Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 189-189

Abstract: Background: Maximising response in myeloma (MM) patients with effective induction regimens prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) improves progression-free and overall survival. Triplet regimens combining an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and/or proteasome inhibitor (PI) are standard of care, however a more personalised approach is achieved by sequential triplet combinations based on an individual's response. Alternatively, quadruplet regimens may be more effective and new generation PIs such as carfilzomib, with less off-target activity, provide the opportunity to investigate this whilst minimising the risk of increased toxicity. The UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial is a large, phase III study aiming to answer these questions in transplant eligible (TE) patients comparing the quadruplet carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone to the sequential strategy of triplet IMiD combinations (with thalidomide or lenalidomide) followed by additional PI triplet therapy for those with a suboptimal response ( 〈 VGPR) prior to ASCT. Methods: In 2013, the TE pathway was amended to include KCRD: carfilzomib 36mg/m2 IV d1-2,8-9,15-16 (20mg/m2 #1d1-2), cyclophosphamide (cyclo) 500mg PO d1,8, lenalidomide (len) 25mg PO d1-21, dexamethasone (dex) 40mg PO d1-4,8-9,15-16). Patients are randomised to this up-front quadruplet or the sequential strategy of CRD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8, len 25mg PO d1-21 PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4, 12-15 or CTD: cyclo 500mg PO d1,8,15 thalidomide 100-200mg PO daily, dex 40mg PO d1-4,12-15 given to max. response - patients with VGPR/CR proceed straight to ASCT, PR/MR are randomised to sequential CVD: cyclo 500mg d1,8,15, bortezomib 1.3mg/m2 IV/SC d1,4,8,11, dex 20mg PO d1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12 or nothing and SD/PD all receive sequential CVD. All treatments are given to max. response prior to ASCT, after which there is a maintenance randomisation. Patients: 1512 patients entered the TE pathway prior to amendment (756 CRD, 756 CTD). Of these, 201 patients with a suboptimal initial response went on to receive CVD, 142 following randomisation (initial response PR/MR) and 59 with NC/PD. 788 (of target n=1036) patients have been randomised post-amendment to date (394 KCRD, 197 CRD, 197 CTD). Results: TE patients receiving treatment prior to the amendment had response rates ≥VGPR: CRD 58% vs CTD 52%. For patients receiving the sequential triplet CVD due to a suboptimal response this was upgraded to ≥VGPR in 49% of those with initial MR/PR, 27% with NC/PD. This suggests the overall ≥VGPR rate to this treatment approach prior to ASCT would be approx. 75%. This now needs to be compared to the alternative approach of an upfront quadruplet. Comparing patients contemporaneously randomised to initial induction the patients receiving KCRD have completed a median 4 cycles (range 1-7), CRD 5 (range 1-10) and CTD 6 (range 1-9). Dose modifications have been required in 62% of patients receiving KCRD (56% to carfilzomib, 42% to lenalidomide) 44% CRD (40% to lenalidomide) and 65% CTD (59% to thalidomide). Data for study drug related toxicity in patients who have completed at least one cycle of initial induction are shown in table 1. Serious adverse events suspected to be due to trial medications have occurred in 37% on KCRD, 32% CRD and 35% CTD. Updated toxicity and preliminary response analysis on 23/09/15 will be presented at the meeting. This will include a response comparison at the end of initial induction regimen i.e. KCRD vs CRD vs CTD for an anticipated 700 contemporaneous patients who will have completed treatment. Updated response to the sequencing approach (with 250 patients having received sequential CVD) will also be presented and compared. Conclusions: In our study KCRD, an outpatient delivered 4-drug regimen combining second generation IMiD and PI drugs, is well-tolerated in TE NDMM patients, comparable to 3-drug regimens. Data will be presented at the meeting to compare the response rates achieved with the different regimens and treatment approaches. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-oncology CSG Table 1. Comparative toxicities KCRD n=261 CRD n=143 CTD n=142 % (no. of patients) Peripheral neuropathy Sensory Gr II-IV 1.9 (5) 1.4 (2) 8.5 (12) Motor Gr II-IV 3.1 (8) 1 (1) 5.6 (8) VTE all grades 4.2 (11) 4.9 (7) 5.6 (8) Anaemia Gr III-IV 9.2 (24) 4.2 (6) 5.6 (8) Neutropenia Gr III-IV 14.9 (39) 16.1 (22) 13.3 (19) Thrombocytopenia Gr III-IV 8.4 (22) 1.4 (2) 1.4 (2) Infusion reaction Gr III-IV 0.4 (1) - - Disclosures Pawlyn: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; The Institute of Cancer Research: Employment. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib as induction treatment for myeloma Lenalidomide and vorinostat as maintenance treatments for myeloma. Davies:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Honoraria; Onyx-Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda-Milenium: Honoraria. Jones:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Kaiser:Janssen: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Cook:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Russell:Therakos: Other: shares. Owen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Morgan:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda-Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CancerNet: Honoraria; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Weisman Institute: Honoraria; CancerNet: Honoraria.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.189.189

