Search

Second-generation immunomodulatory agents, such as lenalidomide, have a more favourable side-effect profile than the first-generation thalidomide, but their optimum combination and duration for patients with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible myeloma (ND-TNE-MM) has not been defined. The most appropriate delivery and dosing regimens of these therapies for patients at advanced age and frailty status is also unclear. The Myeloma XI study compared cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTDa) to cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (CRDa) as induction therapy, followed by a maintenance randomisation between ongoing therapy with lenalidomide or observation for patients with ND-TNE-MM. CRDa deepened response but did not improve progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) compared to CTDa. However, analysis by age group highlighted significant differences in tolerability in older, frailer patients that may have limited treatment delivery and impacted outcome. Deeper responses and PFS and OS benefits with CRDa over CTDs were seen in patients aged ≤70 years, with an increase in toxicity and discontinuation observed in older patients. Our results highlight the importance of considering age and frailty in the approach to therapy for patients with ND-TNE-MM, highlighting the need for prospective validation of frailty adapted therapy approaches, which may improve outcomes by tailoring treatment to the individual.

The optimal way to use immunomodulatory drugs as components of induction and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma is unresolved. We addressed this question in a large phase III randomized trial, Myeloma XI. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (n = 2042) were randomized to induction therapy with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) or cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD). Additional intensification therapy with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (CVD) was administered before ASCT to patients with a suboptimal response to induction therapy using a response-adapted approach. After receiving high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), eligible patients were further randomized to receive either lenalidomide alone or observation alone. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CRD regimen was associated with significantly longer PFS (median: 36 vs. 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.96; P = 0.0116) and OS (3-year OS: 82.9% vs. 77.0%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.93; P = 0.0072) compared with CTD. The PFS and OS results favored CRD over CTD across all subgroups, including patients with International Staging System stage III disease (HR for PFS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; HR for OS, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09), high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; HR for OS, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15) and ultra high-risk cytogenetics (HR for PFS, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-1.11; HR for OS, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.25). Among patients randomized to lenalidomide maintenance (n = 451) or observation (n = 377), maintenance therapy improved PFS (median: 50 vs. 28 months; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; P < 0.0001). Optimal results for PFS and OS were achieved in the patients who received CRD induction and lenalidomide maintenance. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) and ISRCTN49407852.

Background Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. Methods and findings The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51–0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19–5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10−5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. Conclusions The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852., Graham Jackson and co-workers study a combination induction treatment including carfilzomib for patients with transplant-eligible myeloma., Author summary Why was this study done? Although outcomes for myeloma patients have improved over recent decades, many patients will eventually relapse, and finding new treatment regimens that keep patients in first remission for longer is imperative. Treatment combinations aim to target myeloma using different mechanisms of action. This aims to prevent resistant cells remaining and leading to relapse. Carfilzomib has been shown to be effective in the treatment of relapsed myeloma when given in combination with lenalidomide. We performed this study to compare the outcomes of newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) to those of patients treated with immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet control combinations. What did the researchers do and find? A total of 1,056 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma were randomised between KRdc and control. Patients receiving the quadruplet KRdc combination were more likely to achieve at least a very good partial response and had longer progression-free survival than patients receiving control treatments. Side effects were not significantly increased with the quadruplet combination compared to control. What do the findings mean? The results suggest that KRdc can elicit deep responses and long periods of progression-free survival with tolerable side effects in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Further studies are needed to compare KRdc to combinations of other new agents for the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma patients.

