Search

The phase 2b, open-label, multicenter SADAL study evaluated single agent oral selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after >= 2 lines of systemic therapy. Similar activity was observed in GCB- and non-GCB DLBCL with a trend to higher response rates in DLBCL transformed from follicular lymphoma. Lower response rates were observed in double expressor DLBCL; higher response rates were observed in patients with baseline hemoglobin >= 10 g/dL and normal levels of C-MYC or BCL-2 expression (51%). Overall, strong single agent activity with selinexor were observed in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.Background: The SADAL study evaluated oral selinexor in patients with relapsed and/or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy. In this post-hoc analysis, we analyzed the outcomes of the SADAL study by DLBCL subtype to determine the effects of DLBCL subtypes on efficacy and tolerability of selinexor. Patients and Methods: Data from 134 patients in SADAL were analyzed by DLBCL subtypes for overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of treatment response, progression-free survival, and adverse events rate. Results: ORR in the entire cohort was 29.1%, and similar in patients with germinal center (GCB) versus non-GCB DLBCL (31.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.45); transformed DLBCL showed a trend towards higher ORR than de novo DLBCL: 38.7% vs. 26.2% (P = 0.23). Despite similar prior treatment regimens and baseline characteristics, patients with DLBCL and normal C-MYC/BCL-2 protein expression levels had a significantly higher ORR (46.2% vs.14.8%, P = 0.012) and significantly longer OS (medians 13.7 vs. 5.1 months, hazard ratio 0.43 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77], P = 0.004) as compared with those whose DLBCL had C-MYC and BCL-2 overexpression. Among patients who had normal expression levels of either C-MYC or BCL-2 and baseline hemoglobin levels >= 10g/dL, ORR was 51.5% (n = 47), with median OS of 15.5 months and median PFS of 4.6 months. Similar rates of adverse events were noted in all subgroups. Conclusions: Overall, single agent oral selinexor showed strong responses in patients with limited treatment alternatives regardless of germinal center B-cell type or disease origin. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

There is limited data on the outcomes of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) in myeloma patients, 75 or older. We retrospectively analyzed all myeloma patients (n = 72)...

Although bortezomib and rituximab have synergistic activity in patients with lymphoma, and can both attenuate graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the drugs have not been used together in patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT). In this phase 1/2 trial, we assessed the safety and activity of bortezomib added to the rituximab (R) plus BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) regimen in patients with relapsed lymphoma undergoing alloSCT. Primary GVHD prophylaxis consisted of tacrolimus and methotrexate. Bortezomib (1 – 1.3 mg/m(2) per dose) was administered intravenously on days −13, −6, −1, and +2. We performed inverse probability weighting analysis to compare GVHD and survival results to a historical control group that received R-BEAM without bortezomib. Thirty-nine patients were assessable for toxic effects and response. The median age was 54 years. The most common diagnosis was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (41%). Twenty-two patients (56%) and 17 patients (44%) received their transplants from matched related and unrelated matched donors, respectively. The maximum tolerated bortezomib dose was 1 mg/m(2). The weighted cumulative incidences of grade II-IV and grade III or IV acute GVHD were 50% and 34%, respectively; these incidences and survival rates were not significantly different from those of the control group. Median survival has not been reached in patients age ≤50 years and who had a long follow-up time of 60.7 months. The R-BEAM regimen has a survival benefit in lymphoma patients age ≤50 years undergoing alloSCT. The addition of bortezomib has no impact on survival or incidence of GVHD.

BACKGROUND The combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) has proven to be the most effective therapy for patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). The majority of the morbidity and mortality from APL therapy occur during the induction phase. The objective of the current study was to identify the risk factors associated with transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and endotracheal intubation during induction therapy in patients with APL. METHODS The authors analyzed the clinical characteristics of 187 patients with newly diagnosed APL who were treated with ATRA and ATO with or without gemtuzumab ozogamicin. The authors documented the percentage change in body weight from baseline to the maximum recorded weight during induction or to the day of ICU transfer. RESULTS A total of 18 patients (10%) who initiated therapy with ATRA and ATO on a regular hospital floor required transfer to the ICU after a median of 12 days of induction therapy. The median volume of transfusions was 4350 mL (range, 60-30,750 mL). The volume of transfusions was the main factor associated with the risk of ICU transfer (odds ratio, 4.1; P