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 2000-2000

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Features of high risk myeloma (MM) have been studied in detail but patients with longer term responses to first-line therapy are less well characterised. Identification of common features of this group may support optimised management. Here we analysed clinical and genetic characteristics of long-term responders of 4,249 trial patients from the UK MRC Myeloma IX (M-IX) and NCRI Myeloma XI (M-XI) trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS In M-IX patients were randomised between alkylating therapy (CVAD or MP) and thalidomide-based induction therapy (CTD). M-XI patients were randomised between thalidomide and lenalidomide based induction (CTD vs CRD) and a response-based bortezomib (CVD) intensification. Fitter patients received HD-Mel+ASCT consolidation. Patients were then randomised to thalidomide (M-IX) or lenalidomide (M-XI) maintenance or observation. Trials included symptomatic, newly diagnosed patients based on CRAB criteria. This analysis included 1,921 My-IX and 2,328 My-XI patients with median follow-up of 73 and 61 months (m), respectively. Genetic profiling was available for 1,866 patients. Patients with a long-term response post induction (PFS≥48m) were identified and their baseline characteristics, responses and treatment compared to those with PFS 〈 48m. OS difference was compared using the logrank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. RESULTS In M-IX, 283 (25.8%) of transplant-eligible (TE) patients had PFS ≥48m whereas 58 (7%) of transplant non-eligible (TNE) patients reached PFS≥48m. In M-XI 410 (34.2%) patients had PFS≥48m for TE and 116 (10.2%) for TNE. Extended progression free survival translated to overall survival (OS) benefit with a median post progression OS of 36.9m for PFS≥48m vs 16.7m for PFS 〈 48m (p 〈 0.0001) for M-IX. For M-XI, OS data had not reached maturity, however the probability of OS at 2 years post progression for those with PFS≥48m was 60% vs 36% for PFS 〈 48m. Clinical factors including ISS I (P 〈 0.0001) and lower performance status (WHO) (P 〈 0.0001) were positively associated with PFS≥48m. Relative risk by multivariate analyses appeared to be higher for these factors in TNE patients with odds ratio of 1.6 and 1.3 than in the TE group with odds 1.4 and 1.2 across M-IX and XI, respectively. The proportion of patients with a high risk lesion (Adverse translocation, Gain(1q) or Del(17p)) were lower in the PFS≥48m group than 〈 48m: 34.3% vs. 54.5% and 28.8% vs. 54% for TE and 10% vs. 51.2% and 35.4% vs 52.1% for TNE arms of M-IX and M-XI, respectively. 'Double hit' MM (≥2 high risk lesions) was rare with 5.8% of patients PFS≥48m compared to 16.6% of patients PFS 〈 48m across trials (P 〈 0.0001). Absence of gain(1q) was the only genetic factor retained within a multivariable analysis of baseline parameters associated with PFS≥48m in the TNE group, whereas for the TE group absence of all high risk lesions were associated with PFS≥48m (p 〈 0.0001). Hyperdiploidy was positively associated with PFS≥48m in the TE group (P=0.02) only by univariate analysis. The majority of patients with PFS ≥48m showed ≥VGPR after induction +/- consolidation: 211 (76.4%) and 340 (84%) of PFS ≥48m patients in the TE arms and 26 (49.1%) and 87 (76.3%) in the TNE arms of M-IX and M-XI, respectively. 86.7% of patients who achieved a ≥VGPR had a PFS ≥48m in the absence of high risk lesions compared to 72.8% with any high risk lesion present (P=0.004). Some patients with PFS≥48m had only reached PR after induction; 56 (20.3%) and 57 (14.1%) of PFS ≥48m patients in the TE arm and 15 (28.3%) and 24 (21.1%) in the TNE arms of M-IX and M-XI, respectively. Baseline factors that were associated with still being able to achieve PFS≥48m from induction after only achieving a PR included the lack of high risk genetic lesions (P 〈 0.0001) and low ISS (P=0.0002). In M-XI, the proportion of patients who only achieved a PR after induction and reached PFS≥48m was 10.6% for patients randomised to observation and 89.4% for patients with lenalidomide maintenance suggesting maintenance may be of particular benefit in this group. CONCLUSIONS Response assessment after induction+/-HD-Mel consolidation with baseline factors can define a patient group with superior outcomes in both TE and TNE patients and may influence future treatment strategies of MM patients undergoing first line therapy. Further analyses including modelling of predictors of response duration are ongoing and will be presented at the conference. Disclosures Shah: Celgene: Other: Travel, Accommodation expenses; Sanofi: Other: Travel and Accommodation expenses. Striha:Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Hockaday:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Pawlyn:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support. Jenner:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Owen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support. Gregory:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Morgan:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davies:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cook:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cairns:Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Research Funding. Jackson:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-110149

