Search

Introduction Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral, potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, leading to cancer cell apoptosis. Selinexor has demonstrated antimyeloma activity in triple class refractory multiple myeloma (MM) [Chari et al. NEJM 2019]. Selinexor synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in PI-sensitive and -resistant cell lines and produces high response rates in patients with PI refractory and non-refractory MM (Bahlis et al. Blood 2018). In the phase 3 BOSTON study, the combination of once weekly (QW) selinexor, QW bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) in patients who had received 1-3 prior therapies led to a significantly longer (47%) median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.93 vs 9.46 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (P=0.0075) compared to standard twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). In addition, SVd regimen produced higher response rates and deeper responses (ORR: 76.4% vs 62.3% and ≥CR 16.9% vs 10.2%) compared with Vd. The benefit with SVd was observed across all efficacy endpoints and was associated with lower incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy. Here we analyzed the effect of prior PI therapy (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib) on the efficacy and safety of SVd compared with Vd. Methods BOSTON is an open-label, randomized phase 3 study in patients with MM comparing SVd (QW oral selinexor 100 mg, QW subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, and BIW oral dexamethasone 20 mg), versus Vd (BIW bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 and QIW dexamethasone 20 mg). Patients previously treated with a PI must have had at least a partial response (PR) to the PI and 6 months since the last PI regimen. The study primary end point was PFS. Here we report subgroup analysis of treatment outcomes based on prior PI treatment. Results Subgroups consisted of PI naïve patients (n=95; 24%) and patients with prior PI treatment (n=307; 76%). Both the subgroups and study arms were comparable for baseline patient demographic and disease characteristics. However, those with prior PI treatment more frequently had a previous stem cell transplant (38% vs 24%) or 3 lines of prior anti MM therapy (21% vs 13%). Median PFS was improved with SVd compared with Vd in both the PI naïve group (PFS not reached (NR) vs 9.7 months; HR 0.2585 [95% CI, 0.1116-0.5988]; P=0.0003) and in the PI treated group (11.7 vs 9.4 months; HR 0.7839 [95% CI, 0.5791-1.0612]; P=0.06). Other efficacy endpoints are shown in the table. Peripheral neuropathy ≥grade 2 (a secondary study endpoint) was less frequent in the SVd compared with the Vd arm (PI naïve: 25.5%, Vd 43.8%, P=0.0302; PI treated: SVd 19.6%, Vd 31.4%, P=0.0092). Adverse events of ≥grade 3 occurred in 71% of patients in the PI naïve group (SVd 77%, Vd 65%) and 74% of patients in the PI treated group (SVd 88%, Vd 60%). Thrombocytopenia was more frequent in patients in the SVd arms (PI naïve: SVd 32%, Vd 13%; PI treated: SVd 42%, Vd 19%) as was anemia (PI naïve: SVd 15%, Vd 6%; PI treated: SVd 16%, Vd 12%), and fatigue (PI naïve: SVd 15%, Vd 2%; PI treated: SVd 13%, Vd 1%). Conclusions The once-weekly SVd combination was associated with significant clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy as compared with standard twice-weekly Vd in patients with MM and 1-3 prior therapies, regardless of prior therapy with a PI. However, the benefits of SVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients who had never been treated with a PI (PFS HR 0.26), suggesting that selinexor could be an optimal partner for combining with weekly bortezomib as the first PI-containing MM regimen. Figure 1 Disclosures Mateos: Roche: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Gavriatopoulou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Auner:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Leleu:AbbVie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Hajek:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kryachok:Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, Acerta, AvbbVie, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Ro: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy. Moreau:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Levy:Karyopharm,Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Anderson:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Arazy:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Introduction Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral, potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, leading to cancer cell apoptosis. Selinexor has demonstrated antimyeloma activity in triple class refractory multiple myeloma (MM) [Chari et al. NEJM 2019]. Selinexor synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in PI-sensitive and -resistant cell lines and produces high response rates in patients with PI refractory and non-refractory MM. (Bahlis et al. Blood 2018). In the phase 3 BOSTON study, the combination of once weekly (QW) selinexor, QW bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd) in patients who had received 1-3 prior therapies led to a significantly (47%) longer median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.93 versus 9.46 months (HR 0.70; P=0.0075) compared to standard twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd). In addition, SVd regimen produced higher response rates and deeper responses (ORR: 76.4% vs 62.3% and ≥CR 16.9% vs 10.2%) compared with Vd. The benefit with SVd was observed across all efficacy endpoints and was associated with lower incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy. Here we present subgroup analyses according to number of prior lines of therapy and prior treatment with lenalidomide (LEN). Methods BOSTON is an open-label, randomized phase 3 study in patients with MM comparing SVd (QW selinexor 100 mg, QW subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, and 20 mg twice weekly [BIW] dexamethasone), versus Vd (1.3 mg/m2 bortezomib BIW and dexamethasone 20 mg 4 x weekly [QIW]). Patients previously treated with a PI must have had at least a partial response (PR) to the PI and 6 months since the last PI regimen. The study primary end point was PFS. Results Of the 402 patients in the BOSTON study, 198 (49%) had 1 prior line versus 204 (51%) with 2-3 prior lines. In addition, 154 (38%) comprised the LEN treated subgroup, versus 248 (62%) in the LEN naïve subgroup. Of note, 41% patients received prior thalidomide, which is consistent with most of the BOSTON study patients being treated in the EU. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms across subgroups. A very good partial response (VGPR) or better to most recent prior line anti-MM therapy was more frequent in patients with 1 prior line of therapy (63% vs 41%) versus those with 2-3 prior lines of therapy. Patients with prior LEN therapy were more likely to have had 2-3 prior therapies (72.1%) compared with LEN naive patients (37.5%). As shown in the table, SVd was associated with longer PFS compared with Vd in all subgroups. Overall response rates (ORR) and times-to-next-treatment (TTNT) were statistically greater with SVd compared with Vd in all subgroups. Rates of very good partial response or better (VGPR) were statistically greater for SVd vs Vd in the LEN-naïve group and 1 prior treatment group. Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (a key secondary endpoint prespecified in the study) occurred less frequently across all SVd subgroups compared with Vd: LEN treated (21% SVd, 37% Vd, P=0.0166); LEN-naïve (21% SVd, 33% Vd, P=0.0252), 1 prior line (21% SVd, 33% Vd, P=0.0501); 2-3 prior lines (21% SVd, 36% Vd, P=0.0107). Adverse events of ≥grade 3 were more commonly reported in the SVd treatment arm than in the Vd arm, LEN treated (83% SVd, 57% Vd), LEN-naïve (76% SVd, 55% Vd), 1 prior line (77% SVd, 56% Vd), 2-3 prior lines (81% SVd, 56% Vd), and were mostly managed with dose modification and/or supportive treatment. Pneumonia occurred at comparable rates between treatment arms. There were no differences between subgroups in grade 3 adverse events. Conclusions In the BOSTON study, once-weekly SVd significantly improved PFS, ORR, TTNT and reduced rates of ≥grade 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of number of prior treatments or whether patients were previously treated with LEN. Adverse events were managed with dose modification and treatment-related discontinuation rates did not differ between the 2 regimens for any subgroup. The PFS of 16.6 months with SVd after 1 prior therapy, and the HR of 0.63 in patients with prior LEN treatment support the use of once-weekly SVd for the second line treatment of MM following a LEN-containing regimen. Table Disclosures Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Jagannath:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kryachok:Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, Acerta, AvbbVie, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Ro: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy. Gavriatopoulou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Auner:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leleu:BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Levy:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baylor University Med Center: Current Employment; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Anderson:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Arazy:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562.

