Abstract: Castleman disease (CD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disease characterized by diverse clinical and pathologic features. Due to its rarity, there are limited studies comparing currently available therapies. The role of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in CD has not yet been established. In this paper, we describe the clinical characteristics, treatment choices, and outcomes in 34 Mayo Clinic patients diagnosed with multicentric CD from July 1, 2003 to April 30, 2018. Eighteen patients (53%) also met the criteria for POEMS, including 14 with the osteosclerotic variant. The first‐line treatments included: steroid monotherapy (4), cytotoxic chemotherapy (6), rituximab alone (8) or with chemotherapy (2), anti‐IL6 treatment (3), and ASCT (10). The median follow‐up was 4.8 (range: 0.1–15.2) years. The 5‐ and 10‐year overall survival rates were 84% and 71%, respectively. Sixteen patients received high‐dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT during their disease course. Among those, 14 had multicentric CD associated with POEMS. There were no transplant‐related deaths. All patients had at least a partial response to ASCT, most of whom achieved a complete response. The favorable outcomes seen with ASCT in this cohort suggest that transplantation may have a role in multicentric CD, particularly for patients with multicentric CD associated with POEMS.

Abstract: The utility of systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after treatment has not been explored. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used systems are of prognostic value at 3 and 6 months of starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration from diagnosis impacts survival. This is a retrospective study including Mayo Clinic patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2019; 536 and 204 patients had restaging data for at least 1 system at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 3 months, median overall survival (OSs) were 11.8, 10.8, 4.6, and 1.1 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, median OSs were 11.8, 9.0, 5.2, and 0.8 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 6 months, median OSs were not reached (NR), NR, 5.4, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, OSs were NR, NR, 4.6, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Worsening stage at 3 or 6 months was associated with worse survival than retaining baseline stage. In conclusion, the current staging systems can be used for restaging at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Migration to higher stage predicts poor prognosis.

Abstract: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is an immunoglobulin M‐associated lymphoma, with majority of cases demonstrating MYD88 locus alteration, most commonly, MYD88 L265P . Owing to low prevalence of the wild‐type (WT) MYD88 genotype in WM, clinically relevant data in this patient population are sparse, with one study showing nearly a 10‐fold increased risk of mortality in this subgroup compared to patients with MYD88 L265P mutation. We studied a large cohort of patients with MYD88 L265P and MYD88 WT WM, evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, between 1995 and 2016, to specifically assess the impact of these genotypes on clinical course. Of 557 patients, MYD88 L265P mutation status, as determined by allele‐specific polymerase chain reaction, was known in 219, and 174 (79%) of those exhibited MYD88 L265P , 157 of 174 patients had active disease. Of 45 (21%) patients with MYD88 WT genotype, 44 had active disease. The estimated median follow‐up was 7.0 years; median overall survival was 10.2 years (95% CI: 8.4‐16.5) for MYD88 L265P versus 13.9 years (95% CI: 6.4‐29.3) for the MYD88 WT ( P  = 0.86). The time‐to‐next therapy from frontline treatment and the presenting features were similar in the two patient populations. For patients with smoldering WM at diagnosis, the median time‐to‐progression to active disease was 2.8 years (95% CI: 2.2‐3.8) in the MYD88 L265P cohort and 1.9 years (95% CI: 0.7‐3.1) in the MYD88 WT cohort ( P  = 0.21). The frequency of transformation to high‐grade lymphoma, or the development of therapy‐elated myelodysplastic syndrome was higher in the MYD88 WT cohort (16% versus 4% in the MYD88 L265P , P  = 0.009). In conclusion, MYD88 L265P mutation does not appear to be a determinant of outcome, and its presence may not be a disease‐defining feature in WM. Our findings warrant external validation, preferably through prospective studies.