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Elsevier BV, Vol. 17, No. 1 ( 2017-02), p. e1-e2

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2152-2650

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.03.003

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2017

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2540998-0

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2193618-3

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 804-804

Abstract: Introduction Epigenetic dysregulation is a hallmark of cancer and has significant impact on disease biology. The epigenetic structure of myeloma is heterogeneous and we previously demonstrated that gene specific DNA methylation changes are associated with outcome, using low-resolution arrays. We now performed a high-resolution genome wide DNA methylation analysis of a larger group of patients from a UK national phase III study to further define the role of epigenetic modifications in disease behaviour and outcome. Patients and Methods Highly purified ( 〉 95%) CD138+ myeloma bone marrow cells from 465 newly diagnosed patients enrolled in the UK NCRI Myeloma XI study were analysed. The extracted DNA was bisulfite-converted using the EZ DNA methylation kit (Zymo) and hybridized to Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip arrays. Raw data was processed using the R Bioconductor package "minfi". SNP containing probes and probes on the sex chromosomes were removed. 464 samples and 441293 probes were retained following inspection of quality control metrics. Beta values were summarized across functional genomic units or differentially methylated regions (DMRs) that included: gene bodies, promoters, insulators, CpG-islands and enhancers. K-means was applied to each DMR to cluster patients into 2 groups (high or low methylation) per region. Filters were applied to define a clinically meaningful minimum group size and methylation differences between the groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were assessed by a Cox proportional hazards regression model fitted to each DMR with a time-dependent covariate of the trial pathway. Pathway analyses were performed using GREAT (Stanford University) and GSEA (Broad Institute). Results We identified 589 differentially methylated regions that were significantly associated with PFS and OS when using a cut-off of P 〈 0.01 (log-rank). Of these, 114 DMRs were located within 10kb of a gene transcription start site (TSS). Among these, several genes implicated in myeloma disease biology, such as immune cell-cell interaction genes (e.g. CD226) or stemness-associated transcription factors (e.g. PAX4) were identified to be differentially methylated. Using pathway analysis on all 589 DMRs, Gene Ontology biologic groups were enriched for positive regulation of proliferation, cell migration and cytoskeleton organisation (FDR P 〈 0.05). This was further supported by enrichment of proliferative E2F1 transcription factor target structures (FDR P 〈 0.05). Matched gene expression profiles have been generated and integrated analyses correlating epigenetic with GEP and genetic risk data and individual gene level methylation-expression associations will be presented at the meeting. This data is also being integrated with drug resistance profiles from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE; Barretina, et al, 2016). Conclusion Epigenetic mechanisms play a significant role in influencing tumour cell behaviour. We have identified here differentially methylated regions that are significantly associated with patient outcome. Pathway analyses suggest an epigenetic regulation of biologic mechanisms involved in high risk disease, such as proliferation and migration. Integration of epigenetic data with matched gene expression profiles is currently ongoing to delineate independent epigenetic biomarkers associated with high risk disease behaviour. Disclosures Jones: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pawlyn:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Jenner:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cook:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Davies:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Morgan:Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson:MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Chugai: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.804.804

