Search

Introduction: The objective of this study was to understand the potential use of single agents and drug combinations in multiple myeloma (MM) across treatment lines in the years 2021 and 2023. Methods: The method used was Delphi Panel Method survey, administered to European Myeloma Network (EMN) Italy Working Group centres. Future treatments were identified assessing all available web-based information sources, including therapies (single drugs or combinations) with strong evidence of efficacy, likely to be on the Italian market in 2021 and 2023. Participants were asked to report on the likelihood of prescription for MM therapies, across treatment lines. Results: Across the 15 centres taking part in the survey, about 890 patients per year are forecasted to receive a new diagnosis of MM. In 2021, the Panel forecasted 66% of 1L-TE (transplant eligible) patients will be treated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and 32% of patients with daratumumab-bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (DVTd), with a substantial decrease of VTD (15%) and a marked increase of DVTd (81%) forecasted for 2023. The 2L and 3L R(lenalidomide)-based combination treatments are expected to drop and will likely be substituted by a steep increase in P(pomalidomide)-based regimes (from 7% to 23%). On the contrary, in 3L treatment, all combination therapies (with the exception of IsaPd – isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone) are expected to lose market share in favour of the most recent new therapies. Conclusions: Expert Panel agrees that many different new drugs and combinations will be used in MM, with different mechanisms of action, both at diagnosis and in subsequent phases of the disease, with a corresponding decline of the drugs currently used.

Background: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial, which compared bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) combination therapy with thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before and consolidation therapy after double autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, showed the superiority of the triplet regimen over the doublet in terms of increased complete response rate and improved progression-free survival. We report the results from the final analysis of the study. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18–65 years with previously untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher were enrolled at 73 centres in Italy. Patients were randomised (1:1) by a web-based system to receive three 21-day cycles of thalidomide (100 mg daily orally for the first 14 days and 200 mg daily thereafter) plus dexamethasone (total 320 mg per cycle; 40 mg on days 1–2, 4–5, 8–9, and 11–12 in the VTD regimen, and 40 mg on days 1–4 and 9–12 in the TD regimen), either alone (TD group) or with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; VTD group). After double autologous HSCT, patients received two 35-day cycles of either the VTD or TD regimen, according to random assignment, as consolidation therapy. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response and near complete response after induction (already reported). In this updated analysis we assessed long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (secondary endpoints of the study) with an extended 10-year median follow-up, and analysed the variables influencing survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01134484. Findings: Between May 10, 2006, and April 30, 2008, 480 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive VTD (241 patients) or TD (239 patients). Six patients withdrew consent before start of treatment. 236 (99 [42%] women) in the VTD group and 238 (102 [43%] women) in the TD group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The data cutoff date for this analysis was May 31, 2018. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124·1 months (IQR 117·2–131·7). The 10-year progression-free survival estimate for patients in the VTD group was 34% (95% CI 28–41) compared with 17% (13–23) for the TD group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·50–0·77]; p

Background The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation.Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (I S S), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m(2) administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HS CT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment.Findings Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60.3 months (IQR 52. 2-67. 6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56.7 months [95% CI 49.3-64.5] vs 41.9 months [37.5-46.9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 0.62-0.85; p=0.0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42.1 months (IQR 32.3-49.2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58.9 months [54.0-not estimable] vs 45.5 months [39.5-58.4]; HR 0.77, 0.63-0.95; p=0.014). The most common grade >= 3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]).Interpretation This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m(2) to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m(2) carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m(2) once-weekly or 36 mg/m(2) twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m(2) carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m(2) carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) represent a recently developed drug class that inhibit the ubiquitin-proteasome system, thus interfering with the intracellular machinery who has the duty of misfolded proteins disposal. Myeloma plasma cells are structurally aimed at the production of large quantities of immunoglobulins. This explains their vulnerability to any perturbation of intracellular protein homeostasis. Bortezomib is the first-in-class PI and nowadays, in combination with other compounds, is the cornerstone of multiple myeloma (MM) treatment in several settings. Bortezomib has several attractive features for its inclusion in the induction phase of therapy: high efficacy, rapid cytoreduction, absence of nephrotoxicity, fast reduction of plasmacytomas, and fast pain control. However, the safety profile of bortezomib is characterized by a not negligible peripheral neuropathy. Newer PIs, such as carfilzomib and ixazomib, have been developed and each offers specific advantages. Carfilzomib is extremely efficient in proteasome inhibition. This results in high efficacy but suffers from a significant cardiotoxicity. Ixazomib is the first oral PI with a proteasome inhibition profile similar to bortezomib, with lower neurotoxicity. PIs mechanism of action is complementary with other drug classes, and this explains the synergism between PIs and other drugs, in particular steroids and immunomodulators. PIs are frequently used in doublets and triplets. Also, they can be associated with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. This review summarizes the principal biological and clinical features of PIs in the MM treatment.

Background Combined therapy with carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone was evaluated in this multicenter phase 1/2 trial conducted within the European Myeloma Network (EMN09 trial). Methods Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included. The phase 1 portion of the study determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib with bendamustine set at 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. After 8 cycles, responding patients received maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone until progression. Results On the basis of the phase 1 results, the recommended phase 2 dose for carfilzomib was 27 mg/m2 twice weekly in weeks 1, 2, and 3. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved a partial response or better, and 32% reached a very good partial response or better. The clinical benefit rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months, and the median overall survival was 30.4 months. The reported grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (29%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). The main nonhematologic grade ≥3 AEs were pneumonia, thromboembolic events (10%), cardiac AEs (8%), and hypertension (2%). Conclusions In heavily pretreated patients who have relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, combined carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone is an effective treatment option administered in the outpatient setting. Infection prophylaxis and attention to patients with cardiovascular predisposition are required.

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

The treatment of transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients in Italy consists in an induction phase based on bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone (VTd), followed by a single or tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), followed by lenalidomide maintenance. This approach offers an overall response rate of 93% and a CR rate of 58% with acceptable toxicity. Lenalidomide maintenance adds a significant increase in disease control, with a progression free survival after ASCT of 53 months, and an overall survival of 86 months. Second primary malignancies represent the most concerning toxicity of lenalidomide maintenance with a 6.9% incidence. However, the benefit in terms of increased myeloma control largely outweigh this complication. The incorporation of daratumumab in this treatment schema will further improve these clinical results.

Extramedullary disease is relatively frequent in multiple myeloma, but our knowledge on the subject is limited and mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Little is known regarding the role of new drugs in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis of eight trials focused on the description of extramedullary disease characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. A total of 2,332 newly diagnosed myeloma patients have been included; 267 (11.4%) had extramedullary disease, defined as paraosseous in 243 (10.4%), extramedullary plasmocytoma in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 25.3 months and 25.2 in extramedullary disease and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease did not impact on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.15, P=0.06), while other known prognostic factors retained their significance. Patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs, mainly lenalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors had similar progression-free survival and progression-free survival-2 regardless of extramedullary disease presence. Median overall survival was 63.5 months and 79.9 months (P=0.01) in extramedullary and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively, and in multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.41, P

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens are well-established therapies in multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite their extensive use, head-to-head comparisons have never been performed. Therefore, we compared bortezomib and lenalidomide in fixed-duration therapies for relapsed MM. METHODS: In this open-label, phase III study, we randomized MM patients at first relapse to receive either 9 cycles of bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) or lenalidomide-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (RCD). The primary endpoint was the achievement of a very good partial response (VGPR) or better at six weeks after 9 treatment cycles. FINDINGS: From March 2011 to February 2015, 155 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint was met by 12 patients (15%) in the VCD arm and 14 patients (18%) in the RCD arm (p=0·70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16·3 (95% CI: 12·1-22·4) with VCD and 18·6 months (95% CI: 14·7-25.5) with RCD, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 75% (95% CI: 66%-86%) and 74% (95% CI: 64%-85%), respectively. By subgroup analysis, no differences in PFS were observed in bortezomib and lenalidomide- naive patients, nor in patients who received a bortezomib-based regimen in first line. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profiles of bortezomib and lenalidomide. INTERPRETATION: Bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments were equally effective in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS in MM patients at first relapse. Nevertheless, the two drugs have a different safety profile. Clinical Trial Number: This study is registered as EUDRACT 2010- 021557-40. Funding Statement: Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro - AIRC grant IG-10419; Associazione Italiana contro le Leucemie-Linfomi e Mieloma (AIL); Fondazione Adiuvare, Lugano. Declaration of Interests: VM has received honoraria and travel grants from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen. AC has not competing interests. MG has received honoraria and travel grants from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb. IA has not competing interests. SP has not competing interests. CCarniti SP has not competing interests. FP has received honoraria and travel grants from Janssen and Celgene. FG has not competing interests. RZ has not competing interests. SS has not competing interests. MM has not competing interests. AN has not competing interests. CCrippa has not competing interests. AMC has received honoraria and travel grants from Janssen and Celgene. LB has not competing interests. PC has honoraria from advisory board and speaking fees from Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Sanofi, Abbvie, Amgen, Gilead, and Klowa Kirin. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Ethics committees at each study site reviewed and approved the protocol.

