ALBERT

Description: Abstract 4184 Introduction: FACT-MM was developed with the aim to create a disease-specific, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure as part of the FACT measurement system to assess multiple myeloma (MM)-related symptoms. Literature review identified 52 MM specific symptoms and concerns. 13 MM expert clinicians rated these 52 items on relevance to health-related quality of life (HRQL) for MM patients and added 11 items for comprehensive PRO assessment in MM. These 63 candidate items were rated by 13 MM patients recruited through the International Myeloma Foundation website. Disease-related symptoms and concerns were described and provided by patients through free-text comments. Information from both the MM expert clinician and MM patient surveys including free-text items was analyzed and 14 highest ranked items were selected for the FACT-MM. The FACT-MM subscale (score 0–56), the FACT-G physical and functional well-being subscales (score 0–28), and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (FACT-Ntx) subscale (score 0–44) was administered to 48 E1A05 participants to assess disease and treatment-related symptoms of patients with newly diagnosed MM receiving 8 cycles of VRd versus Vd. Methods: In this study, the first three of seven sequential assessments were evaluated: baseline, cycle 5 and end of treatment (after cycle 8 or early diconstinuation). Instruments were scored as per the FACT scoring guidelines. Descriptive statistics were provided for each timepoint and changes in scores from baseline. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess differences in scores by ISS stage and ECOG PS. Pearson correlation coefficients were obtained between the scores. Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency of the FACT-MM. Results: At baseline and end of treatment, 46 and 41 patients, respectively, completed assessments. The FACT-MM demonstrated good to very good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.79 – 0.89). The FACT-MM subscale was significantly correlated with the FACT physical and functional well-being subscales at baseline (r = 0.72), cycle 5 (r = 0.64; r = 0.49) and end of treatment (r = 0.72; r = 0.66). All scores declined modestly by cycle 5 and end of treatment from baseline. While sample size was limited, there appeared association with ECOG PS with higher scores for patients with PS 0 status. Conclusions: The 14-item FACT-MM scale is feasible for use to measure myeloma-related symptoms and has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties based on findings from E1A05, an ECOG myeloma trial. Disclosures: Cella: Novartis: Research Funding. Fonseca:Consulting:Genzyme, Medtronic, BMS, Amgen, Otsuka, Celgene, Intellikine, Lilly Research Support: Cylene, Onyz, Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Key Points In this study, African American MM patients have a significantly lower frequency of IgH translocations than European American patients.

Description: The treatment and natural history of smoldering myeloma has been an area of intense preclinical and clinical study. Historical attempts to treat these patients have not demonstrated benefit, likely as a consequence of lack of attention to the vast heterogeneity contained within the diagnosis. More recent risk criteria from both US and Spanish investigators have identified a cohort of smoldering myeloma patients at high risk for progression in a short time, using different methodology. Recently the PETHEMA group published a randomized clinical trial testing lenalidomide/dexamethasone vs observation among high risk smoldering patients, and demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of progression free and overall survival favoring early intervention. However, the risk criteria utilized a highly sensitive method of flow cytometry, a test not routinely available in the US. It is not clear that the group of patients defined in the PETHEMA study share similar outcomes with those defined as high risk using the ECOG/Mayo criteria. A recent publication demonstrated only 25% overlap for the highest risk smoldering patients when using either the PETHEMA or the ECOG criteria. To further evaluate the potential benefit of early intervention in a high risk smoldering cohort, the ECOG myeloma group designed a phase II/III trial testing the safety and efficacy of single agent lenalidomide. We report here on the safety and efficacy of the phase II portion of the trial. The phase II group of patients received lenalidomide alone at a dose of 25 mg days 1-21 every 28 days. The primary endpoint for the safety study was the rate of any treatment-related grade 4-5 non-hematologic toxicity plus grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity that affects vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) observed within 6 cycles of treatment. Patients were to be diagnosed with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) within the past 12 months, as confirmed by both of the following: bone marrow plasmacytosis with 〉= 10% plasma cells or sheets of plasma cells and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio (8.0) by serum FLC assay. Patients must have had measurable levels of monoclonal protein. Patients must have had no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia (i.e. 