Abstract: Introduction: Immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several models were developed to allow survival prediction, but head-to-head model comparison is lacking. Patients and Methods: Five prognostic models were compared: Mayo 2004; Mayo 2012; 2013 European modification of Mayo 2004 (where Mayo 2004 stage 3 is subdivided into 3 subgroups based on NT-proBNP at 8500 ng/L and systolic blood pressure at 100 mmHg); 2015 European modification of Mayo 2004 (where Mayo 2004 stage 3 is subdivided into 2 subgroups based on NT-proBNP at 8500 ng/L); and organ model (a model based on number of involved organs). All patients with available baseline data for the 5 models were included in this study (n=1005). Improvements in predictive accuracy of the various models were determined by calculating a net improvement in survival prediction for each pair of prognostic models. Net improvement was considered as the proportion where model A outperforms model B minus the proportion where model B outperforms model A. Results: For all models, there was increasing risk for death with increasing stage. The organ model was the least powerful system with a hazard ratio of 2.8 for ≥4 organs compared to 1 involved organ. The organ model was consistently outperformed by the other 4 systems. In the cohort as a whole, the biomarker models (Mayo 2004; Mayo 2012; European 2013; European 2015) were comparable in ability to predict survival (Figure). However, a slightly superior performance of the European 2013 modification of the Mayo 2004 system was seen over the Mayo 2004 system in the group as a whole (net improvement 4.1%, P=0.023) and when restricted to non-ASCT population (net improvement 6.3% P=0.014). The European 2015 modification performed slightly better than the Mayo 2004 system in the ASCT population (net improvement 3.4%, P=0.025). 1-year mortality was better predicted by the European models (net improvement 11-14%, P 〈 0.05), while the Mayo 2012 had better survival prediction to all other biomarker models in 3-year landmark comparison (net improvement 7-9%, P 〈 0.05). Conclusion: Using biomarker based staging is a clear improvement over the organ staging system. The different biomarker staging systems' abilities to predict for survival were relatively comparable, solidifying the importance of soluble cardiac biomarkers and free light chain measurement as prognosticators in AL amyloidosis. Mayo 2004-based models better predict for early death while Mayo 2012 model has a better prediction for long-term survival. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: Ionis: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: The overall participation of cancer patients in interventional clinical trials in the United States remains very low, with ~5% of patients being enrolled in clinical trials nationwide. The outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly over the past decade, but available data suggest that the participation rates for patients with MM is comparable to other cancers. The drivers of participation and the potential impact of clinical trial participation have not been systematically studied in MM. Patients and Methods: We identified 228 patients who were enrolled into clinical trials for initial therapy of newly diagnosed MM between 2004 and 2018, and 4 controls for each of these patients. Controls were patients with NDMM, who were diagnosed closest in time to the index patients and did not participate in an interventional treatment trial. Various baseline characteristics as well as overall survival were compared between the two groups. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups are as shown in the Table. Patients who entered clinical trials were more likely to be female, resided closer to the clinic, and were more likely to have a prior history of MGUS. They were more likely to have higher ISS Stage, and a higher serum LDH, but there was no difference in the FISH risk status. Other indices of disease burden such as lower hemoglobin and platelets, higher serum creatinine were all seen more often in the control group, but may have been influenced by the trial entry criteria. Looking at the outcomes, the overall survival was longer among those enrolled into clinical trials compared to those who did not [median 103 (95% CI; 86, 136) vs. 63 (95% CI; 53, 69) months, p 〈 0.001 (Figure). Conclusions: The current study provides important clues regarding demographic determinants of trial participation and disease biology related features that reflect likelihood of trial participation. Overall survival was significantly longer among the trial participants, which likely represent a mix of reasons including baseline status of patients, intensity of monitoring and efficacy of novel treatment approaches. Table Disclosures Kapoor: Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Lytic bone lesions are one of the most common clinical characteristics of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and identification of bone lesions help distinguish between patients with smoldering multiple MM and active MM. Given this, the most recent update of the diagnostic criteria for MM incorporates advanced imaging approaches for distinguishing between the two entities. Several small retrospective studies have compared conventional skeletal survey (SS) with whole-body low dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) scan or the CT portion of a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Conducting prospective studies comparing these two modalities side by side is limited by the radiation exposure. We undertook this study to provide a comparison between these two imaging modalities in terms of their ability to recognize lytic bone lesions in patients with MM. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients with the diagnosis of MM treated at Mayo Cinic Hospital during 2004- 2018. Patients were included if they had a conventional skeletal survey no more than 3 months before MM diagnosis or any time after diagnosis and also had a WBLDCT or PET-CT within a 12-month period following the skeletal survey. We chose this approach since it is unlikely that a patient would have had both modalities done at the same time as part of standard of care (SOC). This approach was also facilitated by a gradual change in our SOC for skeletal imaging from conventional skeletal survey to WBLDCT. To measure the robustness of our findings, we performed a sensitivity analysis in patients who had the exam ≤6 months apart. Proportions were compared using a chi-square test and survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan- Meier methodology and compared using log rank test. Results: The overall study cohort had 1040 patients, median age was 62 years at diagnosis (range, 24-94), 61% were male and 39% were female. The median time to the skeletal survey was 8 months from diagnosis (range, 0-160) and the median time to WBLDCT or PET-CT from SS was 2 months (0-12). A PET-CT was available in 789 (76%) of patients and WBLDCT in 251 (24%) of patients. Among the 300 patients with no lesions identified by SS, 188 (63%) had lytic lesions identified by CT, while in 60/740 (8%) patients with a positive SS did not have lytic lesions observed on the CT (p & lt;0.0001). Overall, CT identified lytic lesions in 868 (84%) patients compared with 740 (71%) patients with lytic lesions seen on SS. Although the proportion of lytic lesions was slightly higher with PET compared to WBLDCT, the analysis did not reach statistical significance (65% vs. 56%; p = 0.17; Table 1a). After restricting the analysis to those with ≤6 months gap between low dose CT and SS (n=737), the result did not change (Table 1b). Further examination demonstrated that presence of lytic lesions by SS had no impact on OS from diagnosis, detection of lesions on the CT exam was associated with an inferior survival (112 vs. 81 months, p & lt;0.0001). (Figure 1) Conclusion: Skeletal survey has been the screening technique of choice for evaluation of bone involvement in MM for decades. However, CT based approaches have higher sensitivity with lytic lesions identified in a higher proportion of patients. The prognostic value of lytic disease is evident with CT based detection, again suggesting that this provides a more accurate estimate of the skeletal disease burden. Low dose CT rather than conventional radiographs should be the modality of choice for monitoring disease-progression and diagnosing active multiple myeloma. Disclosures Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Aurora Bio: Other; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy. Kumar:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Newly diagnosed patients with AL Amyloidosis are a heterogeneous population, ranging from incidentally found nephrotic syndrome to delayed advanced cardiac disease. For the purposes of trials, patients with the highest-risk disease are often excluded from trial participation. An NT-proBNP of 8500 or higher is the criterion most often used for exclusion from clinical trials due to high rates of early death. It is well documented that overall survival is improving over time, in part due to earlier diagnosis and in part due to more effective therapies. It is our aim to describe outcomes of patients with very high (NT-proBNP & gt;=8500) and advanced stage amyloidosis excluding very high (VH) NT-proBNP. Methods: To address this need, we examined the outcomes of AL patients diagnosed between 1/2012 and 7/2020 and seen at our institution within 90 days of diagnosis. Of the 1290 patients, 291 were seen beyond the 90 day threshold and were thus excluded. Another 170 patients were excluded due to missing biomarkers to calculate stage, leaving 829 patients for our analysis. Thresholds for troponins and BNPs were used according to Muchtar Blood 133(7):2019 to correct for assay used. The vast majority of patients had troponin T measured, and for them the 0.025 mcg/L and the 0.035 mcg/L cut-points were used for the 2012 and 2004 staging systems. A minority of patients did not have troponin T, but rather high sensitivity troponin T (n=129) or troponin I (n=23). For patients with high sensitivity troponin T, cut-points of 41 and 50 ng/L were used, respectively, for the 2012 and 2004 systems, and for patients with troponin I only, a cut-point of 0.1 mcg/L was used for both systems. In the 3 patients with no NT-proBNP but with BNP, 400 and 81 ng/L were used respectively for the 2012 and 2004 systems; otherwise, the 1800 ng/L and 332 ng/L cut-offs were used. A BNP of & gt; 700 ng/L was considered equivalent to NT-proBNP greater than or equal to 8500 ng/L. For the 2012 system, the dFLC of 18 mg/dL was used as a cut-off. Survival estimates were done using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences in survival were by determined by Log-Rank. Results: The median age of patients was 65 (range 29, 89), and 65% were male. 148 (17%) of these newly diagnosed patients had a VH ( & gt;=8500) NT-proBNP. Patients with VH NT-proBNP were older (67 versus 64 years, p=0.004). Only 4% of the VH NT-proBNP patients received an ASCT in contrast to 34% without VH NT-proBNP. With a median follow-up of 30 months for surviving patients, median OS for VH NT-proBNP patients was 3.3 months in contrast to patients without VH NT-proBNP at 68.4 months (Figure). Breakdown of early death for patients with VH NT-proBNP by stage is shown in Table. Of Mayo 2012 patients staged I, II, III, and IV, the percent of patients with VH NT-proBNP was 0, 3, 20, and 45%. In contrast, for the European modification of the Mayo 2004 system, the percent with VH NT-proBNP by stage was 0, 6, 0, 100 for stages I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Among the VH NT-proBNP patients, there was stage discrimination using the Mayo 2012 system (6-month death rates were 17, 45, and 66% for patients with stages II, III, and IV, respectively, p=0.02). In contrast, using the Mayo 2004 system in the patients with VH NT-proBNP, 6-month death rates were 45 and 60% for stage II and IIIb patients, respectively (p= 0.12). Among patients without VH NT-proBNP, rates of death in the first year were 21% including stage I patients whose death rates were well under 10%. Patients without VH NT-proBNP but Mayo 2012 Stage III and IV had 1-year mortalities of 28 and 43% respectively. Using the modified Mayo 2004 system, excluding the VH NT-proBNP 1-year mortality was 19 and 37% for patients with stage II and IIIa, respectively. Discussion: Establishing expected outcomes for the sickest AL amyloidosis patients is a means by which trials can be designed for these patients with an unmet need. Patients with VH NT-proBNP should be considered for specially designed trials, and patients without VH NT-proBNP and advanced stage should be included in trials for newly diagnosed patients regardless of stage as long as there is appropriate stratification. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy. Gertz:Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy.

