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: Amyloidosis is caused by deposition in tissues of abnormal protein in a characteristic fibrillar form. There are many types of amyloidosis, classified according to the soluble protein precursor from which the amyloid fibrils are derived. Accurate identification of amyloid type is critical in every case since therapy for systemic amyloidosis is type specific. In ∼20–25% cases, however, immunohistochemistry (IHC) fails to prove the amyloid type and further tests are required. Laser microdissection and mass spectrometry (LDMS) is a powerful tool for identifying proteins from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. We undertook a blinded comparison of IHC, performed at the UK National Amyloidosis Centre, and LDMS, performed at the Mayo Clinic, in 142 consecutive biopsy specimens from 38 different tissue types. There was 100% concordance between positive IHC and LDMS, and the latter increased diagnostic accuracy from 76% to 94%. LDMS in expert hands is a valuable tool for amyloid diagnosis.

Abstract: The tissue diagnosis of amyloidosis and confirmation of fibril protein type, which are crucial for clinical management, have traditionally relied on Congo red (CR) staining followed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using fibril protein specific antibodies. However, amyloid IHC is qualitative, non‐standardised, requires operator expertise, and not infrequently fails to produce definitive results. More recently, laser dissection mass spectrometry (LDMS) has been developed as an alternative method to characterise amyloid in tissue sections. We sought to compare these techniques in a real world setting. During 2017, we performed LDMS on 640 formalin‐fixed biopsies containing amyloid (CR+ve) comprising all 320 cases that could not be typed by IHC (IHC−ve) and 320 randomly selected CR+ve samples that had been typed (IHC+ve). In addition, we studied 60 biopsies from patients in whom there was a strong suspicion of amyloidosis, but in whom histology was non‐diagnostic (CR–ve). Comprehensive clinical assessments were conducted in 532 (76%) of cases. Among the 640 CR+ve samples, 602 (94%) contained ≥2 of 3 amyloid signature proteins (ASPs) on LDMS (ASP+ve) supporting the presence of amyloid. A total of 49 of the 60 CR‐ve samples were ASP–ve; 7 of 11 that were ASP+ve were glomerular. The amyloid fibril protein was identified by LDMS in 255 of 320 (80%) of the IHC–ve samples and in a total of 545 of 640 (85%) cases overall. The LDMS and IHC techniques yielded discordant results in only 7 of 320 (2%) cases. CR histology and LDMS are corroborative for diagnosis of amyloid, but LDMS is superior to IHC for confirming amyloid type.

Abstract: To assess the ability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to (i) measure changes in response to chemotherapy; (ii) assess the correlation between haematological response and changes in extracellular volume (ECV); and (iii) assess the association between changes in ECV and prognosis over and above existing predictors. Methods and results In total, 176 patients with cardiac AL amyloidosis were assessed using serial N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), echocardiography, free light chains and CMR with T1 and ECV mapping at diagnosis and subsequently 6, 12, and 24 months after starting chemotherapy. Haematological response was graded as complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), partial response (PR), or no response (NR). CMR response was graded by changes in ECV as progression (≥0.05 increase), stable ( & lt;0.05 change), or regression (≥0.05 decrease). At 6 months, CMR regression was observed in 3% (all CR/VGPR) and CMR progression in 32% (61% in PR/NR; 39% CR/VGPR). After 1 year, 22% had regression (all CR/VGPR), and 22% had progression (63% in PR/NR; 37% CR/VGPR). At 2 years, 38% had regression (all CR/VGPR), and 14% had progression (80% in PR/NR; 20% CR/VGPR). Thirty-six (25%) patients died during follow-up (40 ± 15 months); CMR response at 6 months predicted death (progression hazard ratio 3.82; 95% confidence interval 1.95–7.49; P & lt; 0.001) and remained prognostic after adjusting for haematological response, NT-proBNP and longitudinal strain (P & lt; 0.01). Conclusions Cardiac amyloid deposits frequently regress following chemotherapy, but only in patients who achieve CR or VGPR. Changes in ECV predict outcome after adjusting for known predictors.