We evaluated 71 patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). Forty-three patients (61%) received allo-HCT after the first line of therapy. Fifty-eight patients (82%) had chemosensitive disease at the time of allo-HCT. A HLA-matched related or unrelated donor was available for 68 patients (96%). Non-myeloablative or reduced-intensity conditioning regimen and peripheral blood hematopoietic cells as a graft source were used in most patients. The cumulative incidence of grade II–IV acute GVHD at day +100 and chronic GVHD at 5 years was 13% (95% CI 7–23%) and 35% (95% CI 24–46), respectively. Non-relapse mortality and relapse/progression incidence at 5 years were 12% (95% CI 5–23) and 65% (95% CI 49–76), respectively. With a median follow-up in survivors of 100 months (range 16–186), the 5-year PFS and OS were 39% (95% CI 27–52) and 60% (95% CI 55–77), respectively. On multivariate analysis: age >55 years was associated with both a reduced PFS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15–3.87) and OS (RR 5.53, 95% CI 2.22–13.76); chemorefractory disease at allo-HCT was associated with both reduced PFS (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.37–7.00) and OS (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.23–8.22). At relapse, 24 patients (56%) received bortezomib, 28 (65%) lenalidomide, 11 (26%) pomalidomide, 16 (37%) donor lymphocytes infusion as part of salvage therapy after allo-HCT relapse. Median PFS from time of salvage treatment was 7 months (range 0–113 months) for bortezomib-based therapy, 14 months (range 0–79 months) for lenalidomide and 10 months (range 1–28) for pomalidomide. Allo-HCT is a feasible and effective strategy in selected patients with MM and could be an effective platform for subsequent therapies.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

Background Several new drugs are approved for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but no validated biomarkers are available for the prediction of a clinical outcome. We aimed to establish whether pretreatment blood and bone marrow plasma concentrations of major cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) of patients from a phase 3 trial of a MM treatment could have a prognostic and predictive value in terms of response to therapy and progression-free and overall survival and whether these patients could be stratified for their prognosis. Methods Blood and bone marrow plasma levels of Ang-2, FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, PDGF-β, IL-8, TNF-α, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 were determined at diagnosis in MM patients enrolled in the GIMEMA MM0305 randomized controlled trial by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). These levels were correlated both reciprocally and with the type of therapy and patients’ characteristics and with a group of non-MM patients as controls. Results No significant differences were detected between the blood and bone marrow plasma levels of angiogenic cytokines. A cutoff for each CAF was established. The therapeutic response of patients with blood plasma levels of CAFs lower than the cutoff was better than the response of those with higher levels in terms of percentage of responding patients and quality of response. Conclusion FGF-2, HGF, VEGF, and PDGF-β plasma levels at diagnosis have predictive significance for response to treatment. The stratification of patients based on the levels of CAFs at diagnosis and their variations after therapy is useful to characterize different risk groups concerning outcome and response to therapy. Trial registration Clinical trial information can be found at the following link: NCT01063179 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13045-018-0691-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation, as well as continuous regimens for older, transplant ineligible patients, are emerging as an effective strategy to control the minimal residual disease that persists after response to initial treatments and is the main cause of relapse in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). However, though such approaches have consistently demonstrated in clinical trials to be able to delay disease recurrence, thus improving progression-free survival and, at least in some studies, overall survival, the use of these long term therapies (LTTs) in the daily clinical practice is not uniformly applied and some questions remains unanswered. This article aims to provide a synthetic discussion of the most consistent data on novel agent-based LTTs in newly diagnosed MM, to recognize the best candidate for these treatments and to describe a landscape of their possible future application.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) represents a treatment option for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. As shown in several studies, alloHCT is highly effective, but it is hampered by a high toxicity, mainly related to the graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a complex immunological reaction ascribable to the donor’s immune system. The morbidity and mortality associated with GVHD can weaken the benefits of this procedure. On the other side, the high therapeutic potential of alloHCT is also related to the donor’s immune system, through immunological activity known as the graft-versus-myeloma effect. Clinical research over the past two decades has sought to enhance the favorable part of this balance, along with the reduction in treatment-related toxicity. Frontline alloHCT showed promising results and a potential for a cure in the past. Currently, thanks to the improved results of first-line therapies and the availability of effective second- or third-line salvage therapies, alloHCT is reserved for selected high-risk patients and is considered a clinical option. For donor lymphocyte infusion, bortezomib or lenalidomide have been used as consolidation or maintenance therapies post-transplant—none has become standard of care. For those patients who relapse, the best treatment should be evaluated considering the patient’s clinical status and the previous lines of therapy. The use of newer drugs, such as monoclonal antibodies or other immunotherapies in the post-transplant setting, deserves further investigation. However, acceptable toxicity and a synergic effect with the newer immune system could be hopefully expected.

We report the long-term clinical outcomes of a retrospective multicenter study that enrolled 169 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in first relapse after failing autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). After HLA typing at relapse, 79 patients with a suitable donor, 72 (91%) of whom eventually underwent salvage allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT), were compared with 90 patients without a donor who were treated with multiple lines of salvage treatment with bortezomib and/or immunomodulatory agents. At a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 2-180 months) for all patients and 110 months (range, 38-180 months) for surviving patients, 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 18% in the donor group and 0% in the no-donor group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.495; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.770-3.517; P .0001). Seven-year overall survival (OS) was 31% in the donor group and 9% in the no-donor group (HR, 1.835; 95% CI, 1.306-2.577; P .0001). By multivariate analysis, chemosensitivity to salvage treatments and presence of a suitable donor were significantly associated with better PFS and OS. The long-term follow-up of this study confirms the significant PFS benefit and provides new evidence of an OS advantage for patients with MM who have a suitable donor and undergo allo-SCT. Allo-SCT should be considered as a treatment option in young relapsed patients with high-risk disease features after first-line treatment.

This multicentre, open-label phase 1/2 trial determined safety and efficacy of weekly carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (wKCyd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients aged ⩾65 years or transplant ineligible. Patients received wKCyd for up to nine 28-day cycles, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib until progression/intolerance. The phase 1 portion used a 3+3 dose-escalation scheme to determine the maximum tolerated dose of weekly carfilzomib: 12 patients received wKCyd with carfilzomib doses of 45, 56 and 70 mg/m

Allogeneic (allo) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) currently represents the only potentially curative therapy for patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). Up to 30% of patients in western countries do not have a matched donor. Haploidentical HCT (haplo-HCT) may be an option, but currently, there are little available data regarding this treatment. We analyzed survival outcomes of 30 heavily pretreated MM patients who received haplo-HCT with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide as graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Median neutrophil and platelet engraftments at day +30 were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66% to 95%) and 60% (95% CI, 40% to 75%), respectively. The cumulative incidences of relapse or progression of disease (PD) and nonrelapse mortality at 18 months were 42% (95% CI, 23% to 59%) and 10% (95% CI, 2% to 24%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD at day +100 was 29% (95% CI, 14% to 47%). The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 18 months was 7% (95% CI, 1% to 21%). With a median follow-up in survivors of 25 months (range, 15 to 73 months), the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 33% (95% CI, 17% to 50%) and 63% (95% CI, 44% to 78%), respectively. No differences were observed between peripheral blood and bone marrow graft in terms of engraftment, GVHD, or PD incidence. Chemorefractory disease at transplantation was associated with a lower/reduced 18-month PFS (9% versus 47%, P = .01) and OS (45% versus 74%, P = .03). This was explained by a higher PD incidence (55% versus 33%, P = .05). In this multicenter study, we report encouraging results with haplo-HCT for patients with heavily pretreated MM.

