Search

Intensive upfront therapy in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) including induction therapy (IT), high-dose melphalan (MEL200), and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ASCT) followed by consolidation and/or maintenance is mostly restricted to patients up to 65 years of age. Prospective phase III trial data in the era of novel agents for patients up to 70 years of age are not available. The GMMG-MM5 trial included 601 patients between 18 and 70 years of age, divided in three groups for the present analysis: ≤60 years (S1, n = 353), 61–65 years (S2, n = 107) and 66–70 years (S3, n = 141). Treatment consisted of a bortezomib-containing IT, MEL200/ASCT, consolidation, and maintenance with lenalidomide. Adherence to treatment was similar among patients of the three age groups. Overall toxicity during all treatment phases was increased in S2 and S3 compared to S1 (any adverse event/any serious adverse event: S1:81.7/41.8% vs. S2:90.7/56.5% vs. S3:87.2/68.1%, p = 0.05/p = 0.73), overall survival (log-rank p = 0.54) as well as time-to-progression (Gray’s p = 0.83) and non-relapse mortality (Gray’s p = 0.25), no differences were found between the three age groups. Our results imply that an intensive upfront therapy with a bortezomib-containing IT, MEL200/ASCT, lenalidomide consolidation, and maintenance should be applied to transplant-eligible MM patients up to 70 years of age.

The MM5 trial aimed at demonstrating a progression-free survival (PFS) difference in continued vs. response-adapted (in case of complete response, CR) lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (MM). Patients were equally randomized to receive induction therapy with PAd (bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone) or VCD (bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone), high-dose melphalan and autologous blood stem cell transplantation, and LEN consolidation, followed by either LEN MT for a fixed duration of 2 years (LEN-2Y) or until achievement of CR (LEN-CR, intention-to-treat population n = 502): arms A1:PAd + LEN-2Y (n = 125), B1:PAd + LEN-CR (n = 126), A2:VCD + LEN-2Y (n = 126), B2:VCD + LEN-CR (n = 125). In the LEN-CR group (B1 + B2), n = 88/17.5% patients did not start or discontinued LEN MT due to CR. There was no PFS (p = 0.60, primary endpoint) nor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.15) difference between the four study arms. On pooled LEN MT strategies, OS (hazard ratio, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42, p = 0.03) but not PFS (HR = 1.15, p = 0.20) was shorter in LEN-CR (B1 + B2) vs. LEN-2Y (A1 + A2) groups. PFS was shortened on landmark analyses from the start of LEN MT in patients being in CR in the LEN-CR group (LEN-CR vs. LEN-2Y, HR = 1.84, p = 0.02). OS from first progression was shortened in the LEN-CR vs. LEN-2Y group (HR = 1.60, p = 0.01). LEN MT should be applied beyond CR for at least 2 years.

PURPOSE DNA-hypomethylating agents are studied in combination with other epigenetic drugs, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors or differentiation inducers (eg, retinoids), in myeloid neoplasias. A randomized, phase II trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted to investigate the effects of the histone deacetylase inhibitor valproate and all- trans retinoic acid (ATRA) in treatment-naive elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred patients (median age, 76 years; range, 61-92 years) ineligible for induction chemotherapy received decitabine (20 mg/m2 intravenously, days 1 to 5) alone (n = 47) or in combination with valproate (n = 57), ATRA (n = 46), or valproate + ATRA (n = 50). The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as complete and partial remission, tested at a one-sided significance level of α = .10. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival, event-free survival, and progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS The addition of ATRA resulted in a higher remission rate (21.9% with ATRA v 13.5% without ATRA; odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.86 to 3.79; one-sided P = .06). For valproate, no effect was observed (17.8% with valproate v 17.2% without valproate; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.21; one-sided P = .44). Median overall survival was 8.2 months with ATRA v 5.1 months without ATRA (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89; two-sided P = .006). Improved survival was observed across risk groups, including patients with adverse cytogenetics, and was associated with longer response duration. With valproate, no survival difference was observed. Toxicities were predominantly hematologic, without relevant differences between the 4 arms. CONCLUSION The addition of ATRA to decitabine resulted in a higher remission rate and a clinically meaningful survival extension in these patients with difficult-to-treat disease, without added toxicity.

The article Bortezomib-based induction, high-dose melphalan and lenalidomide maintenance in myeloma up to 70 years of age, written by Elias K. Mai, Kaya Miah, Uta Bertsch, Jan Dürig, Christof Scheid, Katja C. Weisel, Christina Kunz, Markus Munder, Hans- Walter Lindemann, Maximilian Merz, Dirk Hose, Anna Jauch, Anja Seckinger, Steffen Luntz, Sandra Sauer, Stephan Fuhrmann, Peter Brossart, Ahmet Elmaagacli, Martin Goerner, Helga Bernhard, Martin Hoffmann, Marc S. Raab, Igor W. Blau, Mathias Hänel, Axel Benner, Hans J. Salwender, and Hartmut Goldschmidt for the German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume 35, pages 809–822, the author decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2020 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution. FUNDING Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

CA extern

CA extern

Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MT) post autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) but has not been compared to other agents in clinical trials. We retrospectively compared bortezomib (BTZ; n = 138) or LEN (n = 183) MT from two subsequent GMMG phase III trials. All patients received three cycles of BTZ-based triplet induction and post-ASCT MT. BTZ MT (1.3 mg/m2 i.v.) was administered every 2 weeks for 2 years. LEN MT included two consolidation cycles (25 mg p.o., days 1–21 of 28 day cycles) followed by 10–15 mg/day for 2 years. The BTZ cohort more frequently received tandem ASCT (91% vs. 33%) due to different tandem ASCT strategies. In the LEN and BTZ cohort, 43% and 46% of patients completed 2 years of MT as intended (p = 0.57). Progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.83, p = 0.18) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.70, p = 0.15) did not differ significantly with LEN vs. BTZ MT. Patients with n = 54 vs. BTZ: n = 84), LEN MT significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.61, p = 0.04) but not OS (HR = 0.46, p = 0.09). In conclusion, the significant PFS benefit after eliminating the impact of different tandem ASCT rates supports the current standard of LEN MT after ASCT.