Patients with RR DLBCL who have received ≥ 2 lines of therapy have limited treatment options and an expected overall survival (OS) of < 6 months. The SADAL study evaluated single-agent oral selinexor in patients with RR DLBCL and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 29.1% with median duration of response (DOR) of 9.3 months. The analyses described here evaluated a number of subpopulations in order to understand how response correlates with survival outcomes in order to identify patients who could most optimally benefit from selinexor treatment. Median age was 67 years; 44.8% of patients were ≥ 70 years of age. The median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI 6.2, 13.7) at a median follow-up of 14.8 months. The median OS was not reached in patients with a CR or PR, while patients who did not respond have a median OS of 4.9 months (p < 0.0001). Patients < 70 years had an OS of 11.1 months compared with 7.8 months in patients ≥ 70 years. Among patients with or without prior ASCT, the median OS was 10.9 and 7.8 months, respectively. Among patients with disease refractory to the most recent DLBCL treatment regimen, the median OS was 7.0 months compared with 11.1 months for disease not refractory to the most recent treatment. In a patient population in which survival is expected to be < 6 months, treatment with single-agent oral selinexor was associated with a median survival of 9 months. Increased median OS observed in patients responding to selinexor was consistent across subgroups regardless of age, prior ASCT therapy, or refractory status. Randomized studies of selinexor in combination with a variety of other anti-DLBCL agents are planned. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02227251) on August 28, 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02227251., SCOPUS: le.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy characterized by neoplastic cells that are positive for CD123, CD4, BDCA2, and TCL1 and aberrant expression of CD56. Historically, patients with BPDCN have an unfavorable prognosis and the optimal treatment is not established due to lack of prospective data. Case report In this report we describe a patient with Felty’s syndrome and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in whom a population of aberrant plasmacytoid dendritic cells emerged while on treatment with decitabine. Approximately 4 months later he transformed to leukemic BPDCN with skin and eye manifestations. Cytogenetic analysis showed diploid karyotype and molecular analysis showed mutations in KRAS, NOTCH1, and RUNX1 genes. He was treated with CD123-targeted therapy and had significant response in his marrow, skin, eyes, and functional status after one cycle. Conclusion The case demonstrates that minimal transformative disease of BPDCN may be detectable in patients with MDS well before fulminant progression. Early detection of emerging leukemic clones may allow for alternative monitoring and treatment considerations.

