Abstract: Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP & gt;650 pg/mL or BNP & gt;150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, & gt;60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value & lt;0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P & lt;0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P & lt;0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P & lt;0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression ( & gt;30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract: Binary cardiac response assessment using cardiac biomarkers is prognostic in light chain amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested four-level cardiac responses using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide improves prognostic prediction. This study was designed to validate graded cardiac response criteria using N-terminal prohormone of brain natiuretic peptide/brain natiuretic peptide. PATIENTS AND METHODS This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with light chain amyloidosis who achieved at least a hematologic partial response (PR) and were evaluable for cardiac response. Four response criteria were tested on the basis of natriuretic peptide response depth: cardiac complete response (CarCR), cardiac very good partial response (CarVGPR), cardiac PR (CarPR), and cardiac no response (CarNR). Response was classified as best response and at fixed time points (6, 12, and 24 months from therapy initiation). The study primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS 651 patients were included. Best CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR were achieved in 16%, 26.4%, 22.9%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively. Patients in cardiac stage II were more likely to achieve CarCR than patients in cardiac stage IIIA and IIIB (22% v 13.5% v 3.2%; P 〈 .001). A deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year overall survival 93%, 79%, 65%, and 33% for CarCR, CarVGPR, CarPR, and CarNR, respectively; P 〈 .001). Fixed time-point analyses and time-varying covariates Cox regression analysis, to minimize survivorship bias, affirmed the independent survival advantage of deeper cardiac responses. Four-level response performed better than two-level response as early as 12 months from therapy initiation. CONCLUSION Graded cardiac response criteria allow better assessment of cardiac improvement compared with the traditional binary response system. The study re-emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, which increases the likelihood of deep cardiac responses.

Abstract: Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as & gt;30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria & gt;0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, & gt;60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P & lt;0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract: Oral melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) were considered a standard of care in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. In the past decade, bortezomib has been increasingly used in combination with alkylating agents and dexamethasone. We prospectively compared the efficacy and safety of MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex). METHODS This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients were stratified according to cardiac stage. Patients with advanced cardiac stage (stage IIIb) amyloidosis were not eligible. The primary end point was hematologic response rate at 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01277016 . RESULTS A total of 109 patients, 53 in the BMDex and 56 in the MDex group, received ≥ 1 dose of therapy (from January 2011 to February 2016). Hematologic response rate at 3 months was higher in the BMDex arm (79% v 52%; P = .002). Higher rates of very good partial or complete response rates (64% v 39%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.71) and improved overall survival, with a 2-fold decrease in mortality rate (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.90), were observed in the BMDex arm. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (the most common being cytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and heart failure) were more common in the BMDex arm, occurring in 20% versus 10% of cycles performed. CONCLUSION BMDex improved hematologic response rate and overall survival. To our knowledge, this is the first time a controlled study has demonstrated a survival advantage in AL amyloidosis. BMDex should be considered a new standard of care for AL amyloidosis.

Abstract: Systemic light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare and debilitating disease. Advances have been made in new treatments in recent years, yet real-world data on the management of the disease are scarce. EMN23 is a retrospective, observational study of patients who initiated first-line treatment in 2004–2018 in Europe, presenting the demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes, from 4480 patients. Regimens based on bortezomib were the most frequently used as first-line therapy; only 6.2% of the patients received autologous stem cell transplant. Hematologic responses improved post-2010 (67.1% vs 55.6% pre-2010). The median overall survival (OS) was 48.8 (45.2–51.7) months; 51.4 (47.3–57.7) months pre-2010 and 46.7 (41.3–52.2) months post-2010. Early mortality was 13.4% and did not improve (11.4% vs 14.4% pre- and post-2010); furthermore, it remained high in patients with advanced cardiac disease (over 39% for stage IIIb). There was a significant improvement for stage IIIa (14.2 vs 30.7 months, p  = 0.0170) but no improvement for stage IIIb patients (5.0 vs 4.5 months). This European real-world study of AL-amyloidosis emphasizes the unmet needs of early diagnosis, and the lack of improvement in survival outcomes of the frail stage IIIb population, despite the introduction of new therapies in recent years.