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population.

Summary Background Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03110562 . The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. Findings Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2–19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4–19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. Interpretation A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. Funding Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is an aggressive hematological malignancy characterized by an uncontrolled clonal proliferation of plasma cells (PCs) in the bone marrow and peripheral blood. PCL has been defined by an absolute number of circulating PCs exceeding 2.0 × 109/L and/or >20% PCs in the total leucocyte count. It is classified as primary PCL, which develops de novo, and secondary PCL, occurring at the late and advanced stages of multiple myeloma (MM). Primary and secondary PCL are clinically and biologically two distinct entities. After the diagnosis, treatment should be immediate and should include a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator-based combination regimens as induction, followed by stem cell transplantation (SCT) in transplant-eligible individuals who have cleared the peripheral blood of circulating PCs. Due to the rarity of the condition, there have been very few clinical trials. Furthermore, virtually all of the myeloma trials exclude patients with active PCL. The evaluation of response has been defined by the International Myeloma Working Group and consists of both acute leukemia and MM criteria. With conventional chemotherapy, the prognosis of primary PCL has been ominous, with reported overall survival (OS) ranging from 6.8 to 12.6 months. The use of novel agents and autologous SCT appears to be associated with deeper response and an improved survival, although it still remains low. The PCL prognostic index provides a simple score to risk-stratify PCL. The prognosis of secondary PCL is extremely poor, with OS of only 1 month.