The role of salvage high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (sHDCT/ASCT) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the era of continuous novel agent treatment has not been defined. This randomized, open-label, phase III, multicenter trial randomized patients with 1st-3rd relapse of multiple myeloma (MM) to a transplant arm (n = 139) consisting of 3 Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg, day 1-21; dexamethasone 40 mg, day 1, 8, 15, and 22; 4-week cycles) reinduction cycles, sHDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2), ASCT, and lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg/day) or to a control arm (n = 138) of continuous Rd. Median PFS was 20.7 months in the transplant and 18.8 months in the control arm (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.65-1.16; p = 0.34). Median OS was not reached in the transplant and 62.7 months in the control arm (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.52-1.28; p = 0.37). Forty-one patients (29%) did not receive the assigned sHDCT/ASCT mainly due to early disease progression, adverse events, and withdrawal of consent. Multivariate landmark analyses from the time of sHDCT showed superior PFS and OS (p = 0.0087/0.0057) in patients who received sHDCT/ASCT. Incorporation of sHDCT/ASCT into relapse treatment with Rd was feasible in 71% of patients and did not significantly prolong PFS and OS on ITT analysis while patients who received sHDCT/ASCT may have benefitted.

The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology Group-65/German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group-HD4 (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4) phase III trial compared bortezomib (BTZ) before and after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDM, PAD arm) compared with classical cytotoxic agents prior and thalidomide after HDM (VAD arm) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients aged 18-65 years. Here, the long-term follow-up and data on second primary malignancies (SPM) are presented. After a median follow-up of 96 months, progression-free survival (censored at allogeneic transplantation, PFS) remained significantly prolonged in the PAD versus VAD arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.65-0.89, P = 0.001). Overall survival (OS) was similar in the PAD versus VAD arm (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.08, P = 0.24). The incidence of SPM were similar between the two arms (7% each, P = 0.73). The negative prognostic effects of the cytogenetic aberration deletion 17p13 (clone size >= 10%) and renal impairment at baseline (serum creatinine > 2 mg dl(-1)) on PFS and OS remained abrogated in the PAD but not VAD arm. OS from first relapse/progression was similar between the study arms (HR = 1.02, P = 0.85). In conclusion, the survival benefit with BTZ induction/maintenance compared with classical cytotoxic agents and thalidomide maintenance is maintained without an increased risk of SPM.

We investigated subclonal cytogenetic aberrations (CA) detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) enrolled in the Haemato Oncology Foundation for Adults in the Netherlands (HOVON)-65/German-Speaking MM Group (GMMG)-HD4 phase 3 trial. Patients were either treated with 3 cycles of vincristine, Adriamycin, and dexamethasone or bortezomib, Adriamycin, and dexamethasone and then thalidomide or bortezomib maintenance after tandem autologous transplantation. Subclones were defined either by presence of different copy numbers of the same chromosome loci and/or CA present in at least 30% less and maximally 2/3 of cells compared with the main clone CA. Patients with subclones harbored more frequently high risk (31.0%) or hyperdiploid main clone aberrations (24.8%) than patients with t(11;14) in the main clone (10.1%). Gains and deletions of c-MYC were the only CA that occurred more frequently as subclone (8.1%/20.5%) than main clone (6.2%/3.9%, respectively). Treatment with bortezomib completely overcame the negative prognosis of high-risk CA in patients without subclones, but not in patients with additional subclonal CA. High-risk patients treated without bortezomib showed dismal outcome whether subclones were present or not. Cytogenetic heterogeneity defined by subclonal CA is of major prognostic significance in newly diagnosed MM patients treated with bortezomib within the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial.

Objectives Randomized comparison of two treatment strategies in frontline therapy of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL): all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and double induction intensified by high-dose cytosine arabinoside (HD ara-C) (German AMLCG) and therapy with ATRA and anthracyclines (Spanish PETHEMA, LPA99). Patients and results Eighty of 87 adult patients with genetically confirmed APL of all risk groups were eligible. The outcome of both arms was similar: AMLCG vs PETHEMA: hematological complete remission 87% vs 83%, early death 13% vs 17% (P = .76), overall survival, event-free survival, leukemia-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse at 6 years 75% vs 78% (P = .92); 75% vs 68% (P = .29); 86% vs 81% (P = .28); and 0% vs 12% (P = .04, no relapse vs four relapses), respectively. The median time to achieve molecular remission (RT-PCR negativity of PML-RARA) was 60 days in both arms (P = .12). The AMLCG regimen was associated with a longer duration of neutropenia (P = .02) and a higher rate of WHO grade ≥3 infections. Conclusions The small number of patients limits the reliability of conclusions. With these restrictions, the outcomes of both approaches were similar and show the limitations of ATRA and chemotherapy. The HD ara-C-containing regimen was associated with a lower relapse rate in high-risk APL.

We investigated the prognostic impact of time-dependent serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) normalization in 590 patients with secretory multiple myeloma (MM) during first-line treatment within the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group MM5 trial. Serum free light chains (sFLC) were assessed by the Freelite test at baseline, after induction, mobilization, autologous blood stem cell transplantation, consolidation and every three months during maintenance or follow up within two years after the start of maintenance. The proportion of patients with a normal or normalized FLCr increased from 3.6% at baseline to 23.2% after induction and 64.7% after consolidation. The achievement of FLCr normalization at any one time before the start of maintenance was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (p &lt, 0.01, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.47–0.79) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.02, HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.48–0.93) in multivariable time-dependent Cox regression analyses. Furthermore, reaching immune reconstitution, defined as the normalization of uninvolved immunoglobulins, before maintenance was associated with superior PFS (p = 0.04, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.60–0.99) and OS (p = 0.01, HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41–0.86). We conclude that FLCr normalization during therapy is an important favorable prognostic factor in MM. Therefore, we recommend serial measurements of sFLC during therapy until achieving FLCr normalization, even in patients with secretory MM.

Objective Analysis of the efficiency and toxicity of cyclophosphamide-based stem cell mobilization in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM). Methods Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) were mobilized with high dose cyclophosphamide (2 g/m2 daily on days 1 and 2) and G-CSF plus pre-emptive/rescue plerixafor in RMM patients (first to third relapse) treated within the ReLApsE trial of the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG). Results Mobilization was initiated with high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-CY) and G-CSF in 30 patients. Fifteen patients received additional pre-emptive/rescue administration of plerixafor. Stem cell collection was successful (≥2×106 CD34+ cells per kg bw) in 77% (23/30 patients). Patients with prior high-dose melphalan collected a significantly lower median total number of PBSCs than patients without prior high-dose melphalan (3.3×106 vs 17×106 CD34+ cells/kg bw). Toxicity of HD-CY was frequent with 12 serious adverse events (SAE) in 37% of patients (11/30 patients). Infections accounted for the majority of SAE reports. In two patients, SAEs were lethal (septic shock). Conclusions These data proof feasibility of PBSC collection at relapse but emphasize the importance of collection and storage of additional PBSC transplants during first-line treatment when mobilization is more efficient and less toxic.

