Search

Introduction: The BOSTON study is a Phase 3 trial comparing the novel triplet regimen of once weekly oral selinexor with once weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) versus standard twice weekly Vd in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior therapies. The SVd regimen conferred a 47% increase in median progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next therapy (TTNT), higher overall response rates (ORR) and deeper responses compared to Vd. Furthermore, this is the first trial of a bortezomib-based triplet therapy (i.e., SVd) that showed lower rates of overall and Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) compared with doublet Vd while conferring a longer PFS, and the regimen requires ~35% fewer clinic visits than standard twice weekly Vd. This abstract reports analyses of the patient reported outcomes (PROs) in BOSTON to evaluate patterns in therapy-induced PN symptoms, pain and function. Methods: PROs were assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires. The QLQ-CIPN20 assesses patients' experience of symptoms and functional limitations related to chemotherapy induced PN (CIPN) and has 3 subscales: sensory, motor, and autonomic. The QLQ-C30 includes several functional and symptom scales and focuses on physical functioning, role functioning, and pain subscales as pre-specified domains of interest. Mixed effects repeated measures models were fit to the longitudinal data to estimate differences over time. Meaningful change thresholds derived using anchor- and distribution-based methods or estimated from the literature were used to identify patients who had experienced a meaningful worsening of symptoms or deterioration in functioning. Time to definitive deterioration was defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of meaningful deterioration that was not followed by subsequent improvement. Cox proportional hazard models compared the hazard rates between arms adjusted for baseline questionnaire score, randomization stratification factors (prior PI therapy, number of prior anti-MM regimens, R-ISS stage at MM) and prior bortezomib exposure. Results: A total of 402 patients were enrolled in the trial; 388 completed a baseline QLQ-CIPN20 assessment and are included in these analyses. Based on the mixed model repeated measures analysis (Table 1), a benefit was demonstrated for SVd in change from baseline to Day 106 for sensory (-5.3 points difference, p=0.0006) and pain (-6.6, p=0.007) scores. Patients in the SVd arm had a greater increase in autonomic symptom scores (+5.0, p=0.022). The number of patients with definitive deterioration in QLQ-CIPN20 sensory symptoms was greater in the Vd arm (86 patients, 45.7%) compared to 52 (27.7%) patients in the SVd arm (Table 2). The median time to deterioration was 20.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.4, not estimable [NE]) in the SVd arm compared to 12.5 months (95% CI: 7.8, 19.9) in the Vd arm. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing time to deterioration in sensory scores between SVd and Vd arms was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.75; p = 0.0004). Worsening of motor symptoms also trended in favor of SVd with a HR = 0.72 (p=0.052). Roughly half of the patients in each treatment arm experienced worsening autonomic symptoms (54.6% and 48.4%, SVd and Vd respectively) with no significant difference between arms (HR=1.14, p=0.37). While not statistically significant, fewer SVd patients had definitive deteriorations in pain and physical function compared to Vd patients, with similar or extended time to deterioration (Table 2). Conclusions: In the setting of a significant increase in PFS and TTNT, patients with MM after at least one prior therapy who received weekly SVd reported lower sensory symptom and pain scores but higher autonomic symptom scores. Further, patients treated with twice weekly Vd experienced a more rapid rate of sensory symptom worsening and a trend to more rapid worsening of motor symptoms, compared to patients treated with SVd. The improved pain scores in patients treated with SVd may be related to superior disease control. The reduction in PN-related pain and sensory symptoms observed with SVd in the setting of increased PFS and TTNT supports a potentially improved patient experience and decreased health care burden and long term morbidity. Disclosures Leleu: Janssen: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Beaumont:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Yu:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hudgens:Clinical Outcomes Solutions: Current Employment; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy. Auner:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delimpasi:Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; GENESIS: Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Moreau:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Levy:Karyopharm,Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Ma:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Tang:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Current Employment. Leong:AbbVie: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Karyopharm Therapeutics: 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. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

