Search

Background Patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/RcHL) have limited opportunities for a curative therapy. High-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) produces cure rates of 50-60%. Patients relapsing after, or ineligible for HDT-ASCT have limited therapeutic options and long-term remission is uncommon. Furthermore, few patients are candidate to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (AlSCT), a potentially curative approach. The combination of brentuximab-vedotin and bendamustine (BVB) is a promising treatment for patients with R/RcHL, regardless of SCT eligibility. Patients and methods We report a real-life experience with BVB in 41 patients with R/RcHL after failure of ≥1 therapy including ASCT, AlSCT, or BV. Results Among 40 patients evaluable for efficacy, the overall response rate and complete response (CR) rate was 75% and 50%, respectively. No significant differences were observed between primary refractory and relapsed disease, previously treated with ≤2 and ≥3 lines of therapy, or BV-exposed and BV-naive. After a median follow-up of 38 months, the median progression free survival (PFS) for the entire population is 26 months; PFS is not reached, 10.5 months and 4 months for patients achieving CR, partial response and no response, respectively (p Conclusion Our experience supports the efficacy and tolerability of the BVB combination in R/RcHL as a bridge to SCT or as a definitive therapy for SCT-ineligible patients. Larger comparative studies testing BVB against standards of care are warranted in both settings. MICROABSTRACT In the real-life setting, the combination of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine was well tolerated and produced an ORR of 75%, CR 50% and a median PFS of 26 months. A significant proportion of heavily pretreated cHL patients may be cured with this approach.

For patients with acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukaemia (AML/ALL) lacking a matched sibling or unrelated donor, haploidentical stem cell transplantation (HAPLO-SCT) is increasingly used. However, available data on the treatment of relapse after HAPLO-SCT, including feasibility and efficacy of a second HAPLO-SCT (HAPLO-SCT2), is scarce. Hence, adults with AML/ALL, that had undergone HAPLO-SCT2 without ex-vivo manipulation after haematologic relapse from HAPLO-SCT1 were selected for a retrospective registry analysis. Eighty-two patients (AML, n = 63, ALL, n = 19, median follow-up: 33 months) were identified. Engraftment rate was 87%. At day +180, cumulative incidences of acute GvHD II-IV°/chronic GvHD were 23.9%/22.6%, respectively. Two-year overall survival/leukaemia-free survival (OS/LFS) were 34.3%/25.4%; 2-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse incidence (RI) were 17.6% and 57%. Leukaemia was the most frequent cause of death. Separated by disease, 2-year OS/LFS/NRM/RI were 28.7%/22.3%/16.2%/61.6% in AML, and 55.3%/38.4%/23.5%/38.2% in ALL patients. In a risk-factor analysis among patients with AML, stage at HAPLO-SCT1 and HAPLO-SCT2, and interval from HAPLO-SCT1 to relapse significantly influenced outcome. Our data demonstrate that HAPLO-SCT2 is a viable option in acute leukaemia relapse after HAPLO-SCT1. Engraftment, toxicity, risk factors and long-term outcome are comparable to data reported after allo-SCT2 in a matched donor setting.

The GIMEMA phase II LLC1518 VERITAS trial investigated the efficacy and safety of frontline, fixed-duration venetoclax and rituximab (VenR) combination in young (≤65 years) and fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and unmutated IGHV and/or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven ramp-up, six-monthly courses of the VenR combination, followed by six monthly courses of Ven single agent. A centralized assessment of measurable minimal residual disease (MRD) was performed on the peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) by ASO-PCR at the end of treatment (EOT) and during the follow-up. The primary endpoint was the complete remission (CR) rate at the EOT. Seventy-five patients were enrolled; the median age was 54 years (range 38-65), 96% had unmutated IGHV, 9 (12%) had TP53 disruption, and 4% were IGHV mutated with TP53 disruption. The overall response rate (ORR) at the EOT was 94.7%, with a CR rate of 76%. An undetectable (u) MRD was recorded in 69.3% of patients in the PB and 58.7% in the BM. The 12-month MRD-free survival in the 52 patients with uMRD in the PB at the EOT was 73.1%. After a median follow-up of 20.8 months, no disease progressions were observed. Three patients have died, two due to Covid-19 and 1 to tumor lysis syndrome. The first report of the VERITAS study shows that frontline VenR was associated with a high rate of CRs and durable responses with uMRD in young patients with CLL and unfavorable genetic characteristics.

The Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stratifies patients affected by Multiple Myeloma (MM) into three distinct risk groups: R-ISS I [ISS Stage I, Standard-Risk cytogenetics and normal Lactase DeHydrogenase (LDH)], R-ISS III (ISS stage III and either high-risk cytogenetics or high LDH) and R-ISS II (any other characteristics). With the aim to verify whether the three R-ISS groups could be divided into subgroups with different prognostic factors based on the detection of Circulating Plasma Cells (CPCs) at diagnosis, in this retrospective analysis, we evaluated 161 patients with MM treated at our centre between 2005 and 2017. In all, 57 patients (33·9%) were staged as R-ISS III, 98 (58·3%) as R-ISS II and six (3·6%) as R-ISS I. CPCs were detected in 125 patients (74·4%), while in 43 patients (25·6%) no CPCs were seen. Our analysis revealed that Overall Survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in R-ISS II patients were higher in the subgroup without CPCs compared to the subgroup with ≥1 CPCs (OS: 44·7% vs. 16·3%, P = 0·0089; PFS: 27·8% vs. 8·1%, P = 0·0118). Our present findings suggest that the detection of CPCs at diagnosis may be used as a further prognostic biomarker to improve the risk stratification of patients with MM staged as R-ISS II.

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

PURPOSE High levels of circulating tumor plasma cells (CTC-high) in patients with multiple myeloma are a marker of aggressive disease. We aimed to confirm the prognostic impact and identify a possible cutoff value of CTC-high for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), in the context of concomitant risk features and minimal residual disease (MRD) achievement. METHODS CTC were analyzed at diagnosis with two-tube single-platform flow cytometry (sensitivity 4 × 10–5) in patients enrolled in the multicenter randomized FORTE clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203643 ). MRD was assessed by second-generation multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity 10–5). We tested different cutoff values in series of multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazards regression analyses on PFS outcome and selected the value that maximized the Harrell's C-statistic. We analyzed the impact of CTC on PFS and OS in a MV analysis including baseline features and MRD negativity. RESULTS CTC analysis was performed in 401 patients; the median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 45-54 months). There was a modest correlation between the percentage of CTC and bone marrow plasma cells ( r = 0.38). We identified an optimal CTC cutoff of 0.07% (approximately 5 cells/µL, C-index 0.64). In MV analysis, CTC-high versus CTC-low patients had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.97, P < .001; 4-year PFS 38% v 69%) and OS (hazard ratio, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.56; P < .001; 4-year OS 68% v 92%). The CTC levels, but not the bone marrow plasma cell levels, affected the outcome. The only factor that reduced the negative impact of CTC-high was the achievement of MRD negativity (interaction P = .039). CONCLUSION In multiple myeloma, increasing levels of CTC above an optimal cutoff represent an easy-to-assess, robust, and independent high-risk factor. The achievement of MRD negativity is the most important factor that modulates their negative prognostic impact.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors have improved survival for patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, prognosis for old or unfit patients remains poor. In the INCB84344-201 (formerly GIMEMA LAL 1811) prospective, multicenter, phase 2 trial, we tested the efficacy and safety of ponatinib plus prednisone in newly diagnosed patients with Ph+ ALL ≥60 years, or unfit for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Forty-four patients received oral ponatinib 45 mg/d for 48 weeks (core phase), with prednisone tapered to 60 mg/m2/d from days-14-29. Prophylactic intrathecal chemotherapy was administered monthly. Median age was 66.5 years (range, 26-85). The primary endpoint (complete hematologic response [CHR] at 24 weeks) was reached in 38/44 patients (86.4%); complete molecular response (CMR) in 18/44 patients (40.9%) at 24 weeks. 61.4% of patients completed the core phase. As of 24 April 2020, median event-free survival was 14.31 months (95% CI 9.30-22.31). Median overall survival and duration of CHR were not reached; median duration of CMR was 11.6 months. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were rash (36.4%), asthenia (22.7%), alanine transaminase increase (15.9%), erythema (15.9%), and γ-glutamyltransferase increase (15.9%). Cardiac and vascular TEAEs occurred in 29.5% (grade ≥3, 18.2%) and 27.3% (grade ≥3, 15.9%), respectively. Dose reductions, interruptions, and discontinuations due to TEAEs occurred in 43.2%, 43.2%, and 27.3% of patients, respectively; 5 patients had fatal TEAEs. Ponatinib and prednisone showed efficacy in unfit patients with Ph+ ALL; however, a lower ponatinib dose may be more appropriate in this population. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01641107.

Fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax (Ven), a highly selective Bcl-2 inhibitor combined with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, showed high efficacy inducing high rates of deep responses with undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) in patients with previously treated and untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The efficacy and safety of the Ven and rituximab (VenR) combination have been investigated in a multicenter, prospective study of the GIMEMA group that included young patients with previously untreated CLL (LLC 1518, VERITAS, NCT03455517). The primary endpoint of this study was the CR rate assessed according to the iwCLL criteria. Inclusion criteria were: treatment requirement per iwCLL criteria, age ≤65 years, cumulative Illness rating scale score ≤6, creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min, and an unfavorable biologic profile with IGHV unmutated and or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven dose ramp-up (from 20 to 400 mg daily, during 5-weeks) followed by Ven 400 mg daily, combined with R for six 28-day courses (375 mg/m2, course 1; 500 mg/m2, courses 2-6). Patients continued with Ven single agent, 400 mg daily, until month 13. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis measures included hydration, allopurinol, or rasburicase. All patients received PneumocystisJirovecii prophylaxis. G-CSF was given in patients with recurrent and severe granulocytopenia. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the CTCAE criteria v.5, TLS events were classified according to Howard's criteria. Response was assessed at months 7 and 15 and included clinical examination, PB evaluation, BM aspirate, BM biopsy, and CT scan. MRD was checked centrally in the PB and BM by a 6/4-color flow-cytometry assay with a sensitivity of at least 10-4 according to the internationally standardized European Research Initiative on CLL. Quantitative MRD results assessed by flow-cytometry were categorized as uMRD (uMRD4; Between October 2018 and May 2020, 77 patients with CLL were included in this study. Two patients were off study before the start of treatment (withdrawal of consent, 1; Covid-19 infection, 1) and were not included in the analysis. The median age was 53.5 years (range 38-65). Binet stage B/C was present in 84% of patients, increased beta-2 microglobulin in 41%. Seventy-one (96%) of patients were IGHV unmutated, while 3 (4%) were IGHV mutated and showed TP53 mutation (Table 1). At the data cutoff of June 30, 2020, 65 (87%) patients completed the ramp-up phase. The planned 400 mg dose of Ven was reached within 5 weeks in 78.5% of patients. Response was assessed in 34 patients at the end of the VenR combination therapy. A response was achieved by 32 (94%) patients. Responses included 20 (59%) CRs, 1 CRi (3%) and 11 (32%) PRs due to residual enlarged nodes (median maximum size, 1.9 cm). Treatment failure due to toxicity was recorded in 2 (6%) patients. Overall, a response with uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB was observed in 26 (76.5%) cases, and in the PB and BM, in 17 (50.0%). The rates of patients with CR and uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB, and both in the PB and BM, were 44%, and 35%, respectively (Table 2). No detectable disease by PCR, both in the PB and BM, was observed in 4 (12%) patients. With a median follow-up of 4.5 months from the start of therapy, no patient has progressed or died. Fifty-three percent of patients were hospitalized during the first seven days of the Ven ramp-up phase. A transient laboratory TLS was observed in 3 patients. Treatment was discontinued after the first dose of Ven in 1 patient with evidence of laboratory TLS associated with severe neurologic toxicity due to the concomitant administration of fentanyl. Selected grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia in 10 patients (ramp-up phase, 5) and neutropenic fever in 4. Grade ≥3 infection was recorded in 3 patients and was the reason for treatment discontinuation in 1 who developed COVID-19 pneumonia. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study demonstrate the high efficacy of the front-line VenR combination, which resulted in a high proportion of CRs and responses with uMRD4 in young patients with CLL and an unfavorable biologic profile. Disclosures Mauro: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octopharma: Consultancy. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Abbvie: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sportoletti:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Laurenti: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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano:Astrazeneca: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marasca:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murru:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Scarfo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levato:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati:Verastem: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Molica:Roche: 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; Gilead: 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. Visentin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Del Giudice:Janssen: Other: grant for meeting participation; Tolero: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: grant for meeting partecipation; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Foà:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: 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; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background. The PI3Kδ inhibitor idelalisib given in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) has been associated with an objective response in 81% of cases with a median PFS of 20.3 months in a phase-3 clinical trial (Sharman et al, JCO 2019). Because the efficacy of new drugs reported in clinical trials may not translate into similar results in the day-to-day practice, we performed an observational retrospective-prospective study on the efficacy and safety of idelalisib and rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients treated outside of clinical trials in Italian centers belonging to the GIMEMA group. Methods. R/R CLL patients treated with IR outside of clinical trials between July 2014 and May 2017 were enrolled. Treatment was initiated at symptomatic progression; treatment response and disease progression were assessed according to the NCI criteria. The data were extracted from the medical files and entered into case record forms (CRF) by each treating physician. Computerized and manual consistency checks were performed by the GIMEMA data center on newly entered forms and queries were issued in case of inconsistencies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), the percentage of patients on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, overall survival (OS) and response to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment. Results. 149 R/R CLL patients from 35 Italian centers were included in the study. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 39.4 months, the median PFS was 22.9 months (95% CI 20.5-28.8). In univariate analysis, a shorter PFS was associated with ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0175) (Fig. 1a). The ORR (CR + PR) was 72.5%. Age ≤70 yrs (p=0.037) and a PS grade 3 during RI treatment were neutropenia (35% of cases), gastrointestinal disorders (17%), infections (17%) and transaminitis (6%). Conclusions. The results hereby observed show that the efficacy of IR in a cohort in a real-life RR/CLL with a long follow-up is superimposable to those reported in the pivotal clinical trial, suggesting that the patient population who received IR in the day-to-day clinical practice mirrored that enrolled in the trial. Advanced clinical stage and 3 or more previous lines of therapy were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Interestingly, PFS and objective measures of efficacy such as the proportion of patients still on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, as well as OS, were not influenced by the TP53 status. Furthermore, the majority of patents responded to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment and relatively durable responses were observed in patients who discontinued IR due to toxicity. Disclosures Rigolin: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: 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, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: 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. Murru:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Sportoletti:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Marasca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: 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; Shire: Honoraria. Marchetti:Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Mauro:Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octopharma: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pane:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis pharma SAS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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. Gozzetti:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Krampera:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Montillo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Foà:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: 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, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

