Search

Abnormal NIPT results, contrasting with normal fetus development, could disclose maternal malignancy, and this possibility should always be explained during pretest counseling. In this case, a complete diagnostic assessment is recommended and should be managed by a multidisciplinary team to define the best timing for diagnostic procedures, delivery, and treatment.

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

Background: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (

Elderly transplant-ineligible (NTE) patients represent the majority of patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). Elderly patients are a highly heterogeneous population, with large variability in health and functional status. Thus, choosing their optimal treatment is challenging. A wide range of first-line treatments is available, and novel-agent combinations, including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), have recently entered clinical practice. The combination of the anti-CD38 mAb daratumumab with bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (Dara-VMP) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-Rd) demonstrated impressive advantages in terms of progression-free survival and minimal residual disease negativity, as compared to VMP and Rd, without safety concerns. Another anti-CD38 mAb, isatuximab, is showing encouraging results, and new isatuximab-based combinations might enter clinical practice in the future. Nevertheless, available data come from clinical trials with selected patient populations and, to date, the manageability of these regimens in real-life patients or in frail patients remains unknown. Frailty-tailored treatments, including mAbs, are under evaluation in preliminary studies. In this review, we analyze recently approved mAb-based treatments for NTE newly diagnosed MM patients and new combinations under evaluation, focusing on the efficacy and safety of these regimens and on open issues regarding the choice of therapy for elderly patients.

Background Immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia are two different hematological diseases with the common finding of an immunoglobulin M monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance. However, clinical characteristics of the two entities can overlap. Case presentation In this report, we describe two cases of immunoglobulin M neoplasm with the same histological bone marrow presentation but with different clinical behavior, cytogenetics, and biological assessment. On the basis of comprehensive diagnostic workup, these patients were considered to have different diseases and treated accordingly with different approaches. Patient 1 (Caucasian man) presented with increased serum protein and immunoglobulin M (7665 mg/L) with an M-spike electrophoresis of 4600 mg/L. His bone marrow biopsy revealed a small-cell immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma. The result of testing for the MYD88 L265P mutation was negative, while fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis showed translocation t(11,14). A diagnosis of immunoglobulin M-κ multiple myeloma was made. Patient 1 was a candidate for bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by autologous stem cell transplant consolidation. Patient 2 (Caucasian man) showed an M-spike by protein electrophoresis (300 mg/L, 4.9%), with serum immunoglobulin M level of 327 mg/L. His bone marrow biopsy revealed immunoglobulin M-κ multiple myeloma. Computed tomography showed many enlarged lymph nodes and splenomegaly. Patient 2’s clinical features were suggestive of Waldenström macroglobulinemia, in contrast to the bone marrow biopsy results. The result of testing for the MYD88 L265P mutation was positive. Patient 2 was diagnosed with Waldenström macroglobulinemia and received rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone. Conclusions A correct differential diagnosis between immunoglobulin M multiple myeloma and Waldenström macroglobulinemia is a critical point in the setting of a new immunoglobulin M monoclonal gammopathy onset. These patients should undergo a complete diagnostic workup with pathological, radiological, and serological examinations to establish the diagnosis and plan the most appropriate treatment in order to improve the prognosis.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) have a shorter survival as compared to the standard-risk ones. In the FORTE study, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone induction/consolidation with ASCT (KRd-ASCT) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs KRd without ASCT (KRd12) or carfilzomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd) plus ASCT (KCd-ASCT). KR maintenance also prolonged PFS vs R. The primary aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of treatment on PFS and 1-year sustained MRD negativity (1y-MRD neg) rates according to pt cytogenetic risk. Methods Pts were randomized to KRd-ASCT vs KCd-ASCT vs KRd12 and, thereafter, to KR vs R maintenance. High risk (HiR) was defined as the presence of ≥1 HiR CA [del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), del1p and 1q gain (3 copies) or amp1q (≥4 copies)], double hit (DH) as the presence of ≥2 HiR CA, standard risk (SR) as the absence of all evaluated HiR CA. Results 396 out of 474 enrolled pts with complete fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) data were included in the analysis: 243 HiR, 105 DH and 153 SR pts. Among HiR pts, 60 had del17p, 65 t(4;14), 20 t(14;16), 44 del1p, 126 1q gain and 49 amp1q. SR pts benefited from intensification with KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.47, p=0.05) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.38, p=0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 80%, 67% and 57%, respectively. In HiR pts, KRd-ASCT improved PFS vs KRd12 (HR 0.6, p=0.04) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.57, p=0.01), with a 4-year PFS of 62%, 45% and 45%, respectively. The advantage with KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 (HR 0.53, p=0.07) and KCd-ASCT (HR 0.49; p=0.03) was also observed in DH pts (4-year PFS 55%, 31% and 33%, respectively). Despite the limited number of patients in each subgroup, a trend towards a PFS benefit from KRd-ASCT vs KRd12 was observed in pts with del17p (HR 0.61, p=0.3), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p=0.2) and 1q gain (HR 0.45, p=0.02). In pts with del1p, KRd-ASCT (HR 0.24, p=0.06) and KRd12 (HR 0.33, p=0.09) showed superiority over KCd-ASCT, while amp1q pts had the worst outcome regardless of treatment (KRd-ASCT vs KCd-ASCT, HR 1.16, p=0.73; KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT, HR 1.34, p=0.45). KR improved PFS vs R in SR (3-year PFS 90% vs 73%, HR 0.42, p=0.06), HiR (3-year PFS 69% vs 56%, HR 0.6, p=0.04) and DH pts (3-year PFS 67% vs 42%, HR 0.53, p=0.1). Despite the small subgroups, a beneficial trend with KR vs R was observed in pts with del17p (HR 0.59, p=0.37), t(4;14) (HR 0.59, p=0.3), 1q gain (HR 0.54, p=0.07) and del1p (HR 0.23, p=0.08), while amp1q pts showed the worst outcome and no benefit from KR vs R (HR 0.83, p=0.7). Conclusion KRd-ASCT and KR maintenance are highly effective in SR and also in HiR and DH pts, with impressive 4-year PFS from diagnosis (KRd-ASCT: HiR 62%, DH 55%) and 3-year PFS from maintenance (KR: HiR 69%, DH 67%), thus providing an effective option in HiR pts, who still represent an unmet medical need.

