disease. The mSMART 3.0 (www.msmart.org) classification was used to characterize high-risk and standard-risk cytogenetics features in interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The currently prevalent international myeloma working group (IMWG) criteria were used for response assessment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for estimation of time-to-event endpoints. Reverse censoring was used for estimation of follow-up time. Cox regression was used for multivariate analyses. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of continuous variables and Chi square test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables, respectively Results: In this retrospective study, 249 consecutive patients with TCR status were identified. The median follow-up from diagnosis of MM till date of last follow-up was 6.8 years (95% CI: 6.3-7.3 years) and 1.9 years (95% CI: 1.6-2.4) from TCR MM to last follow-up. The median age at diagnosis of MM was 61 years (range 31-89) and at TCR was 65 years (range 32-93). The median number of lines of therapy for the entire cohort were 8 (range 1-17); the patients were exposed to a median of 5 (range 1-12) lines of therapy prior to TCR status. Baseline characteristics for the cohort are depicted in Table 1. The median time to development of triple refractory disease was 2.9 years (95% CI: 2.6-3.2 years) from diagnosis of MM. The time to TCR disease was shorter for high-risk cytogenetics at 2.3 years (95% CI: 2-2.7) compared to 3.4 years (95% CI: 3.1-4.1) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.4) p Conclusion: Patients with triple refractory MM have a guarded prognosis and demonstrate an underwhelming median PFS of 4 months and median OS of 1 year. Achievement of a deeper response to therapy at triple refractory status is associated with a prolonged PFS. High-risk cytogenetic features at diagnosis confer a negative prognosis in TCR patients. Newer therapies are the needed to sustain the improvement in outcomes for this group of patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria. Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; 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; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies remains an unmet need. Belantamab mafodotin is a first in class antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in MM utilizing a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting monomethyl auristatin F. The efficacy of belantamab in relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) patients has been reported in several randomized clinical trials. However, clinical trials have restricted patients' eligibilty. We report the "real world" efficacy and safety of belanatmab in patients treated at all three Mayo Clinic sites. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive MM patients that received at least one dose of belantamab outside a clinical trial. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR) and safety. Results: Thirty-seven RRMM patients were treated with belantamab between September 2020 and June 2021. The median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 37-83) and 64% were male. The median age at belantamab administration was 67 (IQR 59-74) and 14 patients (38%) were 70 years or older. Fifteen of 34 patients (44%) had high-risk FISH and 13 patients of 33 (39%) had ISS 3. Two patients had a creatinine of >2.5 mg/dL, and one patient was on dialysis. All three received full dose belantmab (2.5 mg/kg). The median time from diagnosis to belantamab initiation was 7 years (IQR 4-11), and the median prior lines of therapy was 8 (IQR 7-11). Twenty-seven patients (73%) underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation prior to belantamab therapy, and all patients were penta refractory (IMiD, PI, and anti CD38). Seven patients (19%) received CAR-T therapy prior to belantamab. The median number of belantamab doses administered was 3 (range 1-6). Thirty-one (84%) received belantamab monotherapy and 6 patients (16%) received belantamab in combination [pomalidomide (n=3), cyclophosphamide (n=2), or thalidomide (n=1)]. The overall response (ORR) rate to belantamab was 33% (out of 36 evaluable patients). Two patients (6%) achieved complete response (CR), 3 patients (8%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR), and 7 patients (19%) achieved partial response (PR). At data cutoff 20 patients (54%) are alive. Seventeen patients died of MM complications. The median follow-up was 6 months (IQR 3.5-7). The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort was 2 months (95% CI 1-3) and 7 months (95% CI 3--NR), respectively. Two patients died within the first cycle of belantamab (due to PD), and overall, 12 died within 100 days of belantamab therapy, all due to disease progression. Eleven patients (30%) were hospitalized during belantamab therapy. The reasons for hospitalization were related to MM in 4 patients (one patient with malignant ascites, one with hypercalcemia, 2 patients for pain management). Three patients were hospitalized due to thrombocytopenia (related to disease), and one due to an infusion-related reaction (IRR). Other reasons for hospitalization were infection (soft tissue abscess, n=1), proctitis (n=1) and tumor lysis (n=1). Keratopathy developed in 16 patients (43%). Keratopathy was grade 1 in 6 patients, grade 2 in 7 patients, and grade 3 in 3 patients. Only one patient had corneal erosions and 6 patients reported decreased visual acuity, (1 grade 3 keratopathy, 4 had grade 2 keratopathy, and 1 had grade 1 keratopathy). Two patients had IRR. Two patients reported gaining 3.5 kg each after therapy with belantamab was discontinued. Conclusions: The response rates are similar to those reported in randomized clinical trials. The role of belantamab in the era of other BCMA directed therapy (CAR-T, BiTEs) remains unclear. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Background: The absence of residual monoclonal protein in the serum and urine by IFE using specific antibodies to individual heavy and light chains has been an important part of response assessment and is required for categorizing patients as in complete response. MASS FIX has been shown to be more sensitive in picking up small amounts of monoclonal protein and represents an advancement in the field. Ongoing studies are examining the clinical significance of this increased sensitivity. We designed the following study using clinically obtained test results to examine this question. Patients and methods: The clinical laboratory at Mayo Clinic changed the process from IFE to MASS FIX in July 2018. We identified patients who had sequential testing before and after this date and collected test results from the last IFE prior to the date of transition and the first MASS FIX after the date of transition. Patients were grouped based on the paired results and outcomes compared between groups. Time to next therapy (TTNT) was defined as the time from the first MASS FIX date to the start of next therapy. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and these curves were compared using log rank test. Results: Overall, 739 patients with MM, who had a MASS FIX within 12 months of the IFE were studied; 380 (51%) patients had a negative IFE prior to implementation of MASS FIX. These patients had a MASS FIX test performed at a median of 3.7 (0.03-12) months from the last available IFE. The gap between IFE and MASS FIX was Conclusion: The results suggest that the additional sensitivity offered by MASS FIX have clinical significance in patients with MM, given that patients with residual disease identified by MASS FIX have an earlier relapse. The data supports the use of the more sensitive MASS FIX in the laboratory compared to the conventional IFE approaches. The study has the disadvantage that the samples were not tested simultaneously and some of the samples turning positive may reflect an early evidence of relapse, but the relative consistency of the finding irrespective of the gap between the tests argues against that. Ongoing studies are examining MASS FIX on the samples that were called to be negative by IFE initially. Figure Disclosures Murray: The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Gertz:Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Background: Newly diagnosed patients with AL Amyloidosis are a heterogeneous population, ranging from incidentally found nephrotic syndrome to delayed advanced cardiac disease. For the purposes of trials, patients with the highest-risk disease are often excluded from trial participation. An NT-proBNP of 8500 or higher is the criterion most often used for exclusion from clinical trials due to high rates of early death. It is well documented that overall survival is improving over time, in part due to earlier diagnosis and in part due to more effective therapies. It is our aim to describe outcomes of patients with very high (NT-proBNP >=8500) and advanced stage amyloidosis excluding very high (VH) NT-proBNP. Methods: To address this need, we examined the outcomes of AL patients diagnosed between 1/2012 and 7/2020 and seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis. Of the 1290 patients, 291 were seen beyond the 90 day threshold and were thus excluded. Another 170 patients were excluded due to missing biomarkers to calculate stage, leaving 829 patients for our analysis. Thresholds for troponins and BNPs were used according to Muchtar Blood 133(7):2019 to correct for assay used. The vast majority of patients had troponin T measured, and for them the 0.025 mcg/L and the 0.035 mcg/L cut-points were used for the 2012 and 2004 staging systems. A minority of patients did not have troponin T, but rather high sensitivity troponin T (n=129) or troponin I (n=23). For patients with high sensitivity troponin T, cut-points of 41 and 50 ng/L were used, respectively, for the 2012 and 2004 systems, and for patients with troponin I only, a cut-point of 0.1 mcg/L was used for both systems. In the 3 patients with no NT-proBNP but with BNP, 400 and 81 ng/L were used respectively for the 2012 and 2004 systems; otherwise, the 1800 ng/L and 332 ng/L cut-offs were used. A BNP of > 700 ng/L was considered equivalent to NT-proBNP greater than or equal to 8500 ng/L. For the 2012 system, the dFLC of 18 mg/dL was used as a cut-off. Survival estimates were done using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival were by determined by Log-Rank. Results: The median age of patients was 65 (range 29, 89), and 65% were male. 148 (17%) of these newly diagnosed patients had a VH (>=8500) NT-proBNP. Patients with VH NT-proBNP were older (67 versus 64 years, p=0.004). Only 4% of the VH NT-proBNP patients received an ASCT in contrast to 34% without VH NT-proBNP. With a median follow-up of 30 months for surviving patients, median OS for VH NT-proBNP patients was 3.3 months in contrast to patients without VH NT-proBNP at 68.4 months (Figure). Breakdown of early death for patients with VH NT-proBNP by stage is shown in Table. Of Mayo 2012 patients staged I, II, III, and IV, the percent of patients with VH NT-proBNP was 0, 3, 20, and 45%. In contrast, for the European modification of the Mayo 2004 system, the percent with VH NT-proBNP by stage was 0, 6, 0, 100 for stages I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Among the VH NT-proBNP patients, there was stage discrimination using the Mayo 2012 system (6-month death rates were 17, 45, and 66% for patients with stages II, III, and IV, respectively, p=0.02). In contrast, using the Mayo 2004 system in the patients with VH NT-proBNP, 6-month death rates were 45 and 60% for stage II and IIIb patients, respectively (p= 0.12). Among patients without VH NT-proBNP, rates of death in the first year were 21% including stage I patients whose death rates were well under 10%. Patients without VH NT-proBNP but Mayo 2012 Stage III and IV had 1-year mortalities of 28 and 43% respectively. Using the modified Mayo 2004 system, excluding the VH NT-proBNP 1-year mortality was 19 and 37% for patients with stage II and IIIa, respectively. Discussion: Establishing expected outcomes for the sickest AL amyloidosis patients is a means by which trials can be designed for these patients with an unmet need. Patients with VH NT-proBNP should be considered for specially designed trials, and patients without VH NT-proBNP and advanced stage should be included in trials for newly diagnosed patients regardless of stage as long as there is appropriate stratification. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Gertz:Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease that may be evaluated by a broad array of imaging and laboratory techniques to measure disease activity and predict prognosis. FDG PET/CT has been shown to be predictive of patient outcomes throughout the disease course, with several studies demonstrating that PET/CT is an independent prognostic factor for progression free survival and overall survival (OS). We sought to corroborate these findings by specifically examining the prognostic impact of PET/CT in the post-transplant setting. We retrospectively analyzed PET/CT in MM patients after consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and correlated these findings with time to progression (TTP) and OS to assess the impact of day 100 PET/CT findings as an independent prognostic factor. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 231 myeloma patients who underwent ASCT between 2003-2016 and had a FDG PET/CT exam available for analysis at an average of day 104 post-transplant. We recorded the findings on PET/CT prior to transplant, where available. PET/CT without evidence of active/residual disease (PET-) was defined per IMWG guidelines (disappearance of every area of increased tracer uptake found on preceding PET/CT, or uptake < mediastinal blood pool, or decrease < surrounding normal tissue). PET/CT indicating active disease (PET+) was defined as any abnormal uptake or incompletely resolved uptake from previous exam. A Kaplan-Meier model was used to estimate median TTP and OS and the 2-sided log-rank test to compare groups. TTP and OS were calculated from the date of ASCT to the date of confirmed disease progression or death, respectively. Outcomes were then compared among patients with a PET/CT versus those without a PET/CT post-ASCT to assess for the presence of selection bias. A proportional hazards fit model was used for multivariate analysis. Results: The median length of follow-up for the entire cohort was 49 months (range: 43-58 mo), median TTP was 18.5 months (95% CI; 15.4-21.8), and median OS was 61.5 months (95% CI; 49-75). Among the entire cohort (n=231), 150 (65%) patients had a positive PET/CT exam at day 100 post-ASCT while 81 (35%) had a negative PET exam. There were 195 (84%) patients with a PET/CT exam prior to ASCT available for comparison, of which 161 (85%) were PET+ and 29 (15%) were PET-. Median time between PET/CT exams was 4.1 months (range 1.4-55). Median TTP among PET+ patients near day 100 was 12.4 months vs. 24 months PET- patients (p Conclusions: MM is a heterogeneous disease that relies on different assessments for determining response, activity, and prognosis. Among these, PET/CT has shown promise in predicting prognosis, independent of disease state and conventional prognostic factors. Our study confirms these findings, demonstrating that an abnormal PET/CT near day 100 post-transplant is predictive of shorter TTP and OS. This prognostic significance remained even after adjusting for disease response (CR vs. non-CR), which could be explained by the sometimes patchy distribution of myeloma in the bone marrow, and identification of extramedullary disease by PET/CT. Taken together, these results demonstrate a possible role for incorporating PET/CT in the post-transplant setting as an independent prognostic variable in stratifying disease risk. Disclosures Dingli: Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Gertz:NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; i3Health: Consultancy; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Lytic bone lesions are one of the most common clinical characteristics of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and identification of bone lesions help distinguish between patients with smoldering multiple MM and active MM. Given this, the most recent update of the diagnostic criteria for MM incorporates advanced imaging approaches for distinguishing between the two entities. Several small retrospective studies have compared conventional skeletal survey (SS) with whole-body low dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) scan or the CT portion of a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Conducting prospective studies comparing these two modalities side by side is limited by the radiation exposure. We undertook this study to provide a comparison between these two imaging modalities in terms of their ability to recognize lytic bone lesions in patients with MM. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients with the diagnosis of MM treated at Mayo Cinic Hospital during 2004- 2018. Patients were included if they had a conventional skeletal survey no more than 3 months before MM diagnosis or any time after diagnosis and also had a WBLDCT or PET-CT within a 12-month period following the skeletal survey. We chose this approach since it is unlikely that a patient would have had both modalities done at the same time as part of standard of care (SOC). This approach was also facilitated by a gradual change in our SOC for skeletal imaging from conventional skeletal survey to WBLDCT. To measure the robustness of our findings, we performed a sensitivity analysis in patients who had the exam ≤6 months apart. Proportions were compared using a chi-square test and survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan- Meier methodology and compared using log rank test. Results: The overall study cohort had 1040 patients, median age was 62 years at diagnosis (range, 24-94), 61% were male and 39% were female. The median time to the skeletal survey was 8 months from diagnosis (range, 0-160) and the median time to WBLDCT or PET-CT from SS was 2 months (0-12). A PET-CT was available in 789 (76%) of patients and WBLDCT in 251 (24%) of patients. Among the 300 patients with no lesions identified by SS, 188 (63%) had lytic lesions identified by CT, while in 60/740 (8%) patients with a positive SS did not have lytic lesions observed on the CT (p Conclusion: Skeletal survey has been the screening technique of choice for evaluation of bone involvement in MM for decades. However, CT based approaches have higher sensitivity with lytic lesions identified in a higher proportion of patients. The prognostic value of lytic disease is evident with CT based detection, again suggesting that this provides a more accurate estimate of the skeletal disease burden. Low dose CT rather than conventional radiographs should be the modality of choice for monitoring disease-progression and diagnosing active multiple myeloma. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Since 2018, immunoenrichment-based matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), termed MASS-FIX, has replaced standard gel-based immunofixation for the detection and isotyping of serum monoclonal proteins at Mayo Clinic. MASS-FIX can readily identify N-glycosylation of involved light chains (LC N-glycosylation) by its unique, polytypic spectral pattern. LC N-glycosylation is identified more commonly in light chain amyloidosis (AL) than other plasma cell disorders (PCDs), and is associated with an increased risk of progression from MGUS to both AL and other PCDs (Dispenzieri et. al. Leukemia 2020). Herein, we report the mass spectral characteristics and distribution of diagnoses among 222 patients with LC N-glycosylation detected during a 20 month period in our clinical lab. Methods: MASS-FIX was performed on patient samples as previously described (Kohlhagen et. al. Clin Chem Lab 2020). Demographics and laboratory data, including quantitative M-spike, serum free light chains (FLC), and quantitative immunoglobulins at the time of MASS-FIX were recorded. For patients with multiple samples during the study period, only the initial MASS-FIX was evaluated. 9195 unique patients had MASS-FIX performed from 7/24/2018 to 03/06/2020. Inclusion criteria for this retrospective study included: 1) consent for record review; 2) a monoclonal protein identified on MASS-FIX; 3) an underlying PCD. Patients were considered to have negative results (2211 in total) on MASS-FIX if: 1) no monoclonal protein was identified (1081, 49%); 2) the interpretation was "cannot rule out monoclonal protein" (945, 43%); 3) multiple, nonspecific spectral peaks were identified consistent with immune reconstitution (29, 1%); or 4) the only monoclonal protein identified was consistent with a therapeutic monoclonal antibody (156, 7%). The final positive cohort consisted of 4118 patients with definitive monoclonal proteins on MASS-FIX. Results: Two-hundred and twenty-two (5%) of the 4118 patients with a positive MASS-FIX had LC N-glycosylation. 202 patients (91%) had FLC assays performed. Of these, 110 (54%) were kappa LC restricted, 22 (11%) were lambda restricted, and 70 (35%) were normal. A quantifiable M-spike was identified in 110 patients (85%) of 129 patients who had serum protein electrophoresis performed. By MASS-FIX, 139 patients (63%) had an IgG isotype, 18 (8%) an IgA, and 55 (25%) an IgM. Two of these patients had a bi-clonal pattern in which both IgG kappa and IgM kappa LCs were N-glycosylated. 12 patients (5%) had monoclonal light chains with no corresponding heavy chain. Overall, 173 (78%) of 222 patients were kappa LC restricted and 44 (22%) were lambda. 189 patients (85%) had a monoclonal pattern, 18 (8%) had a bi-clonal pattern, and 3 (1%) had a tri-clonal pattern. The most common PCD diagnoses for the 222 patients with LC N-glycosylation were MGUS (45%), multiple myeloma (MM) (31%), and immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL) (8%). The percentage of MASS-FIX positive patients with LC N-glycosylation by diagnosis, stratified by kappa and lambda LC restriction, is illustrated in Figure 1. Cold agglutinin disease (CAD) had the highest relative percentage of patients with LC N-glycosylation, regardless of LC restriction. Eighteen AL patients (5%) had LC N-glycosylation; the percentage was higher in kappa restricted (13%) than lambda restricted AL patients (2%). Of note, LC N-glycosylation was not detected in patients with plasma cell leukemia, non-AL amyloidosis with associated MGUS, POEMS Syndrome or Castleman's Disease in this cross sectional sampling of patients. Conclusions: This retrospective study demonstrates that 5% of patients in a routine clinical setting with positive MASS-FIX have glycosylated LCs. Consistent with prior observations, CAD had the highest relative percentage of LC N-glycosylated patients. The percentage of AL patients with LC N-glycosylation in this cohort is lower than previously reported for newly diagnosed AL patients (Kumar et. al. Leukemia 2019), which is not surprising given that the current cohort study is a cross sectional evaluation of patients at various stages of diagnosis and treatment rather than a prevalence study. Further study will be done to exclude the presence of latent AL in patients with N-glycosylated LC and diagnoses of MGUS, SMM, MM, and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Disclosures Gertz: Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Abbvie: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murray:The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed MM can be quite symptomatic as a result of end organ damage related to MM as well as presence of other comorbidities in this relatively older patient population. Prior studies have shown that the performance score as well as other quality of life (QOL), frailty and comorbidities scores can have prognostic value in these patients. However, many of these questionnaires are lengthy and complex, and not practical in a busy outpatient practice. We implemented a three question symptom assessment score in 2010 in our outpatient practice. Here we present the results of the analysis looking at the impact of this measurement in patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients seen in the outpatient Hematology practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, were asked to grade the symptoms of fatigue, pain, and QOL on a 0 to 10 scale during the past 7 days, with 10 being the worst and the QOL on a similar scale but with 10 being the best. For the purpose of the current analysis the QOL score was reversed.These three scores were added for a total score. We looked at the impact of the baseline score as well as the score after four cycles of therapy, at the time of best response, and at the time of the first progression, wherever they were available. Survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for assessment of the impact of different prognostic variables. Results: Data from 735 patients with newly diagnosed MM seen at Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2018 were available from baseline. The median total score was 10 (0-30), and for fatigue, pain and QOL were 4, 3 and 7 respectively, all with range of 0-10. Based on the baseline scores, patients were grouped into tertiles (Group 1 with score < 8, group 2 with score 8 to 14 and group 3 with a score ≥ 15). There were 256 (34%), 272 (37%) and 207 (28%) patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The median overall survival (OS) (95% CI) from diagnosis was NR (7.9, NR), 7.7 (6.2, NR) and 5.4 (4.2, 6.9), respectively for groups 1, 2 and 3 (P < 0.0001) (Figure 1a). The prognostic value of the score was independent of age, FISH based risk status and the ISS stage. When evaluated after 4 cycles (n=325), the OS was significantly different for the 3 groups (P Conclusions:Patient-reported outcomes are associated with survival in patients with MM. This simple, easy to complete patient-reported outcome 3-item scale can be easily completed in a busy practice and is a clinically useful tool to assess potential outcomes of patients at various disease stages, including at diagnosis and at relapse. Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Oncolytic virotherapy is a novel immunomodulatory therapeutic approach for relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies. The Indiana strain of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) has been engineered to encode interferon beta (IFNβ) and sodium iodine symporter (NIS) to produce VSV-IFNβ-NIS. The virally encoded IFNβ serves as an index of viral proliferation and enhances host anti-tumor immunity. The NIS is inserted as a reporter gene into the viral genome to enable noninvasive monitoring of viral spread using PET/CT imaging. Here we present results of Arm A (patients with low tumor burden) of the Phase I clinical trial (NCT03017820) of intravenous administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS for patients (pts) with relapsed refractory hematological malignancies: MM, AML, and TCL. Methods: This was a classical 3+3 phase I trial, starting at 5x10^9 TCID50 (50% tissue culture infectious dose) level 1 through 1.7x10^11 TCID50 dose level 4 given as a single IV dose. The primary objective was determining the maximum tolerated dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS alone; secondary objectives include estimating the safety profile and preliminary efficacy. Correlative objectives include monitoring the pharmacodynamics of viral replication through SPECT/CT imaging with NIS gene, viremia, virus shedding and changes in the immune profile of peripheral blood leukocytes. Adverse events (AEs) are reported based on CTCAE v4; cytokine release syndrome (CRS) grading was based on Lee (Blood 2014; 124(2):188-195) criteria. Results: From April 2017, 12 pts have received IV VSV-IFNβ-NIS in Arm A: MM (7), TCL(4) and AML(1); 3 pts were treated at each dose level (DL) 1 to 4. At DL1, there were five grade 3 hematologic AEs (leukopenia [1], neutropenia [1], lymphopenia [3]) and no grade 3+ non-hematologic AEs. At DL2, three grade 3 hematologic AEs (anemia [2], lymphopenia [1]), four grade 4 hematologic AEs (neutropenia [1], leukopenia [1], lymphopenia [1] and thrombocytopenia [1]). There was 1 event of grade 2 CRS at DL2, two grade 3 non-hematologic AEs (nausea [1], dehydration [1]). At DL3, there was one grade 4 hematologic AE (neutropenia [1]), three grade 3 hematologic AEs (lymphopenia [2], leukopenia [1]), and one grade 3 non-hematologic AE (vasovagal reaction [1]). One grade 2 and grade 1 CRS by Lee criteria were observed. At DL4, there were three grade 3 hematologic AEs (lymphopenia [1], neutropenia [1], thrombocytopenia [1]), and three grade 3 non-hematologic AEs (AST increase [1], skin infection [1], soft tissue infection [1])and two grade 2 CRS. There were no dose limiting toxicities. There was one partial response (DL2) and one complete response (DL4); 3 pts had stable disease, 7 pts progressed. The MM pts receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS at DL4 had stable disease. Six of the 7 MM pts demonstrated transient reduction in serum level of involved free light chain (LC) after VSV-IFNβ-NIS infusion, with median 20.4% reduction of the involved LC within 48 hrs. Viremia was detectable in all pts at the end of infusion, to varying levels at 30 mins, 1, 2, 4, 24, 48h or 72 hrs post infusion. No persistent viremia was observed. No infectious virus was recovered in buccal swabs or urine and neutralizing anti-VSV antibodies were present by day 29. The IFN levels were detectable within 30 minutes of infusion and peaked between 4 and 48 hrs. The pts with a diagnosis of TCL mounted higher hIFNβ levels within 48 hrs. Remarkably, the TCL pt with CR (DL4) mounted a peak hIFNβ response of 18213.3pg/ml at 48 hrs post infusion, approximately 15-fold higher than any other pt enrolled in the study; and highest neutralizing antibody titer (1:40960). Conclusion: VSV-IFNβ-NIS can be safely administered by intravenous infusion in pts with hematological malignancies, up to a dose level of 1.7 x 1011 TCID50, without dose limiting toxicities and no CRS higher than grade 2. In this small phase 1 study, pts with T-cell lymphoma demonstrated the strongest signal of response, with one confirmed partial response at DL2 and one complete response at DL4. IFNβ is an early biomarker of tumor susceptibility; the magnitude of IFNβ elevation appears to correlate with treatment response. There were no confirmed responses in pts with MM, but the 20.4% transient reduction in LC suggests that combination strategies with VSV-IFNβ-NIS may result in deeper and sustained responses in MM. Future trials investigating combination strategies with immune modulatory drugs are being planned. Disclosures Peng: Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. Witzig:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Celgene: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; i3Health: Consultancy; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Kumar:Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. OffLabel Disclosure: This describes of administration of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Genetically Engineered to Express NIS and human interferon, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hematologic malignacies

Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and dexamethasone is the current standard induction therapy for myeloma. Daratumumab (Dara), a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, is highly effective in treating myeloma and improves response rates and progression free survival (PFS) when added to PI or IMiD. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an effective, all oral, induction regimen that has been studied in phase 2 and 3 trials. We designed this trial to examine the feasibility and efficacy of adding daratumumab to the IRd regimen as well as early discontinuation of dexamethasone in two sequential cohorts of patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated MM who had measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled, irrespective of their autologous stem cell transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response to IRD-Dara combination. A one-stage binomial design was utilized in each cohort independently to test the null hypothesis that the complete response rate is at most 25% against the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 45%, with 89% power and 9% type I error. Treatment involved 28-day cycles consisting of ixazomib 4 mg days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21, dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly and Dara 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks thereafter during induction (12-cyles) followed by Dara-ixazomib maintenance (maximum 24 cycles). Cohorts A (n=38) and B (N=40) comprised the study population, with dexamethasone discontinued after two cycles in Cohort B. Results: Baseline demographics and patient disposition are outlined in the table. Among those who have gone off study, 9 and 5 patients, respectively in Cohort A and B went off for progression, while 11 and 8 patients in the respective arms discontinued treatment for an alternative therapy, most frequently a transplant. Responses were rapid and deepened over the duration of treatment as shown in the figure; 32% of patients in Cohort A and 28% of patients in Cohort B achieved a complete response; 29% and 23%, respectively, achieved a marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status. After a median follow up was 31.4 months for Cohort A and 18.2 months for Cohort B, median PFS has not been reached in either cohort. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 58% of patients in Cohort A (hematologic in 47% and non-hematologic in 26%) and 50% of patients in Cohort B (hematologic 43%, non-hematologic 20%). The most common toxicities included fatigue, neutropenia, lymphopenia, peripheral neuropathy and nausea. Stem cells were collected in 30 and 31 patients in Cohorts A and B respectively; median (range) of CD34 cells/kg were 8.5 (2.8, 15.9) x 106and 7.0 (2.9, 12.1) x 106, with plerixafor used in 83% and 94% of patients, respectively, in Cohorts A and B as per our standard of care "on-demand" approach based on blood CD34 count. Conclusion: Dara-IRd is an active regimen in newly diagnosed MM, with high overall rates of response and deep responses that improved over time with therapy. Early discontinuation of dexamethasone does not appear to impact the depth, rate or kinetics of response. The toxicities were manageable, with dose modifications. All patients were able to collect stem cells when required, though majority needed plerixafor. Disclosures Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Sanofi: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.