Background: Despite major advances in therapy, multiple myeloma is still an incurable malignancy in the majority of patients. To increase survival, deeper remissions (i.e. CR) translating into longer PFS need to be achieved. Incorporation of new drugs (i.e. bortezomib and lenalidomide) as induction and maintenance treatment in an intensified treatment concept, including high dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), has resulted in increased CR rates, and is considered the standard of care for younger patients. Elotuzumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone has given better results as lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in a phase III trial. The GMMG-HD6 trial will be the first phase III trial investigating the role of elotuzumab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD) induction/consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance within a high dose concept. Methods: GMMG-HD6 is a randomized, open, multicenter phase III trial. The planned recruitment number is 564 NDMM patients. All patients will receive 4 VRD cycles as induction and undergo peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvesting. Thereafter they will be treated with high dose melphalan therapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation followed by 2 cycles of VRD consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance. Patients in arm B1 + B2 will additionally receive elotuzumab in the induction phase, whereas patients in A2 + B2 will be treated with elotuzumab added to consolidation and maintenance. The primary endpoint of the trial is PFS. Secondary objectives and endpoints are OS, CR rates after induction therapy comparing the two arms VRD (A1 + A2) vs VRD + elotuzumab (B1 + B2), CR rates after consolidation treatment, best response to treatment during the study, time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), toxicity and quality of life. Results: Since this is the publication of a study protocol of an ongoing study, no results can be presented. Discussion: This phase III trial is designed to evaluate whether the addition of elotuzumab to an intensified treatment concept with high dose melphalan chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation and induction, consolidation and maintenance treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide is able to improve PFS compared to the same concept without elotuzumab. Trial registration: NCT02495922 on June 24th, 2015.

Standard first-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia is treatment with imatinib. In the randomized German Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV, more potent BCR-ABL inhibition with 800 mg ('high-dose') imatinib accelerated achievement of a deep molecular remission. However, whether and when a de-escalation of the dose intensity under high-dose imatinib can be safely performed without increasing the risk of losing deep molecular response is unknown. To gain insights into this clinically relevant question, we analyzed the outcome of imatinib dose reductions from 800 mg to 400 mg daily in the Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV. Of the 422 patients that were randomized to the 800 mg arm, 68 reduced imatinib to 400 mg after they had achieved at least a stable major molecular response. Of these 68 patients, 61 (90%) maintained major molecular remission on imatinib at 400 mg. Five of the seven patients who lost major molecular remission on the imatinib standard dose regained major molecular remission while still on 400 mg imatinib. Only two of 68 patients had to switch to more potent kinase inhibition to regain major molecular remission. Importantly, the lengths of the intervals between imatinib high-dose treatment before and after achieving major molecular remission were associated with the probabilities of maintaining major molecular remission with the standard dose of imatinib. Taken together, the data support the view that a deep molecular remission achieved with high-dose imatinib can be safely maintained with standard dose in most patients. Study protocol registered at clinicaltrials.gov 00055874.

Korrektur zu 10.1038/s41375-020-0826-9

Background: Novel agents such as IMIDs and proteasome inhibitors have substantially changed the therapeutic landscape in the first line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). Better response rates and prolonged progression-free survival have lead to an improvement in overall survival (OS) with median values well beyond 5 years. Therefore to assess whether first line therapy strategies have an impact on the prognosis for patients with MM, long-term results of clinical trials with follow up covering >10 years are necessary. Methods: The HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 study is a prospective randomized trial testing bortezomib+adriamycin+dexamethasone (PAD) for 3 cycles as induction prior to high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplantation compared to vincristine+adriamycin+dexamethasone (VAD) in the control arm. After one (HOVON) or two (GMMG) HDT maintenance was given for 2 years consisting of bortezomib every 2 weeks in the PAD arm and thalidomide 50 mg daily in the VAD arm. The study results were initially reported in 2012 (1) and with a median follow up of 91 months in 2018 (2). In this analysis we present OS results after a median follow up of 137 months. All hazard ratios (HR) are given with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Overall survival at 12 years was 32% (CI 27-37%) in the VAD arm versus 36% (CI 31-41%) in the PAD arm without significant difference in the univariate Cox model (HR 0.87, CI 0.73 - 1.03, p=0. 11 or in multivariate Cox model including ISS stage and treatment arm (HR 0.87, CI 0.73 - 1.04, p=0.12; the primary analysis) as specified in the study protocol. When other factors including age, sex, ISS stage, WHO performance status, Immunoglobulin-type, Durie and Salmon-stage, LDH, del 13q, study group and renal impairment (RI, defined as serum creatinine ≥ 2 mg/dl) were added to the Cox model, treatment in the PAD arm was a significant factor for improved OS (HR 0.84, CI 0.7 - 1.0, p=0.048). Of the remaining factors age (HR 1.02, CI 1.01 - 1.03, p=0.002), female sex (HR 0.83, CI 0.69 - 0.99, p=0.044), ISS stage (HR 1.19, CI 1.04 - 1.35, p=0.01), WHO performance status (HR 1.32, CI 1.17 - 1.48, pULN (HR 1.44, CI 1.14 - 1.82, p=0.002), del 13q (HR 1.42, CI 1.17 - 1.73, p Discussion: Long-term results of the HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial show that one third of patients receiving HDT with either thalidomide-based or bortezomib-based maintenance are still alive at 12 years. In contrast to earlier analyses with shorter follow up (1,2) the use of bortezomib in the induction and maintenance treatment provided a significant OS benefit when adjusting for other risk in a multivariate Cox model, although not in the primary analysis. A particular OS benefit was found in patients with RI receiving bortezomib before and after HDT and this could completely abolish the negative prognostic impact of RI. Similarly bortezomib used in combination with tandem-HDT improved OS in patients with del17p so that more than a third of these patients with high-risk MM survived more than 10 years. Our results underline that despite the growing options for treatment at relapse the choice of an optimal first-line therapy is of critical prognostic importance, in particular for patients with high-risk myeloma. References: 1) Sonneveld et al., J Clin Oncol, 2012; 30:2946-2955 2) Goldschmidt et al., Leukemia 2018; 32: 383-390 Figure 1 Disclosures Scheid: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bertsch:Celgene: Other: travel support; Sanofi: Other: travel support. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kersten:Gilead: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mai:Mundipharma: Other: travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Hillengass:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Stilgenbauer:AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Hoffmann La-Roche, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Broyl:Celgene, amgen, Janssen,Takeda: Honoraria. Bos:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Shareholder (of Cytosen, acquired by Kiadis); Celgene: Research Funding. Dührsen:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CPT: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Salwender:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: 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; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Stiftung: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; John-Hopkins University: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: bortezomib maintenance thalidomide maintenance

