Search

Background We have performed a head to head comparison of all-oral triplet combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. Methods A total of 344 patients treated with IRD (N = 127) or RD (N = 217) were selected for analysis from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Descriptive statistics were used to assess patient’s characteristics associated with the respective therapy. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS). Survival endpoints were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% Greenwood confidence interval. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the effect of treatment regimens and the significance of uneven variables. Statistical tests were performed at significance level 0.05. Results In the whole cohort, median PFS for IRD was 17.5 and for RD was 11.5 months favoring the all-oral triplet, p = 0.005; in patients within relapse 1–3, the median PFS was 23.1 vs 11.6 months, p = 0.001. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51–0.89, p = 0.006). The PFS advantage translated into improved OS for patients treated with IRD, median 36.6 months vs 26.0 months (p = 0.008). The overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD group vs 66.2% in the RD group with a complete response rate (CR) of 11.1% vs 8.8%, and very good partial response (VGPR) 22.2% vs 13.9%, IRD vs RD respectively. The IRD regimen was most beneficial in patients ≤75 years with ISS I, II, and in the first and second relapse. Patients with the presence of extramedullary disease did not benefit from IRD treatment (median PFS 6.5 months). Both regimens were well tolerated, and the incidence of total as well as grade 3/4 toxicities was comparable. Conclusions Our analysis confirms the results of the TOURMALINE-MM1 study and shows benefit of all-oral triplet IRD treatment versus RD doublet. It demonstrates that the addition of ixazomib to RD improves key survival endpoints in patients with RRMM in a routine clinical setting.

Background COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has affected millions of people worldwide. The mortality of this infection varies with age and comorbidities up to more than 10% in very elderly population. The aim of our study was to determine the disease pattern and mortality rate among multiple myeloma patients. Methods We retrospectively analyzed entries in the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies from patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 from March 2020 until May 2021. Demographic data, treatment patterns, comorbidities, symptoms of COVID-19, treatment modalities and healthcare utilization was compared in survivors and non-survivors. Results Overall, 371 patients with MM and COVID-19 infection were identified. Median age at covid-19 diagnosis was 69 years (37-91 years), 53.4% (198/371) were males. There were 70.1% (260/371) survivors and 20.8% (77/371) deceased patients, outcome of 9.2% (34/371) of patients is unknown. PCR positivity was seen with median 20 days (1-84 days) in 79 evaluable patients. 6 patients were vaccinated prior to infection (5-68 days). Infection was acquired during actual treatment in 53.1% of patients (197/371). Median number of previous lines administered was 1 (0-7). Treatment preceding infection was most frequently composed of lenalidomide in 50.3%, bortezomib in 42.1% and daratumumab in 19.8%. Symptomatic infection was seen in 74.9% (278/371) of patients with fever being the leading symptom (49.6%) followed by cough (39.1%) and shortness of breath (35.0%). Inpatient treatment was needed in 45.0% (167/371) of patients, intensive care unit was required in 38.9% (65/167) of patients. Median length of in-hospital stay was 11 days (1-53 days). Artificial lung ventilation was necessary in 10.8% (18/167) patients, 24.6% (41/167) needed non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen and 35.3% (59/167) of patients needed low flow oxygen. Remdesivir was administered to 10.0% (37/371) and convalescent plasma to 4.9% (18/371) of patients. No difference was seen in mortality according to ISS stage (p=0.609), administered lines of therapy (p=0.119) or achieved treatment response (p=0.418). Conclusions The mortality of MM patients with COVID-19 was very high (20.8%). Healthcare utilization was high with almost half of the infected myeloma patients needing inpatient treatment. No apparent risk factors in terms of disease status or previous treatment were identified. Supported by MH CZ - DRO (UHHK, 00169906) and by the program PROGRES Q40/8.