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 4407-4407

Abstract: Introduction A significant proportion of myeloma patients relapse early and show short survival with current therapies. Molecular diagnostic tools are needed to identify these high risk patients at diagnosis to stratify treatment and offer the prospect of improving outcomes. Two validated molecular approaches for risk prediction are widely used: 1) molecular genetic risk profiling [e.g. del(17p), t(4;14)] 2) gene expression (GEP) risk profiling, [e.g. EMC92 (Kuiper et al., Leukemia 2012)] . We profiled patients from a large multicentric UK National trial using both approaches for integrated risk stratification. Methods A representative group of 221 newly diagnosed, transplant eligible patients (median age 64 years) treated on the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial were molecularly profiled. DNA and RNA were extracted from immunomagnetically CD138-sorted bone marrow plasma cells. Molecular genetic profiles, including t(4;14), t(14;16), Del(17p), Gain(1q) were generated using MLPA (MRC Holland) and a TC-classification based qRT-PCR assay (Boyle EM, et al., Gen Chrom Canc 2015, Kaiser MF, et al., Leukemia 2013). GEP risk status as per EMC92 was profiled on a diagnostic Affymetrix platform using the U133plus2.0-based, CE-marked MMprofiler (SkylineDx) which generates a standardised EMC92 risk score, called 'SKY92'. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were measured from initial randomization and median follow-up for the analysed group was 36 months. Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.0 and the 'survival' package. Results were confirmed in an independent dataset, MRC Myeloma IX, for which median follow-up was 82.7 months. Results Of the 221 analysed patients, 116 were found to carry an established genetic high risk lesion [t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p) or gain(1q)]. We and others have recently demonstrated that adverse lesions have an additive effect and that co-occurrence of ≥2 high risk lesions is specifically associated with adverse outcome (Boyd KD et al, Leukemia 2011). 39/221 patients (17.6%) were identified as genetic high risk with ≥2 risk lesions (termed HR2). By GEP, 53/221 patients (24.0%) were identified as SKY92 high risk. Genetic and GEP high risk co-occurred in 22 patients (10.0%), 31 patients (14.0%) were high risk only by GEP and 17 patients (7.7%) by genetics only. SKY92 high risk status was associated with significantly shorter PFS (median 17.1 vs. 34.3 months; P 〈 0.0001; Hazard ratio [HR] 3.2 [95%CI: 2.2-4.7] ) and OS (median 36.0 vs. not reached; P 〈 0.0001; HR 3.9 [2.3-6.9]). Genetic risk by HR2 was similarly associated with adverse outcome: median PFS 17.0 vs. 33.6 months; P 〈 0.0001; HR 2.9 [1.9-4.4]), median OS 33.5 vs. not reached; P 〈 0.0001; HR 4.1 [2.3-7.2]). Importantly, by multivariate analysis GEP and genetic high risk status were independently associated with shorter PFS (P 〈 0.001) and OS (P 〈 0.005). We next investigated interactions between genetic and gene expression high risk status. Three groups were defined: 1) Patients with both SKY92 and genetic (HR2) high risk status (n=22), 2) either GEP or genetic high risk (n=48) or 3) absence of GEP or genetic (HR2) high risk status (n=151). Co-occurring GEP and genetic high risk status was associated with very short PFS (median 12.5 vs. 20.0 vs. 38.3 months; P 〈 0.0001) and OS (median 25.6 vs. 47.3 vs. not reached; P 〈 0.0001) [Figure]. When comparing this ultra-high risk group against the remainder of cases (n=199), their risk of progressing and dying early was significantly elevated (PFS HR 4.4 [2.5-6.7] ; OS HR 5.9 [3.1-11.0]). We confirmed this finding in 116 transplant-eligible patients from the MRC Myeloma IX trial. Patients carrying both EMC92 and genetic high risk status had a median PFS of 7.8 vs. 25.5 months and median OS of 9.5 vs. 62.1 months (both P 〈 0.0001). Moreover, all patients in this ultra-high risk group progressed within 24 months and died within 48 months. Conclusion We demonstrate, for the first time, that combined genetic and gene expression risk profiling identifies a group of patients with ultra-high risk disease behaviour with high fidelity, using molecular features of the disease. Our results indicate that GEP and genetic high risk profiling identify independently relevant, but inter-related features of high risk disease biology. Integrated genetic and gene expression risk profiling could serve as a valuable tool for risk stratified, innovative treatment approaches in myeloma. Figure Figure. Disclosures Jones: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pawlyn:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Jenner:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cook:Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Davies:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Morgan:Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.4407.4407