Introduction: The multicentre, randomized, open-label, phase 3 EMN02/HO95 study for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) included two randomization stages (1:1) to (R1) intensification therapy with either upfront ASCT or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP), and thereafter to (R2) consolidation therapy or no consolidation, followed by lenalidomide maintenance in both arms. Results of the final analysis from R1 (M. Cavo et al. Lancet Haematol. 2020, 7, e456-68) showed that at a median follow-up of 60.5 months progression-free survival (PFS), the primary study endpoint, was significantly improved with ASCT compared with VMP (median, 57 versus 42 months; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.85, adjusted p=0.0001). However, no difference between these groups was found in terms of overall survival (OS), a secondary endpoint (HR 0·90, 0·71-1·13, adjusted p=0·35). Methods: We performed an updated analysis of the study with longer-term follow-up. Efficacy endpoints included OS, PFS on next-line therapy (PFS2), and time to next treatment (TTnT). Analyses were restricted to patients randomized to either ASCT (n=702) or VMP (n=495). Clinical outcomes of patients randomized to upfront ASCT or receiving ASCT at the time of progression after primary randomization to VMP (delayed ASCT) were also explored. Results: At an extended median follow-up of 75 months (IQR 67-84), patients randomized to ASCT had a significantly longer OS than those randomized to VMP (Figure). Median OS was not reached in both arms, and the 75-month survival estimate was 69% (95% CI 65-73) in the ASCT group versus 63% (95% CI 59-68) in the VMP group (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0-98, adjusted p=0.034). Patients who benefited the most from randomization to ASCT were those with unfavourable prognostic characteristics at baseline, including ISS disease stage 2-3 (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99, p=0.047), R-ISS stage 2-3 (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, p=0.042), and the presence of at least one of the following cytogenetic abnormalities on FISH analysis: t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) in ≥10% CD138-positive plasma cells, and/or del(17p) in ≥20% enriched plasma cells. Overall, the 75-month OS estimate for patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 54% with ASCT versus 39% with VMP (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.89, p=0.010). The magnitude of OS benefit with ASCT, as measured by the HR value, was the highest for patients with del(17p) positivity (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86, p=0.013). PFS2 from R1 was significantly longer for patients in the ASCT arm than for those in the VMP arm. The 75-month PFS2 estimate was 57% in the ASCT group and it was 49% in the VMP group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90, adjusted p=0.002) (Figure). Patients randomized to ASCT had a significantly longer TTnT in comparison with those who were randomly assigned to VMP. Median TTnT values for these groups were 66 versus 47 months, respectively (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.82, adjusted p Conclusions: Upfront ASCT significantly prolonged OS, PFS2 and TTnT in comparison with VMP in NDMM patients. Figure Disclosures Cavo: Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos: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; 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. Petrucci:GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zamagni:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Palumbo:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galli:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Maisnar:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, The Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hansson:Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy. Belotti:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zambello:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liberati:Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Broyl:Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Ludwig:Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Boards; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: 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. Waage:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Shire: Honoraria. Mellqvist:Janssen. Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background Despite an improvement in treatment response, high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) experience early relapse and short disease-free survival. Together with more validated high-risk features, high levels of circulating plasma cells (high CPC) have been considered a marker of aggressive disease and poor outcome (F. Gay et al, ASH 2019; W.I. Gonsalves et al, Am J Hematol 2020). To date, there are no uniform data on the optimal cut-off predictive of clinical outcome. No prospective data on CPC are available in the setting of novel-drug clinical trials with comprehensive baseline evaluation and minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment. Aims 1) To identify the best cut-off for CPC to predict progression-free survival (PFS); 2) to assess the impact of high CPC levels on the clinical outcome of newly diagnosed (ND)MM pts in the context of concomitant risk features and MRD evaluation. Methods In the multicenter randomized FORTE clinical trial, 474 NDMM pts ≤65 years were randomized (R1) to receive either: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) induction-autologous stem-cell transplant-KRd consolidation (KRd_ASCT); KRd for 12 cycles (KRd12); or carfilzomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd) induction-ASCT-KCd consolidation (KCd_ASCT). Thereafter, pts were randomized (R2) to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone (R) or plus carfilzomib (KR). MRD was assessed by 2nd-generation multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC, sensitivity 10-5) in pts who achieved ≥very good partial response before maintenance and then every 6 months. At diagnosis, single-platform FC was used to sort and count CPC. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to define a cut-off based on PFS at 36 months as outcome. Correlations between high CPC and the most important baseline prognostic features (age, International Staging System (ISS), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), chromosomal abnormalities (CA) by FISH [(del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(11;14), amp1q, del1p, del13], Revised-ISS (R-ISS)) were explored. Hence, we performed a multivariate (MV) analysis to assess the impact of high CPC on the achievement of MRD negativity, on PFS and OS. Finally, we evaluated the impact of baseline CPC and MRD achievement. Results CPC analysis was performed in 401/474 pts at diagnosis; median follow-up was 44.2 months (39.6-47.9) and baseline features were similar to those reported in the overall FORTE population. Median CPC were 0.02% (IQR 0-0.14). The optimal CPC cut-off to predict PFS (ROC analysis) was 0.07% (5 cells/ul, 0.005 x109/l) and was consistent with a cut-off previously identified as a predictor of sustained MRD negativity (MRDsus12; L. Bertamini et al, EHA 2020). High-CPC pts (>0.07%) were 130/401 (32%), while 271/401 (68%) had low CPC (≤0.07%). The proportion of high-CPC pts was comparable among treatment arms. Baseline features significantly associated with high CPC in a MV analysis were: ISS II/III, high LDH, amp1q, t(4;14), t(14;16) and bone marrow plasma cells (>60%). Regarding PFS, in a MV analysis adjusted for R-ISS and R1 treatment, including all the baseline features, high CPC were associated with a lower PFS (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.76-3.51, P The impact of baseline CPC levels on PFS was consistent in all high-risk subgroups (Fig. 1C), except in those patients who achieved pre-maintenance MRD negativity [(neg); interaction P=0.03]. Low-CPC and MRD-neg pts showed the best outcome with a 3-year PFS of 84%. Low-CPC MRD-positive (pos) and high-CPC MRD-neg pts had similar 3-year PFS (70% vs 68%). High-CPC MRD-pos pts had a dismal outcome (3-year PFS 32%; Fig. 1D). Conclusion High CPC with a cut-off of 0.07% (5 cells/ul, 0.005 x109/l) is a strong and independent high-risk factor, predicting a shorter PFS and OS even in the context of other high-risk features. The achievement of MRD neg independently improved the poor prognosis of high-CPC patients. Figure 1 Disclosures D'Agostino: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galieni:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Molica:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tacchetti:Oncopeptides: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Oliva:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (including carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone).

Background: 18F-FDG-PET/CT is currently the standard technique to define imaging-minimal residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. A joint analysis of 2 prospective randomized trials in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM (NDTEMM) patients applied for the first time the Deauville Scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) showing the liver background (DS < 4) as the best cut-off to define PET/CT negativity after therapy and complete metabolic response (CMR) (Zamagni et al, ASH 2018). Validation of this new standardized criteria in an independent prospective series of NDTEMM patients is highly required. Imaging-PET/CT MRD also showed to be complementary to Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC) in predicting patient's outcomes (Moreau P, JCO 2017). In this analysis, we aimed at confirming the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define PET/CT CMR and showing their impact on patient's outcomes in the multicenter phase II randomized FORTE trial for NDTEMM patients. We also looked at the complementarity with BM techniques, especially MFC. Methods: NDTEMM patients ≤ 65 years were randomized to receive carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) induction - autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) intensification-KRd consolidation (arm A); KRd12 (arm B) and carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone (KCd) induction-ASCT intensification-KCd consolidation (arm C). Thereafter, patients were randomized to maintenance with lenalidomide alone or plus carfilzomib. PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline (B) and prior to the start of maintenance (PM). DS were applied both in the BM and FLs, as previously described (Zamagni E, EHA 2020). CMR was defined as DS < 4 both in the FLs and BM. MRD evaluation was performed by 8-color second-generation flow cytometry (sensitivity 10-5) in patients who achieved at least VGPR before maintenance (Gay F, ASCO 2019). The impact of each parameter on outcomes was evaluated by landmark analyses at PM. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was adopted to identify independent predictors for PFS and OS. Results: 182 out of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial had a pre- and post-treatment PET/CT evaluation available and were included in this analysis. Patients' baseline characteristics were: median age 57 years, ISS and R-ISS stage III 18% and 10%, respectively, high-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14) ± del(17p) ± t(14;16), detected by FISH) 26%, reflecting baseline clinical features of the entire FORTE population. At B, 93% of patients had FLs, with a median maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of 5.7 [IQR: 4.1-8.1], 7% presented extra-medullary lesions and nearly all patients had increased BM uptake, with a median SUVmax of 3.4 [IQR: 2.8-4.3]. FS and BMS ≥ 4 were present in 87% and 57% of patients, respectively. At PM, PET/CT negativity according to DS < 4, was present in 80% in the FLs and 85% in the BM, respectively. 63% showed CMR. 92% and 61% of patients achieved ≥ VGPR and CR as best response, respectively, while 73% of them achieved MFC MRD negativity. The achievement of a best CR significantly correlated with BMS < 4 at PM (P= 0.003). In univariate analysis, at Landmark time PM, FS Conclusion: In conclusion, the present analysis confirms the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define PET/CT CMR in an independent prospective series of NDTEMM patients. CMR significantly and independently correlated in uni- and multivariable analysis with patient's outcomes in terms of PFS and OS and was complementary to the MFC MRD negativity. Figure Disclosures Zamagni: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Gay:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. D'Agostino:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galli:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Zambello:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rivolti:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tacchetti:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Fanti:Bayer, Astellas, GE Healthcare, ANMI, Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer, Astellas, GE Healthcare, Sanofi, AAA: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Oliva:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria.