In AL amyloidosis complete response (aCR) is defined as negative serum and urine immunofixation with normalized free light chain ratio (FLCR). However, achievement of low levels of involved FLC (iFLC) or difference between iFLC and uninvolved FLC (dFLC) are also relevant endpoints for treatment. We divided 434 consecutive patients with AL amyloidosis into five groups according to response 6 months after treatment initiation: aCR, iFLC

BACKGROUND: The present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months. RESULTS: The 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:18 issue:4 pages:E350-E359 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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

Prior studies have revealed that the presence of increasing number of polyclonal plasma cells (pPCs) in the bone marrow (BM) are associated with better outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. This effect has not been studied in patients with MM at the time of disease relapse. We determined the prognostic value of depletion of pPCs in the BM by 7-color multiparameter flow cytometry in a series of 174 relapsing MM patients. The time to next therapy (TTNT) in those with

The use of bortezomib in the clinic has significantly improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), even those harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities or those classified in the high-risk category according to the International Staging System (ISS). In this study, we analyzed the association between immunophenotyping on myeloma cells and the clinical outcomes of patients who received bortezomib-based regimens as first-line therapy. Immunophenotypic analysis before bortezomib therapy was performed by flow cytometry, and whether the immunophenotyping results influenced the clinical outcomes of the patients was investigated. Seventy-four newly diagnosed patients with MM were included in this study. We found that the expression of MPC-1 significantly predicted the time to next therapy (TNT), with a longer TNT in the MPC-1 positive group (p = 0.005), whereas it did not affect overall survival (OS; p = 0.773). In addition, we found that CD45-positivity was associated with shorter TNT (p = 0.0432). Following ISS assessment at treatment initiation, patients who were classified as stage I showed a slightly longer OS compared to those at stage II or III; however, these results were not significant (p = 0.0987). Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed the prognostic significance of MPC-1 expression, as MPC-1-negativity was associated with a worse TNT. The combination of MPC-1 and CD45 status more sensibly predicted the TNT for bortezomib therapy. Our results demonstrate the clinical importance of immunophenotyping on myeloma cells to determine patient prognoses in this era of novel therapeutic agents.

In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the clinical stage has correlated with overall survival. We found that within the partial response (PR) category, changes in Binet clinical stage discriminated patients with different outcomes: those with PR-Binet A had better outcomes compared with those with PR-Binet B/C. These results suggest that in CLL patients, changes in the Binet clinical stage can be used as a complementary tool to evaluate the response to therapy. Background: To determine whether in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the clinical stage maintains prognostic significance over time and can be considered as a surrogate for the response to therapy. Patients and Methods: The data from 229 CLL patients were retrospectively evaluated. The main aims of the study were to describe the changes in clinical stage during the course of CLL as a result of the response to treatment and to determine the time to next therapy (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) according to those changes, in particular, among the heterogeneous International Workshop on CLL (IWCLL) partial response (PR) category. Results: Among the patients in the IWCLL PR category, differences were found in TTNT and OS according to the clinical stage at the response evaluation. With a median follow-up period of 91 months (range, 2-390 months), patients with a PR-Binet A at the response evaluation had significantly longer TTNT and OS compared with those with PR-Binet B/C (median TTNT, 26 vs. 11 months; P =.00; median OS, 63 vs. 43 months; P =.047). Conclusion: The results of the present study have shown that for patients with CLL, the Binet clinical stages are good outcome predictors throughout the disease course and also suggest that changes in Binet clinical stage could be useful as response surrogates and to divide the IWCLL PR category into different prognostic subgroups. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