Abstract: Background: Combinations of alkylating agents with proteasome inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM), with melphalan or cyclophosphamide combinations being some of the commonly used regimens for initial treatment of MM. Ixazomib (Ixa) is an oral proteasome inhibitor that is approved for use in combination with lenalidomide for patients with relapsed MM. We examined if Ixa can be effectively combined with cyclophosphamide (Ctx) in order to develop a less expensive, all oral regimen for patients with relapsed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed MM, who were proteasome inhibitor naïve OR have received less than 6 cycles of therapy with bortezomib and had a better than PR with no progression at the time of discontinuation, were enrolled. The primary objective was to determine overall response rate (ORR). Treatment consisted of Ixa 4mg PO days 1, 8, 15; Ctx 300 mg/m2 PO days 1, 8, 15, 22 and dexamethasone (Dex) 40 mg PO weekly in a 28-day cycle. Overall, 37 patients were accrued; data on 33 eligible patients were available for analysis as of July 18, 2019. Results: The median age was 71 (48-89), 61% were male and the median duration from diagnosis was 46 months (mos). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 1-5), 76%, 42% and 67% respectively had a prior IMiD, proteasome inhibitor or stem cell transplant, respectively. At data cutoff, 22 (67%) had progressed, 4 (12%) had died and the median follow up of those alive was 21.3 mos. Fourteen patients are still receiving treatment, with median of 8.5 cycles. Most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression (10 pts; 53%). The ORR was 60% including 6% CR and 24% VGPR. The median event free survival was 11.3 mos (95%CI: 9.0 - 26.8). Overall, 401 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose modifications/ hold required for Ixa, Ctx, and Dex in 9 (27%), 14 (42%), and 22 (67%) patients respectively, the most common reason being hematologic toxicity. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 77% of patients, hematologic in 67% and non-hematologic in 30%. (Table 1) The most commonly observed hematologic toxicities included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, lymphopenia and anemia; for non-hematologic was nausea, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy toxicity and fatigue. Conclusions: The combination of Ixa, Ctx and Dex (ICd) offers a convenient, all oral regimen for treatment of relapsed disease not refractory to proteasome inhibitors. The regimen has good efficacy in this group f heavily pretreated patients, with an acceptable toxicity profile. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria. Ailawadhi:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Bergsagel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Fonseca:AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, Kite, Janssen, Juno, Merck, Pharmacylics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Prognosticatin of MM based on Genetic Categorization by FISH: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Stewart:Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Ionis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: The combination of a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and dexamethasone is the current standard induction therapy for myeloma. Daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, is highly effective in treating myeloma and improves response rates and progression free survival (PFS) when added to PI or IMiD. Ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) is an effective, all oral, induction regimen that has been studied in phase 2 and 3 trials. We designed this trial to examine the feasibility and efficacy of adding daratumumab to the IRd regimen. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated MM, with measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled irrespective of their transplant eligibility. The primary objective was to determine the rate of complete response to the IRD-Dara combination in patients with NDMM. Treatment consisted of Ixazomib 4mg days 1, 8, 15; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21, dexamethasone 40 mg, weekly and daratumumab 16 mg/kg, weekly for two cycles, every other week during cycles 3-6 and then every 4 weeks after that. Overall, 40 patients were accrued; data on 38 patients were available for analysis as of July 02, 2018 (Table 1). Results: The median age was 62 (41-81); 52.6% female. All patients were alive and progression free at last assessment with a median follow up of 5.2 (2.0-12.9) months (median 5 cycles, range 2-13). One patient had gone off for alternate therapy. Responses were rapid with 90% partial response or better (32% VGPR) after 2 cycles, and 100% PR or better (50% VGPR) for 32 patients who have completed 4 cycles. The overall best confirmed response rate among the 38 patients was 95% including 11% CR and 47% VGPR. Overall, 231 cycles have been administered across the study, with dose modifications/ hold required for ixazomib, lenalidomide, daratumumab and dexamethasone in 3 (8%), 11 (29%), 2 (5%), and 8 (21%) patients respectively, the most common reasons being hematologic and skin rash. A grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly attributed to the study drugs was seen in 42% of patients, hematologic in 37% and non-hematologic in 11% (Figure). 11 patients have so far proceeded to stem cell collection, all have collected adequate numbers of stem cells for one or two intended transplants(median CD34+ collected 8.4 million/kg; range 3.8-12.3). Updated results with additional 6 months of follow up and MRD testing will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This represents the first reported results of this combination for treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma. The early results from the use of IRd-Dara in newly diagnosed myeloma suggests excellent efficacy with rapid responses that deepen quickly over the initial cycles of therapy. The regimen was well tolerated with limited dose modifications and no discontinuation for toxicity and no influence on the ability to collect stem cells. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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, Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy.