The definition of complete disease response (CR) in multiple myeloma (MM) continues to be reevaluated. The last widely accepted model of response assessment was proposed by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) in 2016.1 Urine immunofixation (uIFE), one of the CR parameters, is being frequently omitted from CR evaluation in routine clinical practice. Patients with missing uIFE are then reported as having very good partial response (VGPR).2 It has been recently suggested in retrospective analysis by Lahuerta et al3 that patients with intact immunoglobulin myeloma (IIMM) who lack uIFE examination present with the very same prognosis as the patients with negative uIFE and therefore uIFE might not be necessary for CR definition in such patients.

Vaccinia virus (VACV) is a prototypical poxvirus originally used for eradication of smallpox. Investigation into VACV mRNAs carried out almost half a century ago substantially contributed to the fundamental discovery of the 5’ mRNA cap, a hallmark of all eukaryotic and many viral mRNAs. VACV research also facilitated the identification and understanding of the general mechanism of 5’ mRNA cap synthesis. We characterized the VACV transcripts at the individual mRNA molecule level and found that vaccinia postreplicative mRNAs, containing nontemplated 5’ poly(A) leaders, surprisingly lack the 5’ cap structure in vivo. We also show that the lengths of the nontemplated leaders and the presence or absence of cap structures at the 5’ mRNA ends are controlled by the initiator sequence of the VACV postreplicative promoters.One Sentence SummaryThe promoter sequence determines the synthesis of the 5’ cap and poly(A) leaders in vaccinia virus postreplicative mRNAs.

We have performed a face to face comparison of all-oral triplet ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end points included response rates and overall survival (OS).

Background : Outcomes reported in real-world practice versus controlled clinical trials show markedly shorter treatment durations, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Understanding effectiveness of therapeutic regimens in routine practice is critical for treating physicians as well as for regulatory and reimbursement authorities. We have performed a real-world comparison of two regimens, ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) triplet and lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) doublet in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated in seven Czech and one Slovak hematology-oncology centers. Patients and methods: Between 3/2015 and 5/2017, 344 patients with RRMM were treated with either IRD (N=127) or RD (N=217). Patients selected for both cohorts had the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced. The data were collected through the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG), which is an international database gathering data from patients with monoclonal gammopathies within Central Europe. Results: The median follow-up in the IRD vs RD arm was 20.8 vs 15.5 months, respectively. Median PFS in pts with 1-3 prior lines for the IRD cohort was 23.1 months (95% CI 11.8-34.5 months) and 11.6 months (95% CI 8.4-11.8 months) for the RD cohort favoring the all-oral triplet (p=0.001). The median PFS for all patients including 4+ line of therapy was 17.5 months (95% CI 10.3-24.7) in the IRD cohort versus 11.5 months (95% CI 8.6-14.3) in the RD group (p=0.005). Median OS for pts with 1-3 prior lines for IRD cohort was not reached, and was 27.1 months (95% CI 23.1-31.1 months) in the RD cohort (p=0.002). Median OS for all patients, including 4+ lines of treatment was 36.6 months in the IRD vs 26.0 months in the RD cohort (p=0.008). The PFS benefit of IRD over RD was observed in most of the assessed subgroups; in younger pts ≤65 years with hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, in pts 66-75 years HR 0.64. There was a trend towards better PFS in patients with lower ISS stage; ISS1 HR 0.53, ISS2 HR 0.58 and ISS3 the HR was 0.87. Patients in the 1st relapse (HR 0.53) benefited most from the IRD, followed by the 2nd relapse (HR 0.58), 3rd relapse (HR 0.90) and pts relapsing after 4+ therapies (HR 0.88). The PFS benefit of IRD regimen was observed in pts regardless of previous stem cell transplantation; transplant-eligible patients HR 0.51 and transplant-ineligible HR 0.71. Patients who did not benefit from the triplet regimen were those over 75 years of age and pts with the presence of extramedullary disease. The IRD treatment was well tolerated. The safety profile was concordant with previously reported data. Conclusions: This RMG comparative cohort analysis shows PFS benefit of all-oral IRD regimen over RD in the real world setting, and confirms growing evidence that long term outcomes with IRD triplet are comparable with phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Our analysis also shows an overall survival benefit of IRD over RD treatment. Patients older than 75 years, with 4+ lines of therapy and presence of extramedullary disease did not profit from addition of ixazomib to RD doublet.Additional data with larger patient populations confirming RWE effectiveness are warranted. With support of AZV 17-29343A, NV18-03-00500, FNOl 00098892, IGA-LF-2019-001, PROGRES Q40/08, MH CZ-DRO (UHHK, 00179906) Disclosures Minarik: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Straub:Amgen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy. Skacel:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Maisnar:Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: Multiple myeloma patients over the age of 65 represent the majority of myeloma population. The main goal was to evaluate treatment outcomes in terms of overall survival for elderly patients based on initial choice of anti-myeloma drugs, and to find potential factors affecting survival. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective registry based analysis from the Registry of monoclonal gammopathies of the Czech Myeloma Group. Patients with multiple myeloma diagnosed between 2007-2016 over the age of 65 with symptomatic myeloma were included in the analysis. Basic demographic data and disease characteristics were obtained. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were completed by the Greenwood confidence interval. The log-rank test was used to estimate the statistical significance of the difference between the curves. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed to explore the univariate significance of risk factors. Results: Data from 1410 MM patients were obtained. Gender [HR 1.316 (1.124-1.541), p=0.001], age [above 75 vs. 66-75, HR 1.437 (1.221-1.692), p< 0.001], creatinine levels [at cutoff 152 µmol/L, HR 1.613 (1.365-1.905), p< 0.001] and ECOG performance status [0-1 vs. 2-4, 1.869 (1.594-2.191), p< 0.001] were found to significantly affect overall survival. Moreover these risk factors have cumulative effect on overall survival of the patients. Overall survival of patients regardless to above mentioned risk factors treated with upfront bortezomib (N = 880) was median OS 40.4 months (CI: 36.1-44.7), patients treated with upfront thalidomide (N = 370) had median OS 48.1 months (CI: 41.0-55.2), for lenalidomide (N = 64) median overall survival was 53.2 months (CI: 44.6-61.8) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N = 46) 32.2 months (CI: 26.6-37.8). When any of these risk factors was present the OS in each group shortened. In the group of patients with no risk factors (N = 255) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 126) was not reached, for thalidomide (N = 96) the median OS was 66.3 months (CI: 43.1-89.6), for lenalidomide (N = 17) 71.1 months (CI: 44.8-97.4) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=8) was not reached. In the group of patients with 1 risk factor (N = 514) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 303) was 46.1 months (CI: 36.2-56.1), for thalidomide (N = 141) 56.2 months (CI: 47.5-64.9), for lenalidomide (N = 29) 49.0 months (CI: 9.7-88.2) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) was not reached. In the group of patients with 2 risk factors (N = 420) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 288) was 34.0 months (CI: 24.7-43.4), for thalidomide (N = 87) 31.9 months (CI: 22.8-40.9), for lenalidomide (N = 14) 33.2 months (CI: 0.0-67.6) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=20) 29.4 months (CI: 7.6-51.1). In the group of patients with 3-4 risk factors (N = 221) the median OS for bortezomib (N = 163) was 19.2 months (CI: 14.9-23.5), for thalidomide (N = 46) 18.9 months (CI: 13.0-24.7), for lenalidomide (N = 4) 6.1 months (CI: 0.0-63.0) and for combination of bortezomib and thalidomide (N=3) 14.3 months (CI:-). Conclusion: The overall survival of patients above the age of 65 shows promising results with the use of novel agents. The treatment outcomes seem to be generally affected by overall condition, age and gender of the patient rather than treatment modality used upfront. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hajek: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Maisnar: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; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

OBJECTIVE:Subcutaneous (SC) application of bortezomib has been recently introduced as a new application route in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We performed an analysis to compare the outcomes of bortezomib-based therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated using either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS:During January 2012 through December 2013, we performed a retrospective analysis of 446 patients with MM treated with bortezomib-based regimens (either once weekly - 63% or twice weekly - 27%) in both, the first line setting, and in relapse, with separate analysis of patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. We assessed the response rates and toxicity profiles in both, IV and SC route of bortezomib administration. RESULTS:The response rates in both IV and SC arm were similar with overall response rate 71.7% vs 70.7%, complete remissions in 13.9% vs 8.6%, very good partial remissions in 30.8% vs 34.5% and partial remissions in 27% vs 27.6%. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no significant differences between IV and SC group. There were no significant differences in the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN of any grade was present in 48% in the IV arm and in 41% in the SC arm. PN grade ≥ 2 was present in 20% vs 18% and PN grade ≥ 3 was present in 6% vs 4%. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that subcutaneous application of bortezomib has similar therapeutic outcomes and toxicity profile as intravenous route of application. In our cohort there was no difference in the incidence of PN, suggesting that PN is dose dependent and might be reduced by lower intensity schemes rather than by the route of administration.