INTRODUCTION. Elderly patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are a heterogeneous population. The IMWG frailty score stratifies pts ≥65 years into 3 categories (fit, intermediate-fit and frail), according to chronological age, comorbidities and functional abilities, with different prognosis. We previously reported results from the phase II EMN10-Unito study investigating 4 Ixazomib-based induction regimens followed by Ixazomib maintenance in elderly NDMM pts. Here we present a post-hoc analysis of safety and efficacy of ixazomib-based induction regimens and maintenance according to IMWG frailty score. METHODS. NDMM, transplant-ineligible pts ≥65 years were enrolled. Treatment consisted of 9 induction cycles of Ixazomib combined with dexamethasone (Id), Cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd), Thalidomide-dexamethasone (ITd) or Bendamustine-dexamethasone (IBd), followed by single-agent Ixazomib maintenance for up to 2 years. Pts were stratified into 3 groups (fit, intermediate-fit and frail) according to IMWG frailty score. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy (TTP, PFS, PFS2 and OS) and safety of ixazomib-based induction regimens and single-agent ixazomib maintenance in the 3 patient subgroups. RESULTS. 171 pts were enrolled in the study and started treatment; of these, 75 (44%) were classified as fit, 53 (31%) as intermediate-fit and 43 (25%) as frail. As expected, the median age was higher in frail (79 years) as compared with fit (71 years) and intermediate-fit (76 years) pts, and a worse ECOG score (1-2) was reported in frail (67%) as compared with fit (46%) and intermediate-fit pts (46%). Frail pts were also more likely to have ISS 2-3 myeloma (82%) compared with fit (59%) and intermediate-fit (77%) ones. The median follow-up for the entire population was 27 months. The ORR and VGPR rates after the induction were similar in fit (71%; 42%), intermediate-fit (74%; 38%) and frail pts (76%; 40%), although fit (8%) and intermediate-fit (13%) pts were more likely to achieve a CR than frail ones (2%). No significant differences in median PFS were observed among fit (14.1 months; HR: 0.75, p=0.27), intermediate-fit (14.8, HR: 0.68, p=0.12) as compared to frail pts (12.2 months). The median PFS2 was significantly longer in fit (41.1, HR: 0.48; p=0.04) and intermediate-fit (35.6, HR: 0.47, p=0.03) in comparison with frail pts (28.6 months). OS was longer in fit pts (NR; HR: 0.36, p=0.02) and intermediate-fit (NR; HR: 0.58, p=0.15) as compared to frail ones (36.7 months). The rates of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 non-hematological AEs during the induction phase were higher in frail pts (47% / 37%) as compared to fit (28% / 24%) and intermediate-fit (32% / 26%) ones. Similarly, the risk of treatment discontinuation was higher in frail (21%) as compared to fit (11%) and intermediate-fit pts (9%). When comparing PFS with three- vs two-drug ixazomib-based induction, both fit (HR: 0.75) and intermediate-fit (HR: 0.69) pts benefited from the use a triplet over a doublet; whereas, no difference between three- and two-drug combinations was observed in frail pts (HR: 1.01). Overall, 102 pts (60%) completed the induction phase and proceeded to ixazomib maintenance: of these, 46 (45%) were fit, 35 (34%) intermediate-fit and 21 (21%) frail. The median PFS from start of maintenance in the overall population was 15 months, without significant differences in intermediate-fit (HR: 0.92) and frail (HR: 1.14) pts as compared to fit ones. Concerning the safety of ixazomib maintenance, grade 3-4 non-hematological AEs were infrequent, occurring in 15% of fit pts (15%), 3% of intermediate-fit and 5% of frail (5%) ones. Ixazomib dose reductions were more frequent in frail (24%) as compared to fit (13%) and intermediate-fit (11%) pts, although a similar percentage of pts discontinued ixazomib due to AEs in the three groups (fit: 11%; intermediate-fit: 15%; frail: 10%). CONCLUSIONS. Ixazomib-based regimens had similar efficacy in terms of ORR and PFS, irrespective of frailty status, although AEs, dose modifications and treatment discontinuation were more frequent in frail pts. Importantly, frail pts did not seem to benefit from the addition of a third drug over the use of a doublet induction therapy. Single-agent ixazomib maintenance was effective and well tolerated in fit, as well as in intermediate-fit and frail pts, thus representing an appealing maintenance option in elderly MM. Disclosures Mina: Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria. Larocca:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Offidani:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Galli:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. De Sabbata:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Boccadoro:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (including ixazomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and bendamustine).

Background: Novel agents have recently questioned the role of both autotransplantation and consolidation therapy after intensification in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We prospectively compared intensification with transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP), and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation versus no consolidation. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated myeloma patients aged up to 65 years at 172 sites of the European Myeloma Network. Patients were first randomized (1:1) to VMP (4 cycles) or transplantation, and afterwards to VRD consolidation (2 cycles) or no consolidation, followed by lenalidomide-maintenance. Progression-free survival from first and second randomization were primary endpoints. Comparison of single versus double transplantation was a secondary endpoint. Findings: Between February, 2011 and April, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. Overall, 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomization: 702 received transplantation and 495 VMP; 877 patients underwent the second randomization: 449 received VRD consolidation and 428 no consolidation. Progression-free survival from first randomization was significantly better with transplantation than with VMP (median, 56·7 versus 41·9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·85, p=0·0001). VRD consolidation prolonged median progression-free survival from second randomization compared with no consolidation (58·9 versus 45.5 months; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·63-0·95, p=0·014). Overall survival estimates at 5 years were 75% with transplantation and 71·6% with VMP (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·71-1.13, p=0·35). Double transplantation significantly prolonged progression-free survival (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·56-0·98, p=0·036) and overall survival (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·41-0·93, p=0·022) compared to a single transplantation. The rate of at least one grade ≥3 adverse event was 88% with transplantation versus 52% with VMP. Transplant-related mortality was 1%. Interpretation: In newly diagnosed myeloma patients, intensification therapy with transplantation significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with VMP, although overall survival was similar. After intensification, VRD consolidation significantly improved progression-free survival compared with no consolidation. Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01208766. Funding Statement: The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology (HOVON) sponsored and designed this study. Janssen and Celgene provided bortezomib and lenalidomide free of charge, respectively, and provided funding, but had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data. Declaration of Interests: Michele Cavo: receives honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Adaptive Biotechnologies, and is a member of Janssen’s and Celgene’s Speaker’s Bureau. Francesca Gay: receives honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, AbbVie. Meral Beksac: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen, and is a member of Celgene’s, Janssen’s, Takeda’s, Amgen’s Speaker Bureau Lucia Pantani: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen Maria Teresa Petrucci: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi. Meletios A Dimopoulos: receives honoraria from Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen. Luca Dozza: NO COI. Bronno van der Holt: NO COI Stefania Oliva: receives honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Takeda. Vincent H.J. van der Velden: NO COI. Elena Zamagni: receives honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda. Giuseppe A. Palumbo: receives honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Jannsen, Novartis Francesca Patriarca: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen. Vittorio Montefusco: receives honoraria, travel support and research funding from Celgene, Janssen. Monica Galli: receives honoraria from Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Leadiant, Takeda. Vladimir Maisnar : receives honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Takeda, and is a member of the Board of Directors or advisory committees for Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda. Barbara Gamberi: receives honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Sanofi, Janssen Stig Lenhoff: NO COI Angelo Belotti : receives honoraria from Jannsen, Celgene, Amgen. Ludek Pour: NO COI. Paula Ypma: NO COI. Mariella Grasso: NO COI. Sandra Croockewit: NO COI. Stelvio Ballanti: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen. Massimo Offidani: receives honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda. Donata Vincelli: NO COI. Renato Zambello: receives honoraria from Jannsen, Celgene. Anna Marina Liberati: receives research funding from Novartis, Janssen, Abbvie, Roche, Amgen, Celgene; receives honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Takeda, Servier; is a consultant for Incyte Niels Frost Andersen: NO COI. Sonja Zweegman: receives honoraria from Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Janssen, and research funding from Celgene, Takeda, Janssen. Rossella Troia: NO COI. Anna Pascarella: NO COI. Giulia Benevolo: receives honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Amgen. Mark-David Levin: receives honoraria and travel support from Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, AmgenGerard Bos: NO COI. Heinz Ludwig: receives honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, is a member of Janssen’s, Celgene’s, Amgen’s, Sanofi’s, Bristol-Meyers Squibb’s, Seattle Genetics’s speakers bureau, and receives research funding from Amgen, Takeda Sara Aquino: receives honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen. Anna Maria Morelli: NO COI. Ka Lung Wu: NO COI. Rinske Boersma: NO COI. Roman Hajek: receives honoraria, and research funding from Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, PharmaMar, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Marc Durian: NO COI. Peter A von dem Borne: NO COI. Tommaso Caravita di Toritto: receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen. Christoph Driessen: NO COI. Giorgina Specchia: NO COI. Anders Waage: receives honoraria from Janssen, Takeda. Peter Gimsing: NO COI. Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist: receives honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene. Marinus van Marwijk Kooy: NO COI. Monique Minnema: receives honoraria from Celgene, Amgen, Novartis, Servier, Jansen Cilag, Gilead, and receives research funding from Celgene. Caroline Mandigers: NO COI. Anna Mario Cafro: NO COI. Angelo Palmas: receives honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, Takeda. Susanna Carvalho: NO COI. Andrew Spencer: is a Consultant for Celgene, Janssen, Secura Bio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, AbbVie, Servier, Haemalogix, Sanofi; is a member of Celgene’s, Jannsen’s, Takeda’s Speaker’s Bureau; receives research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Servier, Haemalogi; receives honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Secura Bio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, AbbVie, Servier, Haemalogix, Sanofi Mario Boccadoro: receives honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, BristolMyers Squibb, AbbVie; receives research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mundipharma. Pieter Sonneveld: receives honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Takeda, and receives research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, SkylineDx, Takeda. Ethics Approval Statement: All patients provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the independent ethics committee or institutional review board at all participating sites and was done in accordance with International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines on Good Clinical Practice and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