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

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

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have been excluded from clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines; however, since these patients are at higher risk of severe complications following infection, they have been given high priority in vaccination campaigns worldwide. In this prospective observational study, we evaluated the immunogenicity of two BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine doses in allogeneic HSCT recipients compared to healthy controls. IgG antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the S1 subunit of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed by SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott, Ireland). The cutoff value of the test used in this study is 7.1 BAU/mL (Binding Antibody Unit/mL) and the results greater than 7.1 indicate that seroconversion has occurred, as recommended by the manufacturer. Peripheral blood samples were collected for immunological analysis at three timepoints: pre-vaccine baseline (w0, before the first BNT162b2 dose), week 3 (w3, before the second vaccine dose) and week 5 (w5, 2 weeks following the second dose). Patients older than 18 years who received BNT162b2 vaccine following an HSCT at seven Italian centers were included in the study. Enrolled patients received two successive doses (at 3-week interval) at a median of 15 months (range 2-141) after HSCT. Twenty-nine age-matched health care workers who were vaccinated with BNT162b2 were recruited as the control group. Among the 34 patients evaluable for serological response, three patients were excluded from the analysis as the baseline serology demonstrated previous natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. On w3, after the first vaccine dose 7/31 (23%) patients developed anti-S IgG antibodies as compared to 28/29 (97%) controls (p12 months, p200/mm3, p=0.01), and CD4+CD45RA+ T naive cell count (>100/ mm3, p Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kordasti: Alexion: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pane: AbbVie; Amgen; Novartis: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; AbbVie; Amgen; Novartis, GSK, Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharma SAS;: Research Funding; AbbVie; Amgen; Novartis, GSK , Incyte: Consultancy.

The upper age-limit for patients with hematological malignancies eligible for allo-SCT progressed to 70-75 years. As a consequence, an increase of older patients submitted to allo-SCT has been observed worldwide and in Italy as well. This registry-based retrospective study on behalf of GITMO (GITMO AlloEld) describes the transplant activity among elderly patients in Italy, between 2000 and 2017. Thiry GITMO Centers participated to the Study. 2061 allo-SCTS in patients older than 60 years were exported from PROMISE database and 1996 first transplants were analysed. The median age of the patients at transplant was 63,5 years (59,5-77,8). The most commonly transplanted diseases were acute leukemias and myelodisplastic syndromes (67,5%). 28% and 27% of the patients showed a HCT-CI of 1-2 or grater than 3, respectively. The KPS was 100% in 27,2% and 90% in 42,9% of the cases. 32% of the patients received a myeloablative conditioning regimen and 55% of the patients received an in vivo T-cell depletion (either post transplant cyclophosphamide or ATG). With a median follow up of 10,4 years, the OS at 5 years significantly improved during time, moving from 28% between 2000-2005 to 37% between 2012-2017 (p=0,012). This was related to a significant reduction in RI (45% vs 30%, p The following significant differences were observed across the years of the present study: 1) a longer 5 years OS in patients younger than 65 years (34%) vs those older than 70 years (19%) between 2000 and 2011 only (p=0,003) (Figure 1A and 1B); 2) a longer 5 years OS (p3 between 2000-2011 only (Figure 2A and 2B); 3) a different 5 years OS according to donor type between 2000 and 2011 only (19% for haplo vs 31% for sibling vs 33% for mismatch UD and 38% for MUD; p 4) a reduction in the incidence of extensive cGVHD at 1 year (15,6% between 2000 and 2005 vs 10,3% between 2012 and 2017, p=0,004) (Figure 4). Comparing 2000-2005 vs 2012-2017, the major significant differences of the patients regard: the baseline disease (more AL/MDS: 40% vs 77%; p 3 moved from 10% to 30% (p By multivariate analysis MUD donor or UCB, no response at the time of SCT and male recipient significantly impaired OS, whereas HCT-CI These retrospective data showed that the transplant procedure for elderly patients became safer and more effective over time, for a reduction of the RI related to a better selection of patients (more acute leukemias in CR) and a better selection of conditionings (more MAC and more alkylators). Nowdays, the HCT-CI score is probably not sufficient for estimate elderly patients probability of OS and NRM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Luppi: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead Science: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria. Ciceri: IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele: Current Employment.