Introduction: Revised prognostic scoring system R-ISS (standard ISS plus cytogenetic changes) has been introduced as a possible tool for evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. This system is based on pooled data from various clinical trials but has not been validated in patients´ population outside the clinical trial setting. Aim: To evaluate clinical relevance of R-ISS in real life population of multiple myeloma patients. Methods: Registry of monoclonal gammopathies (RMG) was established in 2007 and has become one of the flagship projects of the Czech Myeloma Group. The registry collects prospective data from patients with myeloma and other gammopathies (https://trials.cba.muni.cz/trialdb2/interface_forms/login_rmg.asp). Registry is regularly monitored and data are validated by an external monitor. Data from registry were retrieved to identify patients in whom all above mentioned parameters were available. These patients were then stratified according to R-ISS and TTP and OS were calculated as primary endpoints. Results: 555 patients (260 females, 295 males, median age 66 years) with multiple myeloma who had full set of necessary data available were identified. Median follow-up of this cohort was 22.2 months. 97 17.5% (97/555) patients were R-ISS stage I, 55.7% 309/555 were R-ISS stage II and 26.8% (149/555) patients were R-ISS III. Median overall survival was not reached for stage I, 3.9 years for stage II and 2.5 years for stage III. The differences were statistically significant (p Conclusion: Revised ISS provides valuable information about the long term prognosis in a mixed cohort of real life multiple myeloma patients. This system enables to estimate the prognostic category of each specific patient in a horizon of several years ahead. Supported by PRVOUK P37. Table 1 Table 1. Figure 1 Overall survival for R-ISS stages Figure 1. Overall survival for R-ISS stages Figure 2 Time to progression for R-ISS stages Figure 2. Time to progression for R-ISS stages Disclosures Spicka: BMS: 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; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria. Hájek:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy.

