Abstract: Renal impairment is a common complication of multiple myeloma (MM). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula is the recommended method for the assessment of renal function in patients with MM with stabilized serum creatinine. In acute renal injury, the RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss and end-stage kidney disease) and Acute Renal Injury Network criteria seem to be appropriate to define the severity of renal impairment. Novel criteria based on eGFR measurements are recommended for the definition of the reversibility of renal impairment. Rapid intervention to reverse renal dysfunction is critical for the management of these patients, especially for those with light chain cast nephropathy. Bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone is considered as the treatment of choice for such patients. There is limited experience with thalidomide in patients with myeloma with renal impairment. Thus, thalidomide can be carefully administered, mainly in the context of well-designed clinical trials, to evaluate if it can improve the rapidity and probability of response that is produced by the combination with bortezomib and high-dose dexamethasone. Lenalidomide is effective in this setting and can reverse renal insufficiency in a significant subset of patients, when it is given at reduced doses, according to renal function. The role of plasma exchange in patients with suspected light chain cast nephropathy and renal impairment is controversial. High-dose melphalan (140 mg/m 2 ) and autologous stem-cell transplantation should be limited to younger patients with chemosensitive disease.

Abstract: The role of high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve in the novel agent era. The choice of induction therapy has moved from conventional chemotherapy to newer regimens incorporating the immunomodulatory derivatives thalidomide or lenalidomide and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. These drugs combine well with traditional therapies and with one another to form various doublet, triplet, and quadruplet regimens. Up-front use of these induction treatments, in particular 3-drug combinations, has affected unprecedented rates of complete response that rival those previously seen with conventional chemotherapy and subsequent ASCT. Autotransplantation applied after novel-agent-based induction regimens provides further improvement in the depth of response, a gain that translates into extended progression-free survival and, potentially, overall survival. High activity shown by immunomodulatory derivatives and bortezomib before ASCT has recently led to their use as consolidation and maintenance therapies after autotransplantation. Novel agents and ASCT are complementary treatment strategies for MM. This article reviews the current literature and provides important perspectives and guidance on the major issues surrounding the optimal current management of younger, transplantation-eligible MM patients.

Abstract: Background Ricolinostat is the first selective oral HDAC6 inhibitor studied clinically in the treatment of MM. Preclinical and phase 1a clinical data support the hypothesis that the safety profile of a selective HDAC inhibitor will facilitate combination therapy with other active agents. No dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were noted in 15 patients (pts) in a phase 1a dose escalation study of ricolinostat at doses up to 360 mg/day where the best response was stable disease (SD). (Raje Blood 2012;120:4061). HDAC6 inhibition impairs the aggresome/autophagy pathway, an alternate pathway to proteasome clearance of misfolded proteins (Santo L Blood 2012;119(11):2578-89) providing the rationale for combining ricolinostat with bortezomib (Btz). Methods We report the first part of a phase 1b open label dose escalation study of ricolinostat in combination with Btz and dexamethasone (Dex) using a standard 3+3 design. Eligible pts had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM, previously received at least two lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent, had either progressed after or were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, and had adequate bone marrow reserve, hepatic function and creatinine clearance of 〉 30 mg/mL/min. Ricolinostat was given orally days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 21 day cycle, with Btz on days 1,4,8,11 and Dex on days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12. Peripheral blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic assessments of acetylated tubulin (HDAC6 inhibition) and acetylated histones (Class 1 HDAC inhibition). Definitions of response, relapsed and refractory were by IMWG criteria (Rajkumar SV Blood:2011;117(18):4691-5) and included response less than minimal response (MR) as refractory. Seventeen pts were treated in an expansion cohort at the potential recommended phase 2 dose and schedule. Results Forty-two pts were enrolled to 8 combination dose cohorts. The first cohort dosed ricolinostat 40 mg QD with Btz 1.0 mg/m2; subsequent cohorts used Btz 1.3 mg/m2 with ricolinostat doses of 40, 80 , 160, and 240 mg QD, and 160 mg BID. Median age was 65, and 79% were refractory to the most recent therapy. 