Abstract: Background: We previously reported successful treatment of myeloma with an oncolytic virus, MMV-NIS. Preexisting immunity against measles made use of that virus unsatisfactory. The Indiana strain of Vesicular Stomatitis Viruses (VSV) are being developed as anticancer drugs for the treatment of a variety of malignancies. To ensure tumor selective replication and spread, we designed the VSV to encode interferon beta. Expression of IFNβ also serves as a STING agonist to activate host immunity against the cancer. The sodium iodide symporter (NIS) is inserted as a reporter gene into the viral genome to enable noninvasive monitoring of viral spread using PET/CT imaging. We report a Phase I clinical trial of intravenous administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS for relapsed hematological malignancies including MM, AML, and TCL. Methods: Arm A consisted of patients with low tumor burden. Arm B included patients with high tumor burden. Both arms consisted of a classical 3+3 phase I trial, starting at 5x10^9 TCID50 (dose level 1) through 5x10^11 TCID50 (dose level 4), given as a single IV dose. In order to obviate potential toxicity from high interferon levels, Arm B received ruxolitinib 15 mg twice daily for 10 days beginning on day -1. The primary objective was determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS alone and in combination with ruxolitinib; secondary objectives include estimating the safety profile and preliminary efficacy. Correlative objectives include monitoring the pharmacodynamics of viral replication through SPECT/CT imaging with NIS gene, viremia, virus shedding, changes in the immune profile of peripheral blood leukocytes, and immunohistochemistry for immune cell infiltrates in tumors. Adverse events (AEs) are reported herein based on CTCAE v4 with the exception of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) which is based on Lee (Blood 2014; 124(2):188-195) criteria. Results: To date, 10 patients have received IV VSV-IFNβ-NIS; 8 in Arm A and 2 in Arm B. In Arm A, 3 patients were treated at dose level 1, 3 at dose level 2 and 2 at dose level 3. At dose level 1, there were three grade 3 hematologic AEs (neutropenia [1], lymphopenia [2] ), and no grade 3+ non-hematologic AEs. At dose level 2, there were two grade 3 hematologic AEs (anemia [1], lymphopenia [1] ), and two grade 3 non-hematologic AEs (nausea [1], dehydration [1] ). A grade 2 CRS by Lee criteria was also observed. At dose level 3, 2 patients have been enrolled and data are maturing for DLT evaluation. In Arm B (VSV + rux), 2 patients have been enrolled and data are maturing for dose limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation. Other grade 1 and 2 toxicities have included fever, hypertension, headache, electrolyte abnormalities, nausea, vomiting, transient elevation of liver function tests and creatinine. All grade 1 and 2 toxicities resolved within 72 hours. Among the 6 patients evaluable for response, there was one partial remission (TCL patient treated at dose level 2), and 5 with progressive disease. Multiple cytokines increased at 4h post infusion of virus, but most returned to baseline levels by 24h.Viremia was detectable in all patients at the end of infusion, and to varying levels at 30 mins, 1, 2, 4, 24, 48h or 72 hours post virus infusion. No persistent viremia was observed. No infectious virus was recovered in buccal swabs or urine and neutralizing anti-VSV antibodies were present by day 29. Extensive immune phenotyping and ELIspot assays for shared antigens are ongoing. Conclusion: In the lowest dose levels tested to date, VSV-IFNβ-NIS has not led to any observed dose limiting toxicity. Dose escalation is ongoing and updated results will be reported. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding. Peng:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Gertz:spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Naik:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.