Background:Subcutaneous (SC) application of bortezomib has been recently introduced as a new application route in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The results of an international randomized phase III trial confirmed that SC application of bortezomib is not inferior to intravenous (IV) route, with similar response rates and improved toxicity profile. Our aim was to confirm the results on a larger cohort of patients treated with IV or SC bortezomib in 2-year period within the Czech Myeloma Group. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 262 patients with MM treated with bortezomib based regimens during 2012-2013 in the Czech Republic. In total, there were 177 patients in the IV arm and 85 patients in the SC arm. Patients undergoing high-dosed chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were assessed separately (N = 99). There were 164 patients treated in the first line setting and 98 patients in relapse/progression of MM. The patients received up to eight 28-day cycles of bortezomib-based regimen with bortezomib dose 1.3mg/m2. The regimens used were following: CVD (cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone) in 58.2%/60.0%, VD (bortezomib, dexamethasone) in 10.7%/9.4%, BDD (bortezomib, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) in 9.6%/14.2%, VMP (bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone) in 6.0%/9.0%, bortezomib monotherapy in 1.1%/1.2%, BBD (bortezomib, bendamustine, dexamethasone) in 1.1%/2.4%, BP (bortezomib, prednisone) in 0%/1.6%, and other in 13.6%/2.4%. In order to reduce neurological toxicities, most of the patients received bortezomib once weekly. In both IV and SC arms we assessed the demographics and baseline characteristics, response rates and toxicities. For statistical estimation we used Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test at p < 0.05. Results:There were mild differences in the age and gender between IV and SC arms (median age 71.3 vs 67.9 years, p = 0.024; M/F ratio 1.4:1 vs 0.6:1, p = 0.007), other variables were without significant difference, including laboratory parameters (M-protein, hemoglobin, thrombocyte count, serum calcium level, albumin, creatinine, beta-2-microglobulin, lactate dehydrogenase, CRP), line of chemotherapy (first line, second line, third line and fourth and higher line) and therapeutic regimen used. Patients received median of 6 cycles in the IV group and 5 cycles in the SC group. The rates of response were similar in both, IV and SC arms with overall response rate (ORR) 71.7% vs 70.7%, complete remissions (CR) including stringent complete remissions (sCR) in 13.9% vs 8.6%, very good partial remissions (VGPR) in 30.8% vs 34.5% and partial remissions (PR) in 27% vs 27.6%. Toxicities were present in most patients (up to 99%), prevailing grade 1-2 toxicities, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no significant differences between IV and SC group. There were no significant differences in the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN). PN of any grade was present in 48% patients in the IV arm and in 41% in the SC arm. PN grade ≥2 was present in 20% vs 18% and PN grade ≥3 was present in 6% vs 4% (p = 0.782). Conclusions:Subcutaneous application of bortezomib has similar therapeutic outcomes and toxicity profile as intravenous route of application. In our cohort there was no difference in the incidence of PN, suggesting that PN is dose dependent and might be reduced by lower intensity schemes rather than by the route of administration. Supported by the grants IGA MZ CR NT 14393, NT 12215-4/2011, NT 14400, NT12451-5, NT 12215-4, and the grant MSM0021622434. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Collection of valid data in patients with hematologic malignancies remains a challenge. Especially low grade malignancies require long term follow-up and valid high quality data. The RMG registry was established in 2007 and has become one of the flagship projects of the Czech Myeloma group. To date, four parts of the registry are active - module for multiple myeloma (MM), monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance (MGUS), AL amyloidosis (ALA) and Waldeströms macroglobulinemia. The later two has been started in 2014. Aim: To analyze current status of the registry in terms of amount of contained data. Methods: All patients must sign a written consent before entering their data into the registry. Data concerning diagnosis, demography, treatment and survival are regularly collected and updated into the registry via online system at https://trials.cba.muni.cz/trialdb2/interface_forms/login_rmg.asp. The data from MGUS patients are retrospective and prospective, data from MM patients are only prospective (since 2007). Registry is regularly monitored and data are validated by an external monitor. Results: There are 22 participating centers as of July 2015 (18 from the Czech Republic and 4 from Slovakia). Data from 4549 patients with MM, 2168 with MGUS, 121 patients with WM and 22 with ALA have been collected. Together 6860 patients have been included in the registry as of July 2015. Median follow-up of MGUS patients is 4 years (0-35 years) and median follow-up for MM patients is 2 years (0-32 years). The huge amount of data allowed publication of treatment results of MM patients treated with bortezomid and thalidomide in the Czech Republic and regular analysis of patients treated with lenalidomide. Novel prognostic models for MGUS progression and asymptomatic myeloma