34 pts had previously received 〉 4 prior regimens. The first combination cohort was expanded due to a DLT of asymptomatic increase in amylase. No other DLTs have been observed in the cohort escalations. Treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were predominantly grade 1-2. The most common AEs were diarrhea, increased creatinine, fatigue, anemia, nausea and thrombocytopenia and only diarrhea increased with ricolinostat dose. Grade 3-4 AEs possibly related to ricolinostat included thrombocytopenia (24%), anemia, diarrhea, and asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities (1%). Fatigue, dehydration, orthostatic hypotension, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps and pulmonary embolism were seen in ≤1% of pts. Of 25 pts evaluable for response, overall response rate (ORR) was 44%: 2 pts had a very good partial response (VGPR), 9 had a partial response (PR), and 2 had an MR, with 9 pts achieving SD and 3 with progressive disease (PD). Responding pts remained on study for a median of 4 cycles (range 2 to 18). Pts who were not evaluable were those who were too early in treatment (3), or who came off study before cycle 2 (14). Of these 10 had early PD and 3 died due to disease or unrelated AE. 15 pts refractory to Btz prior to study entry were evaluable for response. Of those, response rate (PR or better) was 27% with best outcome VGPR (1), PR (3), SD (8) and PD (3). Pts with SD were on study a median of 3 (2-10) mos. PK and pharmacodynamic data from the first 16 pts were similar to the same dose levels in phase 1a monotherapy suggesting coadministration of Btz does not impact the PK of ricolinostat. Maximal levels were ≥1µM at ≥80 mg correlating with measurable increases 〉 2x in acetylated tubulin with a minimal increase in acetylated histones. Updated PK and pharmacodynamic data will be provided. Conclusions Ricolinostat in combination with Btz and Dex was well tolerated at doses up to 240 mg QD and 160 mg BID in the dose escalation cohorts. Diarrhea was the only dose-related AE. Results of the expansion cohort as well as cytogenetic risk categories will be presented. Responses were observed even in Btz-refractory pts. Disclosures Vogl: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding. Raje:Eli Lilly, Acetylon: Research Funding; novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Millenium, Onyx: Consultancy. Jones:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Supko:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Leone:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Wheeler:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Orlowski:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; JW Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Tamang:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jagannath:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy.

Abstract: Although non-selective HDAC inhibitors are active in MM, combination therapy is limited by significant adverse effects (AEs) including severe fatigue, gastrointestinal toxicity, and myelosuppression. ACY-1215 is the first-in-class selective oral HDAC6 inhibitor that inhibits the aggresome/autophagy pathway, an alternate pathway to proteasome clearance of misfolded proteins. ACY-1215 has demonstrated potent synergy with bortezomib preclinically in cell and animal models of MM (Santo, Blood, 119(1):2527). Methods ACY-100 is a three part single arm, open label study with cohort dose escalation in a standard 3+3 design as monotherapy (1a) and in combination with bortezomib (1b) followed by a phase 2 extension. Eligible patients (pts) for the phase 1a and 1b portions had relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM, previously received at least two lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent, had either progressed after or were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, and had adequate bone marrow reserve, hepatic function and creatinine clearance of 〉 30 mg/mL/min. ACY-1215 was given orally days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 21 day cycle, and bortezomib days 1,4,8,11 and dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12. Peripheral blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), assessment of acetylated tubulin (HDAC6 inhibition) and acetylated histones (Class 1 HDAC inhibition). Toxicity was assessed using CTCv4.0 and responses were evaluated by modified EMBT and Uniform Criteria. Results The monotherapy portion of ACY-100 has been previously presented (Raje, Blood, V20(21):4061). Fifteen heavily pretreated pts received ACY-1215 monotherapy at doses of 40 mg to 360 mg. Most AEs were low grade and not related to ACY-1215. Two pts had grade 3 AEs, anemia and neutropenia, considered possibly related to ACY-1215. No dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Stable disease (SD) was the best response in 6 patients. Sixteen patients as of June 28, 2013 have received ACY-1215 at doses of 40 mg to 160 mg in combination with bortezomib (1.0 mg/m2 first cohort and 1.3 mg/m2 thereafter) and dexamethasone. Median age was 60, and 16 patients had previously received up to 11 lines of therapy. The first combination cohort was expanded due to a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of asymptomatic increase in amylase. No other DLTs have been observed. Treatment emergent adverse events were predominantly low grade. Those occurring in 〉 25% of patients were elevated creatinine, thrombocytopenia, anemia, fatigue, elevated ALT, AST and amylase, hypokalemia, cough, decreased appetite, dyspnea, hypoalbuminemia and peripheral neuropathy; most were not considered related to ACY-1215. Grade 3-4 AEs possibly related to ACY-1215 included asymptomatic elevated amylase (2), thrombocytopenia (3), anemia (1), stomach cramps (1) and elevated creatinine (1). Of 16 patients evaluable for response, VGPR (1), PR (2), MR (1) were seen, with 5 pts achieving SD. Responding patients were on study from 2 to 17 cycles. Eleven pts were refractory to bortezomib prior to study entry. Of those the best outcome was MR (1) and SD (4), with the remaining having either progressive disease (5) or not evaluable (1). PK and PD data is available from 16 patients including the 160 mg dose level. PK for ACY-1215 is similar to the same dose levels in phase 1a monotherapy suggesting coadministration of bortezomib does not impact the PK of ACY-1215. Maximal levels were ≥ 1µM at ≥ 80 mg correlating with measurable increases 〉 2x in acetylated tubulin with a minimal increase in acetylated histones. Conclusions ACY-1215 was well-tolerated when administered in combination with bortezomib and encouraging disease responses were observed in this heavily pretreated patient population. Future cohorts in phase 1b will explore twice daily dosing prior to start of phase 2. Disclosures: Raje: Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Vogl:Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding. Hari:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria. Jones:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Supko:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding. Leone:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wheeler:Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Resverlogix: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Abstract: Abstract 450 Background: New antimyeloma treatments that re-establish tumor response are required to improve survival for pts with advanced, treatment-refractory MM. The MM-002 phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral pomalidomide, in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDex), in pts with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have who have received ≥2 prior therapies including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634). Updated results from March 2012 for pts and the outcomes of subgroup analyses are presented. Methods: Eligible pts with MM who had received at least 2 prior therapies (including LEN and BORT) and had disease progression within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to either POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. Pts aged over 75 years received LoDex, 20 mg/week. All pts received mandatory thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). Pts were stratified within each treatment group according to age. The key efficacy endpoints included the objective response rate using European Bone Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria, duration of response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and safety. This updated analysis focused on pts on the POM+LoDex arm. Results: The intention-to-treat efficacy analysis included 113 pts in the POM+LoDex group. The mean age of pts treated with POM+LoDex was 64 years (range, 34–88); 99 pts (88%) were aged ≤75 years. Response rates, median duration of response, and age subgroups are presented in the Table. Median PFS and OS were 4.6 months (mos) and 16.5 mos, respectively, in the POM+LoDex group overall. In the age subgroup analysis of pts treated with POM+LoDex, the median PFS was 4.7 mos in pts aged ≤65 years, and 3.7 mos in pts 〉 65 years. Median OS was 19.7 mos in pts aged ≤65 years and 11.8 mos in pts 〉 65 years. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) occurring in 〉 5% of pts were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), fatigue (14%), dyspnea (13%), leukopenia (10%), back pain (10%), and urinary tract infection (9%). AEs led to at least one dose reduction in 26% of pts; neutropenia was associated with a dose reduction in 4% of pts. Overall, 78% of pts who developed grade 3 or 4 neutropenia used G-CSF during study treatment. There were no reports of grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy (PN); grade 1 or 2 PN occurred in 7% of pts treated with POM+LoDex. Deep vein thrombosis (any grade) occurred in 2 pts (2%), both aged ≤65 years. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 46% of pts aged ≤65 years and in 35% of pts aged 〉 65 years. Despite this, only 1 pt in each age group developed febrile neutropenia (2%). The mean relative dose intensity (dose intensity/planned dose intensity) was 0.9 in both pt groups of ≤65 years and 〉 65 years receiving POM+LoDex. Overall, 21 pts (19%) of the POM+LoDex group died during the study. The most common cause of death was progressive MM (52%; only in 14% of all cases was it due to disease progression); other causes of death (48%) included infections, cerebral/intracranial/subarachonoid hemorrhage, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and suicide in one pt with a history of severe depression. Conclusions: POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle in combination with LoDex, is clinically effective and generally well tolerated in pts with RRMM who have received multiple prior treatments including LEN and BORT. POM+LoDex represents an important potential new treatment option for pts with advanced MM and appears active in both younger and older pts, with tolerability similar across different age groups. Phase 3 studies of POM+LoDEX in combination with other agents (e.g. bortezomib) are ongoing. Disclosures: Jagannath: Millennium Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lonial:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis, BMS, Onyx, Merck; all 〈 $10,000 per year and disclosed to my institution: Consultancy. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other.