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

INTRODUCTION. Bortezomib- and/or lenalidomide-based combinations are standard initial approaches in transplant (ASCT) ineligible NDMM. Different studies confirmed the advantages of continuous treatment. Despite the benefits of bortezomib maintenance, the parenteral administration and the risk of peripheral neuropathy (PN) limit its long-term use. The oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) Ixazomib plus Lenalidomide-dexamethasone was effective and well tolerated at diagnosis or relapse. The need for a convenient and well tolerated PI-based frontline therapy for an extended duration with minimal cumulative toxicity remains an unmet need for the elderly. In this prospective, multicenter, phase II randomized study, we assessed Ixazomib in combination with dexamethasone, Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide or Bendamustine, followed by Ixazomib maintenance in ASCT-ineligible NDMM. METHODS. NDMM patients (pts) ≥65 years old or younger ASCT-ineligible could be enrolled. Treatment consisted of nine 28-day induction cycles of Ixazomib 4 mg on days 1,8,15 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15,22 (Id) or combined with Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 orally on days 1,8,15 (ICd) or plus Thalidomide 100 mg/day (ITd) or plus Bendamustine 75 mg/m2 iv on days 1,8 (IBd); followed by maintenance with Ixazomib 4 mg on days 1,8,15 until progression. Because the study included the novel drug Ixazomib, dual stopping rules combining efficacy (at least very good partial response [VGPR] rate), and safety (predefined toxicity possibly related to Ixazomib) were planned and analyzed in a cohort of 5 patients in each arm during the first 4 cycles. Here we report the results of the cohort analysis during the first 4 cycles and the efficacy and safety analysis during induction treatment. RESULTS. In February 2017, the protocol was amended due to a low enrolment and the IBd arm, the only one including an iv drug, was closed. After closing this arm, all the other all oral arms continued the enrolment. Overall, 175 pts were enrolled (Id 42, ICd 61, ITd 61, and IBd 11 pts) and 171 pts started treatment. Median age was 74 years, 20% of pts had high risk cytogenetics, 44% were fit, 30% intermediate and 26% frail, according to the IMWG frailty score. Median follow-up was 13.2 months (IQR 8.9-20.7). During the first 4 cycles, at least VGPR rate was 24% with Id, 33% with ICd, 31% with ITd and 18% with IBd. In March 2018, after the analysis of the 4th cohort, the Id arm was closed due to high risk of inefficacy. Overall response rate (ORR) during induction was 73%, VGPR was 39%. ≥VGPR rates were 24% in Id, 48% in ICd, 43% in ITd and 27% in IBd. Median time to first response was 2.4 and to the best response 4 months. Responses were comparable according to cytogenetics: in high risk pts, ORR was 77%, ≥VGPR 46% and ≥nCR 17% as compared to 71%, 36% and 18% in standard risk pts (p=0.53, p=0.33 and p=1, respectively). Response rates were also comparable according to frailty status: in frail pts, ORR was 73%, ≥VGPR 36% and ≥nCR 11% as compared to 75%, 40% and 17% in intermediate and 70%, 40% and 22% in fit pts (p=0.78, p=0.90 and p=0.32, respectively). Median number of induction cycles was 9 (IQR 5-9); 93 (53%) pts completed induction treatment and 14 (8%) pts are still on induction treatment. During the first 4 cycles, hematologic toxicity was limited, and non-hematologic toxicity manageable. The most frequent G3-4 adverse event (AE) was rash in ITd arm (11%); discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 6%. During induction, the rate of at least 1 hematologic G≥3 AE was 11% and at least 1 non-hematologic G≥3 AE was 44%. The most frequent G≥3 AEs were neutropenia (8%), gastrointestinal (9%), infections (11%), neurologic (11%) and dermatologic (6%). G3-4 thrombocytopenia (3%) and PN (5%) were limited. Ixazomib dose reduction due to AEs was required in 15% of pts. The rate of non-hematologic AEs was slightly higher in ITd arm (37% in Id, 37% in ICd, 53% in ITd, 55% in IBd). Early death rate ( CONCLUSIONS. ITd and ICd are convenient all-oral induction regimens for ASCT-ineligible NDMM, confirming an improved efficacy of a triplet vs a doublet combination, also in intermediate and frail patients. Id showed lower efficacy, thus suggesting a possible effect of the dose of Ixazomib or the absence of a third drug. Treatment was feasible, with limited toxicity and low discontinuation rate due to AEs, although ITd induced a slightly higher toxicity, but mainly attributable to Thalidomide. Disclosures Larocca: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Corradini:Servier: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; BMS: Other: Travel Costs; Kite: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceutics: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs. Mina:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Roche: Other: Clinical trial support; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trial support; Novartis: Other: Clinical trial support. Petrucci:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patriarca:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zambello:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Belotti:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cellini:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Galli:Takeda: Honoraria; Leadiant (Sigma-Tau): Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Aquino:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Sabbata:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ballanti:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bringhen:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

IF 4.484 (2017); International audience; To evaluate the outcomes of salvage third autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. We analyzed 570 patients who had undergone a third ASCT between 1997 and 2010 (European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation data), of whom 482 patients underwent tandem ASCT and a third ASCT at first relapse (AARA group) and 88 patients underwent an upfront ASCT with second and third transplantations after subsequent relapses (ARARA group). With a median follow-up after salvage third ASCT of 61 months in the AARA group and 48 months in the ARARA group, the day +100 nonrelapse mortality in the 2 groups was 4% and 7%, the incidence of second primary malignancy was 6% and 7%, the median progression-free survival was 13 and 8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 33 and 15 months. In the AARA group, according to the relapse-free interval (RFI) from the second ASCT, the median OS after the third ASCT was 17 months if the RFI was