Background: The past two decades have seen an explosion in the development of new drugs for the treatment of myeloma, and previous studies have shown that these advances have translated into improved survival. It is unclear if we have continued to maintain the pace of improvement in the recent years. We designed this study to examine the patterns of survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM, specifically examining the impact on patient subgroups by age and disease risk. Patients and Methods: We included patients with newly diagnosed MM, who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 2004 and 2018. We grouped them into three 5-year groups: group 1 (2004-2008), group 2 (2009-2013) and group 3 (2014-2018) to assess the trends over time. Only those who were seen within 6 months of diagnosis were included in the current cohort. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed using clg based approach as previously described and high risk (HR) was defined as those with t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) and del17p. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the prognostic impact of various clinical and laboratory factors. Results: The study cohort had 3783 patients: 61% were male, median age was 64 years (range 22-96), 47% were ≥65 and 14% ≥75 years. There was no change over time in the median age or the gender distribution. No clear trends were evident across the groups in terms of the disease characteristics including high risk status. The patients in the cohort were divided into three 5 year groups: Group 1(2004-2008; n=1045), Group 2(2009-2013; n=1237) and Group 3(2014-2018; n=1501). The initial treatment regimen changed over time to include proteasome inhibitors (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) based regimens with a PI-IMiD combination being 2%, 18% and 55% respectively in groups 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 1). The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 6.8 years (95% CI; 6.5,6.9), and for groups 1, 2 and 3 were 13 years, 8 years and 3.2 years respectively. The median OS for the entire group was 6.8 years (95% CI; 6.4, 7.2). The median OS from diagnosis has improved over time with the groups 1, 2, and 3 having a median OS (95% CI) of 5.5 years (5.1, 6.1), 7.3 years (6.7, 8.0) and NR respectively(P=0.0001) (Figure 2). We specifically looked at the 1, 2 and 3-year survival over the years and found a steady trend for improvement (Figure 3). When examining trends by age, those under 65 years had improvement in survival from group 1 to 2; median OS was 7.3 years, 10 years and NR for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (P=0.0001) . Those above 65 had major improvement from group 2 to 3; median OS was 4.4 years, 5.2 years and NR for groups 1,2 and 3 respectively (P=0.0001). When examined by FISH risk status, improvement in OS was seen among with Standard Risk (SR) status, especially during the last 5-year period. The median OS for patients with HR status was 3.5 years, 4.5 years and NR (P=0.07); and 7.6 years, 8.6 years and NR in patients with SR status (P=0.0012) for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Conclusion: In a large cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM, we have been able to demonstrate sustained improvement in OS over the years, likely driven by introduction of new drugs and continued use of transplant. The impact of newer generation of drugs, especially monoclonal antibodies is not reflected in this analysis and will likely become obvious over the next five years. The data will help identify the areas that require focus for continued improvements in order to derive the maximum impact on outcomes. Disclosures Kapoor: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other. Dispenzieri:Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Russell:Imanis: Other: Equity Ownership. Lin:Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy. Kumar:Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments.

Background: Within the heterogeneous genomic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), clonal evolution including the acquisition of risk-defining mutations and chromosomal abnormalities is a recurrent event and can be detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The effects of acquired abnormalities on clinical outcomes have not been well defined. We previously reported that patients who acquired 17p deletion [del(17p)] during the course of their disease had a significantly reduced overall survival (OS) by 38 months compared to patients who did not acquire del17p (Lakshman et al 2019). Similarly, while de novo gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 (1q22 gain) is a known high-risk aberration associated with significantly shorter OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in MM, the prognostic significance of acquired 1q22 gain has not been described. The primary objective of this study was to analyze factors predictive for acquired 1q22 gain and determine its impact on survival. Methods: We identified MM patients from the Mayo Clinic Dysproteinemia Database who had at least one follow up FISH performed ≥6 months from diagnosis. The clinical characteristics, concomitant cytogenetic abnormalities, first line treatments administered, and OS were compared between patients with acquired 1q22 gain and patients who did not acquire this abnormality. The Mayo Clinic IRB approved this study. Results: A total of 1041 MM patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 63 patients (6.1%) had acquired 1q22 gain, defined as being negative for 1q22 gain on initial FISH at diagnosis and having this abnormality detected on subsequent FISH. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years and 56% were male. Median time to acquisition of 1q22 gain was 60 months (range 8-140 months). We identified one control patient for each case who was diagnosed within one year of the case and had a subsequent FISH performed at a similar duration from diagnosis. Patients with acquired 1q22 gain had similar baseline characteristics except for a higher proportion of high-risk (HR) FISH at diagnosis [t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and del(17p13)] when compared to controls (27% HR FISH versus 6% HR FISH; P The median follow up of all 126 patients was 6.8 years. There was a statistically significant reduction in median OS from diagnosis in patients with acquired 1q22 gain compared to the control group (10.8 years versus 13.0 years; P = 0.02; Figure 1). Predictors of acquisition of 1q22 gain were identified using a case-control method. Age ≥70 at diagnosis and presence of HR FISH at baseline appeared to increase the risk of acquiring 1q22 gain. Conclusion: Acquisition of 1q22 gain is a relatively uncommon occurrence, but notably reduced OS by 2.2 years compared to patients who did not acquire 1q22 during the course of their disease (P = 0.02). Older age and the presence of HR FISH at diagnosis increased the risk of acquisition of 1q22 gain. The presence of high-risk translocations at baseline suggests that acquisition of 1q22 gain occurs in the context of more aggressive disease biology. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding.

Background: Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has shown efficacy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed light chain (AL) amyloidosis, and the combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is a commonly used regimen in AL. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved, and the combination of ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is an all oral effective regimen for the treatment of multiple myeloma. This phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen in patients with AL, who have not received any therapy. Patients and methods: Newly diagnosed patients with biopsy proven AL amyloidosis, with organ involvement requiring therapy, were enrolled if they had measurable disease (Serum immunoglobulin free light chain ≥5 mg/dL AND abnormal serum free light chain ratio) and adequate organ function. Patients with severe organ involvement were excluded (Alkaline phosphatase >750 U/L, creatinine clearance Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, median age was 67 (range 38-78) years; 69% were male. Organ involvement included cardiac in 23 (65.7%), renal in 19 (54.3%), and nervous system involvement in 5 (14.3%). At data cutoff 8 patients still remain on study with a median follow up of 4.4 months for those who are alive. Across the trial a median of 4 cycles (range 0-23) of treatment have been completed; the most common reason for going off study was institution of alternate therapy in 17 patients (63%). The overall hematologic response was 57% (20/35) and included amyloid CR in 5 (14%), VGPR in 9 (26%) and a PR in 6 (17%) patients. Confirmed organ responses have been observed in 5 patients so far, 2 each for cardiac and renal and 1 hepatic. The median PFS and OS have not been reached; 4 patients had hematological progression; 6 patients (17%) have died. Across 193 cycles of treatment administered, dose modification was required in 5, 3, and 10 patients, respectively, for ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. A grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE), at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 41% of patients. The figure shows the maximum grade of adverse events for individual patients seen in more than one patient across the study. Conclusions: The all-oral regimen of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone is active in patients with previously untreated AL amyloidosis with hematologic responses observed in 57% of patients, including complete responses. Organ response has been observed but will likely need longer follow up for accurate assessment, given the delay in organ responses in this disease. Further evaluation of this combination is warranted. Disclosures Gertz: Alnylam: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: 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. Dingli:Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding.

Introduction: Since 2018, immunoenrichment-based matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), termed MASS-FIX, has replaced immunofixation for the detection and isotyping of serum monoclonal proteins at Mayo Clinic. MASS-FIX has advantages including increased sensitivity, specificity, and the ability to distinguish therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we report the laboratory characteristics and distribution of diagnoses of patients tested clinically at Mayo Clinic. Methods: MASS-FIX was performed on patient samples as previously described (Kohlhagen et. al. Clin Chem Lab 2020). Demographics and laboratory data, including quantitative M-spike, serum free light chains (FLC), and quantitative immunoglobulins at the time of MASS-FIX were recorded. For patients with multiple samples during the study period, only the initial MASS-FIX was evaluated. We identified 9195 unique patients with MASS-FIX performed between 7/24/2018 and 3/6/2020. Seven-thousand nine hundred and forty-six patients provided consent for study enrollment, and 7689 had data available on index diagnosis. Given considerable variability in the interpretation of diagnostic criteria for light chain (LC) MGUS, patients with this diagnosis (1360, 18%) were excluded. Patients were considered to have negative results (2211 in total) on MASS-FIX if: 1) no monoclonal protein was identified (1081, 49%); 2) the interpretation was "cannot rule out monoclonal protein" (945, 43%); 3) multiple, nonspecific spectral peaks were identified consistent with immune reconstitution (29, 1%); or 4) the only monoclonal protein identified was consistent with a therapeutic monoclonal antibody (156, 7%). Results: The final cohort consisted of 4118 patients with a positive MASS-FIX and 2211 patients with a negative MASS-FIX, all in the setting of underlying PCDs. Figure 1 illustrates the numbers and percentages of patients who are MASS-FIX positive versus MASS-FIX negative by diagnosis. MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM) were the most common diagnoses overall, and both were more common in the MASS-FIX positive cohort. More than 90% of patients with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM), smoldering WM, smoldering MM, and cold agglutinin disease were positive by MASS-FIX. For MASS-FIX positive patients, IgG isotype was identified in 2575 patients (63%), IgA in 703 (17%) and IgM in 710 (17%). Bence Jones proteinemia was identified in 283 patients (7%) with lambda restriction being the most common (57%). 3625 patients (88%) had a monoclonal pattern, 228 patients (6%) had a bi-clonal pattern, and 7 ( Conclusions: This single institution experience illustrates the practicality of MASS-FIX in detecting and following monoclonal proteins for a wide range of PCDs in a tertiary center. In this cohort, the percentage of patients who were MASS-FIX positive varied by diagnosis, reflecting cross sectional sampling of patients throughout their disease course. Disclosures Gertz: Research to Practice: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Kapoor:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Lin:Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Murray:The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: Patent Use of Mass Spec to identify monoclonal proteins licensed to The Binding Site. Dispenzieri:Alnylam, Intellia, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Prothena, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

In light of major advances in immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, we evaluated the trends in presentation, management, and outcome among 1551 newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients seen in our institution from 2000 to 2014. As compared with the 2 intervals 2000-2004 and 2005-2009, patients diagnosed in 2010-2014 were less likely to have >2 involved organs. Utilization of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) was similar across all periods, about one-third of patients, but there was an increase in the use of pre-ASCT bortezomib induction and of unattenuated melphalan conditioning in 2010-2014 compared with earlier periods. Non-ASCT first-line regimen changed with 65% of patients in 2010-2014 received bortezomib-based therapy, 79% of patients in 2005-2009 received melphalan-dexamethasone, and 64% of patients in 2000-2004 received melphalan-prednisone. The rate of better than very good partial response (VGPR) was higher in more recent periods (66% vs 58% vs 51%; P = .001), a change largely driven by improved VGPR rates in the non-ASCT population. Overall survival (OS) has improved, with inflection points for improvement differing for the ASCT and non-ASCT groups. In the ASCT population, the greatest gains were after 2010 (4-year OS, 91% compared with 73% and 65%). In the non-ASCT group, greatest gains were after 2005 (4-year OS, 38%, 32%, and 16%). Fewer patients died within 6 months of diagnosis in the 2 later periods (24% vs 25% vs 37%; P < .001). Overall, outcomes among patients with AL amyloidosis have improved with earlier diagnosis, higher rates of VGPR, lower early mortality, and improved OS.