Background: Selinexor is an oral, small molecule, selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound that specifically blocks the karyopherin protein exportin 1 (XPO1, CRM1). In an shRNA library screen, we discovered that the survival of JAK2V167F mutant HEL cells is dependent on XPO1-mediated nuclear-cytoplasmic transport. Selinexor selectively suppressed primary myelofibrosis (MF) cells as compared with normal progenitor cells and induced hematologic responses in an MPN mouse model. Methods: An open label, prospective, investigator-initiated single center study is ongoing in adults with primary or secondary MF with resistance or intolerance to JAK inhibitor (JAKi) therapy with platelets > 30 K/μL and neutrophils > 500/μL. Selinexor was given orally once a week. Spleen volume was assessed by MRI at week 12 and week 24. The study was amended to include additional MRIs every 12 weeks in the year 1 and 24 weeks in the year 2. Primary end point is spleen response, defined as ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction (SVR) by MRI or CT, where applicable) at week 24. Bone marrow was evaluated at baseline and at week 24. The projected sample size of 24 will provide 83% power to reject a response rate of 15% and allow for up to a 25% dropout rate. We provide an interim report after completing 50% enrollment. Results: Between May 2019 and February 2021, 12 patients (pts) were enrolled. JAK2, CALR and MPL mutations were present in 7 (58.3%), 4 (33.3%) and 1 (8.3%) pts respectively. Eight pts (66.6%) had at least one high molecular risk mutation at baseline (Table 1). Median duration of prior JAKi therapy was 22 months (0.5 to 96 months) and 11 out of 12 were refractory to ruxolitinib at study enrollment. Median baseline spleen volume was 1454 cm 3(range 835 to 5792). Selinexor starting dose was 80 mg weekly in the first 6 pts and 60 mg for subsequent pts. At data cutoff, median duration of selinexor therapy was 36 weeks (range 11-114 weeks). One pt was not response evaluable and died due to liver abscess at week 12 (unrelated). One pt discontinued selinexor at week 18 due to grade 3 fatigue and was not evaluable for the primary end point. Of the 11 pts who had week 12 MRI or CT, 6 showed ≥ 10% SVR, 3 showed ≥ 25% SVR and 1 pt had early progression (Figure 1). At week 24, 5/9 (56%) pts had ≥ 25% SVR and 2/9 (22%) had ≥ 35% SVR (Figure 1). In 9 pts who had ≥24 weeks of selinexor, SVR ≥ 25% and ≥ 35% occurred at any point during study treatment in 4 (44%) and 3 (33%) pts, respectively. Two pts were red cell transfusion dependent at baseline; 1 became transfusion independent after 36 weeks of treatment, has not required transfusion for 49 weeks and remains on study treatment to date (114 weeks). Six pts (50%) discontinued selinexor. Reasons for treatment discontinuation are death in 1 pt, progressive disease in 1 pt, alternative treatment in 2 pts, and toxicity in 2 pts. Ten pts required dose reduction due to fatigue (1pt), anemia (1 pt), thrombocytopenia (2 pts), abdominal pain (1pt) and weight loss (5 pts). The most common treatment related adverse event was weight loss (grade 2 in 4 pts and grade 3 in 1 pt). This was manageable with treatment interruption and dose reduction, except in one pt who discontinued selinexor. As yet no changes in reticulin fibrosis MF grade were observed among 9 patients who received at least 24 weeks of treatment. Conclusions: Once weekly, oral selinexor showed single agent activity with sustained spleen responses in pts with JAKi refractory MF. Long-term administration of selinexor was well tolerated over time in MF pts. Correlatives studies including circulating inflammatory cytokine levels and mutant allele burden, as well as clonality studies by X-chromosome inactivation studies in woman, are underway and will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tantravahi: BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Abbvie Inc.: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Patel: Stemline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Chamoun: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah: Karyopharm: Current Employment. George: Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy. Deininger: Fusion Pharma, Medscape, DisperSol: Consultancy; SPARC, DisperSol, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Part of a Study Management Committee, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Part of a Study Management Committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sangamo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Selinexor is a first-in-class Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) that blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and re-activation of tumor suppressor proteins including p53, p73, FOXO, I□B and Rb. The phase 2b SADAL study included 134 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with single agent oral selinexor twice weekly. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.1%, median duration of response (DOR) was 9.3 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 9 months. Based on these data, selinexor was recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL, de novo or transformed from follicular lymphoma. Patients with DLBCL tend to be older (over the age of 65) and have a number of comorbidities, which limits the use of aggressive and multi-agent combination therapies. We performed post-hoc analyses of the SADAL study to determine the effects of age on the efficacy and safety of selinexor in this population. Methods: The SADAL study is multi-center, open-label Phase 2b study that enrolled patients with DLBCL previously treated with 2-5 lines of therapy. Patients may have progressed post-stem cell therapy (SCT) or were not candidates for SCT. In this study, 60 mg of selinexor was administered twice weekly until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR, and other endpoints included DOR, OS, and safety assessments. For the current analysis, outcomes were assessed in patients Results: Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 52 (39%) were 65 (3.8% vs. 11.0%). Conclusions: Patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who were ≥65 years had a similar clinical benefit to those Disclosures Schuster: Amgen, Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Verastem, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Genentech,, Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal Fees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Canales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; iQone: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Westin:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zijlstra:Roche: Research Funding. Follows:Karyopharm, Roche, Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Janssen, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kalakonda:Verastem, Gilead, Celgene, Roche: Research Funding; Gilead, Janssen, Karyopharm: Honoraria. Goy:Constellation: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; MD Anderson: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Morphosys: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding. Casasnovas:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accomodations, expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thieblemont:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Hospira: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Incyte: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support. Cavallo:Gilead: Other: Speaker Fee; Takeda, Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tilly:BMS: Honoraria. Jaeger:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Gurion:JC Health CARE: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medison: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Caimi:Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding. Davies:Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Roche, Celgene, Kite Pharma, Acerta, Karyopharma, Regeneron, Incyte: Consultancy; Roche, Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead: Research Funding; Celegene, Roche, Kite Pharma, Celegene: Honoraria. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Collins:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Salles:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Epizyme: Consultancy; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other; Autolus: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events. Ma:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Corona:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Joshi:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy. Chamoun:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Wang:Curis: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Karyopharm: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Selinexor is a first-in-class Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) that blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and re-activation of tumor suppressor proteins including p53, p73, FOXO, IkB and Rb. The phase 2b SADAL study included 134 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with single agent oral selinexor twice weekly. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.1%, median duration of response (DOR) was 9.3 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 9 months. Based on these data, selinexor was recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL, de novo or transformed from follicular lymphoma. Patients with DLBCL tend to have a number of comorbidities, including poor renal function, which can require a reduction in the dose of intensive chemotherapy as well as lenalidomide, leading to inferior outcomes. Selinexor is not metabolized nor cleared by the kidneys and has been demonstrated to be safe and active in patients with myeloma and renal dysfunction. We performed post-hoc analyses of the SADAL study to determine the efficacy and safety among patients stratified by renal function at baseline. Methods: The SADAL study is multi-center, open-label Phase 2b study that enrolled patients with DLBCL previously treated with 2-5 lines of therapy. Patients may have progressed post-stem cell therapy (SCT) or were not candidates for SCT. In this study, 60 mg of selinexor was administered twice weekly until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR, and other endpoints included DOR, OS, and safety assessments. For the current analysis, outcomes were assessed according to baseline renal function as estimated by the Cockroft-Gault formula for creatinine clearance (CrCl). Groups included those with reduced (CrCl ≤60 mL/min) and normal (CrCl >60 mL/min) renal function. Results: Of 134 patients, 37 (28%) had a reduced baseline CrCl (≤60 mL/min) while 97 (72%) had CrCl >60 mL/min. The median age of patients with reduced CrCl was 74 years with 70% ≥70 years, while the median for those with normal CrCl was 65 years, with 35% ≥70 years. De novo and transformed DLBCL showed similar renal function levels: 78% and 22% with reduced CrCl and 76% and 24% with normal CrCl. Of patients with reduced CrCl, the DLBCL subtype was 41% GCB and 57% non-GCB compared to 50% and 46% in patients with normal CrCl. The group of patients with reduced CrCl had baseline ECOG performance status of 2 in 16% vs 11% in those with normal CrCl. Treatment with selinexor demonstrated a similar ORR in patients with a baseline reduced CrCl (29.7%) versus normal CrCl (28.9%). A complete response (CR) was observed in 8 (21.6%) patients with reduced and 10 (10.3%) patients with normal CrCl. The median duration of response (DOR) in patients who had reduced CrCl was 23.0 months compared to 9.2 months in patients with normal CrCl. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.5 months (95% CI 1.7, 24.8) and 2.3 months (95% CI 1.9, 3.7) and overall survival was 7.8 months and 9.1 months in patients with reduced CrCl and those with normal CrCl. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs for patients with reduced versus normal CrCl were thrombocytopenia (45.9% vs. 38.1%), nausea (5.4% vs. 6.2%), and fatigue (8.1% vs. 11.3%). There was no clinically significant increase in treatment-related serious adverse events (21.6% vs. 20.6%) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (10.8% vs. 7.2%) in patients with reduced or normal CrCl, respectively. Conclusions: Selinexor showed similar anti-DLBCL activity and tolerability in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL with a reduced renal function (CrCl Disclosures Schuster: Amgen, Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Verastem, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Genentech,, Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal Fees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Canales:Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; iQone: Honoraria; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Westin:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; 47: Research Funding. Zijlstra:Roche: Research Funding. Follows:Karyopharm, Roche, Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Janssen, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kalakonda:Gilead, Janssen, Karyopharm: Honoraria; Verastem, Gilead, Celgene, Roche: Research Funding. Goy:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Bayer: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Morphosys: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Casasnovas:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accomodations, expenses, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thieblemont:Cellectis: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Amgen, Kyte Gilead, Celgene, Abbvie, Novartis, Cellectis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Roche, Hospita: Research Funding. Cavallo:Takeda, Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Other: Speaker Fee. Hill:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Tilly:BMS: Honoraria. Jaeger:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gurion:JC Health CARE: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medison: Consultancy, Honoraria. Caimi:Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin:Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy. Davies:Roche, Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead: Research Funding; Roche, Celgene, Kite Pharma, Acerta, Karyopharma, Regeneron, Incyte: Consultancy; Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Celegene, Roche, Kite Pharma, Celegene: Honoraria. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Collins:BeiGene: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding. Salles:Epizyme: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Autolus: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other. Ma:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Corona:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Joshi:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy. Chamoun:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Wang:Curis: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Karyopharm: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Outcome of Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients has improved as the result of the introduction of novel medications and use of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. However, this improvement comes at the expense of increased financial burden. It is largely unknown if socioeconomic factors influence MM survival. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database, a database that houses data on 70% of cancer patients in the US, to evaluate the effect of socioeconomic factors on the survival of 117,926 MM patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014. Results: Patients aged ≥65 years who were privately insured lived longer than patients with Medicare (42 months vs. 31 months, respectively, p &lt, 0.0001). Treatment in academic institutions led to better survival (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.59). Younger age, fewer comorbidities, treatment in academic centers, and living in a higher median income area were significantly associated with improved survival. After adjusting for confounders, survival of Medicare patients was similar to those with private insurance. However, the hazard of death remained higher for patients with Medicaid (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.87) or without insurance (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.32, 1.99), compared to privately insured patients. Conclusion: Economic factors and treatment facility type play an important role in the survival of MM patients.

