Search

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains the standard of care for consolidation after induction therapy for eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. In recent clinical trials comparing ASCT to delayed ASCT, patients aged over 65 were excluded. In real-world practice stem cell transplants are not restricted to those aged under 65 and clinicians decide on transplant eligibility based on a patient’s fitness rather than a strict age cut-off. Data from the UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial, a large phase III randomized controlled trial with pathways for transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, were used in an exploratory analysis to examine the efficacy and toxicity of ASCT in older patients including an analysis using an age-matched population to compare outcomes for patients receiving similar induction therapy with or without ASCT. Older patients within the transplant-eligible pathway were less likely to undergo stem cell harvest at the end of induction than younger patients and of those patients undergoing ASCT there was a reduction in progression-free survival associated with increasing age. ASCT in older patients was well tolerated with no difference in morbidity or mortality between patients aged

Current guidelines for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) recommend active monitoring until the onset of multiple myeloma (MM) before initiating treatment or enrollment in a clinical trial. Earlier intervention may delay progression to MM. In CENTAURUS, 123 patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk SMM were randomly assigned to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on extended intense (intense), extended intermediate (intermediate), or short dosing schedules. At the prespecified primary analysis (15.8-month median follow-up), the complete response (CR) rates (co-primary endpoint) were 2.4%, 4.9%, and 0% for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively; the co-primary endpoint of CR rate >15% was not met. Progressive disease (PD)/death rates (number of patients who progressed or died divided by total duration of progression-free survival [PFS] in patient-years; co-primary endpoint) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing were 0.055 (80% confidence interval [CI], 0.014–0.096), 0.102 (80% CI, 0.044–0.160), and 0.206 (80% CI, 0.118–0.295), respectively, translating to a median PFS ≥24 months in all arms (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001 for all arms). Twenty-four–month PFS rates were 89.9% (90% CI, 78.5–95.4%), 82.0% (90% CI, 69.0–89.9%), and 75.3% (90% CI, 61.1–85.0%) for intense, intermediate, and short dosing, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated that intense dosing maintained target-saturating trough concentrations in most patients throughout weekly, every-2-week, and every-4-week dosing periods. No new safety signals were observed. These data provide the basis for an ongoing phase 3 study of daratumumab in SMM.

This phase 2 study evaluated isatuximab as monotherapy or combined with dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients had RRMM refractory to an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy incorporating an IMiD and PI. Patients received isatuximab either as monotherapy (20 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 [once weekly] of cycle 1 followed by 20 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles; Isa group) or in combination with dexamethasone (40 mg/d [20 mg/d in patients aged ≥75 years] once weekly; Isa-dex group). Treated patients (N = 164) had received a median of 4 (range, 2-10) prior treatment lines. Patients received a median of 5 (1-24) and 7 (1-22) treatment cycles; at data cutoff, 13 (11.9%) of 109 and 15 (27.3%) of 55 patients remained on treatment in the Isa and Isa-dex arms, respectively. Overall response rate (primary efficacy end point) was 23.9% in the Isa arm and 43.6% in the Isa-dex arm (odds ratio, 0.405; 95% confidence interval, 0.192-0.859; P = .008). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.9 and 18.9 months for Isa, and 10.2 and 17.3 months for Isa-dex. Infusion reactions (mostly grade 1/2) and hematologic abnormalities were the most common adverse events. There was a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher infections in both groups (22.0% and 21.8%). In conclusion, addition of dexamethasone to isatuximab increased response rates and survival outcomes with no detrimental effect on safety. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01084252.