Background Darwinian evolution drives multiple myeloma (MM) and leads to diversity both within and between patients. This suggests the need for combinations of agents with different mechanisms of action targeting sub-clonal populations to maximize the depth of response and improve outcomes. Approaches to maximize response pre-transplant include the use of sequential pre-transplant consolidation with a different agent in sub-optimal responders or intensifying upfront combinations whilst aiming to minimize additional toxicities. Carfilzomib is a novel irreversible inhibitor of the proteasome that has been suggested to have greater activity than bortezomib, with deeper responses and improved outcomes. The Myeloma XI phase III randomized trial for newly diagnosed MM patients compared intensified induction with the quadruplet KCRD vs a response adapted approach of sequential triplet therapies for transplant-eligible MM patients. Methods KCRD was given in 28 day cycles (carfilzomib (K) 36mg/m2 IV d1-2, 8-9,15-16 (20mg/m2 #1d1-2), cyclophosphamide (C) 500mg PO d1,8, lenalidomide (R) 25mg PO d1-21, dexamethasone (D) 40mg PO d1-4,8-9,15-16), CRD in 28 day cycles (C 500mg PO d1,8, R 25mg PO d1-21, D 40mg PO d1-4, 12-15) or CTD in 21 day cycles (C 500mg PO d1,8,15 thalidomide (T) 100-200mg PO daily, D 40mg PO d1-4,12-15). All induction regimens were continued for a minimum of 4 cycles and to maximum response. Suboptimal responders (MR/PR) to CTD/CRD were randomized between pre-transplant intensification with a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib, CVD) containing triplet or no further therapy prior to ASCT, patients with refractory disease (SD/PD) all received CVD. For all patients a maintenance randomization 3 months post ASCT compared lenalidomide given to disease progression to observation. Cytogenetic data, centrally analyzed, was available for a representative subset of patients. High-risk was classified as presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) or gain(1q) and ultra-high risk the presence of more than one lesion. 1056 patients underwent induction randomization between December 2013 and April 2016 and were allocated to CTD n=265, CRD n=265, KCRD n=526. The groups were well matched across baseline variables with median age 61 (range 33-75). The median follow up for this analysis is 34.5 months. The independent data monitoring and ethics committee recommended immediate release of the data following an interim analysis. Results Intention to treat analysis of the initial induction regimens found that KCRD was associated with a significantly longer PFS than triplet therapy (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.51, 0.76, median PFS KCRD NR vs CTD/CRD 36.2 months, p All regimens were well tolerated with no significant additional toxicity due to the quadruplet regimen. KCRD was administered for a median of 4 cycles, CRD 5 cycles and CTD 6 cycles. Grade 3+ neutropenia occurred in 16.4% KCRD, 22.3% CRD and 12.8% CTD patients and thrombocytopenia in 8.4% KCRD, 2.3% CRD and 1.2% CTD patients. A higher proportion of patients receiving KCRD induction were able to undergo ASCT than those who received response-adapted induction. In an analysis restricted to those who had completed ASCT, KCRD induction was still associated with a significantly longer PFS. An exploratory analysis compared the patients receiving KCRD to patients in the CTD/CRD arm who had received the optimum response-adapted approach (i.e. excluding those randomized to no CVD following MR/PR). The quadruplet was associated with significantly longer PFS than using a response adapted sequential triplet approach (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.78, p Conclusions This large randomized study of a carfilzomib containing quadruplet combination, KCRD, demonstrates that it is well tolerated and associated with deep responses both pre- and post-transplant and has a significant PFS and PFS2 benefit compared to triplet therapy. The benefit of upfront intensification of treatment persisted even compared to triplets administered sequentially and including exposure to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. On behalf of the NCRI Haem-oncology CSG Disclosures Jackson: Merck Sharp and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Davies:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; ASH: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; TRM Oncology: Honoraria. Pawlyn:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support. Cairns:Merck Sharp and Dohme: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Striha:Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hockaday:MSD: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Collett:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Kishore:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Celgene: Honoraria. Garg:Novartis: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Travel Grant. Williams:Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau. Karunanithi:Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Lindsay:Takeda: Other: Travel support; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support. Jenner:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cook:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Russell:Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Owen:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Gregory:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Research Funding. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction FCR improves PFS and OS in CLL. Previous non-randomised Phase II trials suggest adding mitoxantrone to FCR (FCM-R) improves outcomes. The rituximab dose in CLL was inferred from lymphoma but in CLL even low doses of rituximab lead to the loss of CD20 expression (“shaving”) suggesting that low dose rituximab with chemotherapy may be effective. Aims The primary objective was to assess whether the CR rate to FCM-miniR was not inferior to FCR. Secondary objectives were MRD eradication, overall response rates and safety. Late endpoints (not reported) were PFS, OS and MRD relapse. Methods ARCTIC was a phase IIB, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial in previously untreated CLL performed in 34 UK centres. 206 patients were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR with an 80% power to show that FCM-miniR did not lead to 10% worse CR rates compared to FCR. A formal interim analysis on the primary endpoint was planned after 103 patients. The schedule for oral FCR was equivalent to iv FCR with iv rituximab given on Day 1 (375mg/m2 Cycle 1; 500mg/m2 Cycles 2-6), oral fludarabine (24mg/m2/day for 5 days; Days 1-5) and oral cyclophosphamide (150mg/m2/day for 5 days; Days 1-5). FCM-miniR included intravenous mitoxantrone (6mg/m2/day) and 100mg rituximab on Day 1 of 6 cycles given 28 days apart. Patients with neutropenia delaying therapy received G-CSF (lenograstim 263mcg/day; Days 7-13) on all remaining cycles. Prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole and acyclovir was used. Results 200 patients were recruited, 100 to each arm. The interim analysis after 103 patients indicated that although the CR rate to FCM-miniR was similar to predicted it was inferior to FCR. The independent DMC advised that the trial would not show non-inferiority for FCM-miniR and recruitment was stopped. A further 97 patients were recruited up to the interim analysis. 21 patients still receiving FCM-miniR were advised to cross-over to FCR. 100 patients received FCR, 79 FCM-miniR and 21 patients randomised to FCM-miniR crossed over to FCR. The treatment arms were well balanced for the following: median age 63 (36-80) and 20% (n=40) over 70; 67.5% male; 17% prog. stage A, 47% stage B and 35.5% stage C. 33.5% had a creatinine clearance under 70ml/min. 60% (87/146) had unmutated Ig genes; 4% (6/164) 17p deletion; and 15% (26/168) 11q deletion. More 11q del patients were randomised to FCM-miniR (15 vs 7). 29.5% (59/200) discontinued therapy early including 30% (n=30) FCR and 35.4% (n=28) FCM-miniR. 141 (70.5%) completed 6 cycles. 93 (49%) of 189 received G-CSF - more with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (54% vs 44%). 117 (58.5%) patients experienced a dose modification; 57% for FCR and 62% for FCM-miniR; the most common being dose delay in 47% of patients. 181 SAE's were reported from 104 patients; 79 events from 49% (49/100) receiving FCR, 80 from 58% (46/79) receiving FCM-miniR and 47% (9/22) cross-over patients. 62.5% of related SAE's were infectious. 3 patients died due to an SAE, 1 FCR and 2 FCM-miniR. We report only the 179 intention-to-treat patients who did not cross-over. To date 146 of 179 patients (82%) have undergone independent central review. 70% (102/146) achieved a CR or CRi; 78% (62/79) FCR and 60% (40/67) FCM-miniR. 13/22 (59%) patients with a baseline creatinine clearance of Conclusion ARCTIC was stopped prematurely as it was clear that the arm containing mitoxantrone and low dose rituximab would not be non-inferior to FCR. However both FCR and FCM-miniR performed well with CR rates of 78% and 60% respectively. This compares favourably to CR rates of 38% for FC in LRF CLL4 Trial and 44% for FCR in the GCLLSG CLL8 Trial. MRD was undetectable in 55% of patients receiving FCR and 46% for FCM-miniR. Oral FCR in front-line CLL results in extremely high CR rates and the eradication of detectable MRD in the majority. Low dose rituximab (100mg per cycle; 600mg total dose compared to 2875mg/m2 for standard FCR) in combination with FCM appears to be effective although FCM-miniR is inferior to full dose FCR. However there is more toxicity associated with the addition of mitoxantrone confounding the comparison of rituximab doses. Disclosures: Hillmen: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: The use of ofatumumab in combination with chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL. The reported trial will support the extension of the ofatumumab licence. Schuh:GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria.