Introduction Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased in patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) as a result of the biology of the disease and the use of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). These patients frequently undergo autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) transplantation in order to improve disease-free and potentially overall survival. We conducted this study to better understand the incidence and risk factors associated with peri-transplant VTE in this population. Methods 160 MM pts who received IMiD therapy and underwent AHCT between 6/2004 and 11/2016 at our institution were the subjects of this analysis. The peri-transplant period was defined as time from central venous catheter (CVC) insertion up to 60 days post-transplant. None of the pts received VTE prophylaxis during this period. Results All patients received at least one IMiD-based regimen before transplant including thalidomide (31%), lenalidomide (74%), pomalidomide (6%). Imids were stopped at a median of 38 days prior to collection (range 0 days-4 years). CVCs (double lumen n=103, triple lumen n=50, unknown n=7) were inserted a median of 2.5 days prior to mobilized blood collection (range 0-48 days) and were removed a median of 52.5 days after insertion (range 2-303 days). Twenty of 160 patients (12.5%) developed VTE in the peri-transplant period; there was 11 (55%) CVC-related VTE, 6 (30%) lower extremity VTE and 3 (15%) pulmonary embolism. There was no VTE-related death. Median platelet count at the time of VTE was 90 (range, 30-130) x109/L. Eleven VTEs occurred between time of initiation of progenitor cell mobilization and infusion (T-0), and 9 occurred between T-0 and 60 days post-transplant. The rate of catheter-related VTE that occurred before or after T-0 was similar (55%). Thirty-nine percent of pts had a catheter size of less than 14 french; 49% had a catheter size of 14 french or more; the size could not be collected in 12% of the pts. Rate of catheter-related VTE in pts with ≥ 14 and Conclusion In this retrospective single institution analysis, we found a 12.5% incidence of peri-transplant VTEs, which is higher than what was reported in patients receiving transplant for other malignancies [1]. The size of the catheter did not affect the risk of VTE. About half of the VTEs were catheter-related, half of which occurred before T-0. If confirmed on a larger scale, it may be beneficial to give VTE prophylaxis during mobilization to minimize this risk.

