Search

Background: CTCs may be responsible for MM spreading and accordingly, their numbers in peripheral blood (PB) could be a potential surrogate marker for the rate of dissemination and overall tumor burden in bone marrow (BM). In such case, CTCs may be a powerful biomarker of malignant transformation and disease aggressiveness. Aim: To investigate the clinical significance of CTCs in patients with smoldering (SMM), newly diagnosed (NDMM) and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), and to compare the transcriptional profile of CTCs across the disease spectrum. Methods: Next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry was used to assess the percentage of CTCs in PB of 1,157 patients: 316 with SMM, 650 with NDMM and 191 with RRMM. In each disease setting, patients were sub-classified into three groups with undetectable, low and high percentage of CTCs. Cutoffs were defined using maximally selected rank statistics adjusted for time to progression (TTP) in SMM and progression free survival (PFS) in NDMM/RRMM. A subset of SMM patients (n=86) was enrolled in GEM-CESAR. Transplant eligible (n=374) and ineligible (n=276) NDMM, as well as RRMM patients, were homogenously treated according to the GEM2012MENOS65, GEM-CLARIDEX and GEM-KYCYDEX clinical trials, respectively. In 40 patients (2 SMM, 33 NDMM and 5 RRMM) paired CTCs and BM tumor cells were FACSorted and their transcriptional profile was analyzed using RNAseq. Differentially expressed genes were investigated using DESeq2. Results: CTCs were detected in 248/316 (78%), 597/650 (92%) and 170/192 (89%) of SMM, NDMM and RRMM patients. Median CTC frequencies were: 0.001% (0.05 CTCs/µL), 0.01% (0.64 CTCs/µL) and 0.005% (0.22 CTCs/µL), respectively. There were 79 genes differentially expressed between patient-matched CTCs and BM tumor cells (e.g., FLNA, EMP3, LGALS9, MUC1). These were functionally related with TNFα signaling and inflammatory response (enriched in CTCs), as well as to cell cycle and MYC targets (enriched in BM tumor cells). Interestingly, the enrichment of these signatures in CTCs and BM tumor cells was progressively more pronounced from SMM to NDMM and RRMM. Altogether, these data suggest that the CTC-based dissemination potential peaks at the stage of NDMM, which could be related to greater inflammation in BM and cell cycle arrest driving tumor cell egression into PB. There were significant associations between the percentage of CTCs and the 2/20/20 IMWG risk model in SMM, the ISS in NDMM, and high-risk cytogenetics in all three-disease settings. Untreated SMM patients (n=230) with high CTC levels (≥0.02%) showed ultra-high risk of transformation vs those with low and undetectable CTCs (median TTP of 11 months vs not reached [NR] in both; P < .0001). Notably, SMM patients with ≥0.02% CTCs enrolled in GEM-CESAR have not reached a median TTP; thus, early intervention abrogated the poor prognosis of high CTC levels. Transplant-eligible NDMM patients stratified by undetectable, low and high (≥0.2%) CTC levels showed median PFS of NR, 78 and 47 months, respectively (P < .0001). Significant risk stratification was further observed in transplant ineligible NDMM (median PFS: NR, 31 and 14 months, respectively, P = .002) and RRMM (median PFS: NR, 24 and 7 months, respectively, P = .004). In untreated SMM, multivariate analysis of TTP including CTCs, serum M-component (>2 g/dL), sFLC ratio (>20) and BM plasma cells (>20%) selected CTCs as an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61, P = .015) together with the M-component and sFLC ratio. In NDMM, multivariate analysis of PFS including CTCs, BM plasma cells counts by morphology and flow cytometry, ISS, LDH, cytogenetics and transplant eligibility showed that high CTC levels had independent prognostic value (HR: 1.43, P = .003). Only the achievement of undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) abrogated the poor prognosis of high CTC levels. Conclusions: This is the largest study investigating the role of CTCs in smoldering and active MM. Our results show that tumor cells are continuously trafficking in PB, possibly through a dynamic mechanism of egression that peaks in NDMM. Evaluation of CTCs in PB outperformed quantification of BM tumor burden in SMM and NDMM, and showed prognostic value in all three-disease stages. Thus, CTC assessment should be part of the diagnostic workup of MM. Early intervention in high risk SMM and undetectable MRD in NDMM may abrogate dismal outcomes associated with high CTC levels. Disclosures Puig: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and The Binding Site: Honoraria. Cedena: Janssen, Celgene and Abbvie: Honoraria. Oriol: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, 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; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Sureda: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel; Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. De Arriba: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Moraleda: Pfizer: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; MSD: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; ROCHE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Educational Grants, Research Funding. Terpos: GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. Avet-Loiseau: Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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: 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. Roccaro: AstraZeneca,: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC): Research Funding; European Hematology Association: Research Funding; Fondazione Regionale per la Ricerca Biomedica (FRRB), Transcan-2 ERA-NET: Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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. Lahuerta: Celgene: Other: Travel accomodations and expenses; Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Sanofi: Consultancy. Ocio: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MSD: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Secura-Bio: Consultancy. Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen and Takeda: Honoraria. Bladé Creixenti: Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen and Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Mateos: AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. 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. Paiva: Adaptive, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Sanofi and Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene, EngMab, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Research Funding.