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: The Lancet Haematology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 6, No. 12 ( 2019-12), p. e616-e629

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2352-3026

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30167-X

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 1143-1143

Abstract: Background Lenalidomide is an effective treatment for myeloma and has been studied in a range of combination regimens worldwide. The results of these studies have suggested that prolonged exposure to lenalidomide is important to improve outcomes both as a maintenance agent post-transplant (Attal M et al NEJM 2012, McCarthy et al NEJM 2012) and in the transplant ineligible population (Palumbo A et al NEJM 2012, Benboubker L et al NEJM 2014). In the Myeloma XI study, the largest of its kind, we explored the use of oral lenalidomide continued to disease progression compared to no therapy in both newly diagnosed transplant eligible (TE) and transplant non-eligible (TNE) populations. Here we present the results of this maintenance randomization, which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of maintenance lenalidomide. Methods The Myeloma XI study is a Phase III, UK-based, multicenter, open-label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial for newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients of all ages and includes a maintenance comparison of lenalidomide versus no maintenance. Newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients both TE and TNE were enrolled to the study. Induction treatment in both pathways was with thalidomide or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, with appropriate dose reductions for TNE patients. TE patients proceded to a standard melphalan 200mg/m2 transplant. Patients were randomized to either maintenance lenalidomide or observation after achieving maximum response (TNE) or at 100 days after transplant (TE). Lenalidomide was administered at a dose of 10mg daily in 21/28 day cycles until disease progression. Dose adjustments for renal impairment and following AEs were permitted. The primary endpoints for the maintenance randomization were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival. Secondary endpoints included response, toxicity and PFS2. Time-to-event endpoints were measured from maintenance randomization. This abstract summarizes a preliminary analysis, final data will be presented at the meeting. The median follow up in this analysis is 26 months [IQR 12-41]. Results A total of 1550 patients, 828 TE and 722 TNE, median age 61 and 74 years, respectively, were randomized between lenalidomide (n=857) and no maintenance (n=693). The arms were well-balanced for clinical features and response to induction therapy (e.g. ISS stage III: 27% vs 23%, VGPR/CR: 73% vs 73%). The maintenance randomization has met its primary endpoint demonstrating a 55% reduction in risk of progression or death for lenalidomide compared to no maintenance (HR 0.45 [95%CI 0.39-0.52], median PFS 37 vs 19 months, p 〈 0.0001) This significant improvement was observed in each pathway TE: HR 0.46 [95%CI 0.36-0.58], median PFS 60 vs 28 months, p 〈 0.0001. TNE: HR 0.44 [95%CI 0.36-0.53], median PFS 26 vs 12 months, p 〈 0.0001. The benefit of lenalidomide maintenance on PFS persisted across risk subgroups and was independent of induction therapy and response. An exploratory analysis of 132 patients stopping lenalidomide treatment for reasons other than disease progression (91 toxicity, 28 patient choice and 13 clinician choice) shows that patients receiving greater than 12 months of treatment have an improved median PFS compared to those stopping earlier (HR 0.35 [95%CI 0.18-0.68], 49 vs 31 months, p 〈 0.0015). At this time 445 patients continue to receive lenalidomide maintenance on study. Of patients who have stopped therapy, only 21.5% did so due to toxicity. Relevant grade 3/4 adverse events were: neutropenia 35%, thrombocytopenia 7.4%, anaemia 4.4%, peripheral neuropathy 1.4%. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 2.3%. Second primary malignancy (SPM) data was collected and the relationship with maintenance therapy reviewed. 72 SPM were observed (24 no maintenance, 48 lenalidomide). Haematologic malignancy crude incidence was 0.3% vs. 0.9%. While we found a slight excess of SPM in older patients these were mostly non-invasive and did not impact the outcome benefit demonstrated. Conclusion The use of maintenance lenalidomide treatment results in highly significant improvements in PFS for patients of all ages and should be standard of care. On behalf of the NCRI Haem-Onc CSG Disclosures Jackson: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Davies:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kishore:celgene: Other: travel grant. Garg:Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Williams:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Karunanithi:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Lindsay:Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Jenner:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Owen:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.1143.1143