A subanalysis of the GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial was performed to characterize treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) in patients randomized to thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) or bortezomib-TD (VTD) before and after double autologous transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM). A total of 236 patients randomized to VTD and 238 to TD were stratified according to the emergence of grade ≥2 PN. Gene expression profiles (GEP) of CD138+ plasma cells were analyzed in 120 VTD-treated patients. The incidence of grade ≥2 PN was 35% in the VTD arm and 10% in the TD arm (P

Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) may favor autoimmune disease (AD) occurrence. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate AD occurrence among IMiD-treated patients with myeloma. Patients were grouped into three classes depending on the type of IMiD engaged. The first group included patients treated with thalidomide (Thal) (n = 474), the second group with lenalidomide (Len) (n = 140) and patients in the third group were first treated with Thal followed by Len (Thal-Len) (n = 94). Absolute risk of AD was 0.4% for patients treated with Thal, 4.3% for Len and 1.1% for Thal-Len. ADs manifested prevalently as autoimmune cytopenias (55%), although we observed one vasculitis, one optic neuritis, one Graves' disease and one polymyositis. ADs occurred preferentially in the first months of IMiD treatment. A previous autologous transplant was shown to be a significant risk factor. All ADs were managed with IMiD discontinuation and steroids, resolving in a few weeks, except for Graves' disease and polymyositis.

Background The role of upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for younger patients with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) has been questioned in the novel agent era. Methods A prospective, multicenter, phase III study was designed to compare (first randomization, R1) (1:1 ratio; stratification according to ISS stage) four 42-day cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) given at the same dosing schedule reported in the VISTA study (NEJM 2008; 359:906-17) vs either a single course or two sequential courses of melphalan at 200 mg/m2 (HDM) followed by single or double ASCT, respectively, as intensification therapy after three to four 21-day cycles of induction therapy with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone and subsequent collection of peripheral blood stem cells. A second randomization (R2) to consolidation therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs no consolidation was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity in both arms. A primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from R1. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 patients aged ≤65 years with symptomatic NDMM were registered. Of these, 1192 were eligible for R1 and were randomly assigned to receive either VMP (n=497 patients) or HDM (1±2 courses) (n=695 patients). Median age was 58 years in both groups, ISS stage III was 21% in VMP and 20% in HDM, while revised ISS stage III was 9% in both groups. Data on cytogenetic abnormalities, as detected by FISH analysis of CD138+ plasma cells, were available in 71% of patients (n=354) randomized to VMP and in 76% of those (n=529) assigned to HDM. The frequency of conventionally defined high-risk cytogenetic changes, including t(4;14) and/or del(17p) and/or t(14;16), was 25% in both arms. Median follow-up from R1 was 26 (IQR: 19-37) months. On an intention-to-treat basis, median PFS was 44 months in the VMP arm and was not yet reached in the HDM arm; 3-year estimates of PFS were 57.5% and 66%, respectively (HR=0.73; 95% CI=0.59-0.90; P=0.003). PFS benefit with HDM was retained across predefined subgroups, including patients with ISS stage I (HR=0.69; CI=0.48-0.98; P=0.037), revised ISS stage II (HR=0.70; CI=0.54-0.91; P=0.008), revised ISS stage III (HR=0.54; CI=0.30-0.97; P=0.040), standard-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.75, CI=0.56-1.01; P=0.055) and a high-risk cytogenetic profile (HR=0.54; CI=0.37-0.80; P=0.002). The probability of achieving a very good partial response or higher quality response was 85.5% in the HDM group vs 74% in the VMP group (odds ratio=1.90; CI=1.42-2.54; P Conclusions In comparison with VMP as standard-dose intensification therapy, upfront HDM and ASCT significantly improved PFS and increased the rate of high quality responses. An updated analysis with a longer follow-up will be reported at the meeting. Results of this phase III study, the largest so far reported, support the conclusion that upfront ASCT still continues to be the reference treatment for fit patients with NDMM, even in the novel agent era. Disclosures Cavo: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Beksac:Celgene, Janssen Cilag Amgen, Novartis, Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; 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; Novartis: 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. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board. Hájek:Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, 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. Galli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sigma-tau: Honoraria. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zweegman:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria.

In Multiple myeloma (MM) no treatment has a curative potential and even complete response to novel agents such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) are followed by relapse over time. Next generation sequencing (NGS) has showed how MM at diagnosis is defined by several somatic mutations, but only few drivers, even fewer "druggable" mutations, and many found at a subclonal level. At relapse, targeted studies have shown occasional mutations in drug target genes but the genomic and transcriptomic determinants of chemoresistance in MM remains elusive. We selected 42 MM patients refractory to both lenalidomide and PIs. Whole exome sequencing was performed in 40 of them, and RNAseq in 27. Clinical annotation was available for all patients. Standard analysis pipelines where applied to analyze mutations, copy number alterations (CNAs), mutational signatures, gene expression and expressed mutations. Patients received a median of 3 lines of treatment, with median overall survival of 14.6 months from sampling. We found a median of 77.5 mutations per patient, which is more than what reported at diagnosis (Bolli et al, Nature Communications 2014;5:2997). 100% of samples showed evidence of subclonality, and 37% of them exhibited a higher number of subclonal than clonal variants. Therefore, even at this advanced stage the MM genome is evolving and is composed of different subclones that may display different chemosensitivity. The mutational landscape was also different. TP53 mutations were the second most common after KRAS (20% and 17.5%, respectively). Interestingly TP53 mutations all clustered in patients receiving bortezomib as the last line of treatment. Only 2 patients showed a CRBN mutation, both subclonal. Combining mutations and CNA analysis, the TP53 pathway was the most frequently inactivated (45% of patients). Altogether, mutations or deletions of genes in the CRBN E3 ubiquitin ligase complex were found in 32.5% of patients, while proteasomal subunit genes were infrequently hit. Refractory cases were also uniquely characterized by a novel signature linked to exposure to alkylating agents, whose activity was more pronounced after high-dose melphalan suggesting a mutagenic effect of the drug on residual cells at the time of transplant. Whether this has any pathogenetic role on the disease course remains to be elucidated. RNAseq analysis did not show any influence of treatment or mutational data on the clustering of samples, which was mainly influenced by karyotypic events. The main cluster was composed by non-hyperdiploid patients with both amp(1q) and del(13): these showed CCND2 and MCL1 upregulation, the latter representing a marker of venetoclax resistance and novel target of experimental treatments. Only 26.3% of mutations were expressed, and this correlated with the clonality level of the mutation. However, most mutations in driver genes were expressed, with the notable exception of those causing nonsense mediated decay. Overall, classical high-risk features or CRBN pathway mutations were found in 65% of the cohort. However, only amp(1q) predicted survival in our cohort. The lack of prognostic value of high-risk lesions is likely explained by a higher prevalence of such features in double-refractory stages. Our data suggest that gene mutation is not a preferred mode of evolution of drug resistance in MM. Chemoresistance of the bulk tumor population is likely attained though differential, yet converging evolution of different subclones that are overall highly variable from patient to patient and within the same patient. Disclosures Kastritis: Prothena: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Cavo:bms: 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, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: 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, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: 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, Speakers Bureau. Corradini:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Jazz Pharmaceutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; BMS: Other: Travel Costs; Sanofi: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs. Bolli:Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel expenses.