Introduction: Carfilzomib dosed at 56 mg/m2 twice a week in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) is a standard of care for RRMM after 1-3 prior lines (PL) based on the ENDEAVOR study. Later, the ARROW study showed Kd dosed at 70 mg/m2 weekly to be superior to Kd dosed at 27 mg/m2 twice a week on RRMM patients (pts) after 2-3 PL. On the other side, Cyclophosphamide is an alkylating agent that has been widely combined with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs in MM, improving their efficacy with a good safety profile. In this phase 2 randomized study, we have compared Kd plus cyclophosphamide (KCyd) with Kd in RRMM after 1-3PL, both with K dosed weekly at 70 mg/m2. Patients and methods: RRMM after 1-3 PL of therapy were included in the trial. Consistently with the ENDEAVOR population, previous therapy with proteasome inhibitors was allowed but refractory patients were excluded. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive K at a dose of 70 mg/m2 iv on days 1, 8 and 15 plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg PO the day on and the day after K plus/minus KCyd at a dose of 300 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28 days-cycle, as continuous treatment until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS and key secondary endpoints included response rates, safety profile, and OS. Results: Between January 2018 and February 2020, 198 RRMM pts were included. 97 pts were randomized to KCyd and 101 to Kd. The baseline characteristics of the patients were well balanced between both groups. The median age was 70 years, and 70% and 28% of pts were older than 65 and 75. The median number of PL was one; 61% of pts had received 1 prior line. 94% and 92% of patients had been exposed to bortezomib in the KCyd and Kd and all of them were sensitive. 72% and 67% of patients had been exposed to IMiD's and 51% and 55% of them were IMiD's-refractory in the KCyd and Kd. Only 4 and 6 patients in KCyd and Kd, had received anti-CD38 antibodies being all refractory. After a median f/u of 15.6 months, median PFS was 20.7 m and 15.2 m in KCyd and Kd (p=0.2). In pts after 1PL, median PFS has not been reached in any arm (p=0.4) and in patients after 2-3PL, KCyd resulted in a median PFS of 20.7 vs 11m for Kd (p=0.4). Of note, in the IMiD-refractory population, the addition of Cy to Kd resulted in a significant benefit in terms of PFS: 26.2 months vs 7.7 months in the Kd arm (p=0.01). OS is immature with 23 and 25 events so far in KCyd and Kd, respectively. The ORR was 78% for KCyd and 73% for Kd: 20% of patients in both arms achieved at least complete response, 33% and 28% very good partial response, respectively, and 25% partial response in both arms. The MRD-ve rate was 4% and 5%. As far as toxicity is concerned, neutropenia was the only hematological adverse event more frequently reported in KCyd compared with Kd, of any grade (24% vs 11%) and grade 3-4 (13% vs 7%). This did not translate into more infections and the rate was comparable in both arms (5% G3-4 in both arms). Thrombocytopenia of any grade and grade 3-4 occurred in 14%/1% and 18%/10% in KCyd/Kd. Cardiovascular events of any grade occurred in 22% and 30% of patients in KCyd and Kd. Nine pts in KCyd developed G3-4 cardiovascular events, these included atrial fibrillation (1pt), cardiac failure (2 pts), myocardial infarct (2 pts), and hypertension (4 pts). In the Kd arm, 11 patients developed G3-4 cardiovascular events and consisted of hypertension in most of them (9 pts). Conclusion: Cyclophosphamide added to Kd 70 mg/m2 weekly in RRMM pts after 1-3 PL prolonged the PFS as compared to Kd particularly in the lenalidomide-refractory population. The administration of K at a dose of 70 mg/m2 weekly was safe and more convenient and overall, the toxicity profile was manageable in both arms. Disclosures Mateos: Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar-Zeltia: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Janssen: 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; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ocio:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Asofarma: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; MDS: Honoraria; Secura-Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Sureda Balari:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosinol Dachs:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Blade