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. New drugs with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can induce deep CR responses. MRD can be now considered in the response evaluation by the IMWG and many studies propose it as surrogate for survivals. Multiparametric flow cytometric assays have now been replaced by advanced assays that permit to assess simultaneously more than 8 markers in a single tube. In particular, Euro-flow consortium has developed NGF, a novel high sensitive and standardized approach for MM MRD evaluation that is based on the use of 2 single 8-color tubes, containing all the markers needed to distinguish normal vs MM PCs. However, it is necessary to work on fresh samples and to acquire 107 cell/sample, so to have the possibility to evaluate the Limit Of Quantification (LOQ) and the Limit Of Detection (LOD). The LOQ is calculated as 50 clonal plasmacells among 107 nucleated cells; the LOD as 20 clonal plasmacells among 107 nucleated cells. Aim. DART4MM is a single arm, multicenter, prospective study that evaluate Daratumumab effect on MM patients who already achieved VGPR/CR but MRD positive by NGF after a first line therapy (ASCT, VMP) (Gozzetti et al. IMW 2019). The purpose was to analyze 10.000.000 cells for MRD evaluation and reach at least 10-6 level. Patients and Methods. Next generation flow (NGF) is centralized and measured at Siena University Hospital with two 8 colors tubes panel developed by the EuroFlow Consortium (BD OneFLOW Tm PCSTe BD OneFLOW Tm PCD. BD BioSciences) with detection of MRD with a sensitivity (≥ 1 in 105 /10-6). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg administered at weekly intervals for 8 weeks, then every 2 weeks for an additional 8 weeks, will be given to 50 MM patients who achieved a VGPR or more defined as per IMWG criteria and MRD-positivity (by NGF). Daratumumab starts at least 12 weeks from ASCT and at least 4 weeks after VMP. Free light chain (FLC) and CT/PET are evaluated at time 0 and every 6 months. NGF is done on marrow aspirate at time 0, at 2 months and every 6 months for 2 years. Primary endpoint is achievement of MRD negativity at 6 months: if patients are MRD negative after 6 months of therapy, treatment is stopped. Otherwise treatment will continue every 4 weeks up to 2 years. Rapid infusion was allowed from the third dose (cycle 1, day 15) if no serious IRR was seen in the previous infusion (second). The infusion rate was calculated to deliver 20% of the dose over 30 min (200 mL/hr), and then the rate was increased to deliver the remaining 80% over 60 min (450 mL/hr). This resulted in a 90 min estimated infusion time (total volume 550 mL). Results. Recruitment started at the end of December 2018. 70 patients were screened until July 2020 at 5 centers in Italy. At least 10 million cells were analyzed for sensitivity at flow for each sample. 31/70 (44%) resulted MRD positive and eligible. M/F =15/16, median age was 61 (range 48-68).Three patients were excluded from the protocol because of consent withdraw. Previous therapy were single ASCT (21 patients), double ASCT 3 patient, VMP (3 patients), KRD (1 patient). ISS stage was I in 8 patients, II in 9 patients, and III in the other 6 patients. Cytogenetics/FISH analysis at diagnosis was done in 25/28 patients : it was negative for 17p deletion, t(14q) and 1q amplification in 16 patients, 2 had t(4;14) , 5 had t(11;14), 2 had del 17p, 1 del 13q, +11 in 2. Grade 2 reaction (moderate infusion-related reactions) during first daratumumab infusion was seen in 10/28 (35%) patients and promptly resolved with corticosteroids administration and temporary infusion interrumption. More than 200 rapid infusions were given to 16 patients. No serious adverse event was registered. 22/28 (79%) patients completed 8 weeks of treatment (2 months) and evaluated MRD. 17/28 (60%) completed 6 months of therapy. MRD negativity was reached at 6 months in 9/17patients (53%). Interestingly 9/13 (62%) patients treated previously with ASCT were MRD negative (10-6) after 6 months of Dara and stopped treatment. 12 patients reached 12 months of follow up: 2/12 patients are still MRD negative at 10-7 (6 lost MRD negativity). Conclusions. Follow up will continue with marrow evaluation for MRD every 6 months until 2 years. Having at disposition high quality BM samples for MRD evaluation can ameliorate our assays, even to 10-6 or 10-7 and it is crucial to have a good coordination between clinicians and laboratories so to improve the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of MM MRD detection in MM patients. Disclosures Gozzetti: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Liberati:INCYTE: Honoraria; VERASTEM: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Honoraria, Research Funding; PFIZER: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONCOPEPTIDES AB: Honoraria, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; MORPHOSYS: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONCONOVA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Honoraria, Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Research Funding; KARYOPHARM: Honoraria, Research Funding; FIBROGEN: Honoraria; BIOPHARMA: Honoraria; ARCHIGEN: Honoraria; BEIGENE: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria; CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bocchia:CELGENE: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria.