Background Lenalidomide is an effective treatment for myeloma and has been studied in a range of combination regimens worldwide. The results of these studies have suggested that prolonged exposure to lenalidomide is important to improve outcomes both as a maintenance agent post-transplant (Attal M et al NEJM 2012, McCarthy et al NEJM 2012) and in the transplant ineligible population (Palumbo A et al NEJM 2012, Benboubker L et al NEJM 2014). In the Myeloma XI study, the largest of its kind, we explored the use of oral lenalidomide continued to disease progression compared to no therapy in both newly diagnosed transplant eligible (TE) and transplant non-eligible (TNE) populations. Here we present the results of this maintenance randomization, which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of maintenance lenalidomide. Methods The Myeloma XI study is a Phase III, UK-based, multicenter, open-label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial for newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients of all ages and includes a maintenance comparison of lenalidomide versus no maintenance. Newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients both TE and TNE were enrolled to the study. Induction treatment in both pathways was with thalidomide or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, with appropriate dose reductions for TNE patients. TE patients proceded to a standard melphalan 200mg/m2 transplant. Patients were randomized to either maintenance lenalidomide or observation after achieving maximum response (TNE) or at 100 days after transplant (TE). Lenalidomide was administered at a dose of 10mg daily in 21/28 day cycles until disease progression. Dose adjustments for renal impairment and following AEs were permitted. The primary endpoints for the maintenance randomization were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival. Secondary endpoints included response, toxicity and PFS2. Time-to-event endpoints were measured from maintenance randomization. This abstract summarizes a preliminary analysis, final data will be presented at the meeting. The median follow up in this analysis is 26 months [IQR 12-41]. Results A total of 1550 patients, 828 TE and 722 TNE, median age 61 and 74 years, respectively, were randomized between lenalidomide (n=857) and no maintenance (n=693). The arms were well-balanced for clinical features and response to induction therapy (e.g. ISS stage III: 27% vs 23%, VGPR/CR: 73% vs 73%). The maintenance randomization has met its primary endpoint demonstrating a 55% reduction in risk of progression or death for lenalidomide compared to no maintenance (HR 0.45 [95%CI 0.39-0.52], median PFS 37 vs 19 months, p The benefit of lenalidomide maintenance on PFS persisted across risk subgroups and was independent of induction therapy and response. An exploratory analysis of 132 patients stopping lenalidomide treatment for reasons other than disease progression (91 toxicity, 28 patient choice and 13 clinician choice) shows that patients receiving greater than 12 months of treatment have an improved median PFS compared to those stopping earlier (HR 0.35 [95%CI 0.18-0.68], 49 vs 31 months, p At this time 445 patients continue to receive lenalidomide maintenance on study. Of patients who have stopped therapy, only 21.5% did so due to toxicity. Relevant grade 3/4 adverse events were: neutropenia 35%, thrombocytopenia 7.4%, anaemia 4.4%, peripheral neuropathy 1.4%. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 2.3%. Second primary malignancy (SPM) data was collected and the relationship with maintenance therapy reviewed. 72 SPM were observed (24 no maintenance, 48 lenalidomide). Haematologic malignancy crude incidence was 0.3% vs. 0.9%. While we found a slight excess of SPM in older patients these were mostly non-invasive and did not impact the outcome benefit demonstrated. Conclusion The use of maintenance lenalidomide treatment results in highly significant improvements in PFS for patients of all ages and should be standard of care. On behalf of the NCRI Haem-Onc CSG Disclosures Jackson: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Davies:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kishore:celgene: Other: travel grant. Garg:Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Williams:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Karunanithi:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Lindsay:Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Jenner:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Owen:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Maximising response in myeloma (MM) patients with effective induction regimens prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) improves progression-free and overall survival. Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and/or proteasome inhibitor (PI) are standard of care, however a more personalised approach is achieved by sequential triplet combinations based on an individual's response. Alternatively, quadruplet regimens may be more effective and new generation PIs such as carfilzomib, with less off-target activity, provide the opportunity to investigate this whilst minimising the risk of increased toxicity. The UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial is a large, phase III study aiming to answer these questions in transplant eligible (TE) patients comparing the quadruplet carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone to the sequential strategy of triplet IMiD combinations (with thalidomide or lenalidomide) followed by additional PI triplet therapy for those with a suboptimal response ( Methods: In 2013, the TE pathway was amended to include KCRD: carfilzomib 36mg/m2 IV d1-2,8-9,15-16 (20mg/m2 #1d1-2), cyclophosphamide (cyclo) 500mg PO d1,8, lenalidomide (len) 25mg PO d1-21, dexamethasone (dex) 40mg PO d1-4,8-9,15-16). Patients are randomised to this up-front quadruplet or the sequential strategy of CRD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8, len 25mg PO d1-21 PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4, 12-15 or CTD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8,15 thalidomide 100-200mg PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4,12-15 given to max. response - patients with VGPR/CR proceed straight to ASCT, PR/MR are randomised to sequential CVD: cyclo 500mg d1,8,15, bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 IV/SC d1,4,8,11, dex 20mg PO d1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12 or nothing and SD/PD all receive sequential CVD. All treatments are given to max. response prior to ASCT, after which there is a maintenance randomisation. Patients: 1512 patients entered the TE pathway prior to amendment (756 CRD, 756 CTD). Of these, 201 patients with a suboptimal initial response went on to receive CVD, 142 following randomisation (initial response PR/MR) and 59 with NC/PD. 788 (of target n=1036) patients have been randomised post-amendment to date (394 KCRD, 197 CRD, 197 CTD). Results: TE patients receiving treatment prior to the amendment had response rates ≥VGPR: CRD 58% vs CTD 52%. For patients receiving the sequential triplet CVD due to a suboptimal response this was upgraded to ≥VGPR in 49% of those with initial MR/PR, 27% with NC/PD. This suggests the overall ≥VGPR rate to this treatment approach prior to ASCT would be approx. 75%. This now needs to be compared to the alternative approach of an upfront quadruplet. Comparing patients contemporaneously randomised to initial induction the patients receiving KCRD have completed a median 4 cycles (range 1-7), CRD 5 (range 1-10) and CTD 6 (range 1-9). Dose modifications have been required in 62% of patients receiving KCRD (56% to carfilzomib, 42% to lenalidomide) 44% CRD (40% to lenalidomide) and 65% CTD (59% to thalidomide). Data for study drug related toxicity in patients who have completed at least one cycle of initial induction are shown in table 1. Serious adverse events suspected to be due to trial medications have occurred in 37% on KCRD, 32% CRD and 35% CTD. Updated toxicity and preliminary response analysis on 23/09/15 will be presented at the meeting. This will include a response comparison at the end of initial induction regimen i.e. KCRD vs CRD vs CTD for an anticipated 700 contemporaneous patients who will have completed treatment. Updated response to the sequencing approach (with 250 patients having received sequential CVD) will also be presented and compared. Conclusions: In our study KCRD, an outpatient delivered 4-drug regimen combining second generation IMiD and PI drugs, is well-tolerated in TE NDMM patients, comparable to 3-drug regimens. Data will be presented at the meeting to compare the response rates achieved with the different regimens and treatment approaches. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-oncology CSG Table 1. Comparative toxicities KCRD n=261 CRD n=143 CTD n=142 % (no. of patients) Peripheral neuropathy Sensory Gr II-IV 1.9 (5) 1.4 (2) 8.5 (12) Motor Gr II-IV 3.1 (8) 1 (1) 5.6 (8) VTE all grades 4.2 (11) 4.9 (7) 5.6 (8) Anaemia Gr III-IV 9.2 (24) 4.2 (6) 5.6 (8) Neutropenia Gr III-IV 14.9 (39) 16.1 (22) 13.3 (19) Thrombocytopenia Gr III-IV 8.4 (22) 1.4 (2) 1.4 (2) Infusion reaction Gr III-IV 0.4 (1) - - Disclosures Pawlyn: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; The Institute of Cancer Research: Employment. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib as induction treatment for myeloma Lenalidomide and vorinostat as maintenance treatments for myeloma. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx-Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda-Milenium: Honoraria. Jones:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cook:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Russell:Therakos: Other: shares. Owen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Morgan:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CancerNet: Honoraria; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria.

e50 (56.1 vs 29.2 vs 39.9 months, p1⁄40.005) (Figure 1). The estimated overall survival (OS) at 8 years was 60% with no significant differences among the 3 arms. In the overall series, the PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high-risk cytogenetics compared with patients with standard-risk (15.7 months vs. 44.3 months, p1⁄40.003). In the TD and in the VBMCP/VBAD/B arm patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a significantly shorter PFS than patients with standard-risk (8.9 vs 32.8 months, p1⁄40.04 in TD group; 14.1 vs. 43.3 months, p1⁄40.05 in VBMVP/VBAD/B group). However, there was no significantly difference in the VTD arm (23.6 vs 56.1 months, p1⁄40.2). Patients with high-risk cytogenetics had a significantly shorter OS in the overall series (median 42.1 months vs not reached, p1⁄40.00001) and this was observed in the three treatment arms: VTD median 37.1 months vs not reached (p1⁄40.001); TD median 54.2 months vs not reached (p1⁄40.06); VBMCP/VBAD/B median 30.2 months vs not reached, p1⁄40.007). Conclusions: The PFS of 56 months achieved with VTD is the longest ever reported in the first line treatment of patients with MM elegible for ASCT.