Plerixafor "on demand" after chemotherapy plus granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is efficient in peripheral stem cell mobilization, but the timing of administration and criteria for patient selection are under investigation. To devise an algorithm for the "on demand" use of plerixafor at the first mobilization attempt, we analyzed the kinetics of hematopoietic recovery and peripheral blood CD34+ cells in 107 patients treated with high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF. Fifty-one patients with myeloma were treated with cyclophosphamide 3-4 g/m(2) on day 0 followed by G-CSF 10 μg/kg from day + 6, and 56 patients with lymphoma received cyclophosphamide 6-7 g/m(2) followed by G-CSF 5 μg/kg from day + 1. Peripheral blood CD34+ cell monitoring was started on day + 8 in patients with myeloma and day + 10 in patients with lymphoma. The outcome of interest was a collection of ≤ 2 × 10(6) CD34+/kg. By a multivariate logistic regression model, CD34+ cell count10/μL at leukocyte recovery (1000/μL) or leukocyte count1000/μL after day + 12 in myeloma and day + 14 in lymphoma predicted the failure of mobilization by 2.7 and 2.8 times (p = 0.001 and p = 0.02) with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 88%, respectively. Plerixafor "on demand" may be considered in patients with myeloma and lymphoma with delayed hematopoietic recovery and10/μL CD34+ cells, as a first-line mobilization strategy.

Multiple myeloma relapsing after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) has a poor outcome. To assess the safety and efficacy of bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD) combination followed by donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs) in myeloma patients relapsing or progressing after alloSCT, a prospective phase II study was designed. The treatment plan consisted of three VD courses followed by escalated doses of DLIs in case of response or at least stable disease. Nineteen patients were enrolled with a median age of 57 years (range, 33 to 67); 14 patients were allografted from human leukocyte antigen–identical siblings and 5 from alternative donors. Sixteen of 19 patients received the planned treatment, but 3 patients did not: 2 patients because of disease progression and 1 refused. After the VD phase the response rate was 62%, with 1 complete remission, 6 very good partial remissions, 5 partial remissions, 2 patients with stable disease, and 5 with progressive disease. After the DLI phase, the response rate was 68%, but a significant upgrade of response was observed: 3 stringent complete remissions, 2 complete remissions, 5 very good partial remissions, 1 partial remission, 4 with stable disease, and 1 with progressive disease. With a median follow-up of 40 months (range, 29 to 68), the 3-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 31% and 73%, respectively. Neither unexpected organ toxicities, in particular severe neuropathy, nor severe acute graft-versus-host disease flares were observed. VD-DLIs is a safe treatment for multiple myeloma patients relapsing or progressing after alloSCT and may be effective.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone improved outcome in newly diagnosed elderly multiple myeloma patients. We randomly assigned 662 patients who were age ≥65 years or transplantation-ineligible to receive induction with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (CPR) or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in triplet (MPR and CPR) vs doublet (Rd) lenalidomide-containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 39 months, the median PFS was 22 months for the triplet combinations and 21 months for the doublet (P = .284). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arms, and the 4-year OS was 67% for the triplet and 58% for the doublet arms (P = .709). By considering the 3 treatment arms separately, no difference in outcome was detected among MPR, CPR, and Rd. The most common grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia: 64% in MPR, 29% in CPR, and 25% in Rd patients (P < .0001). Grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicities were similar among arms and were mainly infections (6.5% to 11%), constitutional (3.5% to 9.5%), and cardiac (4.5% to 6%), with no difference among the arms. In conclusion, in the overall population, the alkylator-containing triplets MPR and CPR were not superior to the alkylator-free doublet Rd, which was associated with lower toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01093196.

This phase 2 trial evaluated three low-dose intensity subcutaneous bortezomib-based treatments in patients ⩾75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received subcutaneous bortezomib plus oral prednisone (VP, N=51) or VP plus cyclophosphamide (VCP, N=51) or VP plus melphalan (VMP, N=50), followed by bortezomib maintenance, and half of the patients were frail. Response rate was 64% with VP, 67% with VCP and 86% with VMP, and very good partial response rate or better was 26%, 28.5% and 49%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 14.0, 15.2 and 17.1 months, and 2-year OS was 60%, 70% and 76% in VP, VCP, VMP, respectively. At least one drug-related grade ⩾3 non-hematologic adverse event (AE) occurred in 22% of VP, 37% of VCP and 33% of VMP patients; the discontinuation rate for AEs was 12%, 14% and 20%, and the 6-month rate of toxicity-related deaths was 4%, 4% and 8%, respectively. The most common grade ⩾3 AEs included infections (8–20%), and constitutional (10–14%) and cardiovascular events (4–12%); peripheral neuropathy was limited (4–6%). Bortezomib maintenance was effective and feasible. VP, VCP and VMP regimens demonstrated no substantial difference. Yet, toxicity was higher with VMP, suggesting that a two-drug combination followed by maintenance should be preferred in frail patients.

L. Milazzo, M. Corbellino, A. Foschi, V. Micheli, A. Dodero, A. Mazzocchi, V. Montefusco, G. Zehender, S. Antinori. Late onset of hepatitis B virus reactivation following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: successful treatment with combined entecavir plus tenofovir therapy. Transpl Infect Dis 2011. All rights reserved Abstract: Prophylaxis with lamivudine (LAM) is recommended for hepatitis B core antibody-positive allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, but the optimal timing for the institution and duration of the prophylaxis is still unknown. Furthermore, considering the high rate of mortality associated with hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R), the most potent and long-term effective antiviral regimen should be considered. We report here a case of late onset of HBV-R after a long-term prophylaxis with LAM in a patient who underwent HSCT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and who was successfully treated with a combination antiviral regimen including entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Evidence of long-term response to lenalidomide in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma is lacking. This study sought to assess whether long-term responders exist, long-term responders' characteristics, and predictive factors of a long-term response. One hundred and four patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone after ≥2 therapy lines (median, 3) were analyzed. Long-term response was defined as at least a partial response (≥PR) lasting ≥12 months. The overall response rate was 73%, and 80.3% of the responses were achieved within 5 months. The median response was 14.3 months. Patients evaluable for long-term response numbered 87, and a total of 47% were long-term responders. Compared to non-long-term responders, long-term responders had better overall survival, less light-chain multiple myeloma, and higher incidence of t(11;14). Previous allogeneic transplant (alloSCT) and the response quality predicted a long-term response. In conclusion, patients treated with lenalidomide can become long-term responders; alloSCT and response quality predict long-term response.

Purpose In patients with myeloma, thalidomide significantly improves outcomes but increases the risk of thromboembolic events. In this randomized, open-label, multicenter trial, we compared aspirin (ASA) or fixed low-dose warfarin (WAR) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing thromboembolism in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens. Patients and Methods A total of 667 patients with previously untreated myeloma who received thalidomide-containing regimens and had no clinical indication or contraindication for a specific antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA (100 mg/d), WAR (1.25 mg/d), or LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg/d). A composite primary end point included serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths during the first 6 months of treatment. Results Of 659 analyzed patients, 43 (6.5%) had serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden death during the first 6 months (6.4% in the ASA group, 8.2% in the WAR group, and 5.0% in the LMWH group). Compared with LMWH, the absolute differences were +1.3% (95% CI, −3.0% to 5.7%; P = .544) in the ASA group and +3.2% (95% CI, −1.5% to 7.8%; P = .183) in the WAR group. The risk of thromboembolism was 1.38 times higher in patients treated with thalidomide without bortezomib. Three major (0.5%) and 10 minor (1.5%) bleeding episodes were recorded. Conclusion In patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens, ASA and WAR showed similar efficacy in reducing serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, and sudden deaths compared with LMWH, except in elderly patients where WAR showed less efficacy than LMWH.