Modified BEAM as conditioning regimen for lymphoma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Detection of circulating plasma cells (PCs) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients is a well-known prognostic factor. We evaluated circulating PCs by flow cytometry (FC) in 104 patients with active MM at diagnosis by gating on CD38(+) CD45(-) cells and examined their relationship with cytogenetic risk. Patients had an average follow-up of 36 months. By using a receiver operating characteristics analysis, we estimated the optimal cut-off of circulating PCs for defining poor prognosis to be 41. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24) had poor prognosis, independently of circulating PC levels [PC 41 vs. PC ≥ 41: overall survival (OS) = 0% vs. OS = 17%, P = not significant (n.s.); progression-free survival (PFS) = 0% vs. 17%, P = n.s.]. Patients with standard-risk cytogenetics (n = 65) showed a better prognosis when associated with a lower number of circulating PCs (PC 41 vs. PC ≥ 41: OS = 62% vs. 24%, P = 0·008; PFS = 48% vs. 21%, P = 0·001). Multivariate analysis on the subgroup with standard-risk cytogenetics confirmed that the co-presence of circulating PCs ≥ 41, older age, Durie-Salmon stageI and lack of maintenance adversely affected PFS, while OS was adversely affected only by lactate dehydrogenase, older age and lack of maintenance. Our results indicate that the quantification of circulating PCs by a simple two-colour FC analysis can provide useful prognostic information in newly diagnosed MM patients with standard-risk cytogenetics.

We hereby report the clinical and biologic features of 33 of 4680 (0.7%) patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), managed at 10 Italian centers, who developed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), a rare variant of Richter syndrome. The median age at CLL and at HL diagnosis were 61 years (range 41-80) and 70 years (range 46-82), respectively, with a median interval from CLL to the diagnosis of HL of 90 months (range 0-258). In 3 cases, CLL and HL were diagnosed simultaneously. Hl was characterized by advanced stage in 79% of cases, International Prognostic Score (IPS) ≥4 in 50%, extranodal involvement in 39%, B symptoms in 70%. Prior treatment for CLL had been received by 82% of patients and included fludarabine in 67%. Coexistence of CLL and HL was detected in the same bioptic tissue in 87% of cases. The most common administered treatment was the ABVD regimen given to 22 patients (66.6%). The complete response (CR) rate after ABVD was 68%, and was influenced by the IPS (P = .03) and interval from the last CLL treatment (P = .057). Survival from HL was also influenced by the IPS (P = .006) and time from the last CLL treatment (P = .047). The achievement of CR with ABVD was the only significant and independent factor predicting survival (P = .037). Taken together, our results show that the IPS and the interval from the prior CLL treatment influence the likelihood of achieving CR after ABVD, which is the most important factor predicting survival of patients with CLL developing HL.

