A Novel Approach to Risk Stratification in Multiple Myeloma Using ISS Stage and FISH

Background: A variety of risk factors have been described in multiple myeloma and current risk assessment incorporates ISS stage with specific FISH results and serum LDH (R-ISS). However, this model does not include all the current abnormalities described as prognostic for survival in multiple myeloma. Importantly, the impact of many of these high-risk abnormalities are not uniform. We examined if we can better integrate FISH results into a risk assessment tool to better predict the outcomes of newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: We studied a cohort of 1316 patients with FISH done within 6 months of diagnosis of MM, in whom results for commonly observed abnormalities were available. We specifically examined the individual impact of common translocations involving chromosome 14, MYC rearrangements, chromosome 1q gain (single or multiple duplication) and del13q/monosomy 13. A risk assessment system was developed, weighting each abnormality according to their Risk Ratio and integrating ISS stage and serum LDH into the final model construction. Overall survival was calculated from diagnosis, with those alive at last follow up being censored. Results: We first examined the impact of each of the above FISH abnormalities: 1) high risk translocations [t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14,20)], 2) trisomies, 3) t(11;14), 4) MYCrearrangements, 5) del13q/monosomy 13, and 6) 1q gain . Each of the abnormalities, except for t(11;14), was prognostic for survival (Table 1 with the risk ratios). For 1q gain, the median OS was NR, 105 mos and 79 mos respectively for no abnormality, duplication of 1 copy and duplication of multiple copies, (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, t(11;14) and trisomies were no longer prognostic for overall survival (Table 1). The cumulative impact of abnormalities demonstrated worsening survival in the presence of increasing numbers of abnormalities (Figure 1). Including ISS stage 3 and LDH > ULN as additional variables for prognostication indicated both were individually prognostic for OS. In a multivariate analysis, including these two and FISH abnormalities, 1q gain and LDH were not independently prognostic. The final model consisted of HR translocations, MYCrearrangements, del17p/monosomy 17, del13q/monosomy 13, and ISS stage 3. Each of these variables was weighted using their risk ratio and a composite score was developed using 998 patients for whom all variables were available (range: 0-7.9; median 1.8). Three patient groups were characterized: group 1 (0; 32%), group 2 (1-4; 58%) and group 3 (>4; 10%) with a median OS of 53 mos, 106 mos, and NR, respectively, p <0.001 (Figure 2). Conclusion: Using the most relevant FISH and laboratory factors, in a large cohort of patients, we refined the current system to develop a risk stratification system that predicts survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with contemporary treatment regimens. This needs validation in future studies. Disclosures Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appellis: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Leung:Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bergsagel:Celgene: Consultancy; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Treatment patterns in patients with multiple myeloma (MM): A retrospective study using Medicare data.

e19506 Background: MM is characterized by repeated relapses and refractoriness and is managed by successive lines of therapies (LT) each typically resulting in shorter response duration over prior LT. This study describes current MM treatment (tx) landscape in US clinical practice. Methods: Adult MM patients (pts) with continuous Medicare Part A, B, and D coverage initiated on 1st LT (1L), without stem cell transplant, were identified in the Medicare Research Identifiable Files (2012-2016). Claims for any MM tx within 60 days of the 1st tx constituted the tx regimen of an LT. End of LT was defined as a claim for a new MM tx > 60 days post LT initiation (tx augmentation or switch), discontinuation of all tx in a regimen for > 90 consecutive days, end of Medicare coverage/data or death. From 1L to 3L, overall survival (OS), LT duration (DoT), tx regimens and sequences were assessed. Results: 8374 MM pts with 1L (median [med] age = 76 years at 1L; 55% female) were analyzed. Over a med follow-up of 20 months (mos) from 1L (med 1L DoT = 5.6 mos), 2849 pts received a 2L (med 2L DoT = 5.6 mos) and 978 received a 3L (med 3L DoT = 4.7 mos). The most prominent tx regimens were bortezomib/corticosteroids (CS; VD) in 1L, and lenalidomide/CS (RD) in 2L and 3L. The most prevalent tx sequence was 1L VD, 2L RD and 3L VD. The 1- and 2-year OS rates were 81% [95% confidence interval: 81-82] and 68% [67-69] from 1L initiation, 80% [78-82] and 64% [61-66] from 2L, and 73% [69-76] and 55% [51-60] from 3L initiation, respectively. Conclusions: MM Medicare pts mainly cycle through bortezomib- or lenalidomide-based regimens in front LT; newer agents gain more usage in later LT. A better understanding of tx options and sequencing is warranted to prolong survival. [Table: see text]

Presence of bone metastases(BM) at diagnosis is associated with poor prognosis and coagulation disorders (CD) in patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

e15538 Background: The presence of BM in AGC is a relatively uncommon finding and has a poor prognosis [Leporini C. 2015]. At diagnosis the presence of BM occurs in approximately 10-15% of pts with AGC.[Park 2011; Silvestris 2013]. Aim of this study is to describe the main features of pts with AGC and BM at diagnosis and the prognostic implications. Methods: A consecutive series of AGC followed at Cremona Oncology Division from November 2004 to Dicember 2016 and included in three consecutive prospective trials [Dalla Chiesa M. 2011; Tomasello G. 2013], were analyzed. All pts were treated with a modified DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin, fluorouracil) given as a dose-dense regimen, every 14 days. We analyzed pts with BM at diagnosis (BMaD) and pts without BMaD. We evaluated baseline clinical and pathological parameters, the presence of coagulation disorders (CD) together with efficacy measures in the two groups. Results:218 pts with AGC were identified (38 with BMaD and 180 without BMaD).Main pts characteristics and results are reported in the Table below. Conclusions: The presence of BM at diagnosis in pts with AGC is not a rare event (21%) and identifies a population with a significantly poorer outcome and a higher incidence of CD, that need a clinical monitoring of coagulation parameters. More efforts are required to understand the reasons of the different prognosis and to find specific treatments to improve the survival. [Table: see text]