Creixenti:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: 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; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Standard first line treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in fit patients is induction with cytarabine containing chemo-immunotherapy and a consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Responses are excellent but there is a continuous pattern of relapse. Progression within 24 months (POD24) of standard first line therapy including ASCT has been shown to predict poorer outcomes, which may be ameliorated by alloSCT. Ibrutinib, a Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor, is an effective therapy for relapsed MCL. However, there is a paucity of published data of ibrutinib's efficacy in patients treated at relapse after standard first line treatment with ASCT and very little regarding the impact of POD24 on outcomes after ibrutinib and outcomes of subsequent alloSCT. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of the EBMT registry. The inclusion criteria were: patients with MCL ≥18 years old, 1st line therapy containing cytarabine and rituximab, ASCT in first CR/PR between 2009 and 2016 and received ibrutinib for 1st relapse after ASCT. POD24 was defined as progressive disease in less than 24 months after ASCT. Results 66 patients met the inclusion criteria (Table 1) relapsing at a median of 25 months (range 15-33) post ASCT. Thirty-two patients progressed in less than 24 months after ASCT. Ibrutinib was started at a median of 30 days after relapse (range 10-54). Overall response rate (ORR) was 74% [32 (48%) achieving CR and 18 (27%) PR]. The median duration of response was 10.1 months (available for 28 patients). There were no significant differences in the duration of response to ibrutinib for patients with POD24 (median: 10.4 months, IQR 4.0-15.4) compared to POD after 24 months or more (POD≥24) [(median 9.8 months, IQR 6.5-20.7) p=0.9]. Relapse after/during ibrutinib occurred in 21 patients (33%) at a median of 12 months (range 1-34). 13 of those patients were on ibrutinib at the time of relapse and the remaining 8 after ibrutinib had been stopped for a SCT or because of toxicity. Ibrutinib therapy continues at last follow-up in 23 (35%) patients. Ibrutinib was stopped for the following reasons: 16 patients subsequent SCT, 13 relapse, 5 toxicity (cytopenia, infection, tachycardia, hepatitis and poor tolerance, 1 case each), 9 other/unknown reasons. Second SCT was undertaken in 23 patients (22 alloSCT, 1 ASCT), 16 of whom were in CR/PR after only ibrutinib at the time of relapse. For alloSCT recipients, the donor was MUD in 11, MSD in 5 and mismatch related in 6. The majority (n=19) had reduced intensity conditioning. 50% of the patients developed acute GvHD and 50% chronic GvHD (3 extensive). With a median follow up of 17 months post alloSCT, 18 (63%) are in remission. There were no significant differences in PFS (p=0.173) or OS (p=0.336) post alloSCT for patients with POD24 and POD≥24. At last follow up (median follow-up of 22 months after starting ibrutinib), 35 (71%) patients were in CR and 4 (8%) in PR. 17 patients have died; the most common reason was MCL (14 patients), 2 deaths were secondary to alloSCT toxicity and in 1 case the cause of death was unknown. 2-year OS after starting ibrutinib was 72% (69% for alloSCT patients) and 2-year PFS 62%. PFS after starting ibrutinib was significantly better for patients with POD≥24 compared to those with POD24 (72% vs. 53% at 2 years post ASCT, p=0.017) and this translated to an OS benefit (80% vs. 68% at 2 years post ASCT, p=0.019) (figures 1 and 2). Conclusion Ibrutinib therapy did not overcome the poor outcome for patients with POD24 after first line therapy and although there was a high ORR to ibrutinib the median duration of response is only 10.1 months. AlloSCT should therefore be undertaken if possible, in our retrospective cohort of patients it appeared to overcome the poor prognosis of POD24 patients. Disclosures Hunter: Jazz pharamceuticals: Honoraria, Other: speaker fees, Meeting attendance support; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: speaker fees; celegene: Other: Meeting attendance support. Peggs:Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Foà:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pillai:Celgene: Honoraria. Mufti:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background: Novel insights into the biology of myeloma cells have led to the identification of relevant prognosis factors. CA has become one of the most important prognostic factors, and the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p) are associated with poor prognosis. Although there are some reports indicating that 1q gains may be considered as a poor-risk feature, the information is not uniform. Furthermore, there are important controversies about whether or not novel agents-based combinations are able to overcome the poor prognosis of CA. Bortezomib-based combinations have shown to improve the outcome of patients with high-risk CA but they do not completely overcome their adverse prognosis. Here we report a preplanned analysis, in a series of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the Spanish GEM2010 trial and receiving VMP and Rd, in a sequential or alternating approach, in order to evaluate the influence of CA by FISH on the response rate and outcome. Patients and methods: 242 pts were randomized to receive a sequential scheme consisting on 9 cycles of VMP followed by 9 cycles of Rd or the same regimens in an alternating approach (one cycle of VMP alternating with one Rd, up to 18 cycles. VMP included the iv administration of weekly bortezomib (except in the first cycle that was given twice weekly) at 1.3 mg/m2 in combination with oral melphalan 9 mg/m2 and prednisone 60 mg/m2 once daily on days 1-4. Rd treatment consisted on lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. FISH analysis for t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p) and 1q gains was performed at diagnosis according to standard procedures using purified plasma cells. Results: In 174 out of the 233 patients evaluable for efficacy and safety, FISH analysis at diagnosis were available and two groups were identified: high-risk group (n= 32 patients with t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) and/or del(17p)) and standard-risk group (n=142 patients without high-risk CA). There weren't differences in the rates of CA according to the treatment arm. Response Rates (RR) were no different in the high-risk vs standard-risk groups, both in the sequential (74% vs 79% RR and 42% vs 39% CR) and alternating arms (69% vs 86% RR and 39% vs 38% CR). After a median follow-up of 37 months, high-risk patients showed shorter PFS as compared to standard risk in the alternating arm (24 versus 36 months, p=0.01, HR 2.2, 95% IC 1.1-4.2) and this also translated into a significantly shorter 4-years OS (27% vs 72%, p=0.006, HR 3.3, 95% IC 1.4-7.7). However, in the sequential arm, high-risk and standard-risk patients showed similar PFS (32 months vs 30 months) and 4-years OS (64% vs 60%). This effect was observed only in the sequential arm applied to either t(4;14) or del(17p). As far as 1q gains is concerned, 151 patients had 1q information and 76 of them had 1q gains (50.3%), defined as the presence of more than 3 copies in at least 10% of plasma cells. The rate of 1q gains was well balanced in both sequential and alternating arms. The ORR was similar in patients with or without 1q gains (83% vs 80%) as well as the CR rate (45% vs 31%), and no differences were observed between sequential and alternating arms. Patients with or without 1q gains had a similar PFS (33 months vs 30 months) and 4-years OS (58% vs 65%) in the whole series and no differences were observed in the sequential and alternating arms. This effect has been observed in patients with 1q gains as isolated CA and the outcome was slightly but not significantly worse when 1q gains were present plus either t(4;14) and/or del17p. Conclusions: The total therapy approach including VMP and Rd administered in a sequential approach is able to overcome the poor prognosis of the presence of high-risk CA in elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM. The presence of 1q gains has no impact in the PFS and OS of elderly patients treated with VMP and Rd. Disclosures Mateos: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Gironella:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Paiva:BD Bioscience: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; EngMab AG: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Puig:Janssen: Consultancy; The Binding Site: Consultancy. San Miguel:Millennium: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria.