Background. High rates of response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity have been reported with the use of novel treatment options in multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite very promising results, there is still a proportion of pts who do not respond to therapy or relapse early. This represents an unmet medical need. Aim. To identify the main factors predictive of early relapse in the context of novel treatment approaches. Methods. Data from newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) pts ≤65 years enrolled in the FORTE trial were analyzed. The evaluated baseline standard clinical and biological features included: age, Hb, creatinine, tumor circulating plasma cells (PCpb) evaluated by flow cytometry, bone marrow plasma cells (PCbm) evaluated as continuous variables, free light chain (L vs K), M-component subtype (IgA vs others), Revised International Staging System (R-ISS II/III vs I), LDH (>ULN vs ≤ULN), ISS (III vs II vs I), presence vs absence of chromosomal abnormalities detected by FISH [(del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), t(11;14), amp1q, del1p, del13], and presence vs absence of plasmacytomas. Pts were randomized to receive carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRd) induction - 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. Pre-maintenance MRD evaluation was performed by 8-color second generation flow cytometry (sensitivity 10-5) in patients who achieved at least a very good partial response (VGPR). Early relapse was defined as relapse ≤18 months from randomization. Univariate feature selection was performed between both categorical and continuous baseline variables and the achievement of pre-maintenance MRD negativity, according to Chi-square and Kruskal tests. The same baseline features, plus the achievement of MRD negativity, were included in a univariate analysis to select candidate predictors of early relapse. Selected features were then included in a multivariate logistic model. A multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of MRD negativity and early relapse. The model was adjusted for age and administered therapy. Results. 474 patients were enrolled in the trial. Baseline features were well balanced in the 3 arms. Predictors of MRD negativity (10-5): In univariate analysis, the baseline factors selected basing on the probability of achieving pre-maintenance MRD negativity were creatinine levels, ISS stage, R-ISS stage, del17p, PCbm (P=0.004) and PCpb. In multivariate analysis, including single variables not aggregated in R-ISS, increased creatinine levels (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.94, P=0.03), increased PCbm (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, P=0.01) and presence of del17p (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83, P=0.01) reduced the probability of achieving MRD negativity (Table). Predictors of early relapse: In univariate analysis, the main baseline factors selected basing on the risk of early relapse were LDH, ISS, R-ISS, PCbm, PCpb, del17p and achievement of MRD negativity. In multivariate analysis, R-ISS II/III vs I (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.24-11, P Discussion. In the context of novel highly effective treatment approaches, creatinine levels, PCbm and, in particular, presence of del17p reduced the probability of achieving MRD negativity. Multivariate analysis combining baseline features and MRD negativity highlights how comprehensive baseline evaluation including baseline R-ISS (or in particular high LDH levels, which may have an independent role) and circulating PC can help to identify patients at high risk of early relapse. However, the achievement of MRD negativity is the factor that may reduce the risk of early relapse. Disclosures Gay: 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; 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; 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; 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; 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. Offidani: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; 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. Vozella:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Belotti:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galli:Takeda: Honoraria; Leadiant (Sigma-Tau): Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Gozzetti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Jansenn: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Giuliani:Janssen: Research Funding. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:sanofi: 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; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: 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; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. 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. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Deletions of the long arm of chromosome 6 are known to occur at relatively low frequency (3-6%) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and they are more frequently observed in 6q21. Few data have been reported regarding other bands on 6q involved by cytogenetic alterations in CLL. The cytogenetic study was performed in nuclei and metaphases obtained after stimulation with a combination of CpG-oligonucleotide DSP30 and interleukin-2. Four bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones mapping regions in bands 6q16, 6q23, 6q25, 6q27 were used as probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization in 107 CLL cases in order to analyze the occurrence and localization of 6q aberrations. We identified 11 cases (10.2%) with 6q deletion of 107 patients studied with CLL. The trends of survival curves and the treatment-free intervals (TFI) of patients with deletion suggest a better outcome than the other cytogenetic risk groups. We observed two subgroups with 6q deletion as the sole anomaly: two cases with 6q16 deletion, and three cases with 6q25.2-27 deletion. There were differences of age, stage, and TFI between both subgroups. By using BAC probes, we observed that 6q deletion has a higher frequency in CLL and is linked with a good prognosis. In addition, it was observed that the deletion in 6q16 appears to be the most frequent and, if present as the only abnormality, it could be associated with a most widespread disease.

Background: Many patients with solid tumours or nonmyeloid haematopoietic tumours develop symptomatic anaemia, which has a major impact on quality of life (QoL). The efficacy of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in improving QoL and reducing blood transfusions has been widely demonstrated. Binocrit® (biosimilar epoetin alfa) is an ESA indicated in the European Union for treating chemotherapy-induced anaemia. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Binocrit® on haemoglobin (Hb) levels in anaemic cancer patients in Italian clinical practice. Methods: The ANEMONE study was a national, longitudinal, retrospective, multicentre observational study. Patients had to be 18 years or older, with a solid tumour or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease or multiple myeloma, receiving chemotherapy, and treated with Binocrit® to manage chemotherapy-induced anaemia. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a Hb increase ⩾1 g/dl during the first 4 weeks and with a Hb increase ⩾2 g/dl during the first 12 weeks. Results: A total of 245 patients were enrolled and 215 patients were evaluable for statistical analysis. In the first 4 weeks, 49.3% of patients showed an increase in Hb of ⩾1 g/dl: 45.5% in patients with solid tumours and 52.1% in patients with haematological malignancies. In the first 12 weeks, 51.6% of patients showed an increase in Hb of ⩾2 g/dl (48.4% solid tumours, 54.2% haematological diseases). Treatment with Binocrit® was well tolerated. Conclusions: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of Binocrit® for chemotherapy-induced anaemia in routine practice in patients with solid tumours, lymphoma and myeloma.