Introduction Tacrolimus (tacro) is commonly used for the prevention of graft vs host disease (GVHD) after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Due to concerns of inadequate absorption, tacro is commonly administered intravenously (IV) in the immediate post allogeneic transplant period. Advantages to oral (PO) tacro include decreased need for multi lumen IV catheters, improved patients (pts) convenience, and reduced cost. We retrospectively analyzed differences in safety, tolerability, time to achieve therapeutic levels during the 1st 4 weeks and rates of acute GVHD. Methods IV tacro at 0.02 mg/kg by continuous infusion or PO tacro at 0.03 mg/kg twice daily was started between T-3 and T+5. Levels were assessed 3 times weekly. Dose was titrated to achieve a steady level between 7 and 14 ng/ml. GVHD was graded according to CIBMTR criteria. Results 54 pts were treated between Sep 2016 and July 2018. 21 who received PO tacro and 27 who received IV tacro were studied. 6 pts on PO tacro are still within 100 days post-transplant and will be reported in follow up. The median age was 59 years (range, 21-74), 52% were females, diagnoses were AML (54%), MDS (19%), ALL (15%), CML (6%), NHL (4%) and MF (2%). HCT-CI was 0, 1-3 and >3 in 23%, 54% and 23% of pts, respectively. Donors were match-unrelated (58%), match-related (27%), haploidentical (6%) and double umbilical cord (6%). Conditioning regimens were myeloablative (60%) and reduced intensity (40%). 60% of pts received rabbit ATG (3 mg/Kg). GVHD prophylaxis also included mini-MTX on days +1, +3, +5 and +11 (79%), MMF (15%), and MMF + post-transplant Cy (6%). Pts characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. 7 pts (33%) who initially started on PO tacro switched to IV due to poor absorption (3), mucositis (1), toxicity (1), GVHD (1) and patient's concern (1). Target therapeutic level was reached in 67% vs 81% during week 1, 86% vs 96% during week 2, 95% vs 96% during week 3, and 100% vs 96% during week 4, of pts on PO vs IV tacro, respectively. Median tacro level during the 1st 4 weeks was 12.6 ng/ml vs 11.2 ng/ml, acute kidney injury occurred in 23.8% vs 33.3% (p=.47) and increased bilirubin occurred in 4.7% vs 22.2% (p=.09), in pts on PO vs IV tacro. Posterior reversible encephalopathy was observed in 1 patient on PO tacro. Grade I and Grade II-IV acute GVHD incidence was 47.6% vs 14.8% (p=.01) and 47.6% vs 44.4% (p=.82) of pts on PO vs IV tacro. Stage 1-2 skin aGVHD rate was higher in the PO vs. IV group (90% vs 33.3%; p=.0001). There was no difference in rates of stage 3 skin (4.7% vs 3.7%), stage 1 GI (33.3% vs 33.3%), or stage 2-4 GI (14% vs 7.4%) aGVHD. None of the pts had stage 4 skin or any stage liver aGVHD. Conclusion PO tacro is safe and effective in the prevention of aGVHD in pts receiving myeloablative or RIC allo-SCT. The use of PO tacro during the 1st 4 weeks post-transplant was found to be associated with higher rate of stage 1-2 skin aGVHD and warrants further study.