Background: 18F-FDG-PET/CT is currently the standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) status outside the bone marrow (BM) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. A joined analysis of two prospective randomized trials in newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM (NDTEMM) patients applied for the first time the Deauville Scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) and showed the liver background (DS < 4) to be the best cut-off to define PET negativity after therapy (Zamagni et al, ASH 2018). Multiparameter Flow cytometry (MFC) at the sensitivity level of 10-5 is one of the standardized methods to assess MRD in the BM (Kumar SK, Lancet Oncol 2016). In this analysis, we aimed at comparing MRD data by PET/TC assessment and MFC in the multicenter phase II randomized FORTE trial for NDTEMM patients. Methods: NDTEMM patients ≤65 years were randomized to receive carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) induction - autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) intensification-KRd consolidation (arm A); KRd12 (arm B) and carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone (KCd) induction-ASCT intensification-KCd consolidation (arm C). Thereafter, patients were randomized to maintenance with lenalidomide alone or lenalidomide plus carfilzomib. MRD evaluation was performed by 8-color second-generation flow cytometry (sensitivity 10-5) in patients who achieved at least VGPR before maintenance (Gay F, ASCO 2019). PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline (B) and prior to the start of maintenance (PM) and the DS were applied both in the BM and FLs as previously described. Cramér's V coefficient was used to measure the concordance between PET/TC and MFC; Fisher or X2 tests were adopted, where appropriate, to evaluate the statistical significance, at the level of 0.05. Results: 182 out of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial had a matched PET/CT and MFC evaluation available and were included in the present analysis. Baseline characteristics of the patients were as follows: median age 57 years, ISS and R-ISS stage III 18% and 10%, respectively, high-risk cytogenetics (t(4;14) ± del(17p) ± t(14;16), detected by FISH) 26%, reflecting baseline clinical features of the entire FORTE population. At B, 92% of the patients had FLs, with a median maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of 5.7 [IQR: 4.1-8.1], 11% presented extra-medullary lesions and nearly all the patients had increased BM uptake, with a median SUVmax of 3.3 [IQR: 2.8-4.3]. FS and BMS ≥4 were present in 87% and 59% of the patients, respectively. A higher FS at B was significantly correlated with ISS stage III (P= 0.04), while higher BMS with lower hemoglobin level (P= 0.002) and higher free light chain ratio (P= 0.004). At PM, PET/TC negativity according to DS < 4, was present in 78% in the FLs and 85% in the BM, respectively. No significant correlations between PET/CT negativity after therapy and baseline prognostic factors or PET/CT characteristics were found. 95% and 67.5% of the patients achieved ≥ VGPR and CR as best response, respectively, while 75% of them achieved MFC MRD negativity. The achievement of a best CR significantly correlated with BMS < 4 at PM (P= 0.013). We analyzed the concordance between MRD results by the two techniques and Cramér's V coefficient measured a strong association, with a value of 0.76 (p Conclusion: In conclusion, the present analysis confirms the applicability and validity of DS criteria for the definition of PET/CT MRD outside the BM in an independent prospective series of NDTEMM patients. PET/CT negativity significantly correlated with the achievement of best CR. PET/CT and MFC at the sensitivity level of 10-5 showed a good concordance in the BM, while were also confirmed to be complementary outside (FLs). Future analyses will show the impact of PET/CT in comparison with BM MRD techniques on patient's outcomes. Disclosures Zamagni: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Omedé:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galli:Janssen: Honoraria; Leadiant (Sigma-Tau): Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Zambello:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gamberi:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patriarca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tacchetti:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Cavo:bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau. Oliva:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare and aggressive plasma cell proliferation with a very poor prognosis. The prevalence of poor-risk genetic lesions is higher compared with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. pPCL requires urgent control of clinical manifestations to prevent early death because of irreversible disease complications. The aim of the EMN12/ HOVON129 study is to improve the outcome of younger and elderly patients with pPCL by incorporating carfilzomib and lenalidomide in induction, consolidation, and maintenance. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR5350. Methods In this ongoing non-randomized, phase 2, multicenter study, patients with previously untreated pPCL receive induction therapy with carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd; 28-day cycles with carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 on days 1,2,8,9,15,16; lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21; dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1,2,8,9,15,16,22,23). In patients ≤65 years, 4 cycles of KRd induction is followed by tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), KRd consolidation, and then maintenance with carfilzomib (27 mg/m2 on days 1,2,15,16) and lenalidomide (10 mg on days 1-21/28 days) until progression. Patients who are eligible for allogeneic SCT, may also receive autologous-allogeneic tandem transplantation. Patients ≥66 years receive 8 cycles of KRd followed by carfilzomib+lenalidomide maintenance. Supportive care consists of antibacterial-, herpes zoster-, and thrombosis-prophylaxis. Inclusion criteria are newly diagnosed pPCL (>2x109/L circulating monoclonal plasma cells or plasmacytosis >20% of the differential white cell count) and WHO-performance status 0-3. Main exclusion criteria are severe cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction; and creatinine clearance of Here we report the results from the first planned interim analysis for patients aged ≤65 years. The objective of this analysis was to describe overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity of induction therapy for the first 15 registered patients aged ≤65 years. Results From October 2015 till May 2019, we enrolled 33 patients with pPCL, 21 aged ≤65 years and 12 aged ≥66 years. Among the first 15 patients aged ≤65 years, 47% were males; median age was 62 years (range 31-65); 67% had bone disease; and WHO performance status was 2 in 20% and 3 in 27% of patients. Patients had a high tumor burden with a median plasma cell percentage in BM biopsy of 90%. The median peripheral blood plasma cell count was 5.2x109/L (range 2.0-27.4); median platelet count was 121x109/L (range 27-289); and median GFR was 53 ml/min (range 15-81 ml/min). Patients had high-risk disease as evidenced by ISS stage 3 in 67%; elevated LDH in 53%; and high frequency of high-risk genetic lesions (del(17p) in 58%, t(4;14) in 8%, t(14;16) in 8%, del(1p) in 50%, ampl(1q) in 58%). In addition, 20% of patients had extramedullary disease. Among the first 15 registered patients, 14 received the planned 4 cycles of induction treatment, while one patient went off protocol after cycle 3 due to disease progression. After 4 induction cycles, (stringent) CR was achieved by 5 (33%), at least VGPR by 12 (80%), and ≥PR by 14 patients (93%). Table 1 shows adverse events that occurred throughout induction treatment. Adverse events mainly occurred during the first cycle of KRd, and decreased thereafter. Hematological toxicity was limited. One patient experienced a grade 3 infection. Cardiac events occurred in 2 patients: 1 grade 3 myocardial infarction, and 1 grade 2 heart failure. No patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. Mortality during induction was 0%. In all 21 patients aged ≤65 years, 14 (67%) experienced one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), mainly hospitalizations. The majority of these SAEs occurred during the first KRd cycle (Figure 1). Conclusions KRd induced deep hematologic responses after 4 cycles of therapy (≥VGPR in 80% and ≥CR in 33%) without early death. Toxicity consisted of 20% grade 3 and 27% grade 4 events, occurred mainly during the first cycle of induction, and was manageable with appropriate interventions. In conclusion, KRd provides efficient and rapid disease control, which is essential to prevent early mortality because of irreversible disease complications and to improve survival of patients with this aggressive plasma cell proliferative disorder. Disclosures Van De Donk: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schjesvold:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkyliteDX: Honoraria; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Broyl:Celgene, amgen, Janssen,Takeda: Honoraria. Minnema:Jansen Cilag: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caers:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sonneveld:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hajek:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Consultant or advisory relationship; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; PharmaMar: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Consultant or advisory relationship, Research Funding. Gay:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vangsted:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria. Musto:Celgene: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: KRd is used for primary plasma cell leukemia

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

Background: Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based induction and consolidation proved to be effective in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) eligible for melphalan 200 mg/m2-autologous stem cell transplant (MEL200-ASCT). High response rates have been reported with the second-generation PI Carfilzomib in combination with Lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) or Cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd). Aims: The primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KRd induction-ASCT-KRd consolidation (KRd-ASCT-KRd) vs 12 cycles of KRd (KRd12) vs KCd induction-ASCT-KCd consolidation (KCd-ASCT-KCd). Methods: NDMM pts ≤65 years were randomized (1:1:1; stratification ISS and age) to: KRd-ASCT-KRd: 4 28-day cycles with KRd induction (Carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; Lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21; dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KRd consolidation cycles; KRd12: 12 KRd cycles; KCd-ASCT-KCd: 4 28-day induction cycles with KCd (Carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1,8,15; dexamethasone 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KCd consolidation cycles. Thereafter, pts were randomized to maintenance with Lenalidomide alone or plus Carfilzomib. Centralized minimal residual disease (MRD) evaluation - 8-color second generation flow cytometry, sensitivity 10-5 - was performed in pts achieving ≥very good partial response (VGPR). Endpoints were pre-maintenance stringent complete response (sCR) and MRD negativity in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Data cut-off was May 30, 2018. Results: 474 NDMM pts were randomized (KRd-ASCT-KRd, n=158; KRd12, n=157; KCd-ASCT-KCd, n=159) and analyzed. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Median follow-up was 20 months. Depth of response improved during treatment (Figure). By ITT analysis, rates of pre-maintenance sCR was similar between KRd-ASCT-KRd (41%) and KRd12 (42%), and significantly higher than with KCd-ASCT-KCd (30%; P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.047; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.028). Similarly, rate of ≥CR was 49% with KRd-ASCT-KRd, 52% with KRd12 and 38% with KCd-ASCT-KCd (P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.041; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.014) and rate of ≥CR+unconfirmed CR (missing immunofixation confirmation) raised to 60% vs 63% vs 46% in the 3 groups, respectively; rate of ≥VGPR was 88% with KRd-ASCT-KRd, 86% with KRd12 and 74% with KCd-ASCT-KCd (P value KRd-ASCT-KRd vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.002; P value KRd12 vs KCd-ASCT-KCd=0.008). In multivariate analysis, the main factor affecting probability of achieving ≥VGPR, ≥CR or sCR was treatment with KRd-ASCT-KRd or KRd12 vs KCd, with no significant impact of ISS Stage or FISH abnormalities. In ITT analysis (MRD missing [31/395 VGPR pts, 8%] and Conclusions: Rates of MRD negativity, sCR, ≥CR, ≥VGPR were significantly higher with KRd-ASCT-KRd and KRd12 vs KCd. At present, no differences in MRD and overall best response (sCR, ≥CR, ≥VGPR) were noticed between KRd-ASCT-KRd and KRd12; longer follow-up is needed to evaluate survival. Treatment was well tolerated. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gay: Roche: Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Galli:Sigma-Tau: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Belotti:Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board. Zamagni:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Angelucci:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Chair Steering Committee TELESTO protocol in MDS; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Chair DMC proptocol BELIEVE 1 and BELIVE 2 in Thalassemia; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (MA) and CRISPR Therapeutics AG (CH): Other: Chair DMC CRISPR CAS9 in Hemoglobinopathies; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Italy: Other: Local (national) advisory board on AML; Roche Italia: Other: Local (national) advisory board on biosimilars. Annibali:Celgene; Takeda; Amgen, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Offidani:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria.