INTRODUCTION: Twice weekly carfilzomib is approved at two different doses, 27 mg/m2 in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, and 56 mg/m2 with dexamethasone, for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). To reduce the treatment burden, the phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study compared once weekly (70 mg/m2) to twice weekly (27 mg/m2) carfilzomib in relapsed/refractory MM patients, showing that once weekly carfilzomib increased the overall response rate (ORR) and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) as compared to the twice weekly schedule. Here we present a pooled analysis of two phase 1/2 studies to compare once vs. twice weekly carfilzomib in newly diagnosed (ND)MM patients. METHODS: Transplant ineligible, NDMM patients enrolled in the single-arm IST-CAR 561 and IST-CAR 506 studies were pooled together. All patients received 9 28-day induction cycles of carfilzomib, either 70 mg/m2 once weekly on days 1,8,15 (IST-CAR 561) or 36 mg/m2 twice weekly on days 1,2,8,9,15,16 (IST-CAR 506), combined with cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 on days 1,8,15) and dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1,8,15,22). After induction, patients received maintenance with single agent carfilzomib at the same dose and schedule as induction phase, administered until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare PFS and overall survival (OS) from induction and maintenance, responses and rates of adverse events (AEs) with once vs. twice weekly carfilzomib. RESULTS: 121 NDMM patients (63 from IST-CAR 561 and 58 from IST-CAR 506) were analyzed. Median age at diagnosis was 72 years (IQR 68-74 years); baseline characteristics, ISS, cytogenetics by FISH and frailty status according to the IMWG frailty score, were balanced between the two groups (Table 1). After a median follow-up of 39 months, in the overall population, median PFS, PFS-2 and OS from start of induction were 36 months, 49 months and NR, respectively. No difference was observed in terms of median PFS (35.7 vs. 35.5 months; p=0.26), PFS-2 (48.6 vs. 48.5; p=0.51) and OS (49 vs. NA months; p=0.50) between patients who received once vs. twice weekly carfilzomib, irrespective of age, ISS, FISH status and frailty score (Figure 1). At cycle 9, no significant difference in the rate of ≥ partial response (PR; 87% vs. 90%; p=0.78) and ≥ near complete response (nCR; 30% vs. 47%; p=0.09) was reported in the two groups. Furthermore, the rates of patients who reduced (13% vs. 24%) or discontinued carfilzomib (27% vs. 28%) were comparable in the once vs. twice weekly carfilzomib, as were the rates of ≥1 grade 3-4 hematological (24% vs. 27%) and non-hematological (30% vs. 32%) AEs. After the induction phase, 90 patients started carfilzomib maintenance, 47 in the once weekly group and 43 in the twice weekly group. Overall, median PFS from start of maintenance was 31 months, while median PFS-2 and OS were NR. At 3 years, no difference was observed in terms of PFS (47% vs. 51%; p=0.92), PFS-2 (65% vs. 74%; p=0.74) and OS (72% vs. 73%; p=0.71) between patients who received once vs. twice weekly carfilzomib, irrespective of age, ISS, FISH status, frailty score and best response at induction. Among patients who received maintenance, 17% of patients deepened their response. Similar rates of ≥nCR (49% vs. 60%, p=0.30) and ≥CR (30% vs. 37%; p=0.51) were observed between the once vs. twice weekly groups. During maintenance, 26% and 16% of patients required ≥1 dose reduction of carfilzomib in the once and twice weekly carfilzomib, while 27% and 30% of patients discontinued carfilzomib due to AEs or death, respectively. The rates of ≥1 grade 3-4 hematological (0% vs. 5%) and non-hematological (19% vs. 23%) AEs were comparable within the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with NDMM, once weekly carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2 and twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone compared favorably with current standard of treatment. Moreover, once weekly carfilzomib administered both in the induction and maintenance phase resulted in similar PFS, PFS-2 and OS as compared to a lower (36 mg/m2), twice weekly infusion. The once weekly schedule at 70 mg/m2 was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of dose reduction or discontinuation in comparison with the twice weekly schedule at 36 mg/m2. These data support the use of triplet regimen including once weekly schedule of carfilzomib as initial treatment of MM patients in future trials. Disclosures Bringhen: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Petrucci:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. De Paoli:Gilead: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Offidani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Caravita di Toritto:Johnson & Johnson: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation EHA; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel and Accomodation EMN; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation ASH, Research Funding. Montefusco:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Boccadoro:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Larocca:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are highly heterogeneous and their outcome is influenced by many factors: beside age, also comorbidities, general physical fitness, and cognitive function play a crucial role. The IMWG frailty score combines age, functional status, and comorbidities, and it identifies fit, intermediate-fit and frail patients, with different risk of toxicity, treatment discontinuation, and mortality (Palumbo A et al. Blood 2015). Until now, evidence-based tailored treatments according to patients' frailty are still lacking. Therefore, this phase III study investigated the efficacy and feasibility of dose/schedule-adjusted lenalidomide-dexamethasone therapy followed by lenalidomide maintenance (Rd-R) versus continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in elderly, intermediate-fit NDMM patients. METHODS: Intermediate-fit NDMM patients, with a total frailty score (age, Charlson Index, ADL and IADL) of 1 (http://www.myelomafrailtyscorecalculator.net/), were enrolled and randomized to receive Rd-R or continuous Rd. To better approximate a real-world older population, patients usually excluded from clinical trials or with abnormal laboratory values could be included in the trial. Rd-R treatment consisted of nine 28-day cycles of lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days and dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1,8,15,22, followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg/day for 21 days, until disease progression. Continuous Rd consisted of lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days and dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1,8,15,22, until disease progression. The dose and schedule of continuous Rd was the one adopted in patients >75 years in the FIRST trial (Hulin C et al. JCO 2016). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as progression or death for any cause or discontinuation of lenalidomide or occurrence of any hematological grade 4 or non-hematological grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), including Secondary Primary Malignancies (SPMs), whichever came first. RESULTS: 199 patients (98 in Rd-R arm and 101 in continuous Rd arm) could be evaluated. Patients characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms. Median age was 75 and 76 years (p=0.06); 47% in Rd-R vs 57% in continuous Rd were defined intermediate-fit for age (≥76 years), 53% vs 43% due to an impairment in Charlson Index, ADL or IADL (p=ns). In intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 25 months, EFS was 9.3 vs 6.6 months (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, p=0.04), in Rd-R versus continuous Rd, respectively (Figure 1). Best response rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups: ≥PR rates were 73% vs 63%, and ≥VGPR rates were 43% vs 35% in the Rd-R vs Rd continuous group, respectively (p=ns). No difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was observed. Median PFS was 18.3 vs 15.5 months (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64-1.34, p=ns) (Figure 1), 18 month-OS was 85% versus 81% (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40-1.33, p=ns). Adverse events accounting for EFS (any hematologic grade 4, non-hematologic grade 3-4) were less frequent in the Rd-R group (30% vs 39%) than in the continuous Rd group (p=ns). The most frequent adverse events were neutropenia, infection and skin reactions (less than 10% in each arm). After 9 treatment cycles, these adverse events were less frequent in Rd-R vs continuous Rd group (3% vs 7%, p=ns). Lenalidomide dose reduction after 9 treatment cycles was required in 1% of Rd-R patients and 21% of continuous Rd patients (p =0.06). Dexamethasone dose reduction was required in 17% vs 29% of patients, respectively (p=0.06). CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective randomized phase III trial specifically designed for real-life intermediate-fit NDMM patients. A dose/schedule-adjusted Rd-R treatment was more feasible compared to full dose continuous Rd treatment in elderly intermediate-fit NDMM patients, with no negative impact but rather a comparable outcome. These results confirm the need for an appropriate definition of patient frailty, and pave the way to a frailty-adjusted treatment approach to better balance efficacy and safety in elderly NDMM patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Larocca: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. De Paoli:Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Gilead: Other: Advisory Board. Galli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sigma-Tau: Honoraria. Montefusco:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Caravita di Toritto:Johnson & Johnson: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation EHA; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel and Accomodation EMN; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation ASH, Research Funding. Giuliani:Celgene Italy: Other: Avisory Board, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutica: Other: Avisory Board, Research Funding. Patriarca:Jazz: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Other: Advisory role; Celgene: Other: Advisory Role; Travel, accommodations, expenses; Medac: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; MSD Italy: Other: Advisory Role. Offidani:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; 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. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Bringhen:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria.