The impact of bone marrow fibrosis grade on the prognosis of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) remains controversial. Therefore, we examined the records of 82 patients diagnosed with CMML at our institution and summarized baseline characteristics and molecular profiles by subgroups of absent or mild (grades 0/1) and moderate (grade 2) fibrosis. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess the prognostic significance of fibrosis grade. Grade 2 fibrosis was identified in 63 patients (76.8%), grade 1 in 16 patients (19.5%), and grade 0 in 3 patients (3.7%). Grade 2 fibrosis was associated with reduced hemoglobin levels (median: 9.75 g/dL vs 11.0 g/dL in grade 0/1; p = 0.04) and increased percentages of ringed sideroblasts (7.5% vs 0%; p = 0.008). In multivariable analysis, grade 2 fibrosis was an independent predictor of poor overall survival (OS; 95% CI: 1.32–6.35; HR: 2.90; p = 0.008), but not event-free survival (EFS; 95% CI: 0.62–2.67; HR: 1.28; p = 0.50). Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was found to impact OS (95% CI: 1.01–1.09; HR: 1.05; p = 0.009), while both ANC (95% CI: 1.00–1.07; HR: 1.04; p = 0.04) and peripheral blood blast percentage (95% CI: 1.02–1.32; HR: 1.16; p = 0.02) impacted EFS. These results implicate fibrosis grade is an important indicator of prognosis, with high-grade fibrosis predicting inferior survival. Given the prevalence of marrow fibrosis in CMML, fibrosis grading should be incorporated into prognostic assessment and therapeutic decision-making.

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SM) is a heterogenous clinical entity with a variable rate of progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM). Identification of demographic characteristics and outcomes of SM patients have been hampered by the lack of specific ICD code for SM. Here, we analyzed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for this purpose, which covers >70% of cancer patients in the U.S. Methods: We reviewed patients in the NCDB who were diagnosed with MM between 2010 and 2014. Patients who did not receive any treatment within 3 months after the diagnosis and still alive were considered to have had SM (Ravindran et al. Blood Cancer J. 2016). Initiation of systemic treatment was considered as a surrogate of progression to symptomatic MM. Overall survival (OS) of SM patients was calculated from initiation of systemic treatment after they progressed to MM, estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared with the log-rank test. Cumulative incidence of progression from SM to MM was calculated with death as a competing risk and compared with the Gray's test. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression analysis were performed to identify independent predictors of OS and progression to MM, respectively. Results: We reviewed 68,234 patients and identified 12,984 patients with SM. Among SM patients, 3002 (23%) were black, 6796 (52%) were male, and median age at diagnosis was 69 years (range: 22 - 90). SM patients' insurance types were private for 4164 (32%), Medicare for 7420 (57%), Medicaid for 669 (5%), and 260 (2%) were uninsured. Majority of the cases were reported from non-academic hospitals (59%). Patient and treatment characteristics are summarized in Table 1. SM was diagnosed in black patients a median of 4 years younger than in white patients (median age 66 vs 70 years, p Four-year cumulative incidence of progression to MM for SM patients at ages of 70 years was 34% (95% CI: 32 - 35) vs 28% (95% CI: 26 - 29, p Four-year OS of SM patients after progression and MM patients without known preceding SM who received treatment were 63% (95% CI: 61 - 65) and 54% (95% CI: 54 - 55), respectively (p70 vs 60-70 and Conclusion: Taken together, our result shows higher rate of MM progression in younger SMM patients than old ones as well as earlier age of SMM diagnosis in Blacks. Also, this study highlights the importance of known SMM stage before MM in prolonging survival which can be indicative of benefit from screening programs. Disclosures Metheny: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Malek:Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Medpacto: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Adaptive: Consultancy.

Advent of novel anti-myeloma agents and broader use of stem cell transplant has led to significant improvement in survival of patients (pts) with Multiple Myeloma (MM). However, there are well-described issues with affordability of novel drugs and rapidly escalating price of these agents (Shih et al. JCO 2017), leading to significant disparity among different sociodemographic groups. Hereby, we interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) (which covers 70% of MM patient diagnosed nationwide) to assess impact of insurance type on survival. We also sought to investigate if autologous transplant may overcome socioeconomic effects on survival, by potentially minimizing the need for chronic use of expensive drugs. Methods: Data from 117,926 MM pts diagnosed with MM (ICD-O 9732) between year 2005 and 2014 were analyzed.. The comparison of patient characteristics among insurance types was done using ANOVA for continuous measurements and Chi-square test for categorical factors. OS was measured from the date of diagnosis to the date of death, censored at the date of last follow-up for survivors. Survivor distribution was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and difference of OS between groups was examined by log-rank test. The effect of continuous measurements including age, distance to medical facility and facility volume on OS was estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of insurance type on OS was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression after adjusting the effects of confounding factors. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (19-90); 55% were males. 57% of pts lived in areas where the median income was < $46k/year (individual income data was not available); Primary insurance was Medicare (52%), private insurance (35%) or Medicaid (5%), and 3% were uninsured. 40% were treated in academic institutions. Median follow up was 30.2 (range, 0-145.2) months. By univariate analysis, better OS was observed in pts with primary MM, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), treatment in academic institutions, higher median regional income, or private insurance (p 120 miles to the treatment facility than patients with Medicare (3%).Amongst patients younger than 65 years, 33% of patients with private insurance received transplant compared to 20% of those on Medicare (p Conclusions: Although insurance type and regional income are associated with MM survival among patients who relied on non-transplant modalities, there was no significant impact of these socioeconomic factors on survival of patients that received an autologous transplant in this large database. This finding merits further investigation. Disclosures Malek: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Adaptive: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Medpacto: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy.