BACKGROUND Thalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug with strong antimyeloma activity. It is an effective treatment for multiple myeloma at disease recurrence and at diagnosis, both as a single agent and in combination with steroids or chemotherapy. No data are available on the association of thalidomide with oral melphalan and prednisone, still considered the standard treatment for elderly patients. METHODS The feasibility and efficacy of the combination of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) have been valuated in 49 newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. RESULTS According to European Bone Marrow Transplantation/ International Bone Marrow Transplantation Registry (EBMT/IBMTR) criteria, 18% of patients achieved immunofixation-negative complete disease remission (CR), 6% achieved immunofixation-positive near CR, 4% achieved a very good partial response, and 45% achieved a partial response, with a 50–89% reduction in monoclonal paraprotein. Six percent did not respond and 10% showed progressive disease. The median time to maximum response was 4 months. The Kaplan–Meier estimates of event-free survival and overall survival at 2 years were 64% and 91%, respectively. The major acute adverse events (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Grade III–IV) included thrombosis (20%), infections (12%), constipation (6%), and hematologic (22%) and neurologic (8%) toxicities. One patient died of pulmonary thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS These data suggested that MPT induced rapid and durable tumor responses with CR rates similar to those observed after autologous transplantation. Administration of prophylactic anticoagulant was required to prevent thromboembolism. MPT merits further investigation in randomized clinical trials. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

High-dose therapy is an effective standard treatment for multiple myeloma patients. Evidence that intermediate-dose therapy improves survival is limited. At diagnosis, about 70% of patients are older than 65. Intermediate-dose regimen is very well tolerated in older patients. In a multicenter study, 194 patients were randomized to receive at diagnosis either conventional chemotherapy (6 courses of oral melphalan and prednisone [MP]) or intermediate-dose therapy (2 courses of melphalan at 100 mg/m(2) [MEL100]) with stem cell support. Response rate was higher after MEL100. Near-complete remission (nCR) was 6% after MP and 25% after MEL100 (P = .0002). At 3 years, MEL100 increased event-free survival (EFS) from 16% to 37% and overall survival (OS) from 62% to 77% (P < .001). Similar results were observed in patients aged 65 to 70: nCR was 8% after MP and 25% after MEL100 (P = .05); at 3 years, MEL100 improved EFS from 18% to 31% (P = .01) and OS from 58% to 73% (P = .01). Patients aged 65 to 70 had a median OS of 37.2 months (MP) versus 58 months (MEL100). Intermediate-dose melphalan improves response rate, EFS, and OS in myeloma patients, specifically in those aged 65 to 70. It constitutes a more effective first-line regimen than standard treatment for elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) increases with age, but it is unclear how the characteristics of the disease vary with age. In children, where CML is very rare, it presents with more aggressive features, including huge splenomegaly, higher cell count and higher blast cell percentage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To investigate if after childhood the disease maintains or loses these characteristics of aggressiveness, we analyzed 2784 adult patients, at least 18 years old, registered by GIMEMA CML WP over a 40-year period. RESULTS: Young adults (YAs: 18-29 years old) significantly differed from adults (30-59 years old) and elderly patients (at least 60 years old) particularly for the frequency of splenomegaly (71%, 63% and 55%, P < 0.001), and the greater spleen size (median value: 4.5, 3.0 and 1.0 cm, P < 0.001). According to the EUTOS score, that is age-independent, high-risk patients were more frequent among YAs, than among adult and elderly patients (18%, 9% and 6%, P < 0.001). In tyrosine kinase inhibitors-treated patients, the rates of complete cytogenetic and major molecular response were lower in YAs, and the probability of transformation was higher (16%, 5% and 7%, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of CML or the host response to leukemia differ with age. The knowledge of these differences and of their causes may help to refine the treatment and to improve the outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: NCT00510926, NCT00514488, NCT00769327, NCT00481052. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

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

Several algorithms for early prediction of poor-mobilizing patients after chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration have been proposed. They generally define peripheral blood cut-off levels of CD34+ cells at a fixed day after starting chemotherapy, mostly with cyclophosphamide. To define an algorithm for early addition of plerixafor regardless of the chemotherapy regimen used, we retrospectively analyzed 280 chemomobilization attempts in 236 patients treated at our institution between 2002 and 2012. In multivariate analysis, CD34+ absolute count and CD34+ percentage upon total leukocyte count at day 1 (defined as the first day in which leukocytes reached a value > 1 × 109/L) were the only factors able to predict a total harvest ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+/kg. In patients with day 1 CD34+ lower than 20/μL, the CD34+ percentage was a more reliable predictor of stem cell harvest in the following days than CD34+ absolute count. Upon definition of the best CD34+ cut-off value for identification of poor-mobilizing patients, an algorithm was set up to guide plerixafor administration. It was prospectively validated in 20 patients in 2013 with encouraging results in terms of low incidences of both mobilization failure and plerixafor use. Large prospective trials that define the most cost-effective strategy for just-in-time rescue plerixafor are warranted.

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

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

The purpose of this study was threefold: to evaluate the role of gallium-67 scintigraphy in the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (LGNHL), to assess the relationship between the expression of CD71 on the surface of the neoplastic cells and the 67Ga uptake by the tumour, and to establish the contribution of 67Ga scan in defining the prognosis of LGNHL. Forty-eight patients with untreated LGNHL diagnosed in a single institution over a decade were reviewed. The end point of the study was survival of the patients according to the scintigraphic 67Ga score at diagnosis. In addition to 67Ga scan, other prognostic variables were studied, relating to the neoplastic burden, the biology of the tumour and the host. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used. 67Ga scan identified only 116/286 (41%) nodes involved by lymphoma that were detected by clinical examination or computed tomography scan. A scintigraphic scoring system with an arbitrary cut-off value of 3 (high scan score) was able to predict patients with a dismal prognosis: with a mean follow-up of 47 months (range: 1-146 months) the median survival time was 28 months in patients with a high scan score and 74 months in patients with a low scan score (P=0.002). CD71 values were 27. 4%+/-14.9% (mean +/-SD) in the former and 8.9%+/-7.2% in the latter (P=0.0001). Only performance status and extranodal sites were significant variables for prognosis in multivariate analysis. It is concluded that 67Ga scan is inaccurate in staging but might be very important in defining the prognosis in LGNHL, in association with other prognostic variables.