Introduction: Abnormal metaphase cytogenetics are associated with inferior survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). These abnormalities are only detected in one third of cases due to the low proliferative rate of plasma cells. It is unknown if metaphase cytogenetics improve risk stratification when using contemporary prognostic models such as the revised international staging system (R-ISS), which incorporates interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Aims: The aims of this study were to 1) characterize the association between abnormalities on metaphase cytogenetics and overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed MM treated with novel agents and 2) evaluate whether the addition of metaphase cytogenetics to R-ISS, age, and plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) improves model discrimination with respect to OS. Methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 483 newly diagnosed MM patients treated with proteasome inhibitors (PI) and/or immunomodulators (IMID) who had metaphase cytogenetics performed prior to initiation of therapy. Abnormal metaphase cytogenetics were defined as MM specific abnormalities, while normal metaphase cytogenetics included constitutional cytogenetic variants, age-related Y chromosome loss, and normal metaphase karyotypes. Multivariable adjusted proportional hazards regression models were fit for the association between known prognostic factors and OS. Covariates associated with inferior OS on multivariable analysis included R-ISS stage, age ≥ 70, PCLI ≥ 2, and abnormal metaphase cytogenetics. We devised a risk scoring system weighted by their respective hazard ratios (R-ISS II +1, R-ISS III + 2, age ≥ 70 +2, PCLI ≥ 2 +1, metaphase cytogenetic abnormalities + 1). Low (LR), intermediate (IR), and high risk (HR) groups were established based on risk scores of 0-1, 2-3, and 4-5 in modeling without metaphase cytogenetics, and scores of 0-1, 2-3, and 4-6 in modeling incorporating metaphase cytogenetics, respectively. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival analysis was stratified by LR, IR, and HR groups in models 1) excluding metaphase cytogenetics 2) including metaphase cytogenetics and 3) including metaphase cytogenetics, with IR stratified by presence and absence of metaphase cytogenetic abnormalities. Survival estimates were compared between groups using the log-rank test. Harrell's C was used to compare the predictive power of risk modeling with and without metaphase cytogenetics. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 66 (31-95), 281 patients (58%) were men, median follow up was 5.5 years (0.04-14.4), and median OS was 6.4 years (95% CI 5.7-6.8). Ninety-seven patients (20%) were R-ISS stage I, 318 (66%) stage II, and 68 (14%) stage III. One-hundred and fourteen patients (24%) had high-risk abnormalities by FISH, and 115 (24%) had abnormal metaphase cytogenetics. Three-hundred and thirteen patients (65%) received an IMID, 119 (25%) a PI, 51 (10%) received IMID and PI, and 137 (28%) underwent upfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). On multivariable analysis, R-ISS (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29-1.97, p < 0.001), age ≥ 70 (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.83-2.93, p < 0.001), PCLI ≥ 2, (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.16-2.00, p=0.002) and abnormalities on metaphase cytogenetics (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.75, p=0.019) were associated with inferior OS. IR and HR groups experienced significantly worse survival compared to LR groups in models excluding (Figure 1A) and including (Figure 1B) the effect of metaphase cytogenetics (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, the inclusion of metaphase cytogenetics did not improve discrimination. Likewise, subgroup analysis of IR patients by the presence or absence of metaphase cytogenetic abnormalities did not improve risk stratification (Figure 1C) (p < 0.001). The addition of metaphase cytogenetics to risk modeling with R-ISS stage, age ≥ 70, and PCLI ≥ 2 did not improve prognostic performance when evaluated by Harrell's C (c=0.636 without cytogenetics, c=0.642 with cytogenetics, absolute difference 0.005, 95% CI 0.002-0.012, p=0.142). Conclusions: Abnormalities on metaphase cytogenetics at diagnosis are associated with inferior OS in MM when accounting for the effects of R-ISS, age, and PCLI. However, the addition of metaphase cytogenetics to prognostic modeling incorporating these covariates did not significantly improve risk stratification. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding. Leung:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Background: A variety of risk factors have been described in multiple myeloma and current risk assessment incorporates ISS stage with specific FISH results and serum LDH (R-ISS). However, this model does not include all the current abnormalities described as prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma. Importantly, the impact of many of these high-risk abnormalities are not uniform. We examined if we can better integrate FISH results into a risk assessment tool to better predict the outcomes of newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: We studied a cohort of 1316 patients with FISH done within 6 months of diagnosis of MM, in whom results for commonly observed abnormalities were available. We specifically examined the individual impact of common translocations involving chromosome 14, MYC rearrangements, chromosome 1q gain (single or multiple duplication) and del13q/monosomy 13. A risk assessment system was developed, weighting each abnormality according to their Risk Ratio and integrating ISS stage and serum LDH into the final model construction. Overall survival was calculated from diagnosis, with those alive at last follow up being censored. Results: We first examined the impact of each of the above FISH abnormalities: 1) high risk translocations [t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14,20)], 2) trisomies, 3) t(11;14), 4) MYCrearrangements, 5) del13q/monosomy 13, and 6) 1q gain . Each of the abnormalities, except for t(11;14), was prognostic for survival (Table 1 with the risk ratios). For 1q gain, the median OS was NR, 105 mos and 79 mos respectively for no abnormality, duplication of 1 copy and duplication of multiple copies, (p ULN as additional variables for prognostication indicated both were individually prognostic for OS. In a multivariate analysis, including these two and FISH abnormalities, 1q gain and LDH were not independently prognostic. The final model consisted of HR translocations, MYCrearrangements, del17p/monosomy 17, del13q/monosomy 13, and ISS stage 3. Each of these variables was weighted using their risk ratio and a composite score was developed using 998 patients for whom all variables were available (range: 0-7.9; median 1.8). Three patient groups were characterized: group 1 (0; 32%), group 2 (1-4; 58%) and group 3 (>4; 10%) with a median OS of 53 mos, 106 mos, and NR, respectively, p Conclusion: Using the most relevant FISH and laboratory factors, in a large cohort of patients, we refined the current system to develop a risk stratification system that predicts survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with contemporary treatment regimens. This needs validation in future studies. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appellis: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Leung:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel:Celgene: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Background: POEMS syndrome is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome caused by an underlying plasma cell disorder. The combination of a proteasome inhibitor, an IMiD and corticosteroid is known to be highly effective among patients with myeloma. Methods: We conducted a pilot using a 28-day oral regimen of ixazomib (4 mg days 1, 8, 15), lenalidomide (25 mg days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). Aspirin and acyclovir were used for prophylaxis. Eligibility included a diagnosis of POEMS syndrome, a plasma VEGF 2x normal, a PS < 3. There were two groups [gp] (intended enrollment 15 per gp): Gp 1, 3 cycles for pts destined for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant; Gp 2, 13 cycles for patients (pts) who had relapsed or refractory disease. Primary endpoint was VEGF complete response (CR=normalization) after 3 cycles. Secondary endpoints included safety, hematologic response, and overall survival at 3 and 12 months. Other domains including PET response (50% reduction in sum of SUVmax from baseline), clinical responses including neurologic response were also studied. Neurologic assessments were done using the modified neurological impairment score (mNiS+7POEMS), the overall neuropathy limitation scale, and the polyneuropathy disability score. To date, 13 pts enrolled since 10/31/2016-4 to Gp 1 and 9 to Gp 2. 11 pts were analyzed (2 dropped out before receiving any therapy). Data were frozen as of 07/15/2019. Results: Median age was 55; 73% were male. Of the evaluable patients, three were newly diagnosed (Gp 1), and 8 had relapsed or refractory disease (Gp 2). 72% met primary endpoint of VEGF CR (Table). At 3 months, the following improvements were seen: VEGF, 10/11; hematologic, 1/3; PET 1/3; neurologic impairment score, 3/11. By 12-months according to the modified nerve impairment scale, 3/6 had achieved objective improvement and 2/6 stable disease. With a median follow-up of 16 months, 2 patients have died of progressive disease and another patient progressed on therapy (Gp 2) with an extravascular leak progression. 27% of patients had grade 3+hematologic AE; 81% had grade 3-4 non-hematologic AE. These included: rash, respiratory infection, diarrhea, and hypotension in 2 each; atrial fibrillation, edema, dyspnea, and thromboembolism in 1 each. 5 pts had non-objective worsening of their neuropathy. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that Ixa-Len-Dex is an effective and tolerable regimen for patients with POEMS syndrome. Longer follow-up will be important to determine durability of this approach and for neurologic assessment given the slow rate of remyelination. Figure Disclosures Dispenzieri: Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: No drugs approved for POEMS syndrome. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone

Background: Combinations of alkylating agents with proteasome inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), with melphalan or cyclophosphamide combinations being some of the commonly used regimens for initial treatment of MM. Ixazomib (Ixa) is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is approved for use in combination with lenalidomide for patients with relapsed MM. We examined if Ixa can be effectively combined with cyclophosphamide (Ctx) in order to develop a less expensive, all oral regimen for patients with relapsed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM, who were proteasome inhibitor naïve OR have received less than 6 cycles of therapy with bortezomib and had a better than PR with no progression at the time of discontinuation, were enrolled. The primary objective was to determine overall response rate (ORR). Treatment consisted of Ixa 4mg PO days 1, 8, 15; Ctx 300 mg/m2 PO days 1, 8, 15, 22 and dexamethasone (Dex) 40 mg PO weekly in a 28-day cycle. Overall, 37 patients were accrued; data on 33 eligible patients were available for analysis as of July 18, 2019. Results: The median age was 71 (48-89), 61% were male and the median duration from diagnosis was 46 months (mos). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 1-5), 76%, 42% and 67% respectively had a prior IMiD, proteasome inhibitor or stem cell transplant, respectively. At data cutoff, 22 (67%) had progressed, 4 (12%) had died and the median follow up of those alive was 21.3 mos. Fourteen patients are still receiving treatment, with median of 8.5 cycles. Most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression (10 pts; 53%). The ORR was 60% including 6% CR and 24% VGPR. The median event free survival was 11.3 mos (95%CI: 9.0 - 26.8). Overall, 401 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose modifications/ hold required for Ixa, Ctx, and Dex in 9 (27%), 14 (42%), and 22 (67%) patients respectively, the most common reason being hematologic toxicity. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 77% of patients, hematologic in 67% and non-hematologic in 30%. (Table 1) The most commonly observed hematologic toxicities included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, lymphopenia and anemia; for non-hematologic was nausea, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy toxicity and fatigue. Conclusions: The combination of Ixa, Ctx and Dex (ICd) offers a convenient, all oral regimen for treatment of relapsed disease not refractory to proteasome inhibitors. The regimen has good efficacy in this group f heavily pretreated patients, with an acceptable toxicity profile. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria. Ailawadhi:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Bergsagel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Fonseca:AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, Kite, Janssen, Juno, Merck, Pharmacylics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Prognosticatin of MM based on Genetic Categorization by FISH: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: 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. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Stewart:Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Ionis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is the most aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM). Recently, pPCL has been defined by as few as >5% circulating plasma cells (cPCs) detected morphologically on a peripheral blood smear. However, this technique may not be sufficiently sensitive and is dependent on inter-observer bias to properly identify and quantify cPCs. Multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) provides a readily available and highly sensitive method to identify and quantify cPCs. However, an optimal quantitative cutoff for cPCs by MFC to define the presence of pPCL has not been established to date. Thus, this is the first study to date that determines an optimal cutoff of cPCs/ microliter that could identity patients with pPCL at diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all newly diagnosed MM patients seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2007 to December 2017 who had their peripheral blood samples evaluated morphologically by peripheral blood smear and immunophenotypically by MFC prior to beginning therapy. Patients with a peripheral blood smear detecting >5% cPCs were classified as having pPCL. Six-color MFC was performed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells by isolated by Ficoll gradient, and stained with antibodies to CD45, CD19, CD38, CD138 and cytoplasmic Kappa and Lambda immunoglobulin light chains. The data was collected using Becton Dickinson FacsCanto II instruments collecting 150,000 events and analyzed using the BDFacs DIVA Software. The gating strategy employed first used the expression of CD38, CD138, and cytoplasmic immunoglobulin light chains to identify all plasma cells in the specimen. The cPCs were then discriminated from polyclonal/normal plasma cells based on differential CD19 and CD45 expression. The cPCs detected were reported as the number of clonal events/150,000 collected total events and converted to the absolute number of cPCs/microliter using their absolute lymphocyte count and monocyte count determined at the time of the blood draw for cPC MFC assessment. A receiver operator curve (ROC) was performed to determine the absolute cPCs/microliter by MFC that best identified those patients with >5% cPC on their peripheral blood smear. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences assessed using the log rank test. RESULTS: A total of 591 patients were included in this analysis of which 59% were male and the median age was 66 years (range: 27 - 95) with 22% being 75 years of age or older. From this cohort, 133 (24%) patients had high risk FISH cytogenetics, 172 (30%) were classified as ISS 3 at diagnosis, 83 (15%) had an elevated LDH level and 61 (17%) had a plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) of 2% or greater. There were 65 (11%) patients with any amount of cPCs detectable by peripheral blood smear of which only 22 (4% of the total population) met criteria for pPCL with >5% cPCs. With MFC, 403 (68%) patients had detectable cPCs. The median number of cPCs per microliter was 0.81 (0 - 10,455) with 273 (46%) having >1 cPC/microliter. A ROC analysis determined that the presence of >50 cPCs/microliter by MFC was the optimal cutoff to identify patients with >5% cPCs by blood smear with approximately a specificity of 94% and a sensitivity of 86%. The presence of >50 cPCs/microliter by MFC was associated with higher presence of high risk FISH cytogenetics, ISS 3 classification, elevated LDH and PCLI > 2%. The median time to next treatment (TTNT) for patients with and without >5% cPCs by peripheral blood smear was 18 months vs. 30 months (P < 0.001). The median TTNT for patients with and without >50 cPCs/microliter by MFC was 19 months vs. 30 months (P < 0.01). The median overall survival (OS) for patients with and without >5% cPCs by peripheral blood smear was 25 months vs. 71 months (P < 0.001; Fig 1A). The median OS for patients with and without >50 cPCs/microliter by MFC was 38 months vs. 71 months (P < 0.01; Fig 1B). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study that attempts to identify an optimal cutoff of cPCs/microliter by MFC for diagnosing pPCL patients. The presence of >50 cPCs/microliter is an optimal cutoff by MFC that best predicts for the presence of >5% cPCs by peripheral blood smear. However, there remains discordance in the OS outcomes between the two cutoffs by different methodologies for pPCL. This could signify the presence of biological processes associated with the presence of >5% cPCs when detected by peripheral blood smear that are not captured by MFC. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Leung:Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Gertz:DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: The 2008 International Working Group for CLL (IWCLL) criteria define MBL as a clonal B-cell disorder with a peripheral blood B-cell count of Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify individuals with high-count MBL (absolute B-cell count: 0.5 - 4.9 x 109/L) and divided them into the following three cohorts: a) Cohort A: no imaging studies available at MBL diagnosis; b) Cohort B: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with no evidence of lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly; and c) Cohort C: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, attributable to MBL. All individuals with MBL were first seen at Mayo Clinic after 1/1/2002; those with a concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Patients with SLL seen during the same time interval were identified as a comparison cohort. We compared the baseline characteristics (Kruskal Wallis for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables) and TFT and OS across the three MBL cohorts, and patients with SLL. Cumulative incidence of TFT was adjusted for the competing risk of death. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Results: 657 individuals with high-count MBL with a median follow-up of 6.7 years were identified: 415 (63%) individuals were in Cohort A, 142 (22%) in Cohort B, and 100 in (15%) Cohort C. Compared to Cohort B, individuals in Cohort C were more likely to have unmutated IGHV, high expression of CD38, and higher beta-2 microglobulin level (Table 1). SLL patients were younger, had higher rate of unmutated IGHV, and had high expression of CD49d compared to MBL individuals in Cohort C (Table 1). There was suggestive evidence of a difference in TFT between Cohorts B and C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 28.3% vs. 41.6%; p=0.16; HR 1.62 95% CI 0.84-3.15). TFT was significantly shorter in SLL patients compared to those with Cohort C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 71% vs. 41.6%, respectively, P Summary/Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that individuals with MBL who have incidentally identified lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at diagnosis are more likely to have an unfavorable risk profile, shorter TFT and OS compared to patients who did not have lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at MBL diagnosis. Additionally, these individuals have a longer TFT but similar OS compared to SLL patients seen during the same time interval. If externally validated, these findings have significant implications for individuals with newly diagnosed MBL. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Background: Lenalidomide maintenance therapy post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and possibly overall survival in multiple myeloma (MM). However, almost all patients do relapse as a result of residual multiple myeloma cells that remain after the high-dose chemotherapy. In the myeloma setting it has been found that the hedgehog (Hh) pathway is essential for maintaining a subset of tumor causing stem cells. LDE 225 (Sonidegib) is a potent selective oral bioavailable antagonist of Smoothened (SMO), a component of the Hh signaling pathway. In in vitro experiments, LDE225 treatment of myeloma cell lines resulted in a modest inhibition of cell proliferation at increasing doses. When LDE225 was combined with lenalidomide, a more than additive effect was observed in terms of cell proliferation, an effect that was more pronounced in the context of myeloma cell lines growing in co-culture with marrow derived stromal cells. These findings form the basis of evaluation of LDE 225 as a strategy to enhance the activity of lenalidomide in the post-transplant maintenance setting. The minimal residual state post SCT provides the most optimal situation for evaluation of a drug that is likely to work by inhibiting the tumor cells that escaped high dose therapy. Methods: Multiple myeloma patients without evidence of progression, who were 60 - 120 days after a single autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), performed within 1 year of diagnosis were eligible for the study. Maintenance therapy was started approximately 3 months after SCT. Treatment consisted of lenalidomide 10 mg days 1-21 and LDE225 400 mg days 1-28 in 28-day cycles for a total of 18 cycles. The goal of the study was to assess toxicity of this combination, complete response rate (CR) progression free survival (PFS) at 1 and 2 year and overall survival (OS). CR and PFS were estimated using an exact binomial distribution and Kaplan Meier curves respectively. Results: A total of 28 patients were accrued from Jan 2014 to Aug 2016, 1 patient canceled prior to treatment and 1 patient was deemed ineligible resulting in 26 evaluable pts for CR and PFS. The median age of all pts (n=26) was 60 years (range 43-69) and 50% were males. Seventy-three percent of patients reported one treatment regimen prior to SCT, while 27% reported 2 or more prior regimens. The other characteristics of the patient are summarized in Table 1. Twenty seven pts received at least one cycle of treatment and are evaluable for toxicities (AE). Patients were treated for a median of 12.5 (range 1-18) cycles. While 10 pts (38.5%) completed protocol treatment (18 cycles), the remaining 16 pts went off treatment due to AEs (6, 23%), disease progression (3, 11.5%), refusal of further treatment (3, 11.5%) and other reasons (4, 15.4%). A grade 3 or higher AE at least possibly attributed to either drug was seen in 63%. Grade 3+ hematologic toxicities were noted in 30%, with 7% neutropenia and 4% thrombocytopenia. Notable grade 2+ non-hematologic toxicities with more than 5% incidence were dysgeusia 22%, alopecia 11%, and anorexia 7%. Grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicities were fatigue, myalgia and arthralgia each at 7%. The CR rate in evaluable patients was 46% (5 CRs and 7 sCRs) with a 95% CI of 27% - 66%. CR rate improved from 31% to 46%. VGPR or better improved from 42% to 85%. The 24-month PFS (time from SCT to progression or death due to any cause) was 73% (95% CI: 57.9 - 92.3%) with a median time to censoring of 38 months. Conclusion: Lenalidomide in combination with LDE225 as posttransplant maintenance therapy was associated with some toxicity but manageable. The combination improved the depth of response after autologous stem cell transplant. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine overall survival. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Kapoor:Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Sonidegib (LDE 225) is a selective oral bioavailable antagonist of Smoothened (SMO), a component of the hedgehog signaling pathway.

Background: The current commonly used regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) utilize steroids (dexamethasone or prednisone) in various combinations: bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTd), daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (DVMP). However, steroid therapy may be associated with various adverse effects, including, but not limited to mood changes, insomnia, hypertension, hyperglycemia, osteoporosis, adrenal suppression, muscle weakness, and increased risk of opportunistic infections. A recent trial demonstrated improved tolerability of a regimen (Rd-R) involving an abbreviated course of dexamethasone, without compromising the efficacy in patients with intermediate-fit NDMM (Lorocca A., et al., ASH 2018). We designed a phase 2 clinical trial to examine the safety and efficacy of daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody in combination with an all-oral regimen of ixazomib, a proteasome inhibitor, lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug, and modified dose dexamethasone (IRd). Patients and Methods: NDMM patients with measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled, irrespective of their transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response (CR) to daratumumab-IRd. Treatment consisted of daratumumab, 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks, ixazomib, 4 mg days 1, 8, 15, lenalidomide, 25 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone upto 40 mg intravenously weekly for no more than two cycles, followed by use only as a prophylactic premedication for daratumumab-associated infusion reactions. Myeloma risk stratification was assessed by cytoplasmic immunoglobulin fluorescence in-situ hybridization (cIg FISH) analysis. Results: Overall, 40 patients were accrued, with data available on all patients for analysis at the cutoff date of July 19, 2019. The median age at enrollment was 64.5 (33-81) years; 37.5% were female. Eight (20%) patients were high risk by FISH. The median number of cycles was 6 (2-11) and the median follow up was 6.1 (2-11.7) months. Among 40 patients who had received at least 2 cycles of therapy, responses were attained rapidly; at the end of cycle 2, 88% patients achieved at least a partial response and 33% at least a very good partial response (VGPR) that improved to 52% at the end of 4 cycles among 29 patients who had completed at least 4 cycles. The overall best confirmed response rate among all 40 patients (Figure 1) was 95%, including 10% stringent CR, 5% CR and 23% near CR (13% VGPR excluding nCR). Stem cell collection was completed in 17 patients so far, all of whom required filgrastim and plerixafor. The median CD34+ cell count was 7.7 (range 2.9-11.6) million/kg . All patients were alive and 39 (97.5%) patients were progression-free at last follow up. Four (10%) patients proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation off study, per patient and/or investigator discretion (1 in CR, 2 in PR, 1 with progressive disease). Overall, 224 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose reduction/ hold required in a subset of patients; ixazomib (10%), lenalidomide (20%), daratumumab (0%) and dexamethasone (13%); the most frequent reasons for dose adjustment were skin rash and hematologic toxicities. A grade 3 or higher adverse event, at least possibly attributed to the study drugs, was observed in 40% of patients; hematologic in 30% (lymphopenia 25%, neutropenia 15%, thrombocytopenia 5% and anemia 2.5%) and non-hematologic in 18% of patients (hyperglycemia 8%, diarrhea 5%, infections 5%, ileus 2.5%, maculopapular rash 2.5%, and fatigue 2.5%). Updated results with additional 6 months of follow up and minimal residual disease assessment related data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Our early results suggest that the combination of daratumumab, ixazomib, lenalidomide and modified dose dexamethasone is well-tolerated, with excellent activity, and does not adversely impact stem-cell mobilization in patients with NDMM. Disclosures Kapoor: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Gertz:Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Daratumumab in combination with Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION Mutations in BTK and PLCG2 have been reported to occur in ~80% of CLL patients (pts) who have progression of disease on ibrutinib therapy (Woyach, JCO 2017; Ahn, Blood 2017). These mutations are described as appearing months before actual relapse and thus considered as a potential predictive biomarker for future relapse (Quinquenel, Blood 2019). However, the outcomes of these pts after disease progression are not well described. In this study, we seek to investigate time to next therapy and overall survival (OS) following progression among CLL pts on ibrutinib therapy with and without these resistance mutations. METHODS Between 10/2012 and 6/2019, we identified 34 pts in the Mayo Clinic clinical CLL resource who progressed while receiving ibrutinib therapy and also had testing for BTK and PLCG2 mutation performed as part of routine clinical practice at either NeoGenomics Laboratories or The Ohio State University. OS was calculated from time of ibrutinib progression to last known alive or death date; OS was plotted using Kaplan Meier methods and was compared using the log-rank test between various groups (e.g., mutation positive vs negative; CLL progression vs Richter's). Cumulative incidence of time to next treatment in those who had a treatment after progression was adjusted for the competing risk of death. RESULTS Of 34 pts who progressed while receiving ibrutinib, 26 pts experienced CLL progression and 8 pts had Richter's transformation; baseline characteristics in Table 1A. The presence of a BTK or PLCG2 mutation was found in 20/34 (59%) pts (specific mutations in Table 1B). BTK mutation alone was present in 9 pts, 7 pts had PLCG2 mutation alone, and 4 pts had both mutations. Median time between a positive test and start of next therapy was 4 months (range 1-19 months) and did not vary between BTK vs PLCG2 mutations. Among the 26 pts with CLL progression, 18 (69%) pts had a mutation present: BTK alone (n=8), PLCG2 alone (n=6), both (n=4). Therapy following progression on ibrutinib in these pts was as follows: venetoclax (n=16; 11 pts who continued ibrutinib in combination), idelalisib (n=4), investigational treatments (n=2), continued ibrutinib alone (n=2), dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; n=1), and unknown (n=1). Twelve of the 26 pts with CLL progression on ibrutinib, including 8 pts with a prior resistance mutation detected, had subsequent progression of disease on the aforementioned next line therapy. Treatment of these patients consisted of the following: restarted ibrutinib in addition to current treatment of venetoclax (n=5), venetoclax (n=2), pembrolizumab (n=2; 1 pt with continued ibrutinib), obinutuzumab with continued ibrutinib (n=1), gemcitabine and vinorelbine with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and no further treatment (n=1). Among the 8 pts with Richter's transformation as the initial progression event on ibrutinib after mutation testing, 1 pt had a BTK mutation and 1 pt had a PLCG2 mutation. Treatments following progression on ibrutinib included multi-agent chemoimmunotherapy (n=3; 2 pts received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone [R-CHOP] with continued ibrutinib and 1 pt received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine [ABVD] alone), pembrolizumab (n=3; 1 pt in combination with continued ibrutinib), venetoclax in combination with continued ibrutinib (n=1), and venetoclax and obinutuzumab (n=1). The median time to next treatment (second line of treatment beyond ibrutinib) for the 31 pts who started another therapy following progression on ibrutinib was 16.7 months (95% CI 9.6-NE; Figure 1A) and was not significantly different for pts with or without a resistance mutation (p=0.57). Median OS for all 26 pts with CLL progression was 28.7 month and there was no difference according to presence or absence of a resistance mutation (median 28.7 months vs 18.2 months, p=0.53; Figure 1B). The 8 pts with Richter's transformation had a median OS of 7.1 months (95% CI 2.0-NE). CONCLUSION Approximately 60% of pts tested in this progression cohort had a BTK or PLCG2 mutation at time of or preceding progression on ibrutinib therapy. OS and time to next therapy did not differ statistically between pts with mutated vs non-mutated clones; however, caution should be applied with the conclusions given the limited sample size. Disclosures Ding: DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding.