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 245-245

Abstract: Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). We have previously demonstrated, in transplant eligible patients, that the level of MRD as a continuous variable independently predicts both PFS and OS, with approximately a one year median OS benefit per log depletion (J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:2540-7 and Blood 2015; 125:1932-5). The impact of MRD also appears to be independent of therapy received. There is more limited data on the applicability of MRD assessment in transplant ineligible patients, largely as a consequence of low rates of CR historically within this patient cohort. Patients and Methods. In this analysis we have assessed the impact of MRD on PFS amongst patients treated within the non-intensive arm of the NCRI Myeloma XI trial. Patients were randomised between thalidomide (CTDa) and lenalidomide (RCDa) based induction therapies with responding patients being subsequently randomised to maintenance with lenalidomide monotherapy, or no further therapy. Bone marrow aspirates were obtained at the end of induction and this analysis represents a subset of 297 patients (median age 74 years). MRD was assessed using flow cytometry (sensitivity 10-4) with a minimum of 500,000 cells evaluated with six-colour antibody combinations including CD138/CD38/CD45/CD19 with CD56/CD27 in all cases and CD81/CD117 in additional cases as required. Results. Overall MRD-negativity was demonstrated in 41/297 (13.8%). When considered according to induction therapy received 25/154 (16.0%) of patients randomized to RCDa were MRD-negative compared to 16/143 (10.8%) of those randomized to CTDa (p=0.24; Fisher's exact test). MRD-negativity was associated with a significant outcome advantage as the median PFS was 34 months versus 18 months for MRD-positive patients (p 〈 0.0001, HR 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI 0.29-0.67)]). This effect was noted in both RCDa (median PFS 17m v 32m; p=0.001, HR 0.41 [95%CI 0.23-0.69] ) and CTDa (median PFS 19m v 34m; p=0.03, HR 0.49 [95%CI 0.26-0.95]). When the impact of MRD was assessed according to induction regimen the outcome of MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients was similar with both regimens (see figure). The impact of MRD was also assessed as a continuous variable across 5 logs of residual disease. Sequential improvements in outcome with each log reduction were demonstrable. Median PFS for the following disease levels; 〈 0.01%, 0.01 - 〈 0.1%, 0.1% - 〈 1%, 1% - 〈 10% and 〉 /=10% were 34, 26, 16, 14 and 9 months respectively (p 〈 0.0001). This pattern was demonstrable in both RCDa and CTDa treated patients (p 〈 0.0001 for both). Multivariate analysis confirmed the independent predictive value of MRD both as a qualitative and continuous quantitative variable (p 〈 0.0001 for both). In both instances achieving an immunofixation-negative CR was not a significant prognostic variable when included in the model with MRD. Conclusions. We would conclude that MRD is a powerful predictor of outcome in transplant ineligible patients and is a meaningful therapeutic goal in this patient group. In contrast to conventional CR it retains independent prognostic significance both as a quantitative and qualitative variable. This data further supports the role of MRD as a primary endpoint and surrogate marker for survival in future clinical trials. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Rawstron: Janssen: Research Funding; BD Biosciences: Other: Remuneration; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Genzyme: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celegene: Honoraria. Pawlyn:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Davies:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaiser:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Chugai: Consultancy. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cook:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jenner:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jackson:MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment. Owen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.245.245