Introduction : Risk-adapted therapy in curable hematologic malignancies is commonly applied: low-risk patients (pts) may be cured with less intensive treatment, avoiding excessive toxicity, whereas high-riskpts require more intensive and toxic regimens. In multiple myeloma (MM), this model may not apply, since the disease is incurable. In recent years, there has been a marked improvement in patient outcome, due to the introduction of novel agents and optimized treatment strategies, including the use of transplant and maintenance. A better evaluation ofpts prognosis based on the new revised international staging system (R-ISS) has been also introduced in clinical practice. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of treatment intensification (specifically autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT] and maintenance) inpts with different prognostic features. Methods : Data from 3 phase III randomized trials in newly diagnosed MMpts (RV-MM-209; EMN441; GIMEMA-MM0305) were pooled together and analyzed. Baseline patient risk assessment was estimated using R-ISS. We evaluated: 1) the impact of treatment intensification with high-dose therapy followed by ASCTvs no-ASCT inpts with R-ISS Stage Ivs Stage II/III; 2) the impact of treatment intensification with maintenancevs no maintenance inpts with R-ISS Stage Ivs Stage II/III. RV-MM-209 and EMN441 studies randomizedpts to ASCTvs no-ASCT; allpts in the GIMEMA-MM0305 trial did not receive ASCT and were excluded from the first comparison; RV-MM-209 and GIMEMA-MM0305 studies randomizedpts to maintenance or no maintenance after induction/consolidation; allpts in the EMN441 trial received maintenance and were excluded from the second comparison. We evaluated progression free survival-1 (PFS1), PFS2 and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). To account for potential confounders, the comparisons between ASCTvs no-ASCT and maintenancevs no maintenance were adjusted for the trial effect and the main prognostic features. Results: Overall, 1302 pts were enrolled in the 3 trials. Median follow-up was 4 years.Comparison ASCTvs no-ASCT: 791pts were enrolled in the 2 trials, 529 were eligible for the ASCTvs no ASCT comparison. R-ISS Stage data were available for 419 pts. There was an overall advantage for ASCTvs no-ASCT in PFS1 (0.53; p Conclusions: Both ASCT and maintenance improved PFS1, PFS2 and OS in MM pts. The highest survival was reported in patients with R-ISS Stage I receiving ASCT and/or maintenance. Low-riskpts (R-ISS Stage I) not undergoing intensification with ASCT or maintenance lose their prognostic advantage over high-risk patients receiving the same intensification. Disclosures Gay: Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board. Hajek: Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bringhen: Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria. Gaidano: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Caravita: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo: Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foa: Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genetech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Patriarca: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory board; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory board; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory board; MSD: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Ria: Italfarmaco: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Binding Site: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Palumbo: Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria. Boccadoro: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; SANOFI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbivie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; CELGENE: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains a gold standard treatment for younger patients with multiple myeloma (MM). With the aid of new drugs, the patients live longer and third salvage ASCT is an increasingly used option. However, the outcome of third salvage ASCT has not yet been analyzed. Methods. Between 1997 and 2010, 1288 MM patients who had received at least 3 ASCT were registered in the EBMT database. We excluded patients older than 75 years, those with a time from diagnosis to first ASCT of more than 10 years, patients transplanted with bone marrow, those with a time between relapse and ASCT of less than one month and those with an uncertain relapse date. Planned tandem ASCT was considered to be performed within a 6 month interval and at least 1 month apart. The conditioning regimen for the third transplant was high dosemelphalan alone or in combination withbusulfan orbortezomib. We could distinguish two main groups: 417 patients who received tandem ASCT and then a third ASCT after single relapse (AARA group) and 72 patients who received one ASCT, a second ASCT after first relapse, and a third ASCT after second relapse (ARARA group). A third group, who received tandem ASCT after relapsing following single ASCT comprised only 25 patients and was not studied. Results. We compared the two groups AARA vs ARARA. A third ASCT was performed in the AARA group in more recent years (p=0.047). There were more males than females (65% vs 72%) in both groups (p=NS). The main myeloma isotype was IgG (56% vs 58%). The ISS stage at diagnosis was similar (stage III in 70% vs 72% of cases). The time interval between diagnosis and first ASCT tended to be shorter in the AARA group (p=0.089), being within the first 6 months in 50% vs 38% of patients. The status at third ASCT was different: CR, 5% vs 4%: VGPR or PR, 45% vs 19%: MR or stable disease, 12% vs 15%: primary refractory/progressive disease, 38% vs 62% (p70% at third ASCT was reported in 91% vs 90% of cases. The conditioning regimen at third ASCT was different between the two groups: melphalan 200 mg/m2, 42% vs 18%: melphalan 140 mg/m2, 6%vs 12%: other 52%vs 70% (p=0.018). The median age at third ASCT was 59vs 61 years. There was a trend to a longer time between first ASCT and first relapse (27vs 22 months (p=0.056)) in the AARA group while the interval between first ASCT and third ASCT was much shorter (44vs 64 months (p The median follow-up was similar (70vs73 months (p=0.9)). Engraftment was similar (96%vs93% (p=0.35)).The best response achieved after the third ASCT was superior in the AARA group: CR, 32%vs12%: VGPR or PR, 60%vs71% :MRor SD, 4%vs14%: progression, 4%vs3% (p Conclusions.A third ASCT is feasible in MM with more than 80% of patients achieving at least PR although with increased non relapse mortality. This treatment is mostly used in one of two scenarios: tandem ASCT followed by relapse and a third ASCT, or less commonly a first ASCT followed by a first relapse, a second ASCT, a second relapse and subsequently a third ASCT. The first scenario gives much better results, partly due to a better remission status at the third ASCT with no sign of increased SPM. In this AARA group, if relapse occurred more than 3 years after the initial tandem ASCT, the median OS after third ASCT was more than 4 years. These results should be compared with those obtained with the new drugs, especially in combination. Figure 1. AARAvsARARA groups: Overall Survival after the third transplant Figure 1. AARAvsARARA groups: Overall Survival after the third transplant Figure 2. AARA group: Overall Survival after the third transplant according to the time to relapse following tandem ASCT. Figure 2. AARA group: Overall Survival after the third transplant according to the time to relapse following tandem ASCT. Disclosures Garderet: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy. Dreger:Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Peschel:MophoSys: Honoraria. Meuleman:Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Ciceri:MolMed SpA: Consultancy. Schönland:Janssen, Prothena, GSK: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommations, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kröger:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: High throughput techniques, such as massively parallel sequencing, are becoming an attractive approach to characterize multiple myeloma (MM) genomic profiles. However, the clinical relevance and contribution to risk assessment of such approaches need to be established. The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF)CoMMpass trial (NCT01454297) has collected data from 1000 newly-diagnosed MM patients enrolled worldwide and observed through an expected follow-up of up to eight-years. Comprehensive analysis of somatic mutations detected in purified MM cells could reveal disease features with prognostic value, which may not have been detected using traditional approaches. Materials and methods: We analyzed data from the interim analysis 8 cohort. CD138+ purified MM specimens from bone marrow aspirates and mononuclear cells from peripheral blood were collected at diagnosis. Whole exome libraries from both tumor and constitutional DNA samples were created. Somatic single nucleotide variants (SNV) were identified using three different variant callers (Seurat,Strelka andMutect), only nonsynonymous SNV calls made from at least two callers were included in the analysis. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. We evaluated the impact on progression free survival (PFS) of recurrently mutated genes (with at least a nonsynonymous SNV in more than 10 patients) in a Cox model adjusted for international staging system (ISS) and cytogenetic profile (high risk, standard risk and missing). An additive score related to mutated genes was calculated on the basis the level of each coefficient estimated using a Cox Model with backward selection based on theAkaikeInformation Criterion (AIC). Results: 517 patients with baseline somatic mutation data were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 27-93). All patients received novel agents as first line treatment; 236 (45.6%) received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Each patient showed a median number of 55 nonsynonymous somatic SNV (range 8-1970) in a median number of 47 genes (range 5-1741). Excluding immunoglobulin genes, the most recurrent mutated genes were KRAS (25%), NRAS (19.5%), TTN (12.1%), MUC16 (9.1%) and DIS3 (9.1%). Based on the results of a multivariable Cox model corrected for ISS and cytogeneticprofile, we created a scoring system determined by the mutational status of 9 genes identified in a nonbiased manner (Table 1). Three groups were identified: group I (score 0-2, 17%); group II (score=3, 51%), and group III (score >3, 32%). After a median follow-up of 371 days, the 18-month PFS rate was 93% for group I, 85% for group II, and 67% for group III. In a Cox model adjusted for ISS and cytogeneticprofile, the hazard ratio was 2.34 (p=0.112) for group II versus group I, and 5.96 (p Conclusion: The use of a prognostic model based on the mutational status of 9 recurrently mutated genes could improve risk assessment of newly-diagnosed MM patients. To our knowledge, this is the largest study correlating nonsynonymous somatic SNV with MM patients' outcome. Longer follow-up and validation in independent cohorts are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Larocca: Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Gay:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria.