Introduction: Several patient and disease biology characteristics that impact overall survival (OS) outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) have been well described. However, several prior population-based registry studies in the US such as SEER and NCDB databases have demonstrated the negative prognostic impact of socio-economic (SE) factors such as low median household income based on US national census bureau data for zip code of residence as well as absence of marital support on the OS of NDMM patients. Whether such SE factors are independent of established host and disease biology related factors remains unknown due to the absence of detailed patient-level data in population-based cancer registries. Thus, we evaluated whether such SE factors independently affected the OS of NDMM patients in our institution when accounting for patient and disease biology related factors. Methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of consecutive NDMM patients seen at the Mayo Clinic from January 2005 to December 2015. Median household income for each patient's area of residence was estimated by matching their home zip code at diagnosis with data available through the US National Census Bureau. Median household income < $63,000 for a zip code were used to classify patients as having low income based on the National Cancer Database classification of the bottom three quartiles. Absence of marital support was considered in patients divorced, single or widowed at the time of diagnosis. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient and disease biology related factors taken into consideration included age, FISH cytogenetics, ISS stage and LDH levels. Survival estimates were compared between groups using the log-rank test. Multivariable adjusted proportional hazards regression models were fit for the association between known prognostic factors and OS. Results: A total of 2,621 MM patients were analyzed from the Mayo Clinic cohort of which 60% were male and the median age was 64 (22 - 96) years with 14% being 75 years of age or older. In this cohort, 541 (33%) patients had ISS 3 disease and 370 (22%) had high risk cytogenetics by FISH. The median OS based on estimated average household income was 65 months for the group of patients with low household income (N = 32%) and 80 months for the remainder (P = 0.001) (Fig 1A). The median OS based on marital support was 59 months for those without marital support at diagnosis (N = 21%) versus 76 months for remainder (P = 0.003) (Fig 1B). However, in a multivariable analysis that included the aforementioned SE factors and patient and disease biology characteristics , only age of 75 years or older (p < 0.001), the presence of high-risk FISH cytogenetics (p < 0.001), presence of ISS 3 disease (p < 0.001) and elevated LDH (p = 0.005) retained independent statistical significance in predicting for worse OS. Lower household income (p = 0.264) and absence of marital support (p = 0.054) were not independent predictors of worse OS. Conclusions: With the caveat of patient selection bias in a tertiary academic center, SE factors such as estimated average household income and marital support at diagnosis do not appear to impact OS of NDMM patients when considered in the context of traditional host and disease biology risk factors. These findings are in contrast to those suggested by population based registry studies; nevertheless, similar patient-level assessments should be considered in patient cohorts from non-tertiary medical centers as these results may likely be different. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Leung:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Gertz:Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: pPCL is a rare and aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM) with poor survival outcomes compared to that experienced by MM patients. It has been traditionally defined by the presence of an absolute plasma cell count of > 2000/microL or >20% circulating plasma cells (cPCs) in the peripheral blood. However, several recent studies have validated the optimal cutoff for defining pPCL to be >5% cPCs on a peripheral blood smear due to equally poor outcomes in this less restrictive cohort. Hence, given the rarity of this disease entity, we evaluated the clinical outcomes and cytogenetic features of patients diagnosed with pPCL at our institution with the new proposed definition of pPCL by >5% cPCs on peripheral blood smear that were treated with novel agent induction therapies. METHODS: We evaluated all patients with pPCL diagnosed between 2000 - 2018 evaluated at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Data regarding these patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and from the review of the electronic medical records. Patients were categorized as having high risk cytogenetics if any of the following abnormalities were present: del 17p, t(4;14), t(14;16) or t(14;20). Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare differences between the sub-groups of interest. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences assessed using the log rank test. RESULTS: This cohort consisted of 71 patients with pPCL with a median age of 62 years (range: 34-91) of which 33 (46%) were male. The median follow up was 46 months (95% CI: 41 - 90). The median bone marrow plasma cell content was 84% (Range: 10 - 100) and the median plasma cell percentage on the peripheral smear was 23% (range: 5 - 93). There were 48 (68%) patients with >20% cPCs in their peripheral blood smear. Only 23 (32%) patients had concurrent information on the number of cPCs by multiparametric flow cytometry at diagnosis and the median number of cPCs detected was 32,807 per 150,000 events analyzed (Range: 354 - 132,256). There were 15/54 (28%) patients who presented with a creatinine of 2 mg/dL or greater and 17/55 (31%) pts who presented with hypercalcemia (11 mg/dL or greater). Data for ISS classification was available in 45 patients and is as follows: Stage 1- 3 (7%) patients, Stage 2- 10 (22%) patients and Stage 3- 32 (71%) patients. Data on the presence of primary cytogenetic abnormalities were available in 60 (85%) patients of which 29 (49%) had high risk cytogenetics. The distribution of primary cytogenetic abnormalities among this cohort was as follows: t(11;14) - 27 (45%), t(4;14) - 5 (8%), t(14;16) - 8 (13%), t(14;20)- 3(5%) and del 17p- 15(25%). All patients received novel agent induction therapy with 40 (57%) of them having received at least one autologous stem cell transplant and 1 patient undergoing an allogeneic stem cell transplant. The median overall survival (OS) for all pPCL patients in this cohort was 23 months (95% CI: 19 - 38). The OS was similar in patient with 5-19% cPCs vs. >20% cPCs (24 vs. 23 months, P = 0.999). However, when the entire cohort was stratified by cytogenetic risk, the median OS was 51 months for standard risk vs. 19 months for high risk (P = 0.005) (FIGURE). There were only 17 (30%) patients in this cohort who were alive for 48 months or longer since diagnosis (i.e. twice the median OS of this cohort) and they were more likely to not have high risk cytogenetics at diagnosis (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this analysis of one of the largest contemporary cohorts of pPCL patients, the outcomes of patients diagnosed with pPCL remain poor despite the use of novel agent induction therapy. However, some patients appear to do better than expected and this phenomenon may be influenced by the absence of high risk cytogenetics. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz:Celgene: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Vitamin D deficiency is common, with 25-50% of the population having levels below the optimal range ( Almost no data have been reported on vitamin D levels in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. We therefore measured vitamin D levels among AL patients and correlated levels at presentation to explore if vitamin D deficiency has any effect or association in this disease. Methods: Stored serum samples from 90 patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis were obtained for vitamin D studies, which included 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D] and vitamin D binding protein (DBP). All vitamin D measurements were made by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Total 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D was assessed as the additive sum of the 25(OH)D2/25(OH)D3 and 1,25(OH)2D2/1,25(OH)2D3 components, respectively. Clinical data was extracted from the electronic medical records. All calculations were made using JMP software (SAS, Cary, NC). Results: All patients were seen between June 2004 and September 2013. Median age was 63 [IQR 57-70]. Heart, kidney, nerve, liver and gastrointestinal amyloidosis was seen in 80%, 60%, 19%, 17% and 13% of patients, respectively. The median dFLC and bone marrow plasma cells were 28 (IQR 12-84) mg/dL and 10% (IQR 5-20%), respectively. The median serum 25(OH)D level was 20 ng/mL (IQR 10-29; normal >20 ng/mL), while the median serum level of 1,25(OH)2D was 23 pg/mL (IQR 14-37; normal 16-64 pg/mL for men; 16-78 pg/mL for women). 25(OH)D levels 5 gr/24-h) was strongly associated with low 25(OH)D, (P FISH data was available in 47 of patients (52%). Patients with 25(OH)D levels Conclusions: Hypovitaminosis D is common among AL amyloidosis patients with renal involvement. In the general cohort, heavy proteinuria, reduced eGFR and low serum albumin were all associated with low circulating vitamin D levels. Although the majority of AL patients had low levels of DBP, urinary loss of DBP does not explain the low levels of vitamin D. Hypovitaminosis D is associated with non-t(11;14) disease, a finding which warrants further exploration. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: The treatment of Multiple Myeloma (MM) has evolved significantly in the past decade with the introduction of novel agents and drug combinations, thus enhancing treatment efficacy and allowing more patients to achieve complete response (CR). This has created a need to identify surrogates for depth of treatment response. Serum free light chain (sFLC) ratio normalization has been shown to be prognostic for progression free survival as well as overall survival in patients achieving a complete response to therapy. Consequently, it has been incorporated as a defining feature for stringent CR, along with lack of clonal plasma cells by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or low sensitivity flow cytometry. The routine use of multiparametric flow cytometry with higher sensitivity to detect residual disease than IHC or the older 4-color flow cytometry, has raised the question as to whether sFLC ratio is still a valid indicator of response depth. Moreover, in nearly half of the patients with an abnormal sFLC ratio after treatment, the abnormality is secondary to suppression of one or both serum light chains. Therefore, we designed a retrospective study to address these issues. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study using the Multiple Myeloma Database at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. We included patients who, after any line of therapy, had negative serum and urine immunofixation and absence of clonal bone marrow plasma cells by flow cytometry (PC-PRO), which has a sensitivity of >10-4. Simultaneous sFLC data was also extracted. Patients were grouped into three categories based on their sFLC ratios: 1) normal ratio (normal), 2) abnormal ratio due to suppression of the uninvolved light chain (LC), involved LC, or both (Abn-suppressed) and 3) abnormal ratio due to elevation of the involved LC (Abn-inv elevated). The primary endpoint was the median time to next treatment (TTNT), defined as the time from sample collection to the time of initiation of the subsequent therapy or time of last follow up if a subsequent line of treatment was not initiated. Results: The cohort consisted of 510 patients. 285 (56%) were males and 225 (44%) females. Median age was 61 years (IQR: 55-67). Median Follow-up was 41 months. The last treatments administered prior to data collection included stem cell transplant (SCT) (with or without maintenance) in 290 (57%) patients, and non-SCT regimens in the others. The sFLC ratio was normal in 337 (66%) and abnormal in 173 (34%) patients. Among the patients with abnormal sFLC ratios, 81 had elevated involved LC, 25 had suppression of the involved LC, 45 had suppression of the uninvolved LC and 22 had suppression of both LCs. We first examined the TTNT for the three groups and found that the TTNT was identical for those with a normal ratio and those with an abnormal ratio due to suppression of one or both light chains (Figure 1). So, we combined these two groups (Normal-Abn suppressed) and compared their outcomes to the patients with abnormal sFLC ratio due to elevated involved LC. The Abn-inv elevated group had a shorter TTNT as shown in Figure 2 (log-rank 0.06, Wilcoxon Conclusion: This study provides 2 important observations. First, patients with an abnormal ratio due to suppression of one or both LCs have outcomes similar to those with a normal ratio, suggesting a need to clarify the current definition of stringent CR. Second, the study suggests an important prognostic value for an abnormal sFLC ratio due to elevated involved LC, suggesting this as an important surrogate for depth of response. Disclosures Kapoor: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Background: The 2018 iwCLL guidelines recommend close observation of early stage CLL pts who do not meet indications for therapy ("watch and wait" strategy). Prior attempts at early therapeutic intervention in unselected early-stage CLL pts using alkylating agents such as chlorambucil and chemoimmunotherapy failed to show a significant benefit; and these therapies were associated with substantial toxicities. The introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment landscape of CLL. The German CLL Study group recently presented results of the CLL12 study which demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) among untreated early stage high risk CLL pts who received ibrutinib compared to placebo (median EFS not reached vs. 47.8 months, respectively; Langerbeins, EHA, 2019). Acalabrutinib is a more selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that has fewer adverse events in pts with CLL, and has shown equally impressive clinical activity for CLL pts. We are conducting an investigator initiated randomized phase 2 study to compare acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab (a glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved in the treatment of CLL) among high risk early stage CLL pts. Study Design: All pts with newly diagnosed (65 years (1 point), Rai stage I-IV (1 point), del17p and/or TP53 mutation (4 points), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) genes (2 points), and serum β2-microglobulin >3.5 g/dL (2 points). Pts with high (4-6) and very high (7-10) risk CLL-IPI are randomly (1:1) assigned to acalabrutinib 100 mg orally twice daily (Arm A) or acalabrutinib with obinutuzumab at a standard approved schedule (Arm B). Treatment with acalabrutinib is continued for a minimum of 2 years unless the patient has unacceptable side effects or withdraws consent. Pts with low (0-1) and intermediate (2-3) risk CLL-IPI score are assigned to an observation arm with follow-up once every 6 months for 2 years, and then according to routine clinical practice (Arm C). Endpoints: The primary endpoint of the intervention arms (Arms A and B) is the achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative complete remission in the bone marrow after 2 years of therapy. MRD is assessed using an 8-color flow cytometry with a detection limit of 0.01%. The primary endpoint of the observation arm (Arm C) is time to first therapy. Secondary endpoints for all arms are: progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Statistical design: A randomized trial comparing the experimental arm (acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab) against the control arm (acalabrutinib alone) will be conducted as described by Rubinstein. A sample size of 36 pts per arm provides 80% power to detect an improvement in MRD-negative complete response rate from 10% to 30%, using a one-sided test at a significance level of 0.10 (EAST 6.4). We anticipate accruing an additional 8 high/very high risk pts (4 in each arm) to account for ineligibility, cancellation, or major treatment violation. The total enrollment for Arms A and B will be 80 pts. We will enroll 40 pts to Arm C; for a total enrollment of 120 pts. Key correlatives: Comprehensive profiling to assess the innate and adaptive immune system in paired peripheral blood and bone marrow will be conducted in all pts registered to Arms A and B at baseline, 12 and 24 months after enrollment. In addition, bone marrow hematopoietic function will be assessed in all pts at these time points. We will employ a CLL focused custom 61-gene panel to estimate tumor mutational burden as well as mutational profiles for each patient at baseline, 12, and 24 month time points, as well at the time of disease progression. Preliminary results: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT03516617. The trial opened to accrual at all three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ) in September 2018. Twenty-eight pts have been registered; the baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The trial is expected to complete enrollment in September 2020; and the primary analysis will be available in September 2022. Disclosures Parikh: Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria. Ding:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB; MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. OffLabel Disclosure: Drug: Acalabrutinib Purpose: treatment of CLL

