Search

Summary:The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

Supplementary Table from Perspectives on the Risk-Stratified Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Summary: The multiple myeloma treatment landscape has changed dramatically. This change, paralleled by an increase in scientific knowledge, has resulted in significant improvement in survival. However, heterogeneity remains in clinical outcomes, with a proportion of patients not benefiting from current approaches and continuing to have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of the variability in outcome can be predicted on the basis of clinical and biochemical parameters and tumor-acquired genetic variants, allowing for risk stratification and a more personalized approach to therapy. This article discusses the principles that can enable the rational and effective development of therapeutic approaches for high-risk multiple myeloma.

While there is significant data on the natural history and outcomes for prenatal hydronephrosis in simplex kidneys, duplex kidneys tend to be less studied. Management can be quite variable based on provider preference. We aimed to describe practice patterns from several tertiary academic institutions, identify clinical predictors for surgical intervention and urinary tract infection (UTI) for upper pole pathology, and demonstrate the natural history of lower pole vesicoureteral reflux (VUR).We conducted a retrospective review of patients from 4 Mid-Atlantic institutions between 2015 and 2020. Inclusion criteria included patients with a duplex kidney with upper pole pathology and/or lower pole VUR. The primary outcome was predictive factors for surgical intervention and UTI. The secondary outcome was to assess the natural history of lower pole VUR including resolution rates by grade. Linear regression identified clinical predictors for UTI events. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of surgical intervention, UTI, and lower pole VUR resolution. Descriptive statistics and regression modeling analyses were performed using SAS.Two hundred forty-two patients were included with a total of 271 duplex renal units. Hydronephrosis grade (both SFU and UTD grading) and number of prior UTI events were statistically significant predictors for surgical intervention (p = 0.03/0.001 and p = 0.002 respectively). Ectopic ureter (p = 0.004), ureterocele (p = 0.02), and obstruction (p = 0.04) were the only pathologies predictive for surgery. Male gender and circumcision were significantly associated with decreased UTI risk (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01). On linear regression modeling, antibiotic prophylaxis after the first year of life was associated with decreased risk of further UTI events (p = 0.03); however, antibiotic prophylaxis within the first year of life did not decrease UTI risk (p = 0.14). For VUR outcomes, 65.0% of grades 1-3 VUR and 52.2% of grades 4-5 had resolution/improvement at mean time of 2.1 years. There were no predictive factors for resolution/improvement of VUR.Hydronephrosis grade and UTI events were significant predictors for surgical intervention for upper pole pathology. Pathologies that were predictive for surgery included ectopic ureter, ureterocele and obstruction. Male gender, circumcision and antibiotic prophylaxis after the first year of life were associated with a decreased UTI risk. Roughly 58% of lower pole VUR spontaneously improved/resolved. Identification of these risk factors aids in standardization of care practices to reduce long-term UTI risk and inform counseling with families about possible need for surgical intervention and expectations for long term outcomes.

Introduction: Commonly accepted standardized sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials are still limited. In accordance, outcome measures vary widely between clinical trials even within defined hematological malignancy (HM) entities. Definition of a core outcome set (COS), which represents a standardized agreed set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for the respective disease of interest may improve this situation. Furthermore, respective COS should address the need of all stakeholders, i.e. not only the views of physicians and industry running the trials, but also the interests of patients and regulators. To perform a task like this, HARMONY - Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology - a private-public partnership established in January 2017, including 53 partners and 43 associated partners in 18 different European countries and also 6 patient organizations, poses an optimal platform to define COS for HMs. Methods: To define COS for 5 selected HMs, it was decided to use the Delphi survey method provided by COMET initiative. Since HARMONY has members of several important stakeholder groups (clinicians, industry, health authorities and patient groups) it was decided to include all stakeholders to participate in the Delphi surveys. A pilot study was implemented for the COS for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) based on which additional Delphi surveys were developed for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). As starting point preliminary outcome lists were generated based on published reports and available guidelines. Surveys were performed with representatives from each stakeholder group to agree within a pre-defined and iterative process on a COS for each HM. Conditions and criteria were defined in study protocols. Each outcome was rated into 3 categories (1-3 "not important", 4-6 "important but not critical" and 7-9 "critical"). A "consensus-in criterion" was defined if 70 % or more respondents scored the outcome as critically important (7-9) and 15% or fewer rated the outcome as limited important (1-3). To make sure that the patients' voice was heard within the consensus process, a special "patient-important criterion" had been implemented during data analysis. Outcomes ranked with a median of 7 or higher in the patient group were highlighted, showing these are really important for patients. According to a bottom-up-approach, an overarching COS was then created based on the individual survey results. Results: For the Delphi surveys a total of 365 individuals participated including 126 clinicians (35%), 46 EFPIA members (13%), 177 patients/patient advocates (48%) and 16 regulators (4%). While there was a large overlap of