Abstract: Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease in need of new therapies with unique targets. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, once-daily, oral, covalent inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), an essential enzyme in the B-cell receptor signaling pathway. While BTK is essential for the development and function of B cells and is down-regulated in plasma cells, the expression of BTK in malignant plasma cells is increased 4-fold and comparable to BTK expression levels in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In addition, pre-clinical models show that BTK inhibition with ibrutinib led to direct inhibition of both osteoclast bone resorption and the release of osteoclast-derived tumor growth factors (Tai et al, Blood 2012). Taken together these data suggest that ibrutinib may have a role in the treatment of MM. Methods: This open label phase 2 dose escalation study was designed to enroll patients in 4 cohorts (Figure) to evaluate efficacy (≥MR) and secondary endpoints of safety, PK, ORR and DOR. Patients must have had documented non-responsive/progressive disease at the time of study entry following at least 2 prior lines of therapy including at least one immunomodulatory agent. Efficacy and safety were assessed at 4 weeks intervals using the IMWG response criteria for efficacy assessments (Rajkumar et al, Blood 2011), while safety was assessed according to CTCAE v4.0 criteria. Results: As of 15 May 2014 and a median follow up of 15.2 months, 69 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 43-81) were dosed, of which 20% had either a del 17p or p53 deletion. The number of median prior therapies was 4 (range, 2-14), 41% had ≥ 5 prior therapies and 80% had undergone autologous stem cell transplant. Sixty-two percent of patients were refractory to their last line of therapy and of the 65 patients that had received prior therapy with both an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor, 44% were refractory to both. Anti-tumor activity was noted across all cohorts. The highest activity with a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 25% including 1 PR, 4 MR and 5 sustained ( 〉 4 cycles) SD was observed in Cohort 4. (Table) This led to expansion of Cohort 4 per protocol design. In Cohorts 1 and 3, 14 patients had dex added following PD, resulting in 1 PR and 9 SD. Overall, 57% experienced a Grade 3 or higher adverse event. The most commonly reported non-hematologic toxicities (any grade) were diarrhea (51%), fatigue (41%), nausea (35%), dizziness (25%), and muscle spasms (23%). The majority were Grade 1 and 2. Myelosuppression had a reported overall incidence of any grade anemia (29%), thrombocytopenia (23%), and neutropenia (7%) with 16%, 9% and 4% being Grade 3, respectively. There were no clinically meaningful differences among dose levels. Twenty-three patients experienced a SAE for a total of 47 reported events with 16 assessed as possibly/definitely related to ibrutinib per investigator. At least one dose modification occurred in 22% of patients, with 6 discontinuing due to an adverse event. At the time of the data cut-off 7 patients remain on study treatment. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was PD in 47% of patients, with additional patients discontinuing due to investigator discretion (18%), patient decision (7%) and non-compliance (3%). Conclusions: In this heavily pre-treated patient population ibrutinib, as a single agent and in combination with dex, demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity. There was a trend toward improved efficacy (≥MR) in Cohort 4 and treatment was well tolerated with manageable toxicities. Ongoing correlative studies are being conducted to determine changes in cytokines, chemokines and indices of bone metabolism and to determine the effect of dex, a known CYP3A4/5 inducer, on the pharmacokinetic profile of ibrutinib. In addition, ibrutinib is currently being evaluated in combination with carfilzomib in an ongoing Phase1/2b study. (NCT01962792) Figure 1 Figure 1. Table Confirmed Response by Assigned Treatment Cohort Response, n (%) 1 (n=13) 2 (n=18) 3 (n=18) 4 (n=20) PR 1 1 - 1 MR 1 - - 4 SD ≥ 4 cycles 2 4 6 5 SD 〈 4 cycles 5 6 4 1 PD 4 5 7 5 Not evaluable - 2 1 4 Not evaluable – no post-baseline assessments Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Off Label Use: Discussion of efficacy and safety data with ibrutinib as single-agent and in combination with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated in a phase 2 clinical trial. Huff:Celgene, Millenium: Consultancy. Bensinger:Pharmacyclics, Novartis, Celgene, Millenium, Sanofi, Acetylon: Consultancy, Research Funding. Siegel:Celgene, Millennium, Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Celgene, BMS, Jansen, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Lebovic:Onyx, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Anderson:Celgene, Millenium, Onyx, : Speakers Bureau. Elias:Pharmacyclics, Inc.: Employment. Clow:Pharmacyclics, Inc.: Employment. Fardis:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Graef:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bilotti:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone significantly improved PFS vs pomalidomide alone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is an important new treatment option for RRMM patients who have received multiple prior therapies.

Abstract: Abstract 1024 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004. Sixteen North American member institutions with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM) work collaboratively with the MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT) and numerous pharmaceutical partners to speed development of new treatment options to MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC Inc. implemented business solutions to address barriers to rapid activation of phase I-II trials and established benchmarks for initiating and conducting these studies. In December 2010, we reported significantly faster trial start up and accrual data from previous years1,2. Today, we update and expand on MMRC performance data and analysis of progress. Methods: Twenty-five (25) trials conducted within the Consortium from May 2006 to July 2011 had sufficient start up trial data for review. FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD in the recent group of trials (RG; n=18; Sept 08-Jul 11) held steady at 131 calendar days from receipt of FP as compared to 181 days for the early group of trials (EG; n=7; Jun06-Sept08) representing a 28% reduction in time to FPFD. More importantly, there was a 20% decrease in time to FPFD by all participating MMRC centers on any MMRC trial from 189 days in the RG compared to 236 days in the EG representing an important achievement especially in the Phase I/II arena. MMRC trial accrual data was available for 17/25 trials (2 EG trials were missing data and 6 RG trials continue enrolling). The pre-study mean MMRC EC was 44 subjects per trial (n=19 trials; 849 patients); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=19; 935 patients through July 11) representing a 10% over enrollment versus committed enrollment. A total of 17/19 evaluable trials (89%) met their EC; 12/19 trials met EC within BET (71%) of which 8/12 trials (67%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 19 trials was 13.6 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 12.8 months for the group of 17 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 10%. Discussion: MMRC's acceleration of clinical trials provides physicians and patients with rapid access to novel compounds; industry with data for important drug development decisions; and academic institutions with more trials of high scientific interest. Even so, our data uncovered opportunities for improvement. The submission time from receipt of the final protocol from the trial sponsor to Scientific Review Committee (SRC) took an average 30 calendar days across all trials. A reduction to half this time could make a difference to patients and therefore warrants further exploration. Conclusion: Today, drug development in multiple myeloma is fast-paced and highly competitive. MMRC's frequent review of trial metrics provides valuable insight to continually speed answers to physicians, patients and industry. Disclosures: Richardson: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support Clinical Trial Project Management. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Lonial:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Jagannath:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Stewart:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual Grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Krishnan:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Zimmerman:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Kumar:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Roy:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Fay:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management. Anderson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Annual grant in support of clinical trial Project Management.