Structural chromosomal changes including copy number aberrations (CNAs) are a major feature of multiple myeloma (MM), however their evolution in context of modern biological therapy is not well characterized. To investigate acquisition of CNAs and their prognostic relevance in context of first-line therapy, we profiled tumor diagnosis–relapse pairs from 178 NCRI Myeloma XI (ISRCTN49407852) trial patients using digital multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. CNA profiles acquired at relapse differed substantially between MM subtypes: hyperdiploid (HRD) tumors evolved predominantly in branching pattern vs. linear pattern in t(4;14) vs. stable pattern in t(11;14). CNA acquisition also differed between subtypes based on CCND expression, with a marked enrichment of acquired del(17p) in CCND2 over CCND1 tumors. Acquired CNAs were not influenced by high-dose melphalan or lenalidomide maintenance randomization. A branching evolution pattern was significantly associated with inferior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio (HR) 2.61, P = 0.0048). As an individual lesion, acquisition of gain(1q) at relapse was associated with shorter OS, independent of other risk markers or time of relapse (HR = 2.00; P = 0.021). There is an increasing need for rational therapy sequencing in MM. Our data supports the value of repeat molecular profiling to characterize disease evolution and inform management of MM relapse.

IntroductionMultiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell tumour with over 5800 new cases each year in the UK. The introduction of biological therapies has improved outcomes for the majority of patients with MM, but in approximately 20% of patients the tumour is characterised by genetic changes which confer a significantly poorer prognosis, generally termed high-risk (HR) MM. It is important to diagnose these genetic changes early and identify more effective first-line treatment options for these patients.Methods and analysisThe Myeloma UK nine OPTIMUM trial (MUKnine) evaluates novel treatment strategies for patients with HRMM. Patients with suspected or newly diagnosed MM, fit for intensive therapy, are offered participation in a tumour genetic screening protocol (MUKnine a), with primary endpoint proportion of patients with molecular screening performed within 8 weeks. Patients identified as molecularly HR are invited into the phase II, single-arm, multicentre trial (MUKnine b) investigating an intensive treatment schedule comprising bortezomib, lenalidomide, daratumumab, low-dose cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, with single high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) followed by combination consolidation and maintenance therapy. MUKnine b primary endpoints are minimal residual disease (MRD) at day 100 post-ASCT and progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include response, safety and quality of life. The trial uses a Bayesian decision rule to determine if this treatment strategy is sufficiently active for further study. Patients identified as not having HR disease receive standard treatment and are followed up in a cohort study. Exploratory studies include longitudinal whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for imaging MRD testing.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval London South East Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/0022, 17/LO/0023). Results of studies will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN16847817, May 2017; Pre-results.

Infection with the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 virus resulting in an acute respiratory disease (COVID‐19 disease) is the cause of the current pneumonia pandemic, with a rapid rise in cases being reported in the European Union and UK (1, 2). The UK index case was identified on the 31st of January, 2020 and given the rapid spread and high mortality rate of COVID‐19, it is imperative to define the impact on patients with co‐existing medical conditions(3).

Background: Successful vaccination against SARS-CoV2 is highly effective in preventing serious COVID-19 illness and is particularly recommended for at risk populations including patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, there is uncertainty to which extent modern intensified therapies targeting plasma cell features might attenuate vaccination responses; some early vaccination recommendations for MM have proposed extended treatment breaks of several weeks to maximise vaccination success. Such an approach can be challenging in UHiR MM and pPCL, where maintaining treatment intensity is hallmark for preventing rapid relapse of the aggressive tumor. To address this uncertainty, we measured post-vaccination serological responses in patients treated uniformly with intensified Dara-VR consolidation and Dara-R maintenance post-ASCT for UHiR NDMM or pPCL in the UK OPTIMUM/MUKnine trial (NCT03188172). Methods: Between Sep 2017 and Jul 2019, 107 patients with UHiR NDMM or pPCL were recruited to OPTIMUM and received intensified post-ASCT consolidation with Dara-VR(d) for 18 cycles followed by maintenance with Dara-R until progression. In an exploratory analysis, centrally stored serum samples available for patients with a completed and documented vaccination history of two doses of an anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccine were analyzed for serological vaccine responses Total IgG/IgA/IgM Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein was measured by ELISA (MK654; The Binding Site). As per UK national guidance and local availability, patients received two vaccine doses 12 weeks apart of either tozinameran (Pfizer/Biontech) or vaxzevria (AstraZeneca); serum taken at least 3 weeks after patients received their second dose was analyzed. Results were correlated with baseline characteristics and annotated with treatment and response data. Patient with available matched serological and vaccination status data at time of data cut-off (09 JUL 2021) were included. Collection of vaccination status data is ongoing and updated results comprising additional patients enrolled in OPTIMUM, as well as antigen levels, will be presented. Data will also comprise longitudinal antibody level measurements for patient with available sequential material. Results: Serological vaccine response data was available for 40 OPTIMUM patients with documented completed double vaccination status. Median patient age was 58.5 years (range 39-70) and clinical and molecular tumor features were similar to the overall trial safety population. All patients had received their second dose before June 2021. Of the 40 patients, 42.5% had received tozinameran and 57.5% vaxzevria. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. At time of second vaccine dose, 55% of patients were receiving Dara-VR consolidation treatment and 45% Dara-R maintenance. There was no recommendation to pause trial treatment for purposes of vaccination and no extended times off treatment for this reason were reported. Overall, 72.5% of patients had a positive vaccine antibody level as per manufacturer cut-point for high specificity evidence of antigen exposure (infection or vaccine). The response rate was nominally higher for vaxzevria (91.3%) than for tozinameran (47.1%), a dysbalance that will be further investigated with ongoing extension of the cohort. Of note, 90% of patients analyzed had reached a complete response (CR) of their MM prior to being vaccinated, and the majority of patients not in CR had a positive vaccine response. Response rates were nominally slightly higher in patients in receipt of Dara-R maintenance at time of second dose with 77.8% compared to Dara-VR consolidation with 68.2%. Conclusions: These results show a high serological response rate to COVID-19 vaccination in UHiR MM patients receiving intensified post-ASCT consolidation and maintenance therapy in remission. Findings suggest that continuation of intensified post-ASCT therapy for patients with aggressive tumors and a high risk of relapse are compatible with serological responses to commonly used COVID-19 vaccines. Disclosures Jenner: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hall: BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Garg: University Hospital Leicester: Current Employment; Takeda Janssen Novartis Sanofi: Other: Travel Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen Janssen Novartis Sanofi Takeda: Honoraria. Jackson: J and J: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; celgene BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pratt: Binding Site: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Cook: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Drayson: Abingdon Health: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kaiser: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Educational support, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Educational support; AbbVie: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND Lenalidomide (LEN), an established treatment (Tx) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, is routinely administered until disease progression. Therefore, patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer an option at first relapse, including LEN-refractory pts, are a clinically relevant and growing population. Tx of these pts remains challenging, as they have been poorly represented in phase 3 clinical trials. OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928), a phase 3 trial specifically designed to address this population, demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with pomalidomide (POM), bortezomib (BORT), and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) compared with BORT and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated (70% LEN refractory) (Richardson PG, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:781-794). Here, we report the efficacy and safety of PVd in pts treated after 1 prior line of therapy (LOT) according to age, prior stem cell transplant (SCT), and in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HR CAs). METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles. POM 4 mg/day was given on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and dexamethasone 20 mg/day (10 mg/day for pts aged > 75 yrs) was given on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN, including LEN-refractory pts. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS As of October 26, 2017, 226 of 559 pts enrolled in OPTIMISMM had 1 prior LOT; 100 pts were aged ≤ 65 yrs (49 PVd, 51 Vd) and 126 were aged > 65 yrs (62 PVd, 64 Vd). In pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (PVd vs Vd), the median age was 58.0 vs 59.0 yrs, 63.3% vs 47.1% were male, 55.1% vs 51.0% were LEN refractory, and 83.7% vs 72.5% had prior BORT. In pts aged > 65 yrs, the median age was 73.0 vs 71.5 yrs, 58.1% vs 51.6% were male, 59.7% vs 60.9% were LEN refractory, and 41.9% vs 46.9% had prior BORT. After 1 prior LOT, PVd vs Vd significantly improved PFS in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 mos; P = .0305) and those > 65 yrs (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 mos; P = .0348) (Figure). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with PVd vs Vd across the age groups (Table). The rate of ≥ very good partial response (VGPR) was 65.3% vs 17.6% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and 58.1% vs 26.6% in pts aged > 65 yrs. Comparable PFS and ORR outcomes were noted for an age cutoff of ≤ 70 yrs (median PFS, 17.8 vs 13.1 mos with PVd [n = 71] vs Vd [n = 78]; ORR, 88.7% [≥ VGPR, 62.0%] vs 55.1% [≥ VGPR, 21.8%], respectively) vs > 70 yrs (median PFS, 16.5 vs 9.5 mos with PVd [n = 40] vs Vd [n = 37]; ORR, 92.5% [≥ VGPR, 60.0%] vs 54.1% [≥ VGPR, 24.3%], respectively). These PFS and ORR findings were similar to those reported in pts with and pts without prior SCT (Table). Median PFS was 22.0 mos with PVd vs 13.8 mos with Vd in pts with prior SCT (P = .0241) and 16.5 vs 9.5 mos, respectively, in pts without prior SCT (P = .0454). Pts with HR CAs (n = 32 [18 PVd, 14 Vd]), defined as having a del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16), had a median PFS of 14.7 mos with PVd and 9.9 mos with Vd. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (49.0% vs 6.3%), infections (30.6% vs 14.6%), and thrombocytopenia (26.5% vs 18.8%) in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and neutropenia (25.8% vs 12.9%), infections (27.4% vs 16.1%), and thrombocytopenia (14.5% vs 22.6%) in pts aged > 65 yrs. CONCLUSIONS In pts with LEN-pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at first relapse, PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 50% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and by 43% in pts aged > 65 yrs vs Vd. Additionally, across age subgroups, second-line Tx with PVd vs Vd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses. Similar findings were observed in pts with and pts without prior SCT. PVd also benefited pts with HR CAs vs Vd. Overall, TEAEs with PVd were generally consistent with the known profiles of the constituent agents. These data in pts at first relapse continue to demonstrate that PVd is effective and safe as a second-line Tx following LEN, regardless of age, prior SCT status, and presence of HR CAs. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Weisel:GSK: Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anderson:Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel or accommodations, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Casal:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: 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, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes. The triplet combination is not currently approved in the US for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND As lenalidomide (LEN) becomes increasingly established as a standard of care in the treatment (Tx) of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including those who have become refractory to LEN, represent a clinical reality. These pts represent the largest population with MM at first relapse in the United States and a growing population globally. To date, they have been poorly studied and remain difficult to treat. Previous trials have demonstrated a clinical benefit with pomalidomide (POM) therapy in LEN-refractory pts with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM), including those who were heavily pretreated (median of 5 prior regimens) (San Miguel et al. Lancet Oncol 2013; Richardson et al. Blood 2014; Dimopoulos et al. Blood 2016). These studies led to the approval of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in RRMM. The pomalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) regimen has shown promising activity in early-phase clinical trials in LEN-refractory pts. In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, PVd showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable safety profile compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in intent-to-treat population of pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated; 70% of pts were LEN refractory (Richardson et al. ASCO 2018 abstract 8001). Here, we present efficacy and safety results in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts treated at first relapse. METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles: POM 4 mg/day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and DEX 20 mg/day (10 mg/day if aged > 75 yrs) on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN therapy, including LEN-refractory pts. BORT-exposed pts were eligible to enroll, provided they did not have progressive disease during therapy or within 60 days of the last dose of a BORT-containing regimen with BORT dosed at 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS Out of 559 pts enrolled patients, 226 were treated in the second line (2L), data cut off October 26, 2017: 111 with PVd and 115 with Vd. Median follow-up for 2L pts was 16.4 mos. Among 2L pts, 129 (57.1%) were LEN refractory (64 PVd; 65 Vd) and 97 (42.9%) were LEN nonrefractory (47 PVd; 50 Vd). In LEN-refractory pts (PVd vs Vd) median age was 68.0 vs 69.0 yrs, 57.8% vs 58.5% were male, and 56.3% vs 47.7% had prior BORT. In LEN-nonrefractory pts, median age was 66.0 vs 65.5 yrs, 63.8% vs 38% were male, and 66.0% vs 72.0% had prior BORT. Other key baseline characteristics were similar between Tx arms and subgroups. Median PFS was 17.8 mos with PVd vs 9.5 mos with Vd in LEN-refractory (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94; Figure 1A) and 22.0 vs 12.0 mos in LEN-nonrefractory pts (HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.01; Figure 1B). Response outcomes are shown in Figure 2. ORR was 85.9% with PVd vs 50.8% with Vd in LEN-refractory pts (P < .001) and 95.7% vs 60.0% in LEN-nonrefractory pts (P < .001). In 2L LEN-refractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (35.9% vs 12.9%), thrombocytopenia (17.2% vs 22.6%), and anemia (17.2% vs 8.1%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 29.7% vs 21.0% of pts. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were neutropenia (36.2% vs 6.3%) and thrombocytopenia (23.4% vs 18.8%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 27.7% vs 8.3% of pts. In 2L LEN-refractory pts, median Tx duration of PVd vs Vd was 9.7 vs 6.1 mos. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, median Tx duration of Pvd vs Vd was 13.6 vs 6.6 mos. CONCLUSIONS To date, OPTIMISMM is the only phase 3 trial to address Tx of pts with RRMM following LEN exposure in early lines and the first to report data in LEN-refractory pts after first relapse. PVd reduced the risk of progression and death by 45% and 46% vs Vd in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts, respectively. Further, in both subgroups, 2L Tx with PVd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses compared with Vd. AEs with PVd therapy were generally consistent with the known AEs of POM, BORT, and DEX. These data further demonstrate that PVd is effective and tolerable in pts for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including LEN-refractory pts, supporting its use as 2L therapy in RRMM. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anderson:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. White:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. San-Miguel:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Salomo:Cilag: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Bensmaine:Celgene: Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: 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, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Purpose: Myeloma is a clonal malignancy of plasma cells. Poor-prognosis risk is currently identified by clinical and cytogenetic features. However, these indicators do not capture all prognostic information. Gene expression analysis can be used to identify poor-prognosis patients and this can be improved by combination with information about DNA-level changes. Experimental Design: Using single nucleotide polymorphism–based gene mapping in combination with global gene expression analysis, we have identified homozygous deletions in genes and networks that are relevant to myeloma pathogenesis and outcome. Results: We identified 170 genes with homozygous deletions and corresponding loss of expression. Deletion within the “cell death” network was overrepresented and cases with these deletions had impaired overall survival. From further analysis of these events, we have generated an expression-based signature associated with shorter survival in 258 patients and confirmed this signature in data from two independent groups totaling 800 patients. We defined a gene expression signature of 97 cell death genes that reflects prognosis and confirmed this in two independent data sets. Conclusions: We developed a simple 6-gene expression signature from the 97-gene signature that can be used to identify poor-prognosis myeloma in the clinical environment. This signature could form the basis of future trials aimed at improving the outcome of poor-prognosis myeloma. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1856–64

Background The recurrent immunoglobulin translocation, t(4;14)(p16;q32) occurs in 15% of multiple myeloma patients and is associated with poor prognosis, through an unknown mechanism. The t(4;14) up-regulates fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) and multiple myeloma SET domain (MMSET) genes. The involvement of MMSET in the pathogenesis of t(4;14) multiple myeloma and the mechanism or genes deregulated by MMSET upregulation are still unclear.Design and Methods The expression of MMSET was analyzed using a novel antibody. The involvement of MMSET in t(4;14) myelomagenesis was assessed by small interfering RNA mediated knockdown combined with several biological assays. In addition, the differential gene expression of MMSET-induced knockdown was analyzed with expression microarrays. MMSET gene targets in primary patient material was analyzed by expression microarrays.Results We found that MMSET isoforms are expressed in multiple myeloma cell lines, being exclusively up-regulated in t(4;14)-positive cells. Suppression of MMSET expression affected cell proliferation by both decreasing cell viability and cell cycle progression of cells with the t(4;14) translocation. These findings were associated with reduced expression of genes involved in the regulation of cell cycle progression (e.g. CCND2, CCNG1, BRCA1, AURKA and CHEK1), apoptosis (CASP1, CASP4 and FOXO3A) and cell adhesion (ADAM9 and DSG2). Furthermore, we identified genes involved in the latter processes that were differentially expressed in t(4;14) multiple myeloma patient samples.Conclusions In conclusion, dysregulation of MMSET affects the expression of several genes involved in the regulation of cell cycle progression, cell adhesion and survival.