LBA107 Background: MM is often treated with oral antineoplastic medications (OAM). OAM prices have been rapidly escalating and there are well-described issues with affordability (Shih et al. JCO 2017). We therefore hypothesized that insurance status influences MM patients (pts) survival and interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to test this hypothesis. Methods: NCDB houses data on 70% of cancer pts in the USA. Data from 117,926 MM pts diagnosed between year 2005 and 2014 was analyzed. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) which was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox model. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (19-90); 55% were males. 57% of pts lived in areas where the median income was < $46k/year (individual income data was not available); Primary insurance was Medicare (52%), private insurance (35%) or Medicaid (5%), and 3% were uninsured. 40% were treated in academic institutions. Median follow up was 30 months (0-145). By univariate analysis, better OS was observed in pts with primary MM, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), treatment in academic institutions, higher median regional income, or private insurance ( p

e18170 Background: Multiple Myeloma (MM) counts the most common hematologic malignance among African-Americans with twice the incidence of whites. The outcomes have greatly improved during the last 15 years, however with changing demographics there is an increasing focus on how various subgroups, based on race and ethnicity may be benefiting from survival improvement in MM. Previous studies showed that if access to care is assured, racial disparity-driven differences in outcome may be mitigated. Here, we conducted a study using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), which covers more than 70% of cancer pts in the USA, to evaluate survival patterns by race. Methods: MM patients (pts) diagnosed between years 2005 and 2014 and reported to the NCDB were analyzed (n = 117926). Pts were divided in three groups based on the year (y) of diagnosis (2005-07, 2008-10 and 2011-14). Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for overall survival analysis (OS). The effect size, hazard ratio (HR), of race on OS was estimated by Cox model adjusted by confounders. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 67 y (19 - 90); 55% were males. Median follow up was 30 months (m) (0 - 145). Median OS for white and black pts was 46 m (95% CI: 45.4 - 46.6) and 50.6 m (95% CI: 49.1 - 52.3), respectively (p < 0.0001). Black had longer OS compared to white pts by univariable analysis in all three study periods, noticeably with a trend toward higher survival benefit in most recent years. After adjusting for a variety of factors there was no statistically significant difference between the two racial groups (Table). Conclusions: This large study confirmed that after adjusting for confounding factors survival is similar for white and black MM pts. [Table: see text]

e13064 Background: SMM is the requisite asymptomatic phase that precedes Multiple Myeloma (MM). Observation until progression to MM has been the standard of care. However, the improvement in risk assessment and utility of chemoprevention strategies stemmed from large trials (e.g. QUIREDEX and E3A06) is beginning to shift the paradigm toward early detection of SMM by implementing screening strategies (e.g., PROMIS study). Lack of specific ICD code for SMM has been a major problem in epidemiologic studies aiming at characterizing the demographics and temporal dynamics of SMM. Here, we used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), which covers more than 70% of cancer pts in the USA, for this purpose. Methods: NCDB data from year 2010 to 2014 was analyzed. We defined SMM as pts with ICD-O 9732 that were placed on active surveillance or did not receive any therapy in the first 3 months (m) after diagnosis (Ravindran et al. Blood Cancer J. 2016). Institution size was categorized as small, medium and large if they reported < 10, 10-50, and > 50 cases per year, respectively. Results: Out of a total of 68234 MM pts, we identified 11643 (17%) with SMM. Median follow up was 32 m (0 - 85). Median age was 65 years (26 - 90), 52% were males, 71% were white and 24% were black. Median survival was 77.7 and 49.8 m for pts with SMM and MM, respectively ( p= 0.001). Median age at diagnosis of SMM was 62 and 66 years in blacks and whites, respectively ( p= 0.01). Over 87% of pts were diagnosed in small and medium size institutions (38% and 49%, respectively). Medicare was the main insurance payer (57%), followed by private insurance (32%) and Medicaid (5%), and 3% were not insured. The majority of pts (59.5%) lived in areas where the median income is less than $46K/year. Median distance traveled to treatment facility was 8.5 miles. During the first two years from diagnosis 18% needed treatment which is compatible with known estimated 10% per year risk of progression from SMM to MM. Conclusions: This large study of over 11,000 SMM pts highlights the national demographics of SMM diagnosed between years 2010 and 2014. Our results indicate that targeting small and medium size facilities should be an essential part of SMM screening strategies.