〉= 11 mg/dL). Among the final phase II cohort (n=44 patients), 55% were female, and 43% were 65 years and older. Enrollment began in January 2011 and lasted 2 years with the last patient completing 6 cycles of treatment in August 2013. The median treatment duration of the entire cohort is 13.5 cycles (range 1-30 cycles). Mean percentage lenalidomide dose over the first 6 cycles was 94, 89, 82, 79, 76, 72. With a median follow up of 17 months, 2 patients had progression on therapy. Fifteen patients are off treatment for the following reasons: disease progression (n=2), AE/complication (n=5), death (n=2), patient withdrawal/refusal (n=5), other (n=1); 6 of the 15 patients ended treatment before completing 6 cycles. Of 44 patients assessed for toxicity, 11 patients [25.0%, 95% CI: (13.2%-40.3%)] experienced worst grade treatment-related non-hematologic toxicity of grade 3 or higher based on CTCAE v4, with neutropenia and fatigue being the most frequent. This includes 2 fatal deaths (MI and TE). Two patients [4.6%, 95% CI: (0.1%-15.5%)] experienced a serious adverse event as defined for the purposes of the phase II toxicity analysis that included treatment-related grade 4-5 non-hematologic toxicity or any grade 3 toxicity affecting vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic, or thromboembolic events) during the first 6 cycles of treatment. Twelve patients achieved partial response or better [33.3%, 95% CI: (15.0%-42.8%)] along with 25 patients reporting stable disease. Lenalidomide has shown promise in the treatment of high-risk smoldering myeloma and based on this analysis, accrual to the phase III portion is ongoing. In the context of the encouraging data from the PETHEMA group, completion of the phase III portion of this study is needed to validate their findings using a different criteria, and using a steroid sparing approach. This study was coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (Robert L. Comis, M.D., Chair) and supported in part by Public Health Service Grants CA23318, CA66636, CA21115, CA13650, CA32102 and from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. Disclosures: Lonial: Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy.

Description: Aim: A phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 months, with the null hypothesis being that the response rates in the two 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. All analysis were performed on an intent to treat basis. An independent DMC recommended release of study results. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 17 months. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities, including DVT/PE and infections, were significantly higher in the high dose dex arm (see Table). Overall survival (OS) at the second pre-planned interim analysis was significantly superior with lenalidomide plus low dose dex, P

Description: Abstract 38 INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide and bortezomib have moved into the management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma leading to dramatically improved outcomes. As a consequence, the role of upfront autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (ASCT) has become more controversial. The ECOG E4A03 clinical trial randomized newly diagnosed MM patients to lenalidomide with high-dose dexamethasone (LD) vs lenalidomide with low-dose dexamethasone (Ld) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). Upon completing four cycles of therapy, pts had the option of ASCT or continuing on the assigned therapy. The purpose of this abstract is to determine the outcome of patients on this trial pursuing early ASCT according to various age-groups. MATERIALS and METHODS: This is a post hoc, retrospective analysis of overall survival within age subgroups stratified by early ASCT status. This is a landmark analysis including only pts surviving the first 4 cycles of therapy. RESULTS: In all three age-groups studied, 1, 2, and 3-year survival probability estimates with ASCT were excellent (Tables 1, 2, and 3). For patients under the age of 65 who survived the first 4 cycles of therapy, overall survival at 3-years was 94% with early ASCT, 78% in pts continuing protocol therapy. Although direct comparison with patients not going to early transplant is not possible because the assignment to early ASCT versus no early ASCT was not randomized, survival with ASCT at 3-years appeared higher. While we attempt to correct for age, the differences may be influenced by other factors such as performance status, comorbidities, response to therapy, etc. The presumption that treatment related mortality (TRM) should be more problematic for older pts undergoing ASCT is addressed by looking at the 〉65 and 〉70yo cohorts. In the 〉65 age group, one-year mortality is similar between the early ASCT population and the no early ASCT population. In the 〉70 age group, no adverse impact of early ASCT was seen in the first year on overall survival but the sample size is extremely small. In all age groups early ASCT seemed to mitigate some of the survival disadvantage associated with randomization to the LD arm. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the strategy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone induction followed by early ASCT has a remarkably good outcome in terms of overall survival in all age groups studied and supports the continued role of early consolidative ASCT in newly diagnosed patients. The risk of early mortality was notably low in the first year in all age groups. The risk of early mortality seems to increase at 2 years for the LD pts not choosing early ASCT and at 3 years for the Ld pts not choosing early ASCT. Selection bias makes it difficult to compare results for pts that chose early ASCT directly to the patients who did not receive early ASCT in this trial. As such, these results emphasize the need for randomized trials investigating the timing of ASCT in myeloma in the era of novel therapy. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front line therapy. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy. Vesole:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Description: Abstract 308 Introduction: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has previously reported the superior 1 and 2 year survival of Ld versus LD as initial therapy in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). The 1 year and 2 year OS for Ld vs LD were 96% and 85% vs 88% and 78%, (p 〈 0.01), respectively. This despite higher ORR in LD vs Ld (79% vs 68%; p = 0.008). The difference in OS was predominantly due to early death in the LD group (5% vs 0.5%; p = 0.003). As a result of this analysis, Ld is now considered the standard of care. However, it should be noted that the majority of these deaths occurred in pts 〉 65. In this analysis, we evaluated the impact of age on dexamethasone dose intensity and OS. Methods: 445 pts were randomly assigned: 223 to LD and 222 to Ld. Pts were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis for OS. The pts were analyzed by age in 2 groups: 〈 65 and 〉 65 (the age corresponding to transplant eligibility outside the US). The pts 〉 65 were then further subdivided into 〉70 and 〉 75 yrs. Results are expressed as OS probability at 1 and 2 years post randomization. In addition, to eliminate the early death ‘penalty’ in the LD group in the original analysis, a landmark analysis was performed at 4 months. Results: Overall Survival Probability: Intent-to Treat Analysis Overall Survival Probability: 4 month Landmark Analysis Conclusions: As previously reported, OS in the trial at 1 and 2 years was superior with Ld. OS was not superior with LD compared with Ld in any age group despite a higher response rate. This was true even when using a landmark analysis to eliminate the 5% early deaths seen in the first 4 months of treatment. We conclude the following: 1) LD is not definitively superior to Ld in any age group; 2) Given the higher toxicity in the absence of a clear survival benefit with LD, Ld remains the best choice for all ages. This analysis confirms the original opinion that low-dose dexamethasone is the standard of care for all newly diagnosed MM pts, regardless of age. Disclosures: Vesole: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Centorcor-Ortho-Biotech: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for front-line therapy in multiple myeloma. Abonour:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Callander:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy; Intellikine: Consultancy. Siegel:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Abstract 3017 Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignancy of clonal plasma cells with resulting in an increase production of ineffective immunoglobulins with suppression of non-involved immunoglobulins. Patients with MM are at increased risk of infectious complications, particularly to those organisms in which opsonization is one of the key defense mechanisms, e.g. strep and staph infections. Treatment of MM is virtually always associated with further immunosuppression, at least in the immediate term, until the malignant clone is eradicated and normal immunoglobulins are produced. Rationale: Due to further compromise of an already incompetent immune system by initial chemotherapy and the previous suggestion (Oken et al Am J Med 1996; 100:624-628) that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce infectious complications, this study was designed to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on the incidence of serious bacterial infections during the first two months of treatment. Methods: Pts with untreated MM receiving chemotherapy were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to receive either a daily ciprofloxacin (C; 500 mg), trimetheprim-sulfamethoxazole (T; DS bid) or observation (O) for the first 2 months of treatment. Pts were evaluated for serious bacterial infection (grade 3 or 4) during the first two months of myelotoxic/suppressive therapy. Secondary endpoints (EP) included: incidence of non-bacterial infections, resistant organisms due to prophylaxis, the incidence of infection the third month OFF of antibiotic prophylaxis and whether protection against infection is associated with an improved response rate. Results: From July 1998 to January 2008, 212 untreated, symptomatic MM pts being treated with myelotoxic/suppressive chemotherapy were randomized to C (n=69), T (n=76) or O (n=67) for the first 2 months of treatment. The incidence of serious infection (〉 grade 3 ECOG toxicity criteria and/or hospitalization) was comparable among groups: C=10 (14.7%), T=5 (6.9%), O=9 (14.5%); p= 0.268 which was the primary EP. The incidence of any infection during the first 2 months was also comparable (20% vs 23% vs 22%, respectively, p=0.910). There were 25 grade 2 infections and 4 grade 3 infections involving respiratory (n =13), sepsis/bacteremia (n = 4), and urinary (n =3), joint/bone (n =2), unknown (n =2) or various GI tract (n = 5) and skin (n =1). Eight pts expired within the first 2 months: 2 from MM, 3 cardiac, 2 respiratory, 1 renal (unrelated to MM or Rx) occurring in the C (4), T (1), O (2). Secondary EPs failed to show a difference in the incidence of serious bacterial infection during the third month in the absence of prophylaxis (C=3%, T=4%, O=2%; p=0.874), development of resistant infections, initial response to therapy or overall survival. Conclusions: The use of prophylactic antibiotics did not decrease the incidence of serious infection (〉 grade 3 and/or hospitalization) nor of any infection within the first 2 months of treatment. Infection prophylaxis did not affect the incidence of infection upon completion of 2 months of therapy (nor, ultimately, at any time during the subsequent 2 years), the response to therapy or to overall survival. Incidentally, there were no documented cases of PCP despite the assumption that MM pts, with compromised