Introduction: Advances in the understanding of disease biology, the introduction of new drugs, and better supportive care have improved outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM). Most improvements have been observed in clinical trial and tertiary referral center populations but questions remain about the generalizability of these findings to patients treated in the community. Methods: We studied all patients diagnosed with MM between 01/01/2001 and 12/31/2015 who had complete demographic and overall survival (OS) data available and were seen at Mayo Clinic (MAYO) or followed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER, 18 registry data 2000 - 2016, 11/2018 submission). We retrieved age at diagnosis, sex, date of diagnosis, date of last follow-up, and OS for all patients. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause. Patients who were alive at the end of follow-up (12/31/ 2016) were censored. OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Age- and sex-adjusted Cox models were used to assess the association between the 5-year interval of diagnosis and OS. Expected OS estimates were calculated based on United States general population rate tables (Human Mortality Database) using a conditional approach. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated by dividing the number of observed deaths by the number of expected deaths in age- and sex-matched general United States population controls. Linear regression models were fit to test for linear trends in early mortality and SMR over time (per 5-year interval). P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 3 years lower in patients at MAYO (64 years, 15% ≥ 75 years, 60% male, n = 3293) compared to SEER (67 years, 29% ≥ 75 years, 55% male, n = 61779). After a median follow-up of 2.8 years the median OS was longer in MAYO compared to SEER (5.4 versus 4.0 years, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 - 0.86, p < 0.001) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 - 0.95, p < 0.001). Early mortality (1-year mortality) decreased between 2001-2005 and 2011-2015: From 20% to 11% at MAYO and from 26% to 19% in SEER. When grouping OS by year of diagnosis (in 5-year-intervals) improvements were seen in both populations (A) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for age and sex. The relative improvements were similar comparing the 5-year period after the introduction of the novel therapies (2006 - 2010) to 2001 - 2005 and more pronounced in MAYO for the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015, A). This trend was reflected in a steady temporal improvement in 5-year OS estimates in MAYO including the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015, B bottom left). In SEER there was a comparable increase between the first two 5-year intervals but a lesser improvement in more recently (2011 - 2015, B bottom left). A diagnosis of MM remained associated with significant excess mortality in all age groups over time in both populations (B top). There was a decrease in excess mortality over time at MAYO (SMR decline per 5-year interval 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8, p < 0.001) while there was little change in SEER (SMR decline 0.0, 95% CI -0.3 - 0.3, p = 0.917, B bottom right). Further stratifying by age at diagnosis, the decrease in excess mortality was observed mostly in patients < 75 years at MAYO (SMR decline per 5-year interval 1.7, 95% CI 1.5 - 2.0, p < 0.001, C bottom left) and to a lesser extent in older patients (SMR decline 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 - 0.6, p < 0.001, C bottom right). No such trends towards improvement were observed in either age group in SEER (C bottom). In older patients, early mortality remained approximately 30% in both populations despite continued improvements, while the 5-year OS estimates for the most recent 5-year interval (2011 - 2015) were 37% at MAYO and 26% in SEER (C top). Conclusions: Both early mortality and long-term survival have improved over time. Reductions in excess mortality were largely confined to younger patients with access to specialized care. Patients ≥ 75 years represent more than a quarter of all patients in the community, a third of them died within one year of the diagnosis, and only one in four was alive five years later. Older patients with MM remain a vulnerable population and have derived only limited benefit from recent advances in the field. Safe and effective therapies for older patients with MM remain an unmet need. Figure Disclosures Gertz: Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Maurer:Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Leung:Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Background: The overall participation of cancer patients in interventional clinical trials in the United States remains very low, with ~5% of patients being enrolled in clinical trials nationwide. The outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly over the past decade, but available data suggest that the participation rates for patients with MM is comparable to other cancers. The drivers of participation and the potential impact of clinical trial participation have not been systematically studied in MM. Patients and Methods: We identified 228 patients who were enrolled into clinical trials for initial therapy of newly diagnosed MM between 2004 and 2018, and 4 controls for each of these patients. Controls were patients with NDMM, who were diagnosed closest in time to the index patients and did not participate in an interventional treatment trial. Various baseline characteristics as well as overall survival were compared between the two groups. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups are as shown in the Table. Patients who entered clinical trials were more likely to be female, resided closer to the clinic, and were more likely to have a prior history of MGUS. They were more likely to have higher ISS Stage, and a higher serum LDH, but there was no difference in the FISH risk status. Other indices of disease burden such as lower hemoglobin and platelets, higher serum creatinine were all seen more often in the control group, but may have been influenced by the trial entry criteria. Looking at the outcomes, the overall survival was longer among those enrolled into clinical trials compared to those who did not [median 103 (95% CI; 86, 136) vs. 63 (95% CI; 53, 69) months, p Conclusions: The current study provides important clues regarding demographic determinants of trial participation and disease biology related features that reflect likelihood of trial participation. Overall survival was significantly longer among the trial participants, which likely represent a mix of reasons including baseline status of patients, intensity of monitoring and efficacy of novel treatment approaches. Table Disclosures Kapoor: Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Among patients with immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, there is little consensus on when reinstitution of chemotherapy should occur. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the patterns of relapse or progression (R/P) and the timing of reinitiating therapy among 235 patients initially treated with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at Mayo Clinic. The median time from ASCT to second-line therapy was 24.3 months. At the time of restarting therapy, median difference of free light chain (dFLC) was 9.9 mg/dL (42% of diagnosis value), 32% had a dFLC 5 mg/dL at the time of reinstituting therapy was associated with risk, patients relapsing from very good partial response (VGPR) or better had a longer time to develop organ progression after hematologic R/P (24.2 vs 3.2 months, P = .007). These data suggest that the best candidates for clinical trials testing novel plasma cell-directed chemotherapy beyond first line may be those patients who are either relapsing from VGPR or better (dFLC at diagnosis was >5 mg/dL) or having inadequate response to prior therapy. This strategy should allow for hematologic response assessment while avoiding the risk of deleterious organ progression. Implementation of more stringent progression criteria may also be warranted.

Background: The introduction of novel therapeutics has led to improved outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). MM and its precursor lesion smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) have traditionally been associated with increased mortality despite treatment. We aimed to assess the impact of a diagnosis of SMM and MM compared to the general population in the context of established prognostic factors. Methods: We studied the overall survival of 1697 patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM, n = 582) and multiple myeloma (MM, n = 1115) diagnosed at Mayo Clinic between 01/2005 and 12/2015. Expected survival accounting for age and sex was calculated using the United States general population (US) as the reference group. Observed and expected overall survival was expressed as the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of observed to expected deaths. Kaplan-Meier overall survival estimates were calculated and the log-rank test was used to compare overall survival in subgroups. The subgroups of interest were based on the International Staging System (ISS) and the presence of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) high-risk cytogenetics: t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), and del(17p). Proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the associations between the aforementioned prognostic factors and overall survival. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis in patients with SMM and MM was 65 (32 - 92) and 63 years (24 - 90), respectively. Two hundred forty-nine patients (57%) and 663 (60%) were male. The median follow-up in patients with SMM and MM was 4.7 (0.1 - 11.0) and 2.6 years (0.2 - 9.5). The median overall survival for patients with SMM and MM was 9.0 (95% CI 8.4 - 9.7) and 7.9 years (6.4 - 8.7). With age- and sex-matched population controls as the reference, the SMRs in patients with SMM and MM were 2.6 (95% CI 2.2 - 3.0) and 4.6 (4.1 - 5.2). Among those MM patients with available data on ISS staging and FISH cytogenetics, 30% (236/780) had ISS III and 21% (188/878) had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients with MM (compared to SMM) experienced worse overall survival (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.8, p < 0.001, n = 1697). Patients with ISS I/II MM (compared to SMM) experienced similar survival (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 - 1.3, p = 0.698, n = 1131). Patients with ISS III MM (compared to MM with high-risk cytogenetics) experienced similar survival (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 - 2.0, p = 0.128, n = 329). Conclusions: Patients with SMM and MM in this cohort experienced excess mortality compared to the general population. In the absence of universal screening the true morbidity and mortality of patients with SMM and MM remains unknown and is likely overestimated in hospital-based cohorts. Overall survival in patients diagnosed with SMM and patients with ISS I/II MM receiving contemporary anti-myeloma therapy was clinically indistinguishable. Patients treated for ISS III MM experienced overall survival similar to patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease. MM remains associated with excess mortality, the magnitude of which varies considerably based on the presence of additional tumor and host factors. The outcomes with modern therapy among the ISS I/II patients highlight the potential for improving outcomes of SMM by early intervention, especially for the higher risk patients. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Medscape: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background: Peripheral blood biomarkers of tumor microenvironment and immune surveillance such as absolute lymphocyte (ALC) and monocyte (AMC) counts are independent prognostic factors in several hematologic malignancies including multiple myeloma. The timing and prognostic impact of immune reconstitution has been studied after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, less is known about its significance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma prior to transplantation. Methods: We studied 771 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were treated with novel agents at Mayo Clinic between 01/2004 and 12/2015. Peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte and monocyte counts were measured at the time of treatment initiation and one month thereafter in all patients (including data obtained between 14 and 42 days after treatment initiation). The outcome of interest was overall survival. The peripheral blood parameters of interest were abnormal ALC (reference range 800-2400/µL) and AMC (reference range 500-1500/µL) at baseline and at one month. Immune dysregulation was defined as both abnormal ALC and AMC. Immune reconstitution was defined as recovery of both normal ALC and AMC. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the peripheral blood parameters before and after the first month of treatment. Multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the associations between changes in peripheral blood parameters and overall survival. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (27 - 90) and 459 patients were male (60%). The three most common first-line regimens were lenalidomide + dexamethasone, bortezomib + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone, and bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone. Two hundred and eighty patients (36%) went on to undergo autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of their first-line therapy. The median ALC decreased from 1100/µL (range 60 - 5590) at baseline to 850/µL (range 60 - 5590) at one month (p < 0.001). The median AMC increased from 330/µL (range 0 - 1840) at baseline to 420/µL (range 0 - 1840) at one month (p < 0.001). The median time between re-assessment of ALC and AMC was 25 days (range 15 - 42). Two hundred and thirty-four patients (31%) had evidence of immune dysregulation at baseline (both abnormal ALC and AMC). Eighty-seven of these 234 patients (37%) recovered normal ALC and AMC at one month (early immune reconstitution). One hundred and thirty-seven of the 537 patients with normal ALC and AMC at baseline (26%) developed new immune dysregulation at one month. The absence of immune dysregulation at baseline (compared to the presence thereof) was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 - 0.97, p = 0.025, n = 771). The absence of immune dysregulation at one month (compared to the persistence or development thereof) was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50 - 0.80, p < 0.001, n = 771). Early immune reconstitution (compared to the persistence or development of immune dysregulation) was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 - 0.92, p = 0.016, n = 771). Both associations remained statistically significant after adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, International Staging System stage, and eligibility for transplantation: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 - 0.90, p = 0.006, n = 612) and HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.39 - 0.90, p = 0.014, n = 612), respectively. Conclusions: Peripheral blood biomarkers of immune dysregulation vary over time and have prognostic significance both at baseline and during follow-up. The presence or development of immune dysregulation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is an independent risk factor. The favorable impact of early immune reconstitution suggests that immune dysregulation is a potentially modifiable risk factor that may be exploited for therapeutic benefit. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; annexon: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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.

Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and dexamethasone is the current standard induction therapy for myeloma. Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, is highly effective in treating myeloma and improves response rates and progression free survival (PFS) when added to PI or IMiD. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an effective, all oral, induction regimen that has been studied in phase 2 and 3 trials. We designed this trial to examine the feasibility and efficacy of adding daratumumab to the IRd regimen. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated MM, with measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled irrespective of their transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response to the IRD-Dara combination in patients with NDMM. Treatment consisted of Ixazomib 4mg days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21, dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly and daratumumab 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks after that. Overall, 40 patients were accrued; data on 38 patients were available for analysis as of July 02, 2018 (Table 1). Results: The median age was 62 (41-81); 52.6% female. All patients were alive and progression free at last assessment with a median follow up of 5.2 (2.0-12.9) months (median 5 cycles, range 2-13). One patient had gone off for alternate therapy. Responses were rapid with 90% partial response or better (32% VGPR) after 2 cycles, and 100% PR or better (50% VGPR) for 32 patients who have completed 4 cycles. The overall best confirmed response rate among the 38 patients was 95% including 11% CR and 47% VGPR. Overall, 231 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose modifications/ hold required for ixazomib, lenalidomide, daratumumab and dexamethasone in 3 (8%), 11 (29%), 2 (5%), and 8 (21%) patients respectively, the most common reasons being hematologic and skin rash. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 42% of patients, hematologic in 37% and non-hematologic in 11% (Figure). 11 patients have so far proceeded to stem cell collection, all have collected adequate numbers of stem cells for one or two intended transplants(median CD34+ collected 8.4 million/kg; range 3.8-12.3). Updated results with additional 6 months of follow up and MRD testing will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This represents the first reported results of this combination for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. The early results from the use of IRd-Dara in newly diagnosed myeloma suggests excellent efficacy with rapid responses that deepen quickly over the initial cycles of therapy. The regimen was well tolerated with limited dose modifications and no discontinuation for toxicity and no influence on the ability to collect stem cells. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy.

Introduction: Light chain burden in light chain (AL) amyloidosis is often low, making accurate response assessment challenging. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients achieving very good partial or complete response to first line therapy and had serial sFLC studies during and after completion of therapy were included (n=396). Involved free light chain (iFLC), difference in involved-to-uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) and sFLC ratio (sFLCR) were assessed at the end of first line therapy and at nadir iFLC. Survival analysis was done using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hematological progression-free survival (hemPFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until hematological progression or death, where patients known to be alive and progression-free at the end of follow-up were censored. Hematological progression was defined according to consensus criteria or upon initiation of second line therapy, whichever came first. Results: The median iFLC and dFLC at the end of therapy was 1.7 mg/dL and 0.5 mg/dL, respectively. sFLCR normalization occurred in 70% of patients. iFLC ≤2 mg/dL and dFLC ≤0.5 mg/dL were associated with a longer hemPFS compared to their counterparts (Figure). Only iFLC ≤2 mg/dL was associated with a significantly longer overall survival (Figure). sFLCR normalization did not predict hemPFS or overall survival. Organ response was predicted by iFLC ≤2 mg/dL and dFLC ≤0.5 mg/dL (Table), with best discrimination seen with iFLC ≤2 mg/dL. Organ response was not predicted by sFLC normalization (Table). The median nadir iFLC was 1.4 mg/dL and was reached 3.9 months from the end of therapy, longer in transplanted patients compared to patients treated with non-transplant regimens (7.3 vs 1.8 months, respectively; P12 months from the end of therapy were favorable predictors of hemPFS/OS in a multivariate analysis. Conclusion: iFLC at the end of first line therapy better predicts for organ response and survival than dFLC among deep responders. Normalization of sFLCR does not predict for organ response or survival and should not be used as measure of therapeutic efficacy. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy.

Background: It is well known that the staging stratification at diagnosis predicts survival in immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, but there is a paucity of literature delineating the prognostic value of these systems at the time of 2nd-line therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the prognostic value of AL staging among 563 patients with staging data, who initiated a 2nd-line therapy between 2000 and 2015. Both the Revised Mayo 2012 staging system and the European revision of the Mayo 2004 staging system were used. Results: The median time from initial treatment to 2nd-line therapy was 11.6 months. Median follow-up from institution of 2nd-line therapy was 54.1 months. The 1st-line therapy for patients was autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in 216 (38%) patients; and 2) non-ASCT therapies in 347 patients. Both staging systems were prognostic with a risk ratio of 9.4 (95%CI: 6.0, 15.1; pstage II was 65% and 31% (Mayo 2004) and 70% and 23% (Mayo 2012). The respective numbers for patients relapsing from a non-ASCT therapy were 57% and 26% (Mayo 2004) and 60% and 23% (Mayo 2012). Conclusions: This study indicates that the Mayo staging systems work well at the time of instituting 2nd-line therapy and is independent of whether 1st-line therapy was ASCT based. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria. Kumar:KITE: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.

Background: The introduction of several novel agents has led to an improvement in response rates and survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Despite significant therapeutic advances a subset of patients with multiple myeloma do not achieve a deep response to first-line treatment and biomarkers are needed to identify those at risk. Methods: We studied 472 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were treated in clinical practice (n = 280, training cohort) or on prospective clinical trials (n = 192, validation cohort) at Mayo Clinic between 12/2003 and 12/2015. All patients had measurable disease (M-spike ≥ 1.0 g/dL) and received treatment with novel agents. Serum M-spike and free light chains (FLC) were measured before and after the first treatment cycle. The outcome of interest was the best response to first-line treatment (evaluated using the International Myeloma Working Group Uniform Response Criteria). Failure to achieve a deep response was defined as not achieving a very good partial response or better. The serum parameters of interest were the relative decrease in M-spike and absolute free light chain difference (ΔFLC). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the serum parameters before and after the first treatment cycle. Logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between the change in serum parameters after the first treatment cycle and best response to first-line treatment. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis in the training and the validation cohort were 67 (32 - 94) and 66 years (41 - 86), respectively. One hundred eighty one (65%) and 103 patients (54%) were male, respectively. The three most common regimens in the training cohort were lenalidomide + dexamethasone, lenalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone, and bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone. In the validation cohort, the three most common regimens were carfilzomib + thalidomide + cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone, and ixazomib + cyclophosphamide + dexamethasone. In the two cohorts, the median baseline M-spike decreased from 3.1 g/dL (1.0 - 10.0) to 1.7 g/dL (0.0 - 6.6) and 3.2 g/dL (1.0 - 8.5) to 1.4 g/dL (0.0 - 4.5) after the first treatment cycle, respectively (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The median baseline ΔFLC decreased from 31.1 mg/dL (0.0 - 2269.7) to 5.4 mg/dL (0.0 - 785.8) and from 23.3 mg/dL (0.1 - 3579.6) to 4.3 mg/dL (0.0 - 1139.3) after the first treatment cycle, respectively (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). M-spike reduction < 50% during the first treatment cycle was associated with failure to achieve a deep response: OR 4.54 (95% CI 2.72 - 7.58, p < 0.001) in the training cohort and OR 6.68 (95% CI 3.42 - 13.03, p < 0.001) in the validation cohort. Patients with reduction in M-spike < 10% during the first treatment cycle experienced failure to achieve a deep response in 86% (25/29) and 100% (10/10), respectively. ΔFLC reduction < 50% during the first treatment cycle was associated with treatment failure to achieve a deep response: OR 4.83 (95% CI 2.83 - 8.25, p < 0.001) in the training cohort and OR 5.09 (95% CI 2.37 - 10.92, p < 0.001) in the validation cohort. Patients with reduction in ΔFLC < 10% during the first treatment cycle experienced failure to achieve a deep response in 83% (34/41) and 91% (19/21), respectively. Conclusions: Early changes in M-spike and ΔFLC are strong predictors of response to treatment. We established and prospectively validated two readily available biomarkers that can identify patients at risk for treatment failure and may inform treatment decisions in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar: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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Introduction: Thrombocytopenia is a major dose-limiting hematologic toxicity of anti-myeloma therapy. Clinical trial data in the relapsed/refractory setting have linked the development of thrombocytopenia during therapy with bortezomib with improved response to treatment. Less is known about the prognostic significance of early treatment related thrombocytopenia during initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) using novel agents. Aims: The aim of this study was to characterize the effect of new, treatment related thrombocytopenia during initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM with novel agents on survival and clinical response. Methods: We identified 690 patients with newly diagnosed MM treated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2004 to December 2015 through a retrospective record review. All patients received novel agents including proteasome inhibitors (PI) and/or immunomodulatory drugs, were evaluable using the International Myeloma Working Group uniform response criteria, and had platelet counts greater than 150,000/µL prior to initial treatment. Survival outcomes and response were compared in patients who became thrombocytopenic within two cycles of first line treatment, defined as a nadir platelet count less than 150,000/µL, and in patients who did not develop thrombocytopenia. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival in subgroups. Multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models were fit to adjust for known prognostic factors including age, sex, International Staging System (ISS) stage, and the presence of cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate for differences in response between groups. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Of the 690 patients treated with novel agents, 495 patients (72%) received a PI as initial therapy. Median follow up was 3 years (0.1-13.2), median overall survival (OS) was 6.6 years (95% CI 5.9-8.0), and median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.84 years (95% CI 3.53-8.98). 123 patients (18%) developed thrombocytopenia within two cycles of first line therapy; two patients developed platelet counts less than 20,000/µL and none developed counts less than 10,000/µL. Differences in survival estimates for OS and PFS for patients who did not develop thrombocytopenia and those who became thrombocytopenic are illustrated in Figure 1. Median OS in patients who did not develop thrombocytopenia was 7.4 years (95% CI 5.9-8.9), compared to 4.6 years (95% CI 4.1-6.0) in those who became thrombocytopenic (p = 0.003), while median PFS was 5.4 years (95% CI 3.63-NR) and 3.53 years (95% CI 0.49-NR), respectively (p = 0.008). Similar results for both OS and PFS were observed when using a platelet nadir of less than 100,000/µL. These relationships remained statistically significant when adjusting for the effect of known prognostic factors including age, sex, ISS stage, and high-risk cytogenetics, for both OS and PFS (HR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.12-1.59, p = 0.013, n = 387 and HR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.37, p = 0.036, n = 387, respectively). Multivariable-adjusted estimates were similar for the subset of patients receiving PI containing regimens. Development of thrombocytopenia within two cycles was not associated with very good partial response or better (VGPR+) (p = 0.588) or with complete response (CR) (p = 0.968). This was also true for the subset of patients receiving PIs (p = 0.827 and p = 0.772, respectively). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the development of new, treatment related thrombocytopenia within two cycles of first-line therapy with novel agents is independently associated with inferior survival in newly diagnosed MM. This was also true in the subset of patients receiving PI containing regimens. In contrast to prior studies, there was no association between early treatment-related thrombocytopenia and response to treatment for either novel agents in general or PI based therapies. Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier progression free and overall survival estimates stratified by platelet count ≥ 150,000/µL (no thrombocytopenia) and Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: 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; KITE: 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.