Therapeutic improvements are required for primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) and secondary CNS lymphoma. PCNSLs are predominantly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) classified in the non-germinal center (non-GC) subgroup.1 The role of B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling to continuously activate the NF-κB pathway is well-established in non-GC DLBCL.2 Mutations of MYD88 , CD79B , and TBL1XR1 , genes involved in the NF-κB pathway, are frequently encountered in PCNSL.3 Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of BCR signaling, led to an objective response rate of 50% in patients with relapsed or refractory systemic non-GC DLBCL.4 As a small molecule (MW = 440), with promising CNS distribution,5 ibrutinib represents a potential treatment for PCNSL. We report a retrospective case series of patients with relapsed and refractory CNS lymphoma treated with ibrutinib.

e18543 Background: GVHD remains the main limitation of alloSCT and is exacerbated by the intensity of the conditioning regimen. In a recent study, the risk of acute grade II-IV GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD (cGVHD) after a nonmyelobaltive (NMA) regimen was 11%, and 26%, respectively (Khouri I. Blood 2014 124:2306). Higher rates were previously observed (32% and 54%, respectively) with the BEAM regimen. Based on clinical data showing a reduction in GVHD with the use of rituximab or bortezomib, we conducted a phase I/II study evaluating the addition of bortezomib to rituximab+BEAM in patients (pts.) who were not eligible for NMA alloSCT. Methods: Bortezomib was administered at 1.3 mg/m2 IV on days -13, -6, -1 and +2. The dose was later reduced to 1 mg/m2 after the occurrence of C. Difficile colitis in the first 3 pts. leading to 2 deaths. Rituximab was given on day -13 at a dose of 375 mg/m2, then at 1000 mg/m2 on days -6, +1, and +8 of alloSCT. BEAM was administered between days -6 and -1. All pts. received our standard GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus and methotrexate. In addition, thymoglobulin 1 mg/kg IV was given on days -2, and -1 in patients receiving matched unrelated donor (MUD) or mismatched (MM) transplants. Results: Thirty-nine pts. were studied. Median age was 54 yrs. Thirteen (33%) and 26 (67%) pts. had indolent or aggressive lymphoma histologies, respectively. Sixteen (41%) pts. were refractory. Twenty-two (56%) received alloSCT from HLA-compatible siblings, 16 (41%) from MUDs and 1 (3%) from mm donors. Peripheral blood was the source of stem cells in 97% of pts. ABO and CMV-mismatch rates were 56% had 50%, respectively. Median follow up surviving patients was 65 mos. Five-year OS and PFS rates were 35% and 28%, respectively. The CI of acute grade II-IV, III-IV, and cGVHD were 55%, 34%, and 41%, respectively. No predictor for acute GVHD was identified. Instead, we found that sex-mismatched transplants were predictive of a higher risk of cGVHD ( P= 0.01). Conclusions: The current trial is the first one evaluating the safety and efficacy of bortezomib plus rituximab as a part of the BEAM regimen for alloSCT. A better prophylaxis regimen is needed to lessen the risk of GVHD in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00439556.

7011 Background: AML LSC are believed to be responsible for residual and resistant leukemic disease leading to relapse. Understanding differences between bulk AML and the LSC subpopulation may allow the identification of novel LSC targets, especially for the most adverse risk AML where few patients are cured. Targeting LSC may be needed to eradicate AML, and immune-based therapies provide an approach for eliminating LSC. The transcriptional landscape of immune-related genes in LSC is not well understood. Methods: Samples were collected at diagnosis from 12 patients with high-risk AML prior to therapy. Bulk (CD45-dim blasts) and LSC (Lin-CD34+CD38-CD123+) AML marrow cells were FACS-sorted and analyzed using whole genome RNA-sequencing. Transcriptomes were analyzed using AltAnalyze software to identify differentially expressed genes in bulk AML cells and in AML LSC populations. These genes were further assessed by gene enrichment analysis using data from Gene Ontology (GO) and the Cancer Genome Atlas Project (CGAP). Results: Sixty-eight genes were identified with greater than 3-fold differential expression between bulk AML and LSC. GO enrichment analysis demonstrated more than 10-fold enrichment of genes involved in the molecular functions, biologic processes, and cell components related to the antigen presentation pathway, with the comparative down-regulation occurring in LSC. Among the top differentially expressed gene clusters, both the MHC class II and interferon-gamma signaling/response pathway gene expression was blunted in LSC. Additional expression analysis revealed that 42% of a CGAP-curated list of 201 antigen-processing and -presentation genes had significantly decreased expression in the LSC subpopulation compared to bulk AML. Conclusions: LSC from primary AML patient samples are characterized by reduction in expression of MHC class II receptor and antigen presentation genes compared to bulk AML. These results suggest that impairment in the presentation and/or processing of tumor associated antigens by MHC class II on LSC, along with tonic sponging of immune response cells and diversion away from LSC by bulk AML, may contribute to LSC evasion of immune surveillance and response.