Abstract: Abstract 988 The treatment of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis remains challenging. Cyclical combination chemotherapy is used in majority of patients but a report that I.V. melphalan-dexamethasone may not overcome the poor prognosis for cardiac amyloidosis (Deitrich S et al, Blood, 116, 2010) has fuelled the controversy about best front line treatment. We report outcomes of 428 patients treated with oral cyclophosphamide thalidomide dexamethasone (CTD), oral melphalan dexamethasone (M-dex), bortezomib dexamethasone with or without an alkylator (BD), cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (CLD) or stem cell transplant (ASCT) as first line treatment for systemic AL amyloidosis assessed at three large European amyloid centres in London (UK), Pavia (Italy) and Athens (Greece) between 2003–2010. Patients with a full baseline data set were included in the study. Clonal and organ responses were defined according to the international amyloidosis consensus statement (Gertz et al 2005) and responses were assessed at 6 months or at the end of treatment. dFLC (difference between involved and uninvolved free light chain (FLC)) was used to assess the absolute FLC change after treatment. 204 (48%) received M-dex, 155 (36%) received CTD, 13 (3%) received ASCT, 28 (7%) received BD and 25 (6%) received CLD. The median number of cycles received was 5 for all regimens. 257 (60%) had cardiac involvement, 325 (76%) had renal and 59 (14%) had liver involvement. Cardiac involvement by regime was: BD 75%, CLD 68%, M-dex 65%, CTD 45% and ASCT 23%. 30 (7%) died within six months of diagnosis. The median number of organ involved was 2 (range 1–5) with ECOG performance status ≥2 in 123 (28%). 98 (23%) patients achieved a complete response (CR), 175 (41%) achieved a partial response (PR) and 125 (29%) did not respond to treatment. A haematological CR/PR was seen, respectively, in 22%/41% treated with CTD, 26%/44% with M-dex, 23%/46% with ASCT, 39%/42% with BD and 4%/44% with CLD. There was significantly greater reduction in dFLC after BD (median reduction 91% over starting value) compared to CTD (median 81%; p = 0.006), M-Dex (median 83%; p = 0.004) and CLD (median 72%; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the median dFLC reduction between patients treated with CTD and M-Dex. 100/325 (30%) had a renal organ response, 17/59 (29%) had a hepatic response and 24/257 (9%) had a cardiac response, and 61 (16%) had a cardiac response by NT-proBNP criteria. The organ and NT-proBNP responses respectively were highest in the cohort treated with BD (53% and 32%) followed by CTD (38% and 12%), ASCT (30%), M-dex (23% and 19%) and CLD (12% and nil). CTD achieved significantly better organ responses compared to M-dex (p=0.0024). At median follow up of 29 months, median overall survival (OS) for the whole cohort has not been reached with 2, 3 and 4 year estimated survival of 75%, 65% and 61%, respectively. When patients with cardiac involvement were considered, those achieving a CR have not reached median OS with an estimated 3 year survival of 89%, those with PR had an estimated median OS of 50 months and the non-responders had a median OS of 21 months. Detailed comparison by Mayo stage will be presented. There was no significant difference in the OS of patients treated with CTD or M-Dex (as compared directly or by centre). In summary, outcome of patients with AL amyloidosis across three major European centres appears comparable. BD treatment achieves significantly lower end of treatment dFLC values compared to CTD, M-dex, ASCT or CLD – which importantly translates into an organ response in over half of all patients receiving BD compared to a third of those treated with CTD and quarter of those with M-dex and further follow up may yet reveal survival differences. Organ responses appear significantly better with CTD compared to M-dex – possibly due to more rapid response to CTD since the end of treatment dFLC values are not significantly different - although this does not translate into a survival advantage. Depth of clonal response appears to be directly linked to improvement in survival of patients with cardiac amyloidosis (including in patients treated with CTD and M-dex) and organ response in general. This study supports the rational for doing urgent phase III studies confirming benefits of bortezomib combination chemotherapy for upfront treatment in AL amyloidosis and the benefit of rapid deep clonal responses in cardiac amyloidosis irrespective of the regimen. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Thalidomide, bortezomib, lenalidomide. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Othro Boitech: Honoraria.

Abstract: Outcomes after renal transplantation have traditionally been poor in systemic amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis and systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis, with high mortality and frequent recurrent disease. We sought to compare outcomes with matched transplant recipients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and diabetic nephropathy (DN), and identify factors predictive of outcomes. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 51 systemic AL and 48 systemic AA amyloidosis patients undergoing renal transplantation. Matched groups were generated by propensity score matching. Patient and death-censored allograft survival were compared via Kaplan–Meier survival analyses, and assessment of clinicopathological features predicting outcomes via Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results One-, 5- and 10-year death-censored unadjusted graft survival was, respectively, 94, 91 and 78% for AA amyloidosis, and 98, 93 and 93% for AL amyloidosis; median patient survival was 13.1 and 7.9 years, respectively. Patient survival in AL and AA amyloidosis was comparable to DN, but poorer than ADPKD [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.12 and 3.09, respectively; P  & lt; 0.001]. Death-censored allograft survival was comparable between all groups. In AL amyloidosis, mortality was predicted by interventricular septum at end diastole (IVSd) thickness & gt;12 mm (HR = 26.58; P = 0.03), while survival was predicted by haematologic response (very good partial or complete response; HR = 0.07; P = 0.018). In AA amyloidosis, recurrent amyloid was associated with elevated serum amyloid A concentration but not with outcomes. Conclusions Renal transplantation outcomes for selected patients with AA and AL amyloidosis are comparable to those with DN. In AL amyloidosis, IVSd thickness and achievement of deep haematologic response pre-transplant profoundly impact patient survival.