Introduction: The phase 3 GIMEMA-MMY-3006 trial comparing bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) provided the first demonstration of increased CR rate, the primary study endpoint, and prolonged PFS with VTD (Cavo M et al, Lancet 2010). However, updating trial results with longer follow-up than earlier reported is needed to assess the effects of treatment interventions on OS and to identify factors predicting for favorable long term outcomes. Aims: We performed a post-hoc analysis of that study to evaluate long term results and construct a prognostic index of survival. Methods: 474 patients were enrolled, 236 randomized to VTD and 238 to TD. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124 months (IQR: 117-131). Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Semi-parametric Cox regression analysis was used to construct the prognostic index. To assess the evolution of prognosis over time, conditional survival CS(t|s) estimate for PFS was calculated as the probability of surviving without progression a further 2 (t) years (yrs) after having already survived s yrs. Results: Estimates of PFS and OS at 10 yrs for the VTD arm were 34% (HR=0.62; 95% CI=0.50-0.77; p Conclusions: With a follow up of 10 yrs, the final analysis of the GYMEMA MMY-3006 trial comparing VTD versus TD showed a persistent PFS benefit translating into extended OS for the VTD arm. A prognostic model based on cytogenetic, ISS stage and achievement of CR, identified three risk groups with statistically different long-term survival probabilities. Both IR and HR groups significantly benefited from VTD. A PFS time of 78 months predicted for long term survival outcomes in the LR and IR groups. Disclosures Tacchetti: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Zamagni:Celgene: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: 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. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy. Offidani:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Montefusco:Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:Amgen: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Elotuzumab (Elo), an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), received marketing approval in Italy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), in combination with lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (d) (EloRd) in April 2017. Here we report preliminary data of an Italian real-life experience on EloRd as salvage therapy for RRMM patients treated outside of controlled clinical trials. The primary objectives of this study were to assess the toxicity profile and the efficacy of EloRd administered as salvage therapy in a real-world setting. Methods Retrospective data collection received approval from local ethic committee. The cohort included 180 RRMM patients from 28 Italian centers who received at least one cycle of EloRd as salvage treatment between April 2017 and June 2018. Patients were treated with EloRD according to marketing approval as follows: Elo 10 mg/kg i.v. on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during the first two cycles and then on days 1 and 15 of each following cycle, R 25 mg on days 1 to 21 of each cycle and d at a dose of 40 mg during the week without Elo, and 36 mg on the day of Elo administration. Responsive patients had to reach at least a partial remission (PR). Results Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median age of the 180 patients was 72 years (range 48-89 years); 53.9% were males (Table 1). The median number of previous therapy regimens was 1 (range 1-7); 69 patients (38.3%) received a previous autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). One hundred and ten patients (61.1%) showed a symptomatic relapse, 36 (20%) a biochemical relapse, and 34 cases (18.9%) were refractory to the last therapy, including bortezomib in 12.8% of patients. Forty-four patients (24.4%) had creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min. Among the 138 cases evaluable for International Scoring System (ISS), 54 (39.1%) had stage I, 56 (40.6%) stage II, and 28 (20.3%) stage III. At last data collection (June 2018), 164 cases were evaluable for response. The median number of courses administered so far was 5 (range 1-18). The overall response rate (ORR) was 78%, with 9 complete remissions (CRs) (5.5%) and 49 very good partial remissions (VGPRs) (35.4%). A significant higher ORR was observed in patients who had received only 1 previous line of therapy than those who had received >1 line (64% vs 37.5%; p=0.004). Age ( After a median follow-up of 6 months (range 1-18 months) 33 patients stopped treatment due to disease progression and 4 due to toxicity (2 cases after 1 cycle for pneumonia, 1 after 1 cycle for dexamethasone-related psychosis, and 1 after 2 cycles for lenalidomide-related severe skin rash). A total of 17 patients died (7 patients from progressive disease; 2 from an infection; 1 from a second neoplasia; 7 from causes unrelated to therapy). Follow-up data regarding PFS and overall survival are not sufficiently mature to be analyzed. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (18.9%), anemia (17%), neutropenia (16.5%), lymphocytopenia (15.9%), and pneumonia (15.9%). Infusion reactions occurred in 13 patients (7.2%) and were always of grade 1 or 2. Infusion reactions resolved in all patients and no case discontinued treatment. Conclusions Our real world preliminary data confirm that EloRd is an effective and safe regimen for RRMM patients, particularly if used as first salvage regimen, basically resembling results obtained in controlled clinical trials. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Galli: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sigma-Tau: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Giuliani:Janssen Pharmaceutica: Other: Avisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene Italy: Other: Avisory Board, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co: Research Funding. Mangiacavalli:Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cilag: Consultancy. Ballanti:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Montefusco:Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy. Zamagni: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; Janssen: 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; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patriarca:Celgene: Other: Advisory Role; Travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Other: Advisory role; Jazz: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Medac: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; MSD Italy: Other: Advisory Role. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Petrucci:Takeda Oncology; Amgen; Celgene; BMS; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Offidani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board.

Introduction. Bortezomib (Bort) and lenalidomide (Len) are standard treatments for relapsed MM, but, so far, a comparative trial between them has never been conducted. We designed a multicenter, open label, phase III study to compare bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone and lenalidomide/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone in a fixed duration design protocol. The combination of Bort and Len with chemotherapy was devised to improve efficacy and to allow a fixed duration treatment in patients not heavily pretreated. Methods. The primary endpoint was the achievement of very good partial remission (VGPR) or better at six weeks after 9 cycles. The study enrolled patients at first relapse with measurable disease. Patients could have received Bort or Len in their first line, but they should have obtained at least a PR longer than one year, and previous Bort or Len maintenance was an exclusion criteria. Enrollment started on April 2011, and was ended on April 2015. Patients were assigned 1:1 to sc Bort 1.3 mg/ms on days 1, 8, 15, 22, oral dexamethasone (Dex) 20 mg on days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23, iv cyclophosphamide (Cyclo) 500 mg/ms on day 1 and 8 in a 35 days cycle (VCD) or to Len 15 mg from day 1 to 21, oral Dex 20 mg on days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23, iv Cyclo 500 mg/ms on day 1 and 8 in a 28 days cycle (RCD). Nine courses of therapy without maintenance were planned. Efficacy and safety were assessed at each cycle using the IMWG response criteria for efficacy assessment (Durie et al. Leukemia 2006), and CTCAE v4.0 for safety. Results. One hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled, 155 were randomized, 77 were assigned to the VCD, and 80 to the RCD arm, respectively. Both arms were well balanced according to the baseline characteristics. Median age was 65 years (range 41-79), and 63 years (range 46-76) for VCD and RCD, respectively. ISS stage was grade I in 36 and 33, grade II in 20 and 28, and grade III in 16 and 15 patients in the VCD and RCD arms, respectively. Previous treatment included Bort in 35 and 42, Len in 7 and 7, Bort- and Len-free chemotherapy in 32 and 29, thalidomide in 35 and 31, and autologous stem cell transplantation in 58 and 63 patients in the VCD and RCD arms, respectively. The primary endpoint, represented by achievement of VGPR or better at 6 weeks after 9 courses, was met by 12 (16%) and 16 (20%) patients in the VCD and RCD arms, respectively (p=0.70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.3 (range 13.3 - 22.4) and 20.2 (range 14.7 - 26.8) months (p=0.70), and median overall survival (OS) was 31.1 and 36.2 months (p=0.83), in the VCD and RCD arms, respectively. In subgroup analysis, patients that were Bort and Len naïve at enrollment had a PFS of 20.0 (range 12.2 - 31.8) and 20.2 months (range 12.0 - 29.9) (p=0.44), and a median OS of 31.1, and 22.5 months (p=0.72), for the VCD and RCD arms, respectively. Patients that were Bort exposed, but Len naïve at enrollment, had a PFS of 15.6 (range 9.9 - 22.4) and 19.5 months (range 11.1 - 28.6) (p=0.35), and a median OS of 29.2, and 34.7 months (p=0.62), for the VCD and RCD arms, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profile of Bort and Len, and grade III and IV toxicities were not significantly different between the 2 arms. Conclusions. This is the first head-to-head study comparing fixed duration therapy of Bort and Len in first relapse patients. We show that both drugs are equally effective, in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS. Despite drug-specific toxicity profiles, incidence of grade III and IV toxicities were not different between the 2 arms. Disclosures Corradini: Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria.