Complications during induction chemotherapy (CT) for AML cause mortality in 5–20% of cases. It is relevant to define the risk of early death in this setting. In patients with a high probability of dying due to toxicity, the intensification of the supportive measures and/or alternative antineoplastic approaches could be appropriate. The aim of this study was to detect the features associated with lethal complications during induction CT for AML. We defined early deaths (ED) as those occurring before 42 days after the start of induction in the absence of evident leukemia. We analyzed all consecutive patients diagnosed with AML between June 1998 and February 2006 in 20 Spanish hospitals. These cases were treated according two multicenter trials CETLAM 99 (n=326) and CETLAM 2003 (n=248). Both schemes included idarubicin 12 mg/m2 days 1,3 and 5, etoposide 100 mg/m2 days 1–3 and cytarabine 500 mg/m2/12 hours days 1, 3, 5 and 7 as front-line treatment. In the CETLAM 2003, G-CSF (150 mg/m2 days 0–7) was added as priming therapy. The series included 574 patients, 248 (43%) female, with a median age of 48 years. Creatinine level was elevated (> 1,2 mg/dL) in 11% of patients. The overall mortality rate during induction (ED) was 12% (n=69). 335 (58%) patients achieved a complete remission with a single course of CT, 108 (19%) a partial remission and 62 (11%) were refractory. The most common causes of death were infection (n= 28, 46%), bleeding (n=7, 11%), pulmonary failure not due to infection (n=6, 10%), and multiorgan failure (n=4, 7%). Univariate analysis showed that age older than 50 years old, male gender, M4 or M5 FAB subtype, leukocyte count higher than 100x109/L, blasts in the marrow >70% and creatinine level above 1,2 mg/dL were associated with more frequent ED. In multivariate analysis, elevated creatinine level [hazard ratio (HR) 2.6 (1.3–5.2); P=0.009], leukocytosis >100x109/L [HR 2.3 (1.1–4.6) P=0.021] and age > 50 years old [HR 2.1 (1.4–3.9) P=0.018] were independent risk factors. The remaining parameters, including among others the use of G-CSF, gender, blasts in the marrow, treatment protocol, cytogenetics at diagnosis and FLT-3 mutational status were not associated with higher incidence of ED. Taking into account the three significant variables identified as risk factors, we developed a scoring system to predict the probability of ED during induction. The probability of ED in the low risk (none risk factor, n=212), intermediate risk (1 risk factor, n=239) and high risk (2 or 3 risk factors, n=57) categories were 3%, 11% and 28% respectively (P

Introduction: Justification and Objectives There are little epidemiologic data about Myeloma Multiple in Spain. The heterogeneity and complexity of this pathology, and the several sociodemographic factors, justify the interest of this type of studies. On the other hand, this disease needs a high assignement of welfare and therapeutic resources, and besides new strategies have arisen for its treatment. The Spanish Leukaemia and Lymphoma Foundation (FLL)has analyzed the actual situation of Myeloma Multiple in Spain, compiling several epidemiologic and welfare parameters about the disease in a Multiple Myeloma “White Book” for Spain. Patients and Methods The period of analysis was 10 years, from 1.991 to 2.001. The information was compiled from a Hospital Based Survey about MM and the following official sources: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): “Cancer incidence in Five continents” and “Incidence and Mortaliity for Cancer In Spain, Patterns and Tendences” Data Base of EUCAN and GLOBOCAN (Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide) EUROCARE III study, (IARC Cancer Base Number 5, Lyon, IARCPress). “Natural Changes of Population and Demography. Spanish National Statistic Institute (INE) and National Spanish Center for Epidemiology (CNE.) Official Records for Mortality Rates by MM in Spain in Spanish Regions (CCAA) (death records Demograhy Records of INE). INE Hospital Case Rate Inquest. CMBD Data Base of Department of Health (Inmunoproliferative Neoplasm and Multiple Myeloma, CIE-9 Diagnosis Code: 203.0)The indicators used were: Deaths number, median of age, proportional mortality, mortality rates, mortality rates adjusted by age, gender and potential years of life lost due to multiple myeloma, (item 203 of ICD-10, OMS) during the last ten years in Spain. Results The incidence rates of MM, adjusted to the European population were: 3,54 cases by 100.000/year for men and 2,54 cases by 100.000/year for women. The global incidence rate were 4,44 cases by 100.000/year for men and 4,22 cases by 100.000/year for women. These rates were similar in all geographic regions. Performed predictions show a prevalence increase during the following five years, which means more than 2.400 cases in men and more than 2.100 in women MM cases per year. Regarding mortality, rates, myeloma is a very slightly frequent cause of death: 3.23 cases by 100.000/years of men and 2.3 cases of women. A whole an increase of mortality of 45.2 per cent was observed for the period of time between 1992 and 2001. Comments and Conclusions The MM incidence and mortality rates in Spain for this period were lower than expected in comparison with other European epidemiology studies. Nevertheless we observed that the MM mortality and prevalence rates present a continuous and uniform increment in the last years. Part of these increases can be due to the incorporation of new technologies, more sensitive for diagnosis, and to the increase of aging of the population. Furthermore certain occupational and chemical exposures and other environmental changes could explain these trends.

