PS-238 (d) Daratumumab, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (DVd) vs Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in RRMM Based on Prior Lines and Treatment Exposure: CASTOR Suzanne Lentzsch, 1 Ajay Nooka, 2 Hang Quach, 3 Cindy Lee, 3 Wolney Barreto, 3 Paolo Corradini, 4 Chang Ki Min, 5 Emma Scott, 3 Asher Chanan-Khan, 6 Noemi Horvath, 3 Marcelo Capra, 3 Meral Beksac, 3 Roberto Ovilla, 3 Jae-Cheol Jo, 7 Ho-Jin Shin, 8 David Soong, 3 Tineke Casneuf, 3 Christopher Chiu, 9 Xiang Qin, 3 Himal Amin, 3 Pieter Sonneveld, 10 Jordan Schecter, 11 Kate Sasser, 9 Ming Qi, 3 Maria-Victoria Mateos 12 1 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia University, New York, NY; 2 Emory University, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA; 3 Department of Haematology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; 4 Italian Multiple Myeloma Network, GIMEMA, Italy; 5 Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 6 Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; 7 Ulsan University Hospital; 8 Pusan National University Hospital; 9 Janssen Research & Develop- ment LLC, PA; 10 Department of Hematology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 11 Janssen Pharmaceutical Research & Development; 12 Hospital Universitario Salamanca Introduction: To determine whether DVd provides superior treatment benefit vs Vd in patients who have relapsed or become refractory to established standard of care regimens, subgroup ana- lyses were performed based on an updated analysis of CASTOR. Methods: All patients received 1 prior line of therapy (LOT) and were administered 8 cycles (Q3W) of Vd (Days 1, 4, 8, 11 for bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 SC; Days 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 for dexamethasone 20 mg PO) daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV once weekly in Cycles 1-3, every three weeks for Cycles 4-8, then every 4 weeks until progression). Bortezomib-refractory patients were inel- igible. High cytogenetic risk (determined using next generation sequencing) was defined as having any of t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Results: Patients received a median (range) of 2 (1-10) prior LOT. 66% were bortezomib-pretreated and 21% were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior LOT. With median follow-up of 13.0 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with DVd vs Vd (median not reached [NR] vs 7.1 mo; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P<0.0001). PFS benefit was observed for DVd in patients with 1 prior LOT (median NR vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; P<0.0001) and 2 to 3 prior LOT (median 9.8 vs 6.3 mo; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.73; P¼0.0002). DVd was associated with superior PFS for all patients who received study treatment regardless of time since last LOT: median PFS was NR vs 9.4 mo (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.43; P<0.0001) if treated >12 months after last prior treat- ment; for those treated 12 months after last prior treatment, median PFS was 10.3 mo for DVd vs 5.2 mo for Vd (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24-0.48; P<0.0001). ORR was numerically higher for DVd vs Vd in the >12 month subgroup (91% vs 83%; P¼0.0632) and signif- icantly higher for DVd vs Vd in the 12 month subgroup (77% vs 49%; P<0.0001). Among bortezomib-pretreated patients, PFS was significantly prolonged with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.4 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.50; P<0.0001). In patients who received 1 prior LOT which included bortezomib, median PFS was NR in DVd and 8.0 months in Vd (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.41; P<0.0001). ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd in bor- tezomib-pretreated patients (81% vs 60%; P<0.0001), with deeper responses with higher minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative rates (6% vs 1% at 10e5 sensitivity; P¼0.0056). In patients refractory to lenalidomide at last prior LOT, PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 9.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58; P<0.0001). Higher ORR (81% vs 50%; P¼0.0021) and MRD- negative rates (9% vs 0% at 10e5 sensitivity; P¼0.0082) was observed with DVd vs Vd. Additional efficacy data, including ana- lyses by cytogenetic risk and MRD status, will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: DVd is superior to Vd regardless of prior LOT, time since last therapy, prior exposure to bortezomib, or refractoriness to lenalidomide. PS-239 Real-World Treatment Patterns in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Evidence from a Medical Chart Review in the United Kingdom Huamao Mark Lin, 1 Keith Davis, 2 James Kaye, 3 Katarina Luptakova, 1 Gao Lu, 4 Saurabh Nagar, 5 Brian Seal 1 1 Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Cambridge, MA; 2 RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC; 3 RTI Health Solutions, Wal- tham, MA; 4 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned sub- sidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA; 5 RTI Health, Research Triangle Park, NC Introduction: Improvement in outcomes in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains an area of unmet need, yet there is a shortage of data describing typical management of these patients in real-world settings. Such data may inform health tech- nology assessments and other regulatory evaluations of RRMM therapies. To help address this information gap, we analyzed data from an RRMM cohort in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: A retrospective medical record review was conducted in 216 patients with RRMM in the UK. All patients were 18 years of age at initial MM diagnosis and first diagnosed with RRMM (during or following first-line induction therapy) between 01-Jan-2009 and 31-Dec-2011. Patients were retrospectively assessed on second- and third-line treatment regimens received, treatment duration, and reasons for treatment discontinuation from date of first relapse/ progression (i.e., RRMM diagnosis). Results: Mean (SD) age at first relapse was 65.6 (8.7) years, with approximately half (53%) having advanced age (65 years). The sample was 63% male and 69% were still alive at the time of medical record review. Among all patients, 208 (97%) received 1 line of chemotherapy after first relapse; 94 (43%) received 2 lines after first relapse. The most Abstracts 16th International Myeloma Workshop March 1-4, 2017 - e133