Dose-dense induction with the S-HAM regimen was compared to standard double induction therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Patients were centrally randomized (1:1) between S-HAM (2nd chemotherapy cycle starting on day 8 = “dose-dense”) and double induction with TAD-HAM or HAM(-HAM) (2nd cycle starting on day 21 = “standard”). 387 evaluable patients were randomly assigned to S-HAM (N = 203) and to standard double induction (N = 184). The primary endpoint overall response rate (ORR) consisting of complete remission (CR) and incomplete remission (CRi) was not significantly different (P = 0.202) between S-HAM (77%) and double induction (72%). The median overall survival was 35 months after S-HAM and 25 months after double induction (P = 0.323). Duration of critical leukopenia was significantly reduced after S-HAM (median 29 days) versus double induction (median 44 days)—P < 0.001. This translated into a significantly shortened duration of hospitalization after S-HAM (median 37 days) as compared to standard induction (median 49 days)—P < 0.001. In conclusion, dose-dense induction therapy with the S-HAM regimen shows favorable trends but no significant differences in ORR and OS compared to standard double induction. S-HAM significantly shortens critical leukopenia and the duration of hospitalization by 2 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Initial results from the ongoing GALLIUM trial have shown that patients with follicular lymphoma have a longer progression-free survival after first-line immunochemotherapy with obinutuzumab than with rituximab. The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of PET-CT responses after first-line immunochemotherapy in the GALLIUM study.METHODS: GALLIUM is an open-label, parallel-group randomised, phase 3 trial, which recruited previously untreated patients with CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3a; disease stage III/IV, or stage II with largest tumour diameter ≥7 cm) who were aged 18 years or older and met the criteria for needing treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous administration of obinutuzumab (1000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of subsequent cycles) or rituximab (375 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle), in six 21-day cycles with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CHOP; oral administration) followed by two 21-day cycles of antibody alone, or eight 21-day cycles cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CVP; oral administration), or six 28-day cycles with bendamustine, followed by maintenance antibody every 2 months for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint of the trial, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, has been reported previously. This secondary analysis reports PET and CT-based responses at end-of-induction therapy and explains their relation with progression-free and overall survival outcomes in patients with available scans. As per protocol, during the trial, PET scans (mandatory in the first 170 patients enrolled at sites with available PET facilities, and optional thereafter), acquired at baseline and end of induction (PET population), were assessed prospectively by investigators and an independent review committee (IRC) applying International Harmonisation Project (IHP) 2007 response criteria, and retrospectively by the IRC only applying current Lugano 2014 response criteria. IRC members (but not study investigators) were masked to treatment and clinical outcome when assessing response. The landmark analyses excluded patients who died or progressed (contrast enhanced CT-based assessment of progressive disease, or started next anti-lymphoma treatment) before or at end of induction. GALLIUM is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01332968.FINDINGS: 1202 patients were enrolled in GALLIUM between July 6, 2011, and Feb 4, 2014, of whom 595 were included in the PET population; 533 (IHP 2007; prospective analysis), and 508 (Lugano 2014; retrospective analysis) were analysed for progression-free survival (landmark analysis). At end of induction, 390 of 595 patients (65·5% [95% CI 61·6-69·4]) achieved PET complete response according to IHP 2007 criteria, and 450 (75·6% [95% CI 72·0-79·0]) obtained PET complete metabolic response according to Lugano 2014 criteria. With a median of 43·3 months of observation (IQR 36·2-51·8), 2·5-year progression-free survival from end of induction was 87·8% (95% CI 83·9-90·8) in PET complete responders and 72·0% (63·1-79·0) in non-complete responders according to IRC-assessed IHP 2007 criteria (hazard ratio [HR] 0·4, 95% CI 0·3-0·6, pINTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that PET is a better imaging modality than contrast-enhanced CT for response assessment after first-line immunochemotherapy in patients with follicular lymphoma. PET assessment according to Lugano 2014 response criteria provides a platform for investigation of response-adapted therapeutic approaches. Additional supportive data are welcomed.FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Introduction The inclusion of "novel" agents including proteasome inhibitors or IMiD-derivatives in the treatment of multiple myeloma significantly improves patient survival. Results of several study groups suggest incorporating at least one "novel agent" in first-line treatment before and after high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. Here we address four main questions: First, what determines (excellent) long-term survival for different treatment regimen? Second, can we show benefit of novel agents for all patients and molecular subentities, including low risk? Third, can the prognostic impact of molecular entities be explained by different association with response, proliferation, and renal impairment? Fourth, does it matter regarding long-term survival by which agents, i.e. "old" vs. "new", a response was reached? Patients and Methods Patients were included in the prospective phase III HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4-trial (German part, n=354) randomizing VAD-induction, autologous tandem-transplantation and thalidomide-maintenance vs. PAD-induction, tandem-transplantation and bortezomib-maintenance. Plasma cells after CD138-purification were subjected to interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization and gene expression profiling using Affymetrix U133 2.0 DNA-microarrays. Median follow-up (time to censoring) was 93 months. Results Low proliferation, revised-ISS I and cyto-ISS I delineate excellent long-term survival (70-75% after eight years, both arms). Molecular entities are associated with proliferation-rate, i.e. higher (del17p13, del8p21, del13q14, 1q21+, t(4;14)) or lower proliferation (hyperdiploidy), and response: bad response/survival in case of del17p, bad response/no survival impact (t(11;14)), and good response/bad survival (1q21+, t(4;14), and del13q), depending on the treatment regimen. Thus, it does not hold true that good response = good survival if patients are substratified according to their molecular background. Renal insufficiency is associated with 1q21+, del17p13, and t(4;14). For patients with ≥1 of the chromosomal aberrations del17p13, t(4;14), 1q21+ (i.e. cytogenetic high risk, 27.5% of patients) or renal insufficiency (10.6%), risk is abrogated; in absence of these risk features, no benefit could be shown. Patients reaching a near complete remission or better (≥nCR) with VAD-based regimen, HDT followed by thalidomide maintenance show significantly better survival compared to those reaching ≥nCR after bortezomib-based induction/HDT followed by bortezomib maintenance treatment. Conclusions Taken together, adversely prognostic molecular entities are associated with proliferation but can show association with better or adverse remission. Bortezomib-based upfront treatment abrogates chromosomal high-risk aberrations and renal insufficiency; however, no long-term survival-benefit is evident for those without these risk factors or low proliferation, i.e. the majority of patients. Responses achieved by different regimen are not equal in transmission in long-term survival. Responses (≥nCR) are not equivalent regarding their biological and prognostic role in patients with different molecular background and different treatment regimen. Disclosures Seckinger: Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding. Salwender:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Scheid:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Knauf:Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy. Duehrsen:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dürig:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Schmidt-Wolf:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Haenel:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Raab:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Blau:Celgene: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory boards; BMS: Other: Advisory board. Hillengass:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Weisel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt:Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; ArtTempi: Honoraria. Hose:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Up to 20% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) show signs of peripheral neuropathy (PN) at primary diagnosis.[1][1] Treatment with neurotoxic agents such as bortezomib or thalidomide increases rates of PN in newly diagnosed patients by up to 50%.[2][2] Since subcutaneous (SC) administration