Abstract: Abstract 303 Introduction: Elotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody directed against the cell surface glycoprotein CS1, which is highly expressed on tumor cells from 〉 95% of multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The mechanism of action of elotuzumab is primarily natural killer cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against myeloma cells. A Phase 1 study of elotuzumab (at doses of 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg) in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (N=28) in relapsed/refractory MM patients demonstrated an 82% objective response rate (ORR). Median PFS was not yet reached after a median of 16.4 months follow-up in patients who were treated until progression (only the 20 mg/kg cohort). Of the 13 Phase 1 patients without premedication, 12 (92%) experienced infusion reactions (IR), including 2 with Grade 3/4 IR adverse events (AE). Phase 3 trials of lenalidomide/dexamethasone with or without elotuzumab are ongoing. Methods: In the ongoing Phase 2 study, patients with relapsed/refractory MM and 1 to 3 prior therapies were randomized to elotuzumab 10 or 20 mg/kg IV (days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days in the first 2 cycles and days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles), lenalidomide 25 mg PO (days 1–21) and dexamethasone 40 mg PO weekly or 28 mg PO plus 8 mg IV on elotuzumab dosing days. Patients treated with prior lenalidomide were excluded. All patients received a premedication regimen, which consisted of either methylprednisolone (50 mg IV) or in a later amendment dexamethasone (8 mg IV), diphenhydramine (25–50 mg PO or IV) or equivalent, ranitidine (50 mg IV) or equivalent, and acetaminophen (650–1000 mg PO). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess efficacy (ORR; 'partial response [PR]) according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. The incidence of IRs were analyzed by 1) AEs, regardless of investigator attribution, and that potentially could be an IR by virtue of their onset on the day of, or day after, elotuzumab infusion, and 2) investigator attribution of an AE as an IR. Results: Among 73 enrolled and treated patients (median age 63 years; range 39–82), 55% had ≥2 prior therapies, 62% received prior thalidomide, 60% received prior bortezomib, and 47% had β2 microglobulin ≥3.5 mg/L at screening (N=71). ORR was 82% in the combined treatment group (10 mg/kg, n=36; 20 mg/kg, n=37), including 44% ≥ very good PR (VGPR). Of these patients, 12% had a stringent complete response (CR) or a CR, and 32% had a VGPR. In the 10 mg/kg group (Phase 3 dose), the ORR was 92%. ORRs for patients who received 10 mg/kg by subgroup were: 1 prior therapy (n=16), 100%; ≥2 prior therapies (n=20), 85%; prior thalidomide (n=21), 91%; prior bortezomib (n=22), 86%. Median time to objective response was 1.0 months (range, 0.7–4.3). After a median follow-up of 11.4 months, 22% of patients had progressed in the 10 mg/kg group and 30% of patients in the 20 mg/kg group. For all treated patients, the most common Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs were lymphopenia (16%), thrombocytopenia (16%), neutropenia (15%), and anemia (11%). Forty-six patients (63%) experienced a study sponsor-defined IR (all grades).The most common IR AEs (mostly Grade 1/2; 1 Grade 3 nausea) were nausea (18%), headache (14%), pyrexia (14%), and dizziness (12%). Among the pre-specified IR AEs, Grade 3 rash and Grade 3 nausea were identified in 2 patients, respectively. However, the incidence of investigator-identified IR AEs was 16% (all grades) including the Grade 3 rash. No Grade 4 or 5 IR AEs were reported. Of the 73 patients, 40 patients are still on treatment. Conclusions: Elotuzumab 10 mg/kg in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone was generally well tolerated and exhibited a 92% ORR in relapsed/refractory MM patients; 10 mg/kg is the Phase 3 dose. Twenty-two percent of patients progressed after a median of 11.4 months follow-up. Elotuzumab-associated AEs were primarily Grade 1 and 2 infusion-related reactions, with the incidence and severity mitigated by the defined premedication regimen. Phase 3 clinical trials of this combination are ongoing in relapsed/refractory MM (ELOQUENT2; CA204-004) and front-line MM (ELOQUENT1; CA204-006); the latter is based on the Phase 2 study ORR of 100% in patients who had received only 1 prior therapy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Lonial: Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Elotuzumab. Jakubowiak:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jagannath:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Washington University School of Medicine: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Consortium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reece:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Hospital: Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. White:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zonder:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Medtronics: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy. Rossi:Pierre Fabre Medicaments: Consultancy; LFB: Consultancy. Tsao:Abbott Biotherapeutics Corp.: Employment. Parli:Abbott Biotherapeutics: Employment. Kroog:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Singhal:Abbott: Employment. Richardson:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: 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.