The t(14;16) translocation, found in 3%-5% of newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM), has been associated with adverse outcomes. However, the studies establishing the characteristics of t(14;16) included solely small cohorts. The goal of the current international, multicenter (n = 25 centers), retrospective study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of t(14;16) patients in a large, real-world cohort (n = 223). A substantial fraction of patients had renal impairment (24%) and hemoglobin10 g/dL (56%) on initial presentation. Combined therapy of both immunomodulatory drug and proteasome inhibitor (PI) in the first line was used in 35% of patients. Autologous stem cell transplantation was performed in 42% of patients. With a median follow up of 4.1 years (95% CI 3.7-18.7), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from first line therapy were 2.1 years (95% CI 1.5-2.4) and 4.1 years (95% CI 3.3-5.5), respectively. Worse OS was predicted by age 60 years (HR = 1.65, 95% CI [1.05-2.58]), as well as revised International Scoring System (R-ISS) 3 (vs R-ISS 2; HR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.59-4.24]). In conclusion, based on the largest reported cohort of t(14;16) patients, quarter of this subset of MM patients initially presents with renal failure, while older age and the R-ISS 3 predict poor survival.

Introduction: Treatment of older or frail patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) remains challenging due to impaired organ function, underlying comorbidities, need for convenient regimens and burden of care, all of which impact the tolerability of anti-MM therapies. In the STORM study, selinexor plus dexamethasone (sel-dex) demonstrated anti-MM activity with an ORR of 26.2% and similar safety across all age groups in pts with triple-class refractory MM (Chari et al. NEJM 2019, Gavriatopoulou et al. IMW 2019). In the phase 3 BOSTON study, the combination of weekly sel-dex with once weekly bortezomib (SVd) was superior to standard twice weekly bortezomib and dex (Vd) across all efficacy endpoints in pts with MM who had received 1-3 prior therapies. Furthermore, while conferring a longer PFS and higher ORR than Vd, SVd was associated with significantly reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN), the most clinically relevant toxicity associated with bortezomib that limits long term administration, especially in older and/or frail pts. Here we present results of subgroup analyses of the BOSTON study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SVd versus Vd based on age and frailty index. Methods: Pts enrolled in BOSTON were assigned (1:1) to once weekly oral sel (100 mg) plus once weekly subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dex (20 mg BIW) in the SVd arm or to standard twice weekly SC bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dex (20 mg QIW) in the Vd arm. Treatment was administered in both arms until disease progression. The primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by an Independent Review Committee. For these analyses, pts were assigned to 2 groups based on age ( Results: Of the 402 enrolled pts, 241 (60%) were ≥65 years (SVd=109, Vd=132). Of these, 81 (37%) were ≥75 and 106 (44%) were categorized as frail (SVd=51, Vd=55). Baseline pt and disease characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms in the subgroups. PFS was prolonged in both age groups with SVd compared with Vd. In ≥65, PFS was 21.0 vs 9.5 months (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; P=0.0018) and in Conclusions: In pts with previously treated MM, the once weekly SVd regimen led to prolonged PFS, improved response rates and rates of PN regardless of age and frailty score compared to standard twice weekly Vd. Non-PN AEs were higher with triplet than doublet therapy, but most of the AEs were reversible and treatable. There were fewer deaths on SVd in pts ≥65 and in frail pts compared to Vd. Once weekly SVd is a potent and convenient treatment option for pts with previously treated MM, including those who are ≥65 years and/or frail. Figure Disclosures Auner: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gavriatopoulou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Leleu:Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria. Hajek:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy. Jagannath:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moreau:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Levy:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baylor University Med Center: Current Employment. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Anderson:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mateos:EDO Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Joshi:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment. Arazy:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding.