Background: Past studies have linked lenalidomide to an increased risk of second primary malignancy (SPM) and in-particular a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Such studies in which oral melphalan was used in combination with lenalidomide resulted in haematological SPM incidence of between 3.0-11.4% at 5 years. More recently, meta-analysis has suggested that lenalidomide in combination with other agents such as cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone does not result in an increased rate of SPM development. Here we report the incidence of SPM in Myeloma XI, the largest randomised trial to date in-which lenalidomide is used as both an induction and maintenance treatment option. Methods: Myeloma XI is a phase III, randomised, multi-centre, parallel group design, open-label trial comparing thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib combinations and lenalidomide as maintenance treatment in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. The trial has both transplant eligible (TE) and transplant non-eligible (TNE) pathways. NDMM patients are entered into the TE pathway if they are deemed fit/young enough to tolerate high dose therapy. Those who enter the TNE pathway receive attenuated doses of chemotherapy agents. Patients in the TE pathway will receive high dose melphalan supported by autologous stem cell transplantation if they achieve a very good partial response or better following induction or, if appropriate following pre-transplant consolidation. Pre-transplant consolidation with bortezomib is protocol treatment for patients with refractory disease or no change post-induction whereas for patients with a sub-optimal response (MR/PR) randomisation to bortezomib versus observation alone is compared. Both pathways include maintenance with lenalidomide, lenalidomide and vorinostat or monitoring only. Since May 2010, 2745 patients have been recruited with over 950 patients enrolled for more than 2 years since initial induction randomisation. A total of 1225 patients have entered maintenance with 720 receiving lenalidomide maintenance either as a single agent or in combination with vorinostat. Results: Thirty three patients (1.2% of entrants) have developed a second primary malignancy since enrolment. One patient developed a haematological SPM (CML) whilst on the trial (0.04%). This occurred in a patient being treated on the TE pathway who had received lenalidomide containing induction and had undergone 24 months of lenalidomide maintenance. The remaining 32 SPM cases were solid or non-invasive skin cancers with an incidence of 1.16%. Cumulative incidence of all SPMs is 0.53%,1.00% and 1.70% at one, two and three years respectively. Median overall time to SPM development from induction is 15.4 months (range 1.6 – 38.4). Approximately half the patients who developed an SPM (54.5%, n=18) received lenalidomide induction therapy with a median time to SPM development of 10.2 months (2.1 – 26.5) in the TE group (n=8) and 19.9 months (1.6 - 37.6) in the TNE group (n=10). Fifteen patients (45.5%) received thalidomide induction with a median time to SPM development in the TE group (n=2) of 10.1 months (7.7-12.4) and 21.3 months (3.7 – 38.4) in the TNE group (n=13). Over two thirds of SPM patients (70%) were being treated on the TNE pathway. The average age at the time of SPM development was 76.7 and 65.9 for the TNE and TE pathways respectively. The majority of SPMs were observed during maintenance (52%, n=17) with 94% (n=16) of these patients receiving lenalidomide. Of the remaining patients, 27% developed an SPM during induction (n=9), 12% (n=4) following bortezomib and 9% (n=3) following induction but prior to maintenance randomisation. Conclusions: The Myeloma XI trial has so far reported very low overall SPM incidence. Concerns of an increased incidence of haematological malignancy in earlier trials containing lenalidomide in combination with oral melphalan have not been reproduced here. The findings support recent meta-analysis that suggests lenalidomide in combination with cyclophosphamide or dexamethasone is not associated with an increased haematological SPM risk. It is however noted that the majority of patients who developed an SPM during maintenance were on lenalidomide and thus this will need to be monitored closely as the trial continues. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-oncology subgroup Disclosures Jones: Celgene: Research Funding, Unrestricted educational grant Other. Off Label Use: Vorinostat and Lenalidomide as maintenance treatment for myeloma. . Pawlyn:Celgene: Honoraria, Unrestricted educational grant Other. Brioli:Celgene: Honoraria, Unrestricted educational grant Other. Cairns:Celgene: Unrestricted educational grant Other. Quartillo:Celgene: unrestricted educational grant Other. Sigsworth:Celgene: Unrestricted travel grant Other. Howard:Celgene: Unrestricted educational grant Other. Collett:Celgene: Unrestricted travel grant Other. Ouzman:Celgene: Unrestricted educational grant Other. Gregory:Celgene: Unrestricted educational grant Other. Russell:Celgene: unrestricted travel grant Other. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria, Unrestricted travel grant Other. Davies:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Unrestricted educational grant Other. Morgan:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Unrestricted educational grant Other.