To investigate cytogenetic evolution after upfront autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma we retrospectively analyzed fluorescence in situ hybridization results of 128 patients with paired bone marrow samples from the time of primary diagnosis and at relapse. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (deletion 17p and/or gain 1q21) occurred more frequently after relapse (odds ratio: 6.33; 95% confidence interval: 1.86-33.42; P

To investigate cytogenetic evolution after upfront autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma we retrospectively analyzed fluorescence in situ hybridization results of 128 patients with paired bone marrow samples from the time of primary diagnosis and at relapse. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (deletion 17p and/or gain 1q21) occurred more frequently after relapse (odds ratio: 6.33; 95% confidence interval: 1.86–33.42; P

Introduction The ReLApsE trial compared lenalidomide (LEN)/dexamethasone (DEX; Rd) re-induction, salvage high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and LEN maintenance with continuous Rd in relapsed multiple myeloma. Landmark (LM) analyses from salvage HDCT were performed due to the fact that ~30% of patients in the HDCT arm did not receive salvage HDCT/ASCT. These analyses showed a survival benefit in patients actually undergoing salvage HDCT/ASCT. Median PFS and OS from LM were 23.3 vs. 20.1 months (HR 0.74; p=0.09) and not reached vs. 57 months (HR 0.56; p=0.046) favoring the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm. Multivariate LM analyses showed significant associations of the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm with superior PFS (HR 0.6; p=0.01) and OS (HR 0.39; p=0.006). The present analysis aims to dissect treatment efficacy in relevant subgroups and provide clues for treatment stratification. Methods The ReLApsE trial (ISRCTN16345835) compared 3 Rd (LEN 25 mg, d1-21; DEX 40 mg, d1,8,15,22; 4 week cycles) re-induction cycles, HDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2), ASCT and LEN maintenance (10 mg/d) until PD (arm B, n=139) with Rd until PD (arm A, n=138). Key inclusion criteria were 1-3 prior therapy lines, age ≤ 75, time to PD in case of front-line HDCT/ASCT (TTP1) ≥ 12 months and WHO PS ≤ 2. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed in the ITT population for PFS/OS using an LM at HDCT (B; n=103) and the contemporaneous Rd cycle 5 (A; n=114). The median interval from randomization to LM was 117/122 days in arm B/A. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed by cox regression with interaction term between treatment and subgroup factor. Results No significant differences in the PFS/OS benefit between arms were observed in subgroups according to baseline ISS (I/II/III; interaction p[i-p]=0.5/0.66), age (1; i-p=0.37/0.22), single vs. tandem front-line HDCT/ASCT (i-p=0.34/0.56), and TTP1 (12-24 vs. 24-48 vs. >48 months; i-p=0.91/0.21). The subgroups according to front-line HDCT/ASCT (yes/no) differed significantly with regard to PFS/OS benefit in arm B (i-p=0.006/0.001). A significant benefit was observed in patients with front-line HDCT/ASCT treated in arm B regarding PFS (HR 0.68, p=0.03; n=107[A]/98[B]) and OS (HR 0.43, p=0.009). Patients without front-line HDCT/ASCT constituted a very small subgroup with imbalances in baseline parameters adversely affecting arm B and had expectably inferior survival in arm B (PFS: HR 4.35, p=0.08; OS: HR 19.83, p=0.0078; n=7[A]/5[B]). The subgroup with baseline LDH upper limit of normal (ULN) differed significantly in PFS benefit in arm B (i-p=0.03) but not in OS benefit (i-p=0.46). Patients with LDHULN (PFS: HR 1.54, p=0.31; n=16[A]/18[B]). The subgroups according to baseline cytogenetic risk and R-ISS showed a trend towards a differential benefit in arm B regarding OS (i-p=0.05 and 0.09) but not PFS (i-p=0.5 and 0.88). Patients with low risk cytogenetics (i.e. absence of t(4;14), del17p, +1q>3 copies and t(14;16)) had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.21; p=0.01; n=57[A]/35[B]), whereas patients with high risk cytogenetics had no significant difference in OS according to trial arm (HR 0.82, p=0.67; n=25[A]/28[B]). Patients with R-ISS I had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.08; p=0.02; n=33[A]/25[B]), whereas no significant difference in OS according to trial arm was seen in patients with R-ISS II (HR 0.72, p=0.42; n=52[A]/43[B]) and R-ISS III (HR 0.65, p=0.6; n=3[A]/5[B]). Conclusions The ReLApsE trial is the first RCT of salvage HDCT/ASCT vs. continuous novel agent treatment. In the absence of a significant survival benefit for the primary endpoint, LM analyses indicated a significant PFS/OS benefit in patients actually undergoing HDCT/ASCT. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed according to ISS, age, renal function, response to re-induction, prior therapy lines, single vs. tandem front-line HDCT/ASCT, and TTP1. Subgroup effects regarding PFS and/or OS benefit from HDCT/ASCT were seen favoring patients with front-line HDCT/ASCT and patients with low risk according to LDH, cytogenetics and R-ISS. Disclosures Baertsch: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Raab:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillengass:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding. Graeven:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria. Fenk:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Haenel:Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Scheid:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Salwender:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Salvage high dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is used in fit patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) in clinical practice. However, the role of this approach in the era of continuous novel agent based treatment has not been defined in randomized trials. The ReLApsE trial compared lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) re-induction, salvage HDCT/ASCT and lenalidomide (R) maintenance with standard continuous Rd in a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Methods Between 2010 and 2016, 282 patients were randomized of whom 277 constituted the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (arm B/A n=139/138). Arm B received 3 cycles of Rd (lenalidomide 25 mg, day 1-21; dexamethasone 40 mg, day 1, 8, 15, 22; 4 week cycles) re-induction, HDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2), ASCT and R maintenance (10 mg daily) until progression (PD). Arm A was treated with Rd until PD. In both arms stem cells were harvested after the 3rd Rd cycle if no back-up transplant was available. Key inclusion criteria were 1-3 prior therapy lines, age ≤ 75 years, time to PD ≥ 12 months in case of front-line HDCT/ASCT and WHO PS ≤ 2. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates and toxicity. ISRCTN16345835, Eudra CT-No: 2009-013856-61. Results Arm B and A were balanced regarding age (median 61.3 vs. 62.2 years), ISS (I/II/III in 62.6/24.4/13% vs. 59.7/31/9.3%) and WHO PS (0/1/2 in 69.1/30.9/0% vs. 76.1/23.2/0.7%). Almost all patients had only 1 prior therapy line (arm B: 94.2% vs. arm A: 93.5%) and had received front-line HDCT/ASCT (92.8% vs. 94.2%). More patients in arm B had high risk cytogenetic aberrations (HR-CA; 42.9% vs. 31.6%) based on a higher frequency of t(4;14) (20.2% vs. 10.1%). The overall response rate (≥ partial response; ORR) for arm B and A was 77.9% and 74.6% (p=0.57) with 49.3% and 47.1% (p=0.81) achieving ≥ very good partial response as best response. Within a median follow up of 36.3 months, 183 PFS events and 76 deaths occurred. Median PFS in the ITT population was 20.7 months in arm B and 18.8 months in arm A without a statistically significant difference (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.65-1.16; p=0.34). Median OS was not reached (NR) in arm B vs. 62.7 months in arm A (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.52-1.28; p=0.37). In arm B, 41 patients (29.5%) did not receive the planned HDCT/ASCT. Thus, exploratory landmark (LM) analyses from HDCT and the contemporaneous Rd cycle 5 in arm A were performed (median interval from randomization to HDCT/Rd cycle 5: 117/122 days; n=103[B]/114[A]). They showed a trend towards superior PFS (23.3 vs. 20.1 months; HR 0.74; p=0.09) and significantly superior OS (NR vs. 57 months; HR 0.56; p=0.046) in arm B vs. A. Multivariate analyses revealed significant associations of treatment in arm B with superior LM PFS (HR 0.6; p=0.01) and LM OS (HR 0.39; p=0.006). Other factors in the LM multivariate models showing significant associations with survival were HR-CA (PFS, OS), number of prior therapy lines (PFS), and age (PFS). The ORR in arm B after HDCT/ASCT was significantly higher than in arm A after Rd cycle 5 (82.3% vs. 69.6%; p=0.04). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 83% (arm B) and 74.5% (arm A; p=0.11). Grade ≥3 leukopenia/neutropenia was reported in 61.5 vs. 24.8% (p Conclusions This is the first RCT comparing salvage HDCT/ASCT with continuous novel agent based treatment. No significant PFS or OS difference was observed in the overall trial population. However, HR-CA were more frequent in the HDCT/ASCT arm and ~30% of patients did not receive the planned HDCT/ASCT. Landmark analyses from the time of HDCT indicate superior PFS and OS in patients actually undergoing salvage HDCT/ASCT. Salvage HDCT/ASCT was safe with an expected increase in hematological as wells as gastrointestinal toxicity but without treatment-related mortality in patients up to the age of 75 years in this multicenter trial. However, the number of patients not undergoing salvage HDCT/ASCT and the approval of more active Rd-based triplet regimens after the initiation of this trial prevents definite conclusions on the role of salvage HDCT/ASCT. Disclosures Goldschmidt: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding. Baertsch:Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Raab:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillengass:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Graeven:AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenk:Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Haenel:Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Scheid:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Salwender:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: The therapeutic effect of DNA-hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in AML/MDS is discussed to be via its effects on aberrant gene silencing by reactivation (e.g. through promoter hypomethylation). While this has been broadly studied in cell line models, only very few studies have addressed the global effects of HMAs in primary blasts serially isolated from AML patients (pts) undergoing HMA treatment (Claus et al., Leuk. Res. 2013, Klco et al., Blood 2013, Welch et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 2016). We therefore conducted prospective serial methylome and transcriptome analyses on AML blasts from pts of the DECIDER trial (NCT00867672), hypothesizing that both random and non-random effects of the HMA may be observed in vivo. Patients, Materials and Methods: Of a total of 200 newly diagnosed AML pts included into the DECIDER randomized phase II trial (Decitabine/DAC treatment, 20 mg/m2 intravenous 1-hour infusion over 5 days, with add-on drugs Valproic acid and/or ATRA added at day 6; Grishina et al., BMC Cancer 2015), serially obtained peripheral blood (pb) samples from a total of 28 pts yielded sufficient numbers of purified blasts at 3 timepoints (days 0, 8 and 15 from DAC treatment start) to allow a "triplet analysis" of these matched samples. Baseline pt characteristics: median WBC 11,900/µl (range 1,200 - 53,800), median pb blasts 37.5% (range 1% - 93%). Blasts were sorted using anti-CD34, CD117 MACS microbeads, respectively (median purity >90%). Methylomes were obtained using Infinium Human Methylation 450 BeadChip arrays (Illumina). For expression analyses, GeneChip Human Gene 2.0 ST arrays were used. A linear-model based approach was used to identify the differentially methylated CpGs and expressed genes post vs. prior to treatment. Results: To address in vivo methylation changes occurring at day 8 and 15 from DAC treatment start, complete "triplets" of DNA preparations (thus from purified pb blasts of all 3 time points) were interrogated. Significant hypomethylation at day 8 (Δβ Conclusions: In our study, a subset of genes was specifically targeted by hypomethylation in all pts, arguing against a completely random effect of this treatment on the methylome. Only a limited number of hypomethylating events was associated with gene reactivation. A better understanding of hypo- and remethylation kinetics in vivo may aid in schedule optimization of HMA therapy. Correlative studies on hypomethylation kinetics and treatment outcome in the DECIDER trial are therefore ongoing, as well as serial methylome analyses in the EORTC trial AML21 ("inDACtion vs. induction", NCT02172872). Disclosures Salih: Several patent applications: Patents & Royalties: e.g. EP3064507A1. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Döhner:Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lübbert:Cheplapharm: Other: Study drug; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; TEVA: Other: Study drug; Celgene: Other: Travel Support.