Identification and characterization of genetic alterations are essential for diagnosis of multiple myeloma and may guide therapeutic decisions. Currently, genomic analysis of myeloma to cover the diverse range of alterations with prognostic impact requires fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and sequencing techniques, which are costly and labor intensive and require large numbers of plasma cells. To overcome these limitations, we designed a targeted-capture next-generation sequencing approach for one-step identification of IGH translocations, V(D)J clonal rearrangements, the IgH isotype, and somatic mutations to rapidly identify risk groups and specific targetable molecular lesions. Forty-eight newly diagnosed myeloma patients were tested with the panel, which included IGH and six genes that are recurrently mutated in myeloma: NRAS, KRAS, HRAS, TP53, MYC, and BRAF. We identified 14 of 17 IGH translocations previously detected by FISH and three confirmed translocations not detected by FISH, with the additional advantage of breakpoint identification, which can be used as a target for evaluating minimal residual disease. IgH subclass and V(D)J rearrangements were identified in 77% and 65% of patients, respectively. Mutation analysis revealed the presence of missense protein-coding alterations in at least one of the evaluating genes in 16 of 48 patients (33%). This method may represent a time- and cost-effective diagnostic method for the molecular characterization of multiple myeloma.

Most patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) are aged > 65 years with 30% aged > 75 years. Many elderly patients are also vulnerable because of comorbidities that complicate the management of MM. The prevalence of MM is expected to rise over time because of an aging population. Most elderly patients with MM are ineligible for autologous transplantation, and the standard treatment has, until recently, been melphalan plus prednisone. The introduction of novel agents, such as thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide, has improved outcomes; however, elderly patients with MM are more susceptible to side effects and are often unable to tolerate full drug doses. For these patients, lower-dose-intensity regimens improve the safety profile and thus optimize treatment outcome. Further research into the best treatment strategies for vulnerable elderly patients is urgently needed. Appropriate screening for vulnerability and an assessment of cardiac, pulmonary, renal, hepatic, and neurologic functions, as well as age > 75 years, at the start of therapy allows treatment strategies to be individualized and drug doses to be tailored to improve tolerability and optimize efficacy. Similarly, occurrence of serious nonhematologic adverse events during treatment should be carefully taken into account to adjust doses and optimize outcomes.

Purpose To analyze the prognostic impact of immunophenotyping in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and Methods We have prospectively analyzed the prognostic impact of antigenic markers, assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry, in a series of 685 newly diagnosed MM patients that were uniformly treated according to the GEM 2000 protocol. Results Our results show that expression of both CD19 and CD28 as well as the absence of CD117 were associated with a significantly shorter progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Interestingly, the CD28 expression correlated with t(14;16) and del(17p), while CD117-negative patients were associated with t(4;14) and del(13q). Simultaneous assessment of CD28 and CD117 antigens allowed stratification of patients with MM into three risk categories: poor risk (CD28 positive CD117 negative), intermediate (either both markers negative or both positive), and good risk (CD28 negative CD117 positive), with PFS rates of 30, 37, and 45 months, respectively (P = .01), and OS rates of 45, 68, and not reached, respectively (P = .0001). Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective analysis in which the prognostic impact of a relatively high number of antigenic markers has been simultaneously analyzed in a large series of uniformly treated patients, showing that the expression of several antigens (particularly CD28 and CD117) on bone marrow plasma cells from patients with MM can help to identify patients at high risk of progression.

In the present study, we evaluated computed tomography (CT) and (67)gallium scanning ((67)Ga scan) pre-transplant as prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma, undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation.Forty-two patients were included. Of these, 9 (21%) had both positive CT and (67)Ga scans, 17 (41%) negative results with both techniques, and 16 (38%) positive CT/negative (67)Ga scan. Whole-body planar imaging and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were performed 72 h after an intravenous administration of (67)Ga citrate measuring between 7 mCi and 10 mCi (259-370 MBq).Patients with positive CT/positive (67)Ga scan had a significantly worse EFS and OS at 5 years than those with negative (67)Ga scan regardless of whether it was associated with a positive or a negative CT scan (29% and 16% vs. 81% and 93% vs. 88% and 100%, respectively, P0.001). After a median follow-up of 43 months (range 4-130 months), no differences were observed between patients with negative CT/negative (67)Ga scan and those with positive CT/negative (67)Ga scan, with an EFS and OS at 5 years of 88% versus 81% and 100% versus 93%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the presence of a pre-transplant positive CT/(67)Ga scans adversely influenced both EFS and OS [HR 8, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.4-38), P = 0.03 and HR 2; 95% CI (1.3-8), P = 0.02, respectively].(67)Ga scan helps to identify, in the pre-transplant evaluation, two groups with a different outcome: one group of patients with positive CT and negative (67)Ga scans pre-transplant, who showed a favorable outcome with a low rate of relapse, and the other group of patients with both positive CT and (67)Ga scans pre-transplant, who showed a poor prognosis and did not benefit from autologous stem-cell transplantation. They should have been offered other therapeutic strategies.