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 1847-1847

Abstract: Background Lenalidomide (len) has been linked to an increased risk of second primary malignancy (SPM) and in-particular acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Haematological SPM (hSPM) incidence in patients receiving len is highest in those also exposed to oral melphalan, resulting in an apparent hSPM incidence of between 3.0-11.4% at 5 years. More recently, meta-analysis has suggested that when used in combination with other agents e.g. cyclophosphamide there is no increased rate of hSPM. Here we report SPM rates in Myeloma XI, the largest randomised trial to date in-which len is used as an induction and maintenance therapy. Methods Myeloma XI is a phase III, randomised, multi-centre, parallel group design, open-label trial comparing thalidomide (thal), len and bortezomib combinations and len as maintenance treatment in NDMM patients. The trial includes transplant eligible (TE) and transplant non-eligible (TNE) pathways. TE patients received high dose melphalan supported by autologous stem cell transplantation if they achieved a very good partial response or better. Patients in both pathways were randomised to maintenance with len (+/- vorinostat) or active observation. Since May 2010, 2745 patients have been recruited with over 1170 patients enrolled for more than 2 years. A total of 1367 patients have entered maintenance with 836 randomised to len (median 6 cycles (range 1-42)). Results Following central committee review of 87 reported SPMs in 84 patients, 69 cases in 67 patients were confirmed (incidence rate (IR) 2.45%). The median time to SPM development from induction is 15.6 months (range 1.2 - 42.5). The cumulative incidence of all SPMs is 0.65% (95% CI 0.35, 0.97), 1.84% (1.26, 2.41) and 3.41% (2.49, 4.43) at one, two and three years respectively, Figure 1. Of SPM patients, 44 (65.7%) were treated on the TNE pathway (IR 3.6%) and 23 (34.3%) on the TE pathway (IR 1.5%). The average age at the time of SPM was 75.1 and 65.9 for the TNE and TE pathways respectively. Thirty seven (56%) patients received len induction with a median time to SPM development of 11.7 months (1.2 - 25.3) in the TE group (n=15) and 18.2 months (3.4 - 30.8) in the TNE group (n=22). The remaining 30 patients (44%) received thal induction with a median time to SPM development in the TE group (n=8) of 31.3 months (6 - 43.1) and 12.6 months (3.4 - 38.4) in the TNE group (n=22). Of the patients who developed an SPM 40 (59.7%) did so following maintenance randomisation. The incidence was highest in those receiving len based maintenance (n=34, IR 4.2%). In the observation arm 6 patients developed an SPM (IR 1.1%). The median time to SPM development from maintenance randomisation is 20.32 months in those receiving len and 15.61 months in the observation only group. 28 of the 40 SPM cases that occurred following maintenance were in the TNE pathway with 24 patients receiving len.The overall incidence of SPM development in TNE patients receiving len maintenance is 7.4%. In the TE patients 12 SPM cases developed following maintenance randomisation with 10 patients receiving len. The overall incidence of SPM in the TE patients treated with len maintenance is 2.0%. Of the remaining patients, 22 (32.9%) developed an SPM during induction and five (7.5%) following induction but prior to maintenance. Eight patients developed a hSPM (IR 0.29%), MDS (n=4), AML (n=2), CML and Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Of these patients four received len induction and seven received len based maintenance. Median time to SPM development for hSPM was 18.2 months (5.9 - 42.5). The remaining 61 SPM cases (59 patients) were solid tumours or non-invasive skin cancers (IR 2.15%). Conclusions The overall incidence rates of SPM are low and an increased rate of hSPM was not seen. The highest SPM incidence was observed in patients receiving len maintenance enrolled to the TNE arm (n=24, IR 7.4%). Advanced age is likely to be a contributing factor but it may be related to treatment duration, which is longer in this group. It is also important to note that 37.5% (n=9) of these cases were non-invasive skin cancers. Committee review of all reported SPMs led to the rejection of 18 cases (20.7%). The commonest reason for rejection was because the malignancy pre-dated trial entry (n=12). We, therefore, recommend incorporating a review process for all trials where SPMs are considered to accurately assess the impact of treatment on SPM development and to prevent the false inflation of SPM figures. Disclosures Jones: Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide and vorinostat as maintenance therapy for myeloma. Pawlyn:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; The Institute of Cancer Research: Employment. Kaiser:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BristolMyerSquibb: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria. Davies:Takeda-Milenium: Honoraria; Onyx-Amgen: Honoraria; University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; Celgene: Honoraria. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Boyd:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel. Owen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Morgan:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment; CancerNet: Honoraria; MMRF: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda-Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Weisman Institute: Honoraria.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.1847.1847