outcomes among HMs, there were also many disease specific outcomes such as leukemia-free survival (LFS) for AML, very good partial response (VGPR) for MM to name only few. In addition, there were sometimes major differences in the assessment of individual stakeholders within an outcome, e.g. between clinicians and patients. Finally, the general COS applicable to all HMs included core outcomes that met the consensus-in criterion for all HMs. Conclusion: Using Delphi surveys to define specific COS for HMs revealed meaningful results. Based on the bottom-up-approach not only disease specific HM COS could be defined, but also an overarching COS applicable to all HMs. This overarching COS will subsequently not only allow to compare results more easily within a distinct HM subgroup but also results across different HMs. To our knowledge, this is the first multidisciplinary approach to define COS across four different stakeholder groups. These COS should now be a starting point to further refine COS and to apply them within future clinical trials, thereby reducing inconsistencies and bias in outcome-reporting. Results of COS based clinical trials will simplify the development of novel clinical recommendations, which will improve future patient management and clinical patient care in the real-world setting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lang: Roche: Honoraria. Ossenkoppele: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie, AGIOS, BMS/Celgene Astellas,AMGEN, Gilead,Servier,JAZZ,Servier Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria. Döhner: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Helsinn: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Berlin-Chemie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ulm University Hospital: Current Employment; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedicals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GEMoaB: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Salles: Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Velosbio: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Dreyling: Abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. San-Miguel: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, SecuraBio, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro: Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen and GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma: Research Funding. Fenaux: Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Santini: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ghia: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Guillevic: BMS: Current Employment. Calado: Novartis: Current Employment. Sanz: Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, and expenses, Research Funding. Hernández-Rivas: Pfizer: 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; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Barbus: Abbvie: Current Employment. Schulze-Rath: Bayer: Current Employment. Bullinger: Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb / Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Lower urinary tract dysfunction in children is a common multifactorial functional problem that often correlates with bowel dysfunction and behavioral disorders. Ideal management combines integrative therapies that optimize bladder and bowel habits, address behavioral issues, foster mind−body connection, and improve pelvic floor muscle dysfunction. Movement therapies that teach diaphragmatic breathing and relaxation, mind−body awareness, and healthy pelvic floor muscle function are vital for long-term symptom improvement in children. This paper outlines recommendations for integrative management of these patients and discusses a recently developed interprofessional clinic that aims to better meet these patients’ complex needs and to provide patients with an integrated holistic plan of care. Additional work is needed to scientifically assess these treatment models and educate providers across the various disciplines that evaluate and treat these patients.

Summary Introduction Telemedicine video visits are an under-utilized form of delivering health care. However due to the COVID-19 pandemic, practices are rapidly adapting telemedicine for patient care. We describe our experience in rapidly introducing video visits in a tertiary academic pediatric urology practice, serving primarily rural patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective The primary aim of this study was to assess visit success rate and identify barriers to completing video visits. The secondary aim identified types of pathologies feasible for video visits and travel time saved. We hypothesize socioeconomic status is a predictor of a successful visit. Materials and methods Data was prospectively collected and analyzed on video visits focusing on visit success, defined by satisfactory completion of the visit as assessed by the provider. Other variables collected included duration, video platform and technical problems. Retrospective data was collected via chart review and analyzed including demographics, insurance, and distance to care. Socioeconomic status was estimated using the Distressed Communities Index generated for patient zip code. Results/discussion Out of 116 attempted visits, 81% were successful. The top two reasons for failure were “no-show” (64%) and inability to connect (14%). Success versus failure of visit was similar for patient age (p = 0.23), sex (p = 0.42), type of visit (initial vs. established) (p = 0.51), and socioeconomic status (p = 0.39). After adjusting for race, socioeconomic status, and type of provider, having public insurance remained a significant predictor of failure (p = 0.017). Successful visits were conducted on multiple common pediatric urologic problems (excluding visits requiring palpation on exam), and video was sufficient for physical exams in most cases (Summary Table). A median of 2.25 h of travel time was saved. Conclusions While socioeconomic status, estimated using the Distressed Communities Index, did not predict success of video visits, patients with public insurance were more likely to have a failed video visit. There is compelling evidence that effective video visits for certain pathologies can be rapidly achieved in a pediatric urology practice with minimal preparation time. Summary Table . Primary diagnoses addressed. Visit Diagnosis N (%) Bladder and Bowel Dysfunction (dysuria, urgency, nocturnal enuresis, urinary incontinence, voiding dysfunction, or frequency with constipation) 35 (37%) Post-Operative Care 17 (18%) Penile Conditions (adhesions, hidden penis, phimosis, meatal stenosis, or hypospadias) 15 (16%) Prenatal Hydronephrosis (Postnatal visit) 11 (12%) Vesicoureteral Reflux 5 (5%) Nephrolithiasis 3 (3%) Prenatal Hydronephrosis (Fetal visit) 3 (3%) Scrotal Conditions (pain or swelling) 2 (2%) Vaginal Conditions (discharge or labial adhesions) 2 (2%) Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction 1 (1%)