In contrast to the upfront setting in which the role of high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as consolidation of a first remission in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is well established, the role of high-dose therapy with autologous or allogeneic HCT has not been extensively studied in MM patients relapsing after primary therapy. The International Myeloma Working Group together with the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, and the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation convened a meeting of MM experts to: (1) summarize current knowledge regarding the role of autologous or allogeneic HCT in MM patients progressing after primary therapy, (2) propose guidelines for the use of salvage HCT in MM, (3) identify knowledge gaps, (4) propose a research agenda, and (5) develop a collaborative initiative to move the research agenda forward. After reviewing the available data, the expert committee came to the following consensus statement for salvage autologous HCT: (1) In transplantation-eligible patients relapsing after primary therapy that did NOT include an autologous HCT, high-dose therapy with HCT as part of salvage therapy should be considered standard; (2) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any patients relapsing after primary therapy that includes an autologous HCT with initial remission duration of more than 18 months; (3) High-dose therapy and autologous HCT can be used as a bridging strategy to allogeneic HCT; (4) The role of postsalvage HCT maintenance needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials that should include new agents, such as monoclonal antibodies, immune-modulating agents, and oral proteasome inhibitors; (5) Autologous Ha consolidation should be explored as a strategy to develop novel conditioning regimens or post-HCT strategies in patients with short (less than 18 months remissions) after primary therapy; and (6) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role of salvage autologous HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy comparing it to "best non-HCT therapy. The expert committee also underscored the importance of collecting enough hematopoietic stem cells to perform 2 transplantations early in the course of the disease. Regarding allogeneic Ha, the expert committee agreed on the following consensus statements: (1) Allogeneic HCT should be considered appropriate therapy for any eligible patient with early relapse (less than 24 months) after primary therapy that included an autologous HCT and/or high-risk features (ie, cytogenetics, extramedullary disease, plasma cell leukemia, or high lactate dehydrogenase); (2) Allogeneic HCT should be performed in the context of a clinical trial if possible; (3) The role of postallogeneic Ha maintenance therapy needs to be explored in the context of well-designed prospective trials; and (4) Prospective randomized trials need to be performed to define the role salvage allogeneic HCT in patients with MM relapsing after primary therapy. (c) 2015 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Detailed knowledge about differentiation syndrome (DS) has remained limited. There are 2 large studies conducted by the Spanish workgroup PETHEMA (Programa Español de Tratamientos en Hematología; Spanish Program on Hematology Treatments) and the European group trial (LPA 96-99 and APL 93) in which the incidence, characteristics, prognostic factors and outcome of patients developing DS are evaluated. Both have described the median time of DS development between 10 and 12 days. The severity of the DS has been evaluated in the study conducted by PETHEMA, and severe DS usually occurs at the beginning of the treatment (median of 6 days), as compared with moderate DS (median of 15 days). We report here in two cases of late severe DS, with late diagnosis due to both time and form of presentation. We discuss the physiopathology, clinical presentation, prophylaxis and treatment of DS.