have been created based on registry data (manuscripts submitted). Conclusion: The RMG is one of the largest registries in Europe. Its biggest advantage is collection of validated updated data which can be used to create rapid analyses in order to react to changing myeloma field. It helps us to create new guidelines and serves as a potent research tool. It can be also used to negotiate reimbursement with healthcare insurance companies and government regulatory authorities for novel drugs implementation into treatment standards. Supported by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Specific university research of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava) project no. SGS01/LF/2014-2015, by the Moravian-Silesian Region - grant no. MSK 02692/2014/RRC, by the Institutional Development Plan of University of Ostrava in 2015, financial resources are allocated by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. Supported by grant NT14575. Disclosures Hajek: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND: The European Commission has granted conditional approval to daratumumab (DARA) as monotherapy in adult patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and who have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. DARA was approved under an accelerated assessment based on single-arm phase 2 studies. Outcomes in these heavily pretreated pts in a real-world (RW) setting can provide evidence on the relative treatment efficacy of DARA versus physician's choice (PC). AIMS: To perform an adjusted comparison of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for DARA monotherapy versus PC, as observed in a RW historical cohort of heavily pretreated and highly refractory MM pts from the Czech Republic using pt-level data. METHODS: Using RW longitudinal pt chart data from the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) of the Czech Myeloma Group, pts with ≥2 prior lines of therapy previously exposed to both a PI and an IMiD were identified. Pt-level data from the RMG were pooled from pivotal DARA monotherapy studies (pts treated with DARA 16 mg/kg). Pts in the RMG could contribute information to the analysis for multiple lines of therapy, with baseline defined as the date of initiation of the actual treatment line. For the definition of PFS, missing data for the date of disease progression for pts in the RMG who initiated subsequent therapy were replaced by the conservative proxy of the date of initiation of the next treatment. OS and PFS were analysed using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. To adjust for confounding variables, a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was developed that included age, gender, beta-2 microglobulin levels (β2M : 5.5 g/L), albumin levels ( RESULTS: From the RMG database, we identified 971 treatment lines in 463 pts previously exposed to both a PI and an IMID (n=206 in third line, n=256 in fourth line, n=203 in fifth line, n=307 in ≥sixth line). The dates of treatment initiation for the RMG pts ranged from March 2006 to March 2015. The most frequent treatment regimens were lenalidomide (33.4%), chemotherapy (18.1%), bortezomib (13.6%), thalidomide (8.0%), and bortezomib+thalidomide (5.3%). The number of pts treated with carfilzomib (2.5%) and pomalidomide (2.4%) was limited. DARA-treated pts (N=148) differed from the RMG cohort in median age (64 vs 62 years), median prior lines of therapy (5 vs 4), prior exposure to carfilzomib (41.2% vs 0.3%) and pomalidomide (55.4% vs 0.6%), thrombocytopenia incidence (46.9% vs 18.0%), and ≥triple refractory status (64.2% vs 5.3%). Median observed PFS and OS for DARA versus PC were 4.0 and 5.6 months, respectively, for PFS and 20.1 and 11.9 months, respectively, for OS. Older age, male sex, low albumin levels, high β2M levels, thrombocytopenia incidence, and double/triple/quadruple refractory status were all independent, statistically significant risk factors for mortality. Albumin levels, β2M levels, thrombocytopenia incidence, and refractory status were also predictive of PFS. The adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for OS and PFS for DARA versus PC was 0.35 (0.22-0.56) and 0.79 (0.56-1.12), respectively. Figure 1 represents the predicted survival curves for the RMG cohort that were derived from the multivariate model, comparing observed PFS/OS versus predicted with DARA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This adjusted treatment comparison suggests a significant improvement in OS and a numerical improvement in PFS for DARA compared to RW historical control data in heavily pretreated/highly refractory MM pts. The lower PFS benefit estimate for DARA compared to OS may be partly explained by limitations in the availability and comparability of data regarding progressive disease in the RMG cohort compared to clinical trial data. Adjusted comparisons between trial data and historical cohorts can provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement decision makers on relative treatment efficacies in the absence of head-to-head comparison studies for DARA monotherapy. Disclosures Hájek: Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Spicka:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gatopoulou:Janssen Health Economics & Market Access EMEA: Employment. Vesela:Janssen Cilag s.r.o., Czech Republic: Employment. Diels:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Besson:Janssen: Employment. Ito:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.