Background The role of single vs double autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) needs to be prospectively investigated in the novel agent era. Methods The phase III EMN02/HO95 study was designed to compare (first randomization, R1) (stratification according to ISS stage) standard-dose intensification therapy with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose intensification therapy with melphalan at 200 mg/m2 (HDM) followed by ASCT after 3-4 cycles of bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone as induction therapy. A second randomization to consolidation therapy vs no consolidation was performed after intensification therapy, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity in both arms. A primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from R1. In centers with a policy of double ASCT, patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to either VMP or single ASCT (ASCT-1) or two sequential courses (administered 2 to 3 months apart) of HDM and double ASCT (ASCT-2) in order to prospectively compare ASCT-1 with ASCT-2, which was an additional study objective. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 pts aged ≤65 years with symptomatic NDMM were registered and 1192 of these were eligible for R1. According to the design of the study, 614 eligible patients who received the diagnosis of MM in centers with a double intensification policy were randomly assigned to either VMP (n=199) or ASCT-1 (n=208) or ASCT-2 (n=207). Patients randomized to ASCT-1 or ASCT-2 were included in the current pre-specified analysis. Median age was 59 years for patients in the ASCT-1 group and 57 years for those in the ASCT-2 group. The frequency of ISS stage III was 18% and 19%, while revised ISS stage III was 9% and 11%, respectively. Cytogenetic abnormalities were detected by FISH analysis of CD138+ plasma cells. A high-risk (HR) cytogenetic profile, defined by t(4;14) and/or del(17p) and/or t(14;16) (HR cyto-3), was observed in 26% of evaluable patients who were randomized to ASCT-1 and in 21% of those randomly assigned to ASCT-2. If amp(1q) and/or del(1p) were added for the definition of high-risk disease, a HR cytogenetic profile that included at least 1 of the 5 above mentioned chromosomal abnormalities (HR cyto-5) was reported in 55% of evaluable patients in the ASCT-1 group and in 54% of those in the ASCT-2 group. Median follow-up from R1 was 27 (IQR: 20-35) months. On an intention-to-treat basis, the median PFS was 45 months in the ASCT-1 arm and was not yet reached for patients in the ASCT-2 arm; 3-year estimates of PFS were 60% and 73%, respectively (HR=0.66; 95% CI=0.45-0.96; P=0.030). PFS benefit with ASCT-2 was retained across predefined subgroups, including patients with β2-microglobulin >3.5 mg/L (HR=0.59; CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.005), bone marrow plasma cells >60% (HR=0.41; CI=0.22-0.77; P=0.006), LDH values above the upper limits (HR=0.52; CI=0.28-095; P=0.034), revised ISS stage II (HR=0.50; CI=0.31-0.80; p=0.004), HR cyto-3 (HR=0.49; CI=0.24-1.02; P=0.057) and HR cyto-5 (HR=0.57; CI=0.35-0.93; P=0.024). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis stratified by ISS stage, randomization to ASCT-2 (HR=0.62; CI=0.40-0.95; P=0.027) and HR cyto-5 (HR=2.63; CI=1.63-4.16; P Conclusions Upfront double ASCT after bortezomib-based induction therapy for newly diagnosed MM was superior over a single ASCT in terms of prolonged PFS. Clinical benefits of double ASCT were mostly seen in patients with disease-related factors predicting for poor prognosis. Disclosures Cavo: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Boccadoro:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; CELGENE: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; SANOFI: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbivie: Honoraria.

Abstract 827 Background and aims: We have recently shown that a consolidation therapy with bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTD) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients responding to autologous transplantation (ASCT) induces major tumor shrinking assessed by real time-quantitative (RQ)-PCR. Moreover we found that low levels of minimal residual disease (MRD) associated to a better progression-free survival (PFS) [GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial, EudraCT Number 2004-000531-28: Ladetto et al, J Clin Oncol 2010]. We here present the updated results of this study at a median follow-up of 65 months. In the present analysis the following additional issues have been addressed: a) impact of MRD on PFS over time, with special interest to the role of MRD kinetics on outcome; b) impact of MRD on overall survival (OS). Patients and methods: Inclusion criteria and treatment schedule for this study have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010] and included: 1) a documented complete or very good partial remission following ASCT delivered as first line treatment; 2) no previous therapy with thalidomide or bortezomib; 3) presence of a molecular marker based on the immunoglobulin heavy chain rearrangement (IGH). MRD was assessed on bone marrow samples at diagnosis, study entry, after two VTD courses, at the end of treatment and then at six months intervals, up to clinical relapse. Patients underwent MRD detection using either qualitative nested PCR and RQ-PCR, employing IGH-derived patient specific primers as already described [Voena et al., Leukemia 1997; Ladetto et al., Biol Bone Marrow Transpl 2000]. For outcome analysis patients were grouped according to following definitions: a) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by the most sensitive PCR method (nested PCR): full molecular remission (FMR); b) MRD negativity on two consecutive samples by RQ-PCR (less sensitive but currently better standardized, according to European Study Group on MRD detection guidelines [van der Vendel et al., Leukemia 2007]): standard molecular remission (SMR); c) post-treatment tumor load above the median by RQ-PCR: high tumor burden (HTB); d) post-treatment tumor load below the median by RQ-PCR: low tumor burden (LTB); e) recurrence of detectable MRD after FMR/SMR: molecular relapse (M-rel); f) increase of MRD levels of at least one log: active disease (AD). Results: Feasibility, toxicity and clinical outcome of the trial have been already reported [Ladetto et al., J Clin Oncol 2010]. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled and median clinical follow-up from start of first line treatment is 65 months. 270 of the planned samples for MRD monitoring (86%) were actually received by the centralized lab. So far 17 relapses and six deaths have been reported. Following VTD consolidation, 7/38 evaluable patients achieved FMR (18%) and 15/38 achieved SMR (39%). Three M-rel were observed, two of them followed by clinical relapse within six months. Achievement of SMR proved highly predictive for PFS (5-years (y) PFS 82% vs 44%, p=0.009, figure 1A), as well as the presence of HTB and AD (5-y PFS 35% vs 87%, p Conclusions: Our long-term results indicate that: 1) the achievement of SMR following VTD consolidation in MM patients is associated with a better outcome in terms of PFS and OS; 2) a dynamic increase in molecular tumor burden (AD), detectable by RQ-PCR, predicts late disease relapses several months before clinical recurrence. Taken together these results suggest the importance of developing tailored treatment for patients with high residual burden or showing increasing levels of MRD during follow-up, as already pursued for example in mantle cell lymphoma [Andersen et al., J Clin Oncol 2009]. Disclosures: Ladetto: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Italfarmaco: Research Funding. Cavallo:celgene: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Merck: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria.

Purpose The combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) is a new standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. This phase III study examined the efficacy of the four-drug combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) compared with VMP treatment alone in untreated multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients and Methods A total of 511 patients were randomly assigned to receive nine cycles of VMPT followed by continuous VT as maintenance, or nine cycles of VMP at the same doses with no additional therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Results The 3-year estimates of progression-free survival were 56% in patients receiving VMPT-VT and 41% in those receiving VMP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .008). At 3 years, the cumulative proportions of patients who did not go on to the next therapy were 72% with VMPT-VT and 60% with VMP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90; P = .007). Complete response rates were 38% in the VMPT-VT group and 24% in the VMP group (P < .001). The 3-year overall survival was 89% with VMPT-VT and 87% with VMP (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.60; P = .77). Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (38% v 28%; P = .02), cardiologic events (10% v 5%; P = .04), and thromboembolic events (5% v 2%; P = .08) were more frequent among patients assigned to the VMPT-VT group than among those assigned to the VMP group; treatment-related deaths were 4% with VMPT-VT and 3% with VMP. Conclusion VMPT followed by VT as maintenance was superior to VMP alone in patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation.

Purpose We investigated the effect on minimal residual disease, by qualitative and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), of a consolidation regimen that included bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) responding to autologous stem-cell transplantation (auto-SCT). Patients and Methods Patients achieving at least very good partial response who had an available molecular marker based on the immunoglobulin heavy-chain rearrangement received four courses of treatment every month: four infusions per month of bortezomib at 1.6 mg/m2, thalidomide at 200 mg/d, and dexamethasone at 20 mg/d on days 1 to 4, 8 to 11, and 15 to 18. Patients were studied with tumor-clone–specific primers by qualitative nested PCR and RQ-PCR. Results Of 39 patients enrolled, 31 received the four VTD courses. Immunofixation complete responses increased from 15% after auto-SCT to 49% after VTD. Molecular remissions (MRs) were 3% after auto-SCT and 18% after VTD. Median time to maximum response was 3.5 months. So far, no patient in MR has relapsed (median follow-up, 42 months). VTD consolidation induced an additional depletion of 4.14 natural logarithms of tumor burden by RQ-PCR. Patients with a tumor load less than the median value after VTD had outcomes better than those who had tumor loads above the median value after VTD (at median follow-up: progression-free survival, 100% v 57%; P < .001). Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to document the occurrence of persistent MRs in a proportion of MM patients treated without allogeneic transplantation. Moreover, the major reduction in tumor load recorded by RQ-PCR after VTD suggests that unprecedented levels of tumor cell reduction can be achieved in MM thanks to the new nonchemotherapeutic drugs.