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 1144-1144

Abstract: Background Primary refractory myeloma is an important therapeutic challenge; understanding its clinical course and biology is essential if we are to recognize it early and target it therapeutically. Immunomodulatory (IMiD) drugs are widely used as induction therapy with good response rates but a small proportion of patients are refractory. The mechanism underlying IMiD resistance is poorly defined. Mutations in the cereblon pathway are a clear candidate but have not been widely looked for or reported. An important question is whether the primary refractory clone carries class-specific intrinsic resistance biology, leaving it sensitive to other non-cross reactive drugs, or if it is a universal resistance mechanism. We have examined the clinical course of patients with primary IMiD resistance, and whether they respond adequately to subsequent proteasome inhibition (PI), using the results of the largest clinical study in myeloma to date. Methods Myeloma XI is a UK based, open-label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial for newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients of all ages. Treatment was with a combination of cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone plus either lenalidomide or thalidomide (CRD or CTD) for a minimum of 4 cycles (transplant eligible, TE) or 6 cycles (transplant non-eligible, TNE) or to maximum response. Those patients who had not achieved at least a minimal response or who had progressed during induction (PD) subsequently received a PI triplet (cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone, CVD). This abstract summarizes a preliminary analysis of these primary refractory cases, final data will be presented at the meeting. Results The study randomized 3894 patients of all ages giving adequate numbers to identify clinical/biological features in subgroups. Overall 207/3894 (5.3%) of patients had stable disease (SD) or PD at the end of the IMiD triplet. There was no significant difference between those who received thalidomide compared to lenalidomide (CTD: 110/1945, 5.7% CRD: 97/1949, 5.0%). A higher proportion of patients were refractory in the TNE pathway than TE (TE: 79/2042, 3.9%, TNE: 128/1852, 6.9%) 139 patients in the ITT population went on to receive treatment with bortezomib as part of the CVD regimen. The remainder n=69 were treated off protocol or died prior to treatment. CVD was well-tolerated in these patients with a median of 4 (1-8) cycles delivered. Of these patients 22/139 (16%) were also refractory to PI therapy whilst 57% upgraded their response compared to baseline: 32% [95%CI 24-40] to PR/MR and 25% [95%CI 18-33] to CR/VGPR. Patients with IMiD refractory disease had a significantly shorter PFS than those who responded to initial treatment median 8 vs 27 months, HR 2.10 [95% CI 1.77-2.49], p 〈 0.001. For those who received subsequent CVD (n=139) and responded the median PFS was 19 months vs 7 months for double refractory patients. 32/50 transplant eligible patients who responded to CVD were able to go on and receive a transplant and had a PFS of 27 months. We compared the clinical and biological features of the double-refractory (n=22), IMiD refractory (n=185) and responsive (n=3349) patient groups. There was no significant difference in patient sex or median age (66 [range 41-78], 70 [38-88] and 67 [28-92] respectively). Laboratory measures suggested refractory patients had a higher burden of disease at diagnosis with a lower hemoglobin level and a higher proportion of patients with 〉 20% plasma cells in their bone marrow biopsy. There was a higher proportion of patients with light chain only disease and the percentage of patients with ISS stage III was double-refractory 41%, IMiD refractory 45% and responsive 29%. The proportions of patients with adverse translocations and high-risk copy number abnormalities will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions We present the first detailed analysis of IMiD refractory myeloma patients at diagnosis. There was no difference in the percentage of patients refractory to the different IMiDs thalidomide and lenalidomide. Very few patients were primarily refractory to both IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors, suggesting the mechanisms of primary resistance to IMiDs and PIs do not significantly overlap. However, where this did occur outcomes were poor. The biological mechanisms behind resistance will be further informed by molecular studies of these patients' tumour samples. On behalf of the NCRI Haem Onc CSG Disclosures Pawlyn: Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Davies:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaiser:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kishore:celgene: Other: travel grant. Garg:Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Williams:Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Karunanithi:Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Lindsay:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Owen:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support. Jackson:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Univ of AR for Medical Sciences: Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.1144.1144

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7