immune systems, are more susceptible. The incidence of serious infections in this study, in which few patients received novel agents, is comparable to that observed in more modern regimens even in the presence of mandated/recommended prophylactic antibiotics. Utilizing either lenalidomide plus dexamethasone or clarithromycin, lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in 〉 grade 3 infectious complications in 16.7% and 9.7%, respectively, as reported by the Mayo Clinic and Cornell groups, respectively (Gay et al Am J Hematol, in press). Furthermore, in the ECOG E4A03 randomized trial of lenalidomide plus either high dose dexamethasone (LD) or low dose dexamethasone (Ld) in which prophylactic antibiotics were recommended, the incidence of 〉 grade 3 infectious complications were 9.4% and 6.4%, respectively (Rajkumar et al Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). We conclude that routine use of prophylactic antibiotics should not be mandated for patients receiving induction chemotherapy. Prophylactic antibiotics should be considered on a case-by-case basis after analyzing the potential infection risk in individuals. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Background: Lenalidomide has shown efficacy in patients with relapsed myeloma in phase II and III clinical trials, and is currently being investigated as initial therapy for the disease. We report results of a phase III trial comparing lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (Dex) versus lenalidomide plus low-dose Dex as first line therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in both arms received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO on days 1–21 every 28 days. In addition, patients in the high-dose Dex arm (Arm A) received Dex 40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days, while pts in the low-dose Dex arm (Arm B) received Dex 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary endpoint was best response at 4 months on intent to treat basis. At 4 months pts could go off study for stem cell transplant or elect to continue therapy until progression. Response was defined as a decrease in serum and urine monoclonal (M) protein by 50% or higher. If the serum M protein was unmeasurable, a 90% or higher decrease in urine M protein was required. Responses need to be confirmed at least 4 weeks apart. Patients with disease progression or not responding to lenalidomide within 4 months switched to thalidomide with the same dose of dexamethasone they were receiving (Arms C and D, respectively). An independent Data Monitoring Committee approved release of these results. Results: 445 pts were enrolled: 223 randomized to Arm A and 222 to Arm B. Median age was 65 yrs. Serious adverse event data based on expedited reporting (AdEERS) is available on all pts (see table). Common adverse events of Grade 3 or higher were thromboembolism (18.4% in arm A vs 5.4% in Arm B), infection/pneumonia (18.8% vs 9.0%) and hyperglycemia (5.8% vs 1.8%). Incidence of any grade 4 or higher toxicity was 22.0% in Arm A vs 12.6% in Arm B. Response data is being analyzed. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus two different schedules of Dex was investigated in this phase III trial. Preliminary results suggest that toxicity rates are higher in the high-dose Dex arm. The differences in the response rates between the two arms will dictate future trials and clinical practice. Major Toxicties (AdEERS) Toxicity Arm A (n=223) Arm B (n=222) Cardiac ischemia (Grade 〉=3) 2.7% 0.5% Hyperglycemia (Grade 〉=3) 5.8% 1.8% Infection/Pneumonitis (Grade 〉=3) 18.8% 9.0% Neuropathy (Grade 〉=3) 0.9% 0.9% Thromboembolism (Grade 〉=3) 18.4% 5.4% Any non-Hem toxicity (Grade 〉=3) 53.4% 36.0% Any toxicity (Grade 〉=4) 22.0% 12.6% Death (Grade 5) 4.5% 1.4%

Description: Background: Venous thrombotic events (VTE) are a common complication of therapy with the lenalidomide plus dexamethasone regimen. The incidence of VTE with RD is approximately 20%, and can be lowered with the use of effective thromboprophylaxis, avoidance of erythropoietin, and the use of lower doses of dexamethasone. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of VTE on overall survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma by studying events occurring in ECOG E4A03 phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose dex (RD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose dex (Rd) in newly diagnosed myeloma (MM). Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in the RD arm (Arm A) received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days plus dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the Rd arm (Arm B) received lenalidomide at the same dose plus dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The trial initially did not mandate routine thromboprophylaxis, but recommended that such treatment be considered. After the first 264 patients were enrolled the trial was amended to require mandatory thromboprophylaxis of aspirin for all patients, with a recommendation to use stronger thromboprophylaxis with either warfarin (target INR 2–3) or low molecular weight heparin among patients in the RD arm. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to RD, 222 to Rd. Median follow-up time is 30 months. Overall VTE including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 18.5% of patients; 25.6% in Arm A and 11.4% in Arm B. Rates for the first 4 cycles of treatment were 20.2% in Arm A and 8.2% in Arm B, P

Description: Key Points In a randomized phase 3 trial, overall response rates, PFS, and overall survival were similar between MPT-T and mPR-R. Toxicity with both regimens was common, but mPR-R was better tolerated, and patients on the mPR-R regimen reported better quality of life.