For more than 25 years, melphalan and prednisone has remained as the gold standard treatment for elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Bortezomib has shown significant activity with manageable toxicity in refractory/relapse MM patients. Moreover, in vitro synergy has been reported when bortezomib is combined with cytotoxic agents such as melphalan. Aim: To define the appropriate dose of bortezomib in combination with MP and to analyse the efficacy of V-MP in untreated MM patients ≥ 65 years old. Methods: This is a dose escalation study with two sequential dose levels (Ph 1) and expansion of the cohort at the MTD by 60 patients to further refine estimates of efficacy (Ph 2). In the first cohort, bortezomib (1mg/m2) was administered as a iv bolus to 6 consecutive patients on days 1,4,8,11,22,25,29 and 32 followed by a 10 day rest period in combination with oral melphalan, 9 mg/m2, and prednisone, 60mg/m2, once daily on days 1 to 4. In the 2nd cohort, bortezomib was administered at 1.3mg/m2. MTD was defined as that dose level below which 2/6 patients had a DLT. Patients: 12 patients have been enrolled to date - 6 in cohort 1 and 6 in cohort 2. Results: Toxicity has been manageable. The first cohort at 1 mg/m2 has completed at least two 6-week treatment cycles. There was no DLT in the first cycle. The 2nd cohort has enrolled 6-patients at a dose of 1.3 mg/m2 but none has completed the first cycle yet. In the first cohort, there was one patient with grade 3 neutropenia (ANC = 0,668) observed at Cycle 1 Day 25. During the second cycle, there were no patients with grade 4 therapy-related toxicity and only one grade 3 adverse event (neutropenia) was observed. The most common grade1 or 2 toxicities were nausea, vomiting, rash, constipation, diarrhea, fever, herpes zoster infection, anorexia, neutropenia, anemia and thrombocytopenia. Ocular neuropathic pain (grade 2) developed de novo in 1 patient during the first cycle; one dose of bortezomib was held and the adverse event resolved with analgesic treatment in 4 days. Treatment was continued at a dose of 0,5 mg/m2 at D11 and D22. After this date, bortezomib at 1.0 mg/m2 was restarted. The second cohort is in the first 6-week cycle at present, so observations are limited. One serious adverse event (pulmonary embolism and probably septic shock with death) was observed in this cohort in a patient at day +11. He had normal WBC. Two grade 3 adverse events (leucopenia and neutropenia) were observed in one patient. Other grade 1 or 2 toxicities are similar to those observed in the first cohort. Regarding response, after two cycles of treatment, in the first cohort, 3 out of the 6 patients have experienced >50% reduction in M-protein (two with > 75% reduction) and the others three have experienced either a minor response (1) or stable disease (2). In the second cohort, response data are not available at this time. Conclusion:The combination of V-MP is well tolerated at standard doses of MP with bortezomib 1 mg/m2 with no DLTs in 6-patients. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) is being explored in the second 6-patient cohort in order to define the MTD. So far, no patient has developed DLT. Rapid M-protein responses have been seen. Results will be updated and presented for the 2nd cohort.