Introduction In older patients (pts), host factors such as functional deficits, comorbidities and other age-related factors are increasingly recognized as predictors for outcome of leukemia treatment. Thus, prospective clinical trials increasingly implement functional studies (often termed geriatric assessment) in their pretreatment diagnostic workup. In older, fit AML pts receiving standard chemotherapy, Klepin et al. demonstrated a predictive value of this approach for overall survival (OS) in a single-center study (Blood 2013). We also developed a Frailty Score, assessed at 3 study centers and predicting OS of elderly AML/MDS pts receiving either hypomethylating agents (n=66) or sole best supportive care (n=35; Deschler et al., Haematologica 2013). To validate this score, which is composed of performance status (PS), activities of daily living (ADL) and fatigue, we prospectively assessed these parameters in the DECIDER trial (AMLSG 14-09, NCT00867672). Methods In the DECIDER trial, 200 non-fit AML pts aged >60 years (yr) were randomized between four treatment arms with either decitabine (DAC) alone, or DAC plus all-trans retinoid acid (ATRA) or DAC plus valproic acid (VPA) or DAC plus ATRA and VPA. We assessed PS via ECOG, ADL via Barthel index and fatigue via the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which were available for 200, 175 and 156 pts, respectively. Pts with missing ADL and/or fatigue assessments tended to have a lower PS than those with complete data, which may explain at least in part why the assessments could not be performed. The Frailty Score was calculated using ECOG PS as a substitute for the Karnofsky Index (KI, as applied when establishing this score), with ECOG 0-1 taken as corresponding to KI ≥80, and ECOG 2-3 to KI Results For 141 pts with complete data in all 3 parameters building the Frailty Score, median follow-up time was 28 months, and 122 pts had died. The median age of pts at AML diagnosis was 76 yr (range 61-90) and 96 pts (68.1%) were males. Median WBC was 3.100/µl (interquartile range [IQR] 1.400 to 11.500/µl), median platelet count 49.000/µl (IQR 30.000 to 98.000/µl), median hemoglobin (Hb) 9.2g/dl (IQR 8.3 to 10.1g/dl), with median peripheral blasts of 48% (IQR 25 to 76%) and median LDH 287 U/l (IQR 203 to 459 U/l). 32.6% of the pts had adverse genetic risk according to ELN 2010 criteria. 56.7% had relevant comorbidities (HCT-CI ≥3). The majority of pts had a reduced PS (21.3% ECOG 0, 62.4% ECOG 1 and 16.3% ECOG 2-3). When assessing ADL, 30.5% had limitations (ADL 1, ADL Conclusions This previously described pt fitness assessment to calculate the Frailty Score could now be implemented in a multicenter academic trial setting. In our independent, large AML cohort, the score was able to separate pts into groups with different OS, underlining the emerging roles of ADL and fatigue as predictors of outcome, in addition to the already well-established role of PS. A second prospective validation study, in AML pts aged ≥ 60 yr receiving standard "7+3" induction therapy or 10-day DAC (EORTC AML21 "inDACtion vs. induction" trial, NCT02172872), is ongoing. Disclosures Schlenk: Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Salih:Several patent applications: Patents & Royalties: e.g. EP3064507A1. Bug:Janssen: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Grant; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Other: Travel Grant; Astellas Pharma: Other: Travel Grant. Germing:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Scholl:Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel support; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Carreras Foundation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbivie: Other: Travel support; Alexion: Other: Travel support; MDS: Other: Travel support. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Döhner:Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lubbert:Teva: Other: Study drug; Celgene: Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background Despite novel therapeutic agents, most multiple myeloma (MM) patients eventually relapse. Two large phase III trials have shown significantly improved response rates (RR) of lenalidomide/dexamethasone compared with placebo/dexamethasone in relapsed MM (RMM) patients. These results have led to the approval of lenalidomide for RMM patients and lenalidomide/dexamethasone has since become a widely accepted second-line treatment. Furthermore, in RMM patients consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation has been shown to significantly increase progression free survival (PFS) as compared to cyclophosphamide in a phase III trial. The randomized prospective ReLApsE trial is designed to evaluate PFS after lenalidomide/dexamethasone induction, high-dose chemotherapy consolidation plus autologous stem cell transplantation and lenalidomide maintenance compared with the well-established lenalidomide/dexamethasone regimen in RMM patients. Methods/Design ReLApsE is a randomized, open, multicenter phase III trial in a planned study population of 282 RMM patients. All patients receive three lenalidomide/dexamethasone cycles and - in absence of available stem cells from earlier harvesting - undergo peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and harvesting. Subsequently, patients in arm A continue on consecutive lenalidomide/dexamethasone cycles, patients in arm B undergo high dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance until discontinuation criteria are met. Therapeutic response is evaluated after the 3rd (arm A + B) and the 5th lenalidomide/dexamethasone cycle (arm A) or 2 months after autologous stem cell transplantation (arm B) and every 3 months thereafter (arm A + B). After finishing the study treatment, patients are followed up for survival and subsequent myeloma therapies. The expected trial duration is 6.25 years from first patient in to last patient out. The primary endpoint is PFS, secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), RR, time to best response and the influence of early versus late salvage high dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation on OS. Discussion This phase III trial is designed to evaluate whether high dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation and lenalidomide maintenance after lenalidomide/dexamethasone induction improves PFS compared with the well-established continued lenalidomide/dexamethasone regimen in RMM patients. Trial registration: ISRCTN16345835 (date of registration 2010-08-24). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2321-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors represent today's treatment of choice in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is regarded as salvage therapy. This prospective randomized CML-study IIIA recruited 669 patients with newly diagnosed CML between July 1997 and January 2004 from 143 centers. Of these, 427 patients were considered eligible for HSCT and were randomized by availability of a matched family donor between primary HSCT (group A; N=166 patients) and best available drug treatment (group B; N=261). Primary end point was long-term survival. Survival probabilities were not different between groups A and B (10-year survival: 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.82) vs 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61-0.76)), but influenced by disease and transplant risk. Patients with a low transplant risk showed superior survival compared with patients with high- (P

Fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy is regarded as a standard perioperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. We investigated the efficacy and safety of substituting fluorouracil with the oral prodrug capecitabine.This randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial began in March, 2002, as an adjuvant trial comparing capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, in patients aged 18 years or older with pathological stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer from 35 German institutions. Patients in the capecitabine group were scheduled to receive two cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) days 1-14, repeated day 22), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) days 1-38), then three cycles of capecitabine. Patients in the fluorouracil group received two cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5, repeated day 29), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) daily), then two cycles of bolus fluorouracil. The protocol was amended in March, 2005, to allow a neoadjuvant cohort in which patients in the capecitabine group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) daily) followed by radical surgery and five cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days) and patients in the fluorouracil group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33) followed by radical surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) for 5 days). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment group in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks, with stratification by centre and tumour stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analyses were done based on all patients with post-randomisation data. Non-inferiority of capecitabine in terms of 5-year overall survival was tested with a 12·5% margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500993.Between March, 2002, and December, 2007, 401 patients were randomly allocated; 392 patients were evaluable (197 in the capecitabine group, 195 in the fluorouracil group), with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 41-72). 5-year overall survival in the capecitabine group was non-inferior to that in the fluorouracil group (76% [95% CI 67-82] vs 67% [58-74]; p=0·0004; post-hoc test for superiority p=0·05). 3-year disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-81) in the capecitabine group and 67% (59-73) in the fluorouracil group (p=0·07). Similar numbers of patients had local recurrences in each group (12 [6%] in the capecitabine group vs 14 [7%] in the fluorouracil group, p=0·67), but fewer patients developed distant metastases in the capecitabine group (37 [19%] vs 54 [28%]; p=0·04). Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups (any grade: 104 [53%] patients in the capecitabine group vs 85 [44%] in the fluorouracil group; grade 3-4: 17 [9%] vs four [2%]). Patients in the capecitabine group had more hand-foot skin reactions (62 [31%] any grade, four [2%] grade 3-4 vs three [2%] any grade, no grade 3-4), fatigue (55 [28%] any grade, no grade 3-4 vs 29 [15%], two [1%] grade 3-4), and proctitis (31 [16%] any grade, one [1%] grade 3-4 vs ten [5%], one [1%] grade 3-4) than did those in the fluorouracil group, whereas leucopenia was more frequent with fluorouracil than with capecitabine (68 [35%] any grade, 16 [8%] grade 3-4 vs 50 [25%] any grade, three [2%] grade 3-4).Capecitabine could replace fluorouracil in adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.Roche Pharma AG (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany).

Background Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)-study IV was designed to explore whether treatment with imatinib (IM) at 400mg/day (n=400) could be optimized by doubling the dose (n=420), adding IFN (n=430) or cytarabine (n=158) or using IM after IFN-failure (n=128). Methods From July 2002 to March 2012, 1551 newly diagnosed patients in chronic phase were randomized into a 5-arm study. The study was powered to detect a survival difference of 5% at 5 years. The impact of patients' and disease factors on survival was prospectively analyzed. At the time of evaluation, at least 62% of patients still received imatinib, 26.2% were switched to 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results After a median observation time of 9.5 years, 10-year overall survival was 82%, 10-year progression-free survival 80% and 10-year relative survival 92%. In spite of a faster response with IM800mg, the survival difference between IM400mg and IM800mg was only 3% at 5 years. In a multivariate analysis, the influence on survival of risk-group, major-route chromosomal aberrations, comorbidities, smoking and treatment center (academic vs. other) was significant in contrast to any form of initial treatment optimization. Patients that reached the response milestones 3, 6 and 12 months, had a significant survival advantage of about 6% after 10 years regardless of therapy. The progression probability to blast crisis was 5.8%. Blast crisis was proceeded by high-risk additional chromosomal aberrations. Conclusions For responders, monotherapy with IM400mg provides a close to normal life expectancy independent of the time to response. Survival is more determined by patients' and disease factors than by initial treatment selection. Although improvements are also needed for refractory disease and blast crisis, more life-time can currently be gained by carefully addressing non-CML determinants of survival. Disclosures Hehlmann: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Saussele: Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pfirrmann: BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Krause: Novartis: Honoraria. Baerlocher: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Bruemmendorf: Novartis: Research Funding. Müller: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jeromin: MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Burchert: BMS: Honoraria. Waller: Mylan: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mayer: Eisai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Link: Novartis: Honoraria. Scheid: Novartis: Honoraria. Schafhausen: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus: Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: The role of bleomycin and dacarbazine in the ABVD regimen (ie, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) has been questioned, especially for treatment of early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma, because of the drugs' toxicity. We aimed to investigate whether omission of either bleomycin or dacarbazine, or both, from ABVD reduced the efficacy of this regimen in treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma.METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, multicentre trial (HD13) we compared two cycles of ABVD with two cycles of the reduced-intensity regimen variants ABV (doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine), AVD (doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), and AV (doxorubicin and vinblastine), in patients with newly diagnosed, histologically proven, classic or nodular, lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma. In each treatment group, 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) was given after both cycles of chemotherapy were completed. From Jan 28, 2003, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a minimisation method to the four groups. Because of high event rates, assignment to the AV and ABV groups stopped early, on Sept 30, 2005, and Feb 10, 2006; assignment to ABVD and AVD continued (1:1) until Sept 30, 2009. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the experimental variants compared with ABVD in terms of freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), by excluding a difference of 6% after 5 years corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.72, via a 95% CI. Analyses reported here include qualified patients only, and between-group comparisons include only patients recruited during the same period. The trial was registered, number ISRCTN63474366.FINDINGS: Of 1502 qualified patients, 566, 198, 571, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive ABVD, ABV, AVD, or AV, respectively. 5 year FFTF was 93.1%, 81.4%, 89.2%, and 77.1% with ABVD, ABV, AVD, and AV, respectively. Compared with ABVD, inferiority of the dacarbazine-deleted variants was detected with 5 year differences of -11.5% (95% CI -18.3 to -4.7; HR 2.06 [1.21 to 3.52]) for ABV and -15.2% (-23.0 to -7.4; HR 2.57 [1.51 to 4.40]) for AV. Non-inferiority of AVD compared with ABVD could also not be detected (5 year difference -3.9%, -7.7 to -0·1; HR 1.50, 1.00 to 2.26). 178 (33%) of 544 patients given ABVD had WHO grade III or IV toxicity, compared with 53 (28%) of 187 given ABV, 142 (26%) of 539 given AVD, and 40 (26%) of 151 given AV. Leucopenia was the most common event, and highest in the groups given bleomycin.INTERPRETATION: Dacarbazine cannot be omitted from ABVD without a substantial loss of efficacy. With respect to our predefined non-inferiority margin, bleomycin cannot be safely omitted either, and the standard of care for patients with early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma should remain ABVD followed by IFRT.FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe and Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research.