Abstract: Introduction: Light chain deposition disease (LCDD) is a rare complication of monoclonal gammopathies, defined by non-amyloid linear monoclonal light chain (most commonly kappa) deposits in the kidney and other organs. The rarity of LCDD has hampered clinical studies and staging systems and response criteria are lacking. The International Kidney Myeloma Working Group (IKMG) started a clinical data collection from all participating centers in order to define the natural history of LCDD, and to establish prognostic factors and response criteria in a large, international, unselected patient population. Methods: Eight referral centers have yet participated in the data collection at the data lock of July 31, 2020. Patient inclusion is ongoing and expected accrual is 500 patients. The diagnosis of LCDD had to be biopsy-proven. The patients were diagnosed between 1992 to 2020. Response was assessed 6 months after treatment initiation according to the criteria used in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Renal survival (RS) was defined as time from diagnosis to dialysis or last follow-up. Patients who died without requiring dialysis were censored at the time of death. The analysis of factors predicting RS was performed in patients whose baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was & gt;15 mL/min. The cutoffs of baseline variables, as well as the cutoffs measured at the time of response, best predicting RS or OS at 12 months were identified by means of Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) analyses. All patients gave written informed consent for their clinical data to be used for research purposes. Results: Overall, 359 patients have been included in this first analysis. Sixteen (4%) subjects had concomitant cast nephropathy. The main clinical characteristics are reported in the Table. Median overall survival (OS) was 13 years and RS was 12 years (Figure1 A and 1B) and median survival of living patients is 4.5 years. At univariate analysis the only baseline variables predicting RS were proteinuria [best cutoff 2.5 g/24h, HR 2.25 (95%CI 1.13-4.60), P=0.02], and eGFR [best cutoff & gt;30 mL/min, HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.26-0.96) P=0.037], but at multivariate analysis only proteinuria predicted RS [HR 2.17 (95% CI 1.08, 4.33), P=0.027] . At univariate analysis, a higher bone marrow plasma cell infiltrate (best cutoff ≥20%) at diagnosis was associated with a significantly lower OS [HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.23-3.13) P=0.004], as was having end stage renal disease (ESRD) defined as an eGFR & lt;15 mL/min [HR 1.81 (95%CI 1.11-2.92) P=0.015]. We then tested the ability of the hematologic response criteria for AL amyloidosis to discriminate groups with different survival after treatment in a 6 months landmark analysis. Our choice of adopting the amyloidosis response criteria was corroborated by the results of the ROC analysis showing that the difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) cutoff (40 mg/L) used in AL amyloidosis to define very good partial response (VGPR) had 87% sensitivity and 65% specificity in identifying patients who needed dialysis within 12 months. Partial response (PR, 19% requiring dialysis at 3 years) was not associated with a RS benefit over no-response (29% requiring dialysis at 3 years, P=0.511). However, VGPR conferred a significant RS advantage (10% requiring dialysis at 3 years) over PR (P=0.002). No significant difference in RS was seen between complete response (CR, 0% requiring dialysis at 3 years) and VGPR (P=0.178). Thus, achieving VGPR or CR by amyloidosis response criteria [post-treatment dFLC & lt;40 mg/L (VGPR by AL criteria), with or without negative serum and urine immunofixation and normal FLC-ratio (CR by AL criteria)] was adopted as a provisional criterion for hematologic response in LCDD (Figure 1D). LCDD response was also associated with prolonged OS (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Almost one-third of patients with LCDD are diagnosed when they already have ESRD resulting in shorter OS. The degree of proteinuria and of bone marrow plasma cell infiltration predict RS and OS, respectively. Achievement of post treatment dFLC & lt;40 mg/L or negative serum and urine immunofixation at 6 months is proposed as a provisional criterion for hematologic response, being able to predict both improved RS and OS. Planned expanded recruitment might allow a validation analysis of the results, the analysis of organ response data and the evaluation of different time-points for response assessment. Disclosures Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Speaker honoraria; Pfizer: Other: Speaker honoraria. Kastritis:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schönland:Janssen, Prothena, Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings, Research Funding. Bridoux:Baxter: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Tuchman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Caelum: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jimenez-Zepeda:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Palladini:Jannsen Cilag: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Other: Travel support. Wechalekar:Celgene: Honoraria; Caelum: Other: Advisory; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel.