Currently, no information is available regarding the influence of the different CD34+ cell subsets infused on the haematopoietic recovery, following non-myeloablative allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (allo-PBSCT). We have explored, in a group of 13 patients receiving non-myeloablative allo-PBSCT from human leucocyte antigen-identical sibling donors, the influence of the total dose of CD34+ haematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) infused, compared with that of the different CD34+ HPC and CD34- leucocyte subsets in the leukapheresis samples, on both engraftment and clinical outcome. The overall numbers of total CD34+ HPC (P = 0.002) and myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ HPC infused (P = 0.0002) were strongly associated with neutrophil recovery (> 1 x 109 neutrophils/l), the latter being the only independent parameter influencing neutrophil recovery. Regarding long-term engraftment, only the number of immature CD34+ HPC infused/kg correlated with the duration of hospitalization in the first 2 years after discharge (r = -0.75, P = 0.005). Both the overall amount of CD34+ HPC and the number of myelomonocytic CD34+ HPC infused showed a significant influence on the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Thus, the overall probability of GVHD was 100%vs 25% for patients receiving >/= 5 x 106 CD34+ HPC or >/= 3.5 x 106 of myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ HPC vs lower doses (P = 0.013). None of the other CD34+ and CD34- cell subsets analysed correlated with development of GVHD. In summary, our results suggest that in non-myeloablative allo-PBSCT, high numbers of CD34+ HPC, especially the myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ progenitors, lead to rapid neutrophil engraftment. However, they also strongly impair clinical outcome by increasing the incidence of GVHD.

Summary. In order to gain further insights into the role of the p16 gene in cell cycle regulation and the prognostic implications of its inactivation, we investigated the methylation status of the p16 gene in 98 untreated patients using a polymerase chain reaction assay based on the inability of some restriction enzymes to digest methylated sequences. Forty-one patients showed a p16 methylated gene (42%). The percentage of S-phase plasma cells (PC) in these patients was almost three times higher than in those with an unmethylated p16 gene (4·16% ± 3·37%vs 1·5% ± 1·41%, P

Summary. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) plays an important role in carcinogenesis. A decreased incidence of cancer has been reported in the presence of MTHFR 677TT, 1298AC and 1298CC polymorphic variants. We have analysed the MTHFR genotype in 107 multiple myeloma (MM) patients and 86 controls. The MM and control polymorphisms frequencies were: 34% and 48% for 677CC, 53% and 41% for 677CT, 12% and 11% for 677TT; 36% and 43% for 1298AA, 51% and 44% for 1298AC; and 12% and 13% for 1298CC respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed. In addition, no differences were seen according to MM stage, presence of p16 gene hypermethylation or response to treatment.

We have analyzed brain and acute leukemia, cytoplasmic (BAALC) gene expression and other genetic markers (ERG, EVI1, MN1, PRAME, WT1, FLT3, and NPM1 mutations) in 127 intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients: 98 cytogenetically normal and 29 with intermediate-risk cytogenetic alterations. High versus low BAALC expressers showed a higher refractoriness to induction treatment (31% vs 10%; p∈=∈.005), lower complete remission rate after salvage therapy (82% vs 97%; p∈=∈.010), and lower 3-year overall (23% vs 58%, p∈, This work has been partially supported by the grants PI061351 and 00/0023-00 from the Spanish “Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias de la Seguridad Social”, 89/A/06 from “Gerencia Regional de Salud, Junta Castilla y León”, and CIC, IBMCC (USAL-CSIC), Spain.

8 páginas, 3 figuras, 2 tablas.-- GEM (Grupo Español de MM)/PETHEMA (Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas) cooperative study groups: et al., Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is standard in many hematologic malignancies but is considered investigational in multiple myeloma (MM). We report a prospective analysis of the prognostic importance of MRD detection by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) in 295 newly diagnosed MM patients uniformly treated in the GEM2000 protocol VBMCP/VBAD induction plus autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT]). MRD status by MFC was determined at day 100 after ASCT. Progression-free survival (PFS; median 71 vs 37 months, P < .001) and overall survival (OS; median not reached vs 89 months, P = .002) were longer in patients who were MRD negative versus MRD positive at day 100 after ASCT. Similar prognostic differentiation was seen in 147 patients who achieved immunofixation-negative complete response after ASCT. Moreover, MRD- immunofixation-negative (IFx-) patients and MRD- IFx + patients had significantly longer PFS than MRD- IFx + patients. Multivariate analysis identified MRDstatus byMFCat day 100 afterASCTas the most important independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR = 3.64, P = .002) and OS (HR = 2.02, P = .02). Our findings demonstrate the clinical importance of MRD evaluation by MFC, and illustrate the need for further refinement of MM response criteria. This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT00560053., This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Thematic Network (RTICs; RD06/0020/0006), MM Jevitt, SL firm, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III/Subdirección General de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS: PI060339; 02/0905; 01/0089/01-02; and PI060339; Madrid, Spain).