Integration of novel agents into first-line therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients who are eligible to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has led to unprecedented rates of high-quality responses.1 Based on the results of several phase III trials,2, 3, 4, 5 a three-drug induction regimen including bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD) is currently considered the standard of care in preparation for ASCT. The European Medicines Agency recently approved the combination of bortezomib with thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD) for this use.

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is still considered an effective option for first-line treatment in transplant eligible young patients with multiple myeloma (MM), even in the era of novel ag...

Central nervous system myelomatosis (CNS MM) is a rare localization of multiple myeloma (MM) affecting fewer than 1% of patients. This condition has been treated with intrathecal therapy, cranial i...

8003 Background: Phase I/II studies showed the safety and efficacy of KRd and KCd in NDMM pts (Jakubowiak Blood 2012, Bringhen Blood 2014). Methods: NDMM pts ≤65 yrs were randomized (1:1:1; stratification ISS and age) to: 4 28-day KCd cycles (carfilzomib:20/36 mg/m2 IV d 1,2,8,9,15,16; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 d 1,8,15; dexamethasone:20 mg d 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and consolidation with 4 KCd cycles; or 4 28-day KRd cycles (carfilzomib and dexamethasone as above; lenalidomide:25 mg d 1-21) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KRd cycles; or 12 KRd cycles. After the 4th induction cycle, all pts received Cyclophosphamide 2 g/m2, followed by PBSC collection. We report results of the first planned safety interim analysis on induction and mobilization and preliminary efficacy data. We pooled the 2 KRd groups since treatment was the same until mobilization. Data cut-off was October 30, 2016. Results: 281 pts were evaluated (KCd, n=94; KRd, n=187). The most frequent grade 3-4 AEs plus SAEs in both arms were hematological (mainly neutropenia) and infections (mainly pneumonia/fever); increased AST/ALT/GGT (mainly reversible) and dermatological (rash) AEs were higher in KRd; cardiac AEs were 2% (atrial fibrillation[1%]/ischemic heart disease[1%]) in KRd vs 1% (atrial fibrillation) in KCd. In KCd, 1 pt died of infection (not treatment-related) vs 3 in the KRd (2 cardiac arrest [1 not treatment-related],1 infection not treatment-related). In the KCd vs KRd arms, 99% vs 95% (P=0.44) of pts mobilized stem cells (median number of PBSC collected:9 vs 6x10^6CD34/Kg with KCd vs KRd); 10% vs 24% (P=0.01) required Plerixafor. Rate of ≥VGPR was 61% with KCd vs 74% with KRd (P=0.05). Conclusions: Safety profile was acceptable; more pts required plerixafor in KRd. Rate of VGPR was higher with KRd. Updated data on more patients will be presented at the meeting. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02203643. [Table: see text]

Purpose Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance). Results In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P < .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients. Conclusion Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.

This multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial determined the safety and efficacy of carfilzomib, a novel and irreversible proteasome inhibitor, in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCyd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) ≥65 years of age or who were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Patients (N 5 58) received CCyd for up to 9 28-day cycles, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib until progression or intolerance. After a median of 9 CCyd induction cycles (range 1-9), 95% of patients achieved at least a partial response, 71% achieved at least a very good partial response, 49% achieved at least a near complete response, and 20% achieved stringent complete response. After a median follow-up of 18 months, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 76% and 87%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 to 5 toxicities were neutropenia (20%), anemia (11%), and cardiopulmonary adverse events (7%). Peripheral neuropathy was limited to grades 1 and 2 (9%). Fourteen percent of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and 21% of patients required carfilzomib dose reductions. In summary, results showed high complete response rates and a good safety profile. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01346787. © 2014 by The American Society of Hematology.

Introduction Three-drug induction regimens including a first or second generation proteasome inhibitor are a current standard of care for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT)-eligible, newly diagnosed, multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts). In the absence of prospective randomized studies comparing different induction regimens, it is difficult to recommend one treatment over another, and the choice is ultimately based upon physician’s preference or single center’s policy. Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) has been recently approved by EMA as induction for previously untreated, ASCT-eligible, MM pts. Bortezomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) is an attractive alternative to VTD, although efficacy results have not been backed by phase III studies. The present study aimed to evaluate the differences in response rates and toxicity between VTD and VCD induction regimens in preparation for subsequent ASCT. Methods Two hundred and thirty six pts who were randomized to the VTD arm of the GIMEMA-MMY-3006 study were compared with an equal number of pair mates who received induction therapy with VCD as part of the EMN02 trial designed to prospectively compare ASCT up front vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone followed by ASCT at the time of relapse or progression. Both groups of pts were treated in Italian centers participating in the two phase III studies. Case matching was performed with respect to the following pt characteristics at baseline: age (± 2 years), ISS stage (1 vs 2 vs 3), t(4;14) (detected by FISH in ≥ 10% vs < 10% CD138+ bone marrow plasma cells) and del(17p) (≥ 20% vs Results On an intention-to-treat basis, the overall rate of partial response (PR) or higher, as established according to the IMWG criteria, was 93% (95% CI: 89-96%) with VTD and 84% (CI: 79-89%) with VCD (χ2test p value=0.003). In particular, the complete response (CR) rate was approximately three fold higher for pts randomized to VTD (19%, CI: 14-24%) as compared to those in the VCD group (7%; CI: 4-10%) (p Conclusions The triplet VTD induction therapy was associated with significantly higher CR and ≥ VGPR rates compared to VCD, confirming that VTD is one of the most active bortezomib-based induction regimens in preparation for ASCT. Grade ≥ 2 PN rate was similar between the two regimens, although VTD-induced grade ≥ 3 PN was higher with VTD. Data on the impact of VTD and VCD induction therapy on post-ASCT high-quality response rates and additional outcomes will be presented at the meeting. The superiority of VTD over VCD needs to be confirmed by prospective randomized studies, one of which is currently running in Europe. Disclosures Cavo: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharm.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria. Cavallo:Onyx: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Petrucci:Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Ballanti:Janssen: Honoraria. Palumbo:Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab A/S: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sonneveld:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Backgrounds: Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for fit patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). When a HLA-identical donor is not available, haploidentical HCT (haploHCT) represents an acceptable therapeutic option, especially when post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) is used as anti-GVHD prophylaxis. Patients and methods: Twenty-nine patients (median age 56 years, range 47-70) undergoing myeloablative (n=15) or reduced-intensity (n=14) haploHCT from February 2011 to November 2015 are included in this retrospective analysis. The median number of previous lines of therapy was 2 (range 1-7) with 27 (93%) of patients having previously performed an autologous HCT. Both bortezomib and lenalidomide were used in 27 (92%) patients before haploHCT. Eighteen patients (62%) had chemosensitive disease at time of haploHCT (CR=4, VGPR=9, PR=5) and 11 (38%) had chemorefractory disease (PD=7, SD=4). Graft source was marrow-derived in 59% (n=17) and peripheral blood in 41% (n=12) of patients. Standard post-transplant cyclophosphamide anti-GVHD prophylaxis (50mg/mq day +3 and +4 or +5) plus mycophenolate and cyclosporine (n=24) or tacrolimus (n=3) or rapamycine (n=2) was used for the whole study cohort. Overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) were performed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Neutrophil and platelets engraftment, acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, Non-Relapse-Mortality (NRM) and Relapse Incidence/Progression of Disease (RI/POD) were obtained with competing risk analysis. Results: At day +30, neutrophil and platelets engraftments were 86% (95%CI:65-95) and 59% (95%CI:38-74), respectively. Acute GVHD grade >2 at days +100 and +180 were 38% (95%CI: 20-55%) and 41% (95%CI: 23-59%), respectively. All grade chronic GVHD at 12 and 18 months was 21% (95%CI: 8-37. At 18 months, RI/POD was 39% (95%CI:20-58%) and NRM 15% (CI95%:5-32). With a median follow-up in survivors of 16 months (range 5-55 months), the 18-month OS and PFS were 68% (95%CI: 47-82%) and 34% (95%CI: 15-54%), respectively. Chemorefractory disease at transplant was associated with a worse 18-month RI/POD (70% vs 18%, p= Conclusions: HaploHCT is a feasible and effective strategy in patients with relapsed/refractory high-risk multiple myeloma. Chemorefractory disease at transplant was the only prognostic factor associated with a significant reduced RI/POD, PFS and OS. Figure Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression free survival from time of transplant of the chemosensitive and chemorefractory disease. Figure. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression free survival from time of transplant of the chemosensitive and chemorefractory disease. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors (PI) lead to the accumulation of defective ribosomale products (DRiPs) and apoptosis of malignant plasma cells. Bendamustine (Benda) is a bifunctional molecule possessing alkylating and purine analoga activity and may increase the level of DRiPs. This provides the rationale for the CBd protocol combining Benda, an agent with a favorable profile of side effects, with carfilzomib (Carf), a PI with limited neurotoxicity and low dose dexamethasone (dex). Methods: The study included relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients with at least two lines of prior therapy. A 4 week cycle consists of Benda 70 mg/ m2 fixed dose at day 1 and 8 and Carf/dex on day 1,2,8,9,15,16 with additional 20 mg/ m2dex on day 22 and 23. After receiving 8 cycles, responding patients continued with maintenance therapy scheduled with Carf/dex only on two consecutive days every 14 days until progression. Results: Conducted as EMN09 study of the European Myeloma Network, in the phase I part of this Italian-Dutch-German trial the first six patient were entered at the starting level of Carf 27 mg/m2 (within the first cycle Carf on day 1 and 2 was reduced to 20 mg/m2). Initially, pronounced lymphopenia of grade 4 in 3 of 6 patients was seen but without clinical equivalent. Therefore, Carf doses in the CBd combination were escalated to 36 mg/m2 for the next 7 patients. Dose limiting toxicity with 2 cases of pneumonia was observed at that dose level. Encouraging results with 9 of 12 evaluable patients responding at least with a PR, including 4VGPR and 1 CR, were obtained. Since responses at the Carf 36 mg/m2 level occurred in a similar frequency as with the non-escalated Carf dose, for this older pretreated patient population it was decided to stay for the phase II part with the initial Carf 27 mg/m2. Currently, 38 patients are evaluable in phase I and II. The patient population with an age up to 77 years (median 67 years) and 5.5 years from initial diagnosis to study entry had received up to 9 lines of prior therapy. Already 55% of patients achieved PR or better including 32% with ≥VGPR. One patient is in ongoing CR for more than 2 years. Peripheral polyneuropathy was absent. No safety signal occurred for renal function. Cardiac toxicity including a case of fatal myocarditis and cardiac infarction was around 10% and 8% of the patients developed venous thromboembolism. The infection rate (21% of grade ≥3) appeared not unusual in such a heavily pretreated population. However, anti-infective prophylaxis and immunoglobulin support may be necessary. Conclusions: The ongoing EMN09 phase I/II trial suggests that CBd provides an effective well tolerated therapy even for older patients with relapsed MM, many of whom may have from prior therapies persisting side effects like polyneuropathy. Despite intense pretreatment, today frequently patients will have received little previous chemotherapy. Thus, the CBd combination may be a valuable treatment option for those relapsing patients not candidates for aggressive approaches. Disclosures Gramatzki: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Mundipharma Germany: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Patriarca:MSD: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory board; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory board. Schub:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Gay:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