Abstract: Introduction: Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare progressive and debilitating disease which is caused by the abnormal production of amyloidogenic free light chains by a plasma cell clone. Substantial heterogeneity in clinical presentation of AL leads to difficulties in the early and correct diagnosis, as well as special challenges in management. Until recently there were no regulatory approved therapies. The approach to the diagnosis and management of the disease was derived from single referral center studies. EMN23 is a retrospective, multicenter study supported by the European Myeloma Network, aiming to describe the patterns of real-world AL amyloidosis management in Europe. Methods: EMN23 completed the enrolment of 4480 patients in 13 Sites and 10 countries across Europe: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Enrolled patients had initiated treatment between 2004 and 2018, and study outcomes were analyzed in 2 time periods, 2004-2010 (pre-2010), and 2011-2018 (post-2010), with 2010 being the approximate timepoint when the combination of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone was introduced in clinical practice. This report focuses on the efficacy outcomes with respect to the cardiac stage at diagnosis, first-line treatment, and period of first-line initiation. Results: In total, 4480 patients started treatment between 2004 and 2018; 1415 patients pre-2010, and 3065 patients post-2010. Overall, 31% of the patients were below 60 years, 16% between 60 and 64, 37% between 65 and 74, and 16% over 75 years, with & lt;5% difference in all age groups between the 2 periods. Patients at stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb between 2004 and 2018 were 16%, 32%, 22%, and 15%, respectively, whereas cardiac stage was not reported for 16%. Cardiac, renal, and soft tissue involvement were the most common throughout the entire study period, at 68%, 66%, and 18% respectively. Patterns of organ involvement did not change over time ( & lt;5% difference for all organs), and about one fifth of the patients had 3 or more organs involved at diagnosis. Chemotherapy-based (chemo) and immunomodulatory-based (IMiD) regimens were the most common first-line treatments administered pre-2010, for 43% and 30% of the patients, respectively. Most patients who received chemo or IMiDs at first line pre-2010 and did not achieve a hematologic response (SD or PD), continued with IMiDs (46%) and bortezomib-based (bor-based) regimens (57%) at second line, respectively. Bor-based regimens were dominant in the post-2010 era, administered to 75% of the patients. Fifty-three percent of patients non-responsive to bor-based regimens at first line post-2010 proceeded with IMIDs at second line. The proportion of patients who received ASCT was 8% pre-2010, and 6% post-2010. Overall response rate (hematologic response ≥PR) at first line for patients who started treatment in 2004-2018, was highest for ASCT (81%), followed by bor-based (54%) and chemo (41%), while the non-responders (SD, PD, or death within 3 months from treatment initiation) for the same regimen groups were 13%, 33%, and 44%, respectively. Deeper hematologic responses at 3 months from first-line initiation correlated with better overall survival (p & lt;0.0001); the median OS for no response, PR, VGPR, and CR were 21, 62, 83, and 109 months, respectively. For stage IIIb patients in particular, early response to treatment was critical, as hematologic responses at 3 months were associated with better survival outcomes: median OS was 3, 19, 36, and 47 months for patients with no response, PR, VGPR, and CR, respectively (n=342, p & lt;0.0001). OS was improved in the most recent era for patients of stages II (p=0.054) and IIIa (p=0.017), but not for patients at stages I (p=0.670) and IIIb (p=0.531). Median survival of stage IIIb patients was 5 months for bor-based, chemo, or IMiD regimens. Conclusions: This is the largest real-world study for AL amyloidosis that provides insights into the management and outcomes of these patients. After 2010 a transition to bor-based therapies was observed, together with an improvement in OS in patients with stage II and IIIa disease but with no improvement for stage IIIb patients, regardless of the first-line regimen used. Deeper hematologic responses at 3 months from first-line initiation significantly improved overall survival, even among high-risk stage IIIb patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Jaccard: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Bridoux: Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Prothena: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria. Cibeira: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Minnema: Alnylam: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Jansen-Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Hospitality. Bergantim: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hajek: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. João: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Leonidakis: Health Data Specialists: Current Employment. Cheliotis: Health Data Specialists: Current Employment. Sonneveld: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kastritis: Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: This is a retrospective study on AL amyloidosis, and until recently there were no regulatory-approved treatments for the disease.