BACKGROUND : Effects of mobilization regimen on the composition of leukapheresis products (LPs) and on hematopoietic reconstitution after autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation (PBPCT) are not well known. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS : The effects of three different mobilization regimens—stem cell factor (SCF) plus granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G–CSF) plus cyclophosphamide (CCP), G–CSF alone, and G–CSF plus CCP—on the composition of LPs from patients with nonhematologic PBPC malignancies compared to LPs from G–CSF-mobilized healthy donors and normal marrow (BM) samples were analyzed. The impact of LP composition on both short- and long-term engraftment after autologous PBPCT was also evaluated. RESULTS : The most effective regimen for mobilization of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) into peripheral blood was SCF, G–CSF, and CCP, providing the highest numbers of all CD34+ HPCs subsets analyzed. Patients mobilized with SCF plus G–CSF plus CCP showed the highest numbers of neutrophils and monocytes, whereas the highest numbers of lymphocytes and NK cells were observed in LPs from G–CSF-mobilized patients. The overall number of CD34+ HPCs was the strongest factor for predicting recovery of platelets, whereas the number of myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ precursors was the most powerful independent prognostic factor for WBC and neutrophil recovery. The overall number of CD4+ T cells returned showed an independent prognostic value for predicting the occurrence of infections, during the first year after transplant. CONCLUSIONS : The use of different mobilization regimens modifies the overall number of CD34+ HPCs obtained during leukapheresis procedures, and also affects both the absolute and the relative composition of the LPs in different CD34+ and CD34– cell subsets.

Currently, no information is available regarding the influence of the different CD34+ cell subsets infused on the haematopoietic recovery, following non-myeloablative allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (allo-PBSCT). We have explored, in a group of 13 patients receiving non-myeloablative allo-PBSCT from human leucocyte antigen-identical sibling donors, the influence of the total dose of CD34+ haematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) infused, compared with that of the different CD34+ HPC and CD34- leucocyte subsets in the leukapheresis samples, on both engraftment and clinical outcome. The overall numbers of total CD34+ HPC (P = 0.002) and myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ HPC infused (P = 0.0002) were strongly associated with neutrophil recovery (1 x 109 neutrophils/l), the latter being the only independent parameter influencing neutrophil recovery. Regarding long-term engraftment, only the number of immature CD34+ HPC infused/kg correlated with the duration of hospitalization in the first 2 years after discharge (r = -0.75, P = 0.005). Both the overall amount of CD34+ HPC and the number of myelomonocytic CD34+ HPC infused showed a significant influence on the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Thus, the overall probability of GVHD was 100%vs 25% for patients receiving/= 5 x 106 CD34+ HPC or/= 3.5 x 106 of myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ HPC vs lower doses (P = 0.013). None of the other CD34+ and CD34- cell subsets analysed correlated with development of GVHD. In summary, our results suggest that in non-myeloablative allo-PBSCT, high numbers of CD34+ HPC, especially the myelomonocytic-committed CD34+ progenitors, lead to rapid neutrophil engraftment. However, they also strongly impair clinical outcome by increasing the incidence of GVHD.

In order to gain further insights into the role of the p16 gene in cell cycle regulation and the prognostic implications of its inactivation, we investigated the methylation status of the p16 gene in 98 untreated patients using a polymerase chain reaction assay based on the inability of some restriction enzymes to digest methylated sequences. Forty-one patients showed a p16 methylated gene (42%). The percentage of S-phase plasma cells (PC) in these patients was almost three times higher than in those with an unmethylated p16 gene (4.16% +/- 3.37%vs 1.5% +/- 1.41%, P0.001). The presence of p16 methylation also correlated with both elevated beta2-microglobulin serum levels and high C-reactive protein values. Patients with a p16 methylated gene had shorter overall and progression-free survival than those patients without p16 methylation. However, this feature did not retain independent prognostic influence on multivariate analysis, probably due to its association with the S-phase PC, which had more potent statistical significance in the Cox model. These findings showed methylation of the p16 gene was a frequent event inMM patients at diagnosis, and was associated with an increased proliferative rate of plasma cells and a poor prognosis, indicating an important role for p16 gene in the cell cycle regulation of multiple myeloma tumour cells, and thus in the clinical outcome of the disease.