Background: Patient (pt) involvement in treatment decisions or 'shared decision making' has been associated with increased pt satisfaction, increased compliance to advice from health professionals, enhanced treatment adherence and overall improved treatment outcomes. Methods: A multinational non-interventional cross-sectional survey was designed and aimed to enrol approximately 1,000 adult pts with multiple myeloma (MM) through Myeloma Patients Europe's (MPE) member network across 12 participating countries: France, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Finland, Switzerland, Poland and Romania. Patient advocacy organizations were asked to disseminate a URL link for the survey to pts by posting the link on their website, e-mailing the link to pt members on their mailing list or through social media. The primary survey objective was to describe pt confidence in making an informed treatment decision. Main secondary objectives were to describe how pt confidence in making an informed treatment decision was associated with types of information, importance of information and sources of information. Pts fulfilling the following criteria were included: adults who had started MM treatment and received at least one dose, who were able to self-report diagnosis of MM and recall the decision-making process at the start of their most recent line of treatment, and who were able and willing to complete an online questionnaire lasting approximately 30 minutes. Results: Out of 4325 pts who accessed the online survey link, 1559 pts fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in the primary analysis, of which 1081 provided fully completed surveys. France, Israel, Netherlands, and UK were the largest recruiters with over 200 pts each. Median age of respondents was 54-64 years. Time since diagnosis was 0-4 years for over half of pts (53.1%), and ≥16 years since diagnosis for 4.8% of pts. The majority of pts had received 1 line (40.1%, n=592) of anti-MM treatment, 20.5% (n=303) of pts had received 2 lines, 16.0% (n=236) of pts had received 3 lines, and 19.9% (n=294) reported having received 4 or more lines of treatment. Last treatment decision was taken 2 years ago for another 25.5% of respondents. Of the 1112 pts who responded to the question for the primary objective, half of pts (54.4%, n=605) reported being very confident in their most recent treatment decision, and 37.2% (n=414) of pts reported being somewhat confident. Similarly, over half of pts (56.8%, n=634/1116) felt that they were 'very involved' in their last treatment decision, 28.4% (n=317/1116) reported being 'somewhat involved'. Confidence in making an informed treatment decision did not appear to differ by lines of therapy, primary treating physician, type of clinic primarily treated at, or whether help from a carer was received. In terms of types of information received, pts most commonly received information on location of treatment (84.5%, n=1037), mode of administration (83.0%, n=1019), frequency of treatment (77.7%, n=953) and common side effects (72.2%, n=886), and least commonly received information on overall survival (OS) benefit (38.4%, n=471) and how long until MM returns (30.9%,n=379) or healthcare provider costs (20.0%, n=245). Information relating to treatment effectiveness (OS benefit, likelihood treatment would work, how long until MM returns) were reported as the most important types of information amongst those who received them, followed by types relating to treatment tolerability (how safe the treatment is). Operational aspects of treatment (mode of administration, location of treatment and healthcare provider costs) were considered the least important type of information. Receiving the types of information perceived as most important by pts was significantly associated with increased pt confidence in making an informed treatment decision. Conclusion: The most important types of information to pts with MM are related to treatment effectiveness and tolerability. However, effectiveness seems to be communicated to pts less frequently than tolerability and this may be due to the uncertainty surrounding this type of information. However, the survey results suggest some elements on effectiveness should be considered to be shared with pts to increase their confidence in making an informed treatment decision. Disclosures Brescianini: Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Desgraz:Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Plate:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ASCO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ESMO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Myeloma Patients Europe: Current Employment; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Morgan:Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, MundiPharma, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Myeloma Patients Europe: Current Employment. Vallejo:Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm, MundiPharma, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloma Patients Europe: Current Employment. Wetten:Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. DeCosta:Amgen Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Suzan:Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Background Multiple groups of pts, including elderly/frail pts and those with comorbidities, are typically under-represented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A recent study found an average of 16 eligibility criteria per cancer trial, 60% of which were related to comorbidity or performance status (PS; Unger, JNCI 2014). Phase 3 RCTs in MM have similar extensive eligibility criteria, resulting in populations that are not reflective of RW MM pts. Data from CONNECT-MM (Shah, CLML, 2017) and CoMMpass (Fiala, IMW 2017) suggest that 22-40% of RW pts are ineligible for MM RCTs, and an analysis