e282 survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 69% (95% CI:6-55%) and 35% (95% CI:6-22%), respectively (Figure 1). On multivariate analysis, chemorefractory disease at alloHCT was associated with an inferior PFS (Hazard risk [HR] 5.75 [95% CI:2.32-14.23]), inferior OS (HR 5.19 [95% CI:2.05-13.14]), higher toxicity related mortality (TRM, HR 6.60 [95% CI: 1.1139.02]) and higher RI/POD (HR 4.04 [95% CI: 1.07-15.21]). Being younger than 55 years emerged as a protective factor for both PFS (HR0.29 [95%CI:0.14-0.60]) and OS (HR 0.29[0.01-0.10]). Chronic GVHD conveyed a higher TRM (HR 1.15 [95%CI:1.021.30]) but not a reduced RI/POD. Conclusion: Our retrospective data show that RIC alloHCT is a safe and effective therapeutic option in MM patients, allowing long survival outcomes even in heavily pretreated patients. Figure 1 OS (A) and PFS (B) of the whole study population 15th International Myeloma Workshop, September 23-26, 2015 PO-349 Durable Remission and Survival in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation A.M. Cornelison, R.M. Saliba, S. Ahmed, Y. Nieto, Q. Bashir, N. Shah, S. Parmar, K. Patel, C. Hosing, U. Popat, E. Shpall, R. Champlin, M.H. Qazilbash Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas Background: The role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in the setting of refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is still controversial. Although potentially curative in a subset of pts, 10-15% treatment related mortality (TRM) and chronic graft vs. host disease (cGVHD) preclude its universal use. In this study, we evaluated the role of allo-HCT for pts with relapsed MM. Methods: We identified 110 consecutive pts with relapsed MM who underwent allo-HCT at our institution between 2000 and 2014. The primary objective was to assess progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Median age at allo-HCT was 54 (range, 32-71) years and median time from diagnosis to alloHCT was 35.7 (range, 8.6 to 228.8) months. Fifty-two (47%) and 49 (45%) pts had standard-risk (SR) and high-risk (HR) cytogenetics (CG) at the time of allo-HCT, respectively. Pts received a median of 5 (range, 1-9) prior chemotherapy regimens and 99 pts (90%) had at least 1 (range, 0-3) prior auto-HCTs. One hundred one(92%) pts received either a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) prior to allo-HCT, with 65 (59%) receiving both. Sixty eight (62%) received allo-HCT from a matched related, 34 (31%) from a matched unrelated, 5 (4%) from a cord blood, and 3 (3%) from a mismatched donor. Preparative regimen was fludarabine/melphalan-based in 88 (80%) and fludarabine/busulfan-based in 16 (15%) patients. Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 12 (range, 8-30) and 13 (range, 0-81) days, respectively. Ten pts died of non-relapse causes within 100 days (100-day TRM: 9%) and 20 (18%) within 1 year. Grade 1-4 acute GVHD was seen in 50 (45%) and cGVHD in 35 (32%) pts, respectively. Eighteen (16%) achieved a CR, 26 (23%) a VGPR and 38 (34%) achieved a PR, with an overall response rate of 73%. With a median follow up of 11.4 months (range 0.3 to 164) in all pts, and 32.7 months (range 3.6 to 164.3) in surviving pts, 1and 2-year PFS were 24% and 16%, respectively. Similarly, 1and 2-year OS were 52% and 32%, respectively. HR CG at allo-HCT and a response

We performed a phase 1/2 trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pomalidomide and to explore its efficacy when combined with cyclophosphamide-prednisone in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. Pomalidomide was given at 1 to 2.5 mg/d, cyclophosphamide at 50 mg every other day, prednisone at 50 mg every other day, for 6 28-day cycles, followed by pomalidomide-prednisone maintenance therapy. Thromboprophylaxis was recommended. Sixty-nine patients were enrolled, 55 received the MTD (2.5 mg/d) and were evaluated. Best responses included complete response in 3 patients (5%), very good partial response in 10 (18%), partial response in 15 (27%), minimal response in 11 (20%), stable disease in 15 (27%), and progressive disease in 1 (3%), for an overall response rate of 51%. The median time-to-response was 1.83 months. After a median follow-up of 14.8 months, median progression-free survival was 10.4 months and 1-year overall survival was 69%. At the MTD, grade 3 to 4 toxicities included anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (11%), neutropenia (42%), neurologic events (7%), dermatologic events (7%), and thromboembolism (2%). Grade 3 to 5 infections occurred in 5 patients (9%). Five patients (9%) discontinued treatment for toxicity. New grade 3 to 4 adverse events were low during maintenance. Pomalidomide-cyclophosphamide-prednisone is safe and effective in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01166113.