We report results of a randomized, phase III study of ofatumumab versus physicians' choice treatment in patients with bulky fludarabine-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and explore extended versus standard-length ofatumumab treatment. Patients (79 ofatumumab, 43 physicians' choice) completed a median 6 (ofatumumab) or 3 (physicians' choice) months' therapy. Ofatumumab-treated patients with stable disease or better were randomized (2:1) to 6 months' extended ofatumumab treatment or observation. Although the study did not meet the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (ofatumumab: 5.4 months, physicians' choice: 3.6 months; p = 0.27), median PFS by investigators was significantly longer for ofatumumab versus physicians' choice (7.0 versus 4.5 months; p = 0.003) as was time to next therapy (median 11.5 versus 6.5 months; p = 0.0004). PFS and time to next therapy were significantly longer with ofatumumab extended treatment than observation (p = 0.026 and p = 0.002, respectively; n = 37). The adverse-event profile of long-term ofatumumab administration showed no unexpected findings (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01313689).

e258 dose-modifications to sustain control of disease while managing toxicities. Previous analysis demonstrated LEN dose-modification was associated with longer duration of therapy (DOT) and time to progression (TTP), using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy. This updated analysis evaluates the effect of LEN response on that association. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a large US claims database evaluated patients with NDMM without stem cell transplant (SCT) and treated with LEN from 2006-2013. Median DOT and TTNT were compared between patients +/LEN dose-modifications (increase or decrease) and in subgroups of LEN responders, defined as receiving LEN for 4 (Responders 1) or 6 months (Responders 2). Results: Of 1281 LEN-treated patients with NDMM, 514 had 1 dose-modification. 1,031 had 4 months DOT (462 dose-modified), and 816 had DOT 6 months (401 dose-modified). A 9-12 month advantage in median DOT and TTNT for dose-modified patients was consistent across groups (p

Patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) undergo disease assessment approximately 100 days later. Some patients continue to have a decline in their serum or urine monoclonal protein after day 100 in the absence of additional therapy. We evaluated 430 MM patients who underwent ASCT within 12 months of their diagnosis and had not achieved a complete remission at day 100. Of these patients, 167 (39%) had a continued response after day 100 without additional therapy. When compared with patients who did not (n = 263), those who had a continued response had a longer progression-free survival (35 vs 13 months, P < .001), time to next therapy (43 vs 16 months, P < .001), and overall survival (96 vs 57 months, P < .001). This phenomenon of a continued response maintained prognostic value in a multivariable analysis and should be considered when interpreting posttransplant responses.

Background: We previously reported substantial activity with single-agent bortezomib (VELCADE®; Vc) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory MCL in the PINNACLE study (JCO2006;24:4867–74), which resulted in approval of Vc for MCL pts following ≥1 prior therapy. All pts have now completed treatment. Here we report updated time-to-event data in all pts, and by response category, with extended follow-up. Methods: 155 pts (median age 65 yrs; 55%/41%/4% with 1/2/≥3 prior therapies; 77% Stage IV MCL; 55% positive bone marrow) received Vc 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles; of these, 141 were response-evaluable. Response and progression were determined by modified International Workshop Response Criteria using independent radiology review. Results: After a median follow-up of 26.4 mo, 55 pts (35%) remained in follow-up; 93 (60%) had died, 2 (1%) had withdrawn consent, and 5 (3%) were lost to follow-up. Pts received a median of 4 treatment cycles (range 1–21; 8 in responding pts). Median time to first response was 1.3 months. Median duration of response (DOR) was 9.2 mo in all responders and has not been reached in pts achieving CR/CRu. Median time to progression (TTP), time to next therapy (TTNT; first Vc dose to start of next therapy), and overall survival (OS) are shown in the table for all pts and by response. Survival rate at 12-mo was 69% overall and 91% in responding pts. In pts refractory to their last therapy (no response or response with TTP Conclusions: Vc provides durable responses plus prolonged time off-therapy and survival in responding pts, suggesting substantial clinical benefit in relapsed/refractory MCL. Median TTP, TTNT, and OS (months) in all pts and by response All pts (N=155) Responders (N=45) CR/CRu (N=11) PR (N=34) SD (N=52) PD (N=34) NE, not estimable TTP 6.7 12.4 NE 9.1 6.9 1.2 TTNT 7.4 14.3 23.9 13.3 7.0 2.3 OS 23.5 35.4 36.0 35.1 27.8 13.7