of US RW relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) pts showed that only 25-47% of pts would have been eligible for the phase 3 ASPIRE, TOURMALINE-MM1, ELOQUENT-2, and POLLUX studies, based on their differing eligibility criteria (Chari, EHA 2018). Further, data from CONNECT MM show that clinical trial ineligibility is associated with poorer long-term outcome (Shah, CLML, 2017). Thus, it is important to characterize RW MM pts and understand the discrepancies vs RCT populations. INSIGHT MM (NCT02761187) is the largest prospective, observational study in MM to date, following ~4,200 pts from 15 countries. Here we analyze RCT eligibility in INSIGHT MM pts, with a focus on the treatment of frail MM pts in the real world. Methods INSIGHT MM is following newly diagnosed (≤3 mos since treatment initiation) MM (NDMM) and RRMM (≤3 prior lines) pts. Demographics and disease characteristics, including medical history, comorbidities, PS, and frailty status (per IMWG Frailty Index criteria, Palumbo, JCO 2015), are collected using electronic case report forms at study baseline visit. For this analysis, pt data were reviewed vs 20 standard RCT eligibility criteria, using a conservative approach of classifying 'not available' data as 'eligible'; laboratory/PS and medical history exclusion criteria are summarized in the Table. Presence of hypertension was reviewed but omitted, as INSIGHT MM only collected data on 'hypertension requiring treatment' vs the standard RCT exclusion criterion of 'uncontrolled hypertension'. Results Data from 3,201 pts (1,761 NDMM, 1,440 RRMM) were analyzed. The proportions of pts who would be ineligible for RCTs based on each individual parameter, and the overall rate of ineligible pts, are shown in the Table. Overall, 39.2% of pts would have been ineligible for RCTs based on not meeting at least one of the 20 standard eligibility criteria included in this analysis, including 38.8% of NDMM and 39.7% of RRMM pts. The most common criteria excluding pts overall were another prior malignancy (7.5%), CrCl ≤30 mL/min (6.4%), cardiac arrhythmias (5.4%), platelets ≤75,000/mm3 (5.1%), and hemoglobin Frail pts are particularly likely to be ineligible for RCTs based on these standard criteria. Per study team evaluation applying the IMWG Frailty Index parameters, 320/1,685 evaluable pts (19%) were determined to be frail in INSIGHT MM. Of these 320 frail pts, applying the 20 standard eligibility criteria used in this analysis, 74.7% would have been ineligible for RCTs. Of 126 evaluable frail 1st line pts, 30 (24%) and 83 (66%) received doublet and triplet therapy, respectively, with median duration of treatment (DoT; Kaplan-Meier analysis) of 5.4 and 6.2 mos. Of 48 evaluable 2nd to 4th line pts, 26 (54%) and 21 (44%) received doublet and triplet therapy, respectively, with median DoT of 4.4 and 5.3 mos. Additional analyses of treatments received, reasons for treatment discontinuation, and DoT by frailty status and RCT eligibility will be presented. Conclusions A high proportion of INSIGHT MM pts (39.2%) were RCT-ineligible, consistent with or higher than previous reports. Common reasons for ineligibility included prior history of malignancy, low CrCl, and cardiac arrhythmias; more RRMM vs NDMM pts were excluded due to low platelet count. Analysis of frail pts suggests that these pts are particularly under-represented in RCTs using standard eligibility criteria. These findings emphasize the discrepancy between RW and RCT pt populations and the importance of RW data for evaluating effectiveness of treatment options. Initiatives are also ongoing to broaden oncology clinical trial eligibility criteria. Disclosures Hungria: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline plc: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abonour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Rifkin:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Terpos:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Genesis: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Medison: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Leleu:Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Costello:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. van Rhee:Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Castleman Disease Collaborative Network: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Adicet Bio: Consultancy. Weisel:Juno: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Puig:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; The Binding Site: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Cook:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Usmani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array Biopharma: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Sanofi: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Skyline DX: Consultancy. Thompson:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Doximity: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties: Myeloma reviewer; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; VIA Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lynx Bio: Research Funding. Boccadoro:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Zonder:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Spencer:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Specialised Therapeutics Australia: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Consultant or advisory relationship; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; PharmaMar: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding. Fanning:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Boyd:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Armour:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Financial relationship; Janssen: Other: Financial relationship; Amgen: Other: Financial relationship; Celgene: Other: Financial relationship. Morgan:Myeloma Patients Europe, a non-profit organisation, which receives unrestricted grants from the following pharmaceutical companies: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Celgene and Sanofi.: Employment. Patel:Takeda: Employment. Carlson:Takeda: Employment. Ferrari:Takeda: Employment. Stull:Takeda: Employment. Ren:Takeda: Employment. Cherepanov:Takeda: Employment. Pottala:PPD, Inc., research organization contracted by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Chari:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.