Background. The incorporation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in treatment schemes of Ph+ ALL has remarkably improved survival. In adult patients with Ph+ ALL, ponatinib in combination with chemotherapy showed a 3-year event-free survival rate of 69%, a 3-year overall survival (OS) of 83%, and a higher rate of response when compared with dasatinib plus chemotherapy. However, in unfit or elderly ALL patients, TKIs combined with chemotherapy are associations with higher toxicity. Therefore, we examined the efficacy and safety of steroids plus ponatinib alone for the treatment of elderly or unfit patients with Ph+ ALL in a multi-center Phase II prospective clinical Italian trial, GIMEMA LAL1811 (EudraCT number 2012-002761-35). Methods. From March 2014 to December 2016, we enrolled 44 patients with untreated Ph+ ALL, ≥ 60 years or unfit (i.e. for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation). Two out of 44 patients were not elegible for the study. Patients received oral administration of 45 mg/day of ponatinib for 8 consecutive courses of 6 weeks (w). Steroids were administered from day -14 to day 29 during course 1. Intrathecal therapy with methotrexate, cytarabine and dexametasone was performed every 28 days for central nervous system (CNS) disease prophylaxis. In patients with CNS disease at diagnosis, intrathecal therapy was administered twice a week until complete remission. Dose reduction of ponatinib was allowed for adverse events. Patient samples were obtained at diagnosis and at every course, BCR-ABL mutational analisys and BCR-ABL/ABL ratio by quantitative real time PCR was performed. Complete molecular response (CMR) was defined as BCR-ABL/ABL ratio below 0.01 or undetectable, and with a sensitivity of at least 30,000 molecules of ABL. Results. Forty-two patients were eligible for the study. Median age was 68 years (range 27-85). Nine out of 42 patients were At week 24, 15/42 patients still received 45 mg of ponatinib daily, only 4/42 patients permanently withdrew study drug. During the study, 75 adverse events (AE) were reported; 36 of the 75 AEs were considered related to ponatinib. Twenty-six of the 75 AEs were considered serious (SAE); 13/26 SAEs were considered related to ponatinib. A death was suspected to be related to ponatinib. We performed BCR-ABL mutational analysis in 22 patients at diagnosis, and 15 patients at 24w. T315L (abundance 100%) was detected in a patient relapsed during ponatinib therapy. We could not identify the emergency of other mutations. Conclusions. Ponatinib and steroid show a high efficacy in newly diagnosed unfit/elderly Ph+ ALL patients. Toxicities were manageable and cardiovascular AEs were limited. In the small cohort of patients relapsed in the study, relapse mechanisms were unclear; only one patient had evidence of mutations that caused resistance to ponatinib. The fast and deep reduction of the disease burden in the majority of patients, the ability of ponatinib to prevent the emergence of clones harboring BCR-ABL mutations, and the synthetic lethality with steroids on the BCR-ABL, FLT3, HCK, CDK6, MCL1 pathway could explain the therapeutic effectiveness. Acknowledgments. GIMEMA, ELN, AIL, AIRC, Regione-Università 2010-12, FP7 NGS-PTL, HARMONY, Fondazione del Monte BO e RA. Disclosures Soverini: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte Biosciences: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bocchia: Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Celgene: Other: Travel grant; Roche: Other: Travel grant; Jansen: Other: Travel grant. Cuneo: Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Bonifacio: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Falini: Roche: Research Funding. Galieni: Takeda: Other: Advisory Board; Abbvie: Other: Advisory Board. Foà: Sandoz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Baccarani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

// Margherita Perricone 1 , Francesca Palandri 1 , Emanuela Ottaviani 1 , Mario Angelini 2 , Laura Bagli 3 , Enrica Bellesia 4 , Meris Donati 5 , Donato Gemmati 6 , Patrizia Zucchini 7 , Stefania Mancini 8 , Valentina Marchica 9 , Serena Trubini 10 , Giovanna De Matteis 11 , Silvia Di Zacomo 12 , Mose Favarato 13 , Annamaria Fioroni 14 , Caterina Bolzonella 15 , Giorgia Maccari 16 , Filippo Navaglia 17 , Daniela Gatti 18 , Luisa Toffolatti 19 , Linda Orlandi 20 , Veronique Laloux 21 , Marco Manfrini 1 , Piero Galieni 2 , Barbara Giannini 3 , Alessia Tieghi 4 , Sara Barulli 5 , Maria Luisa Serino 6 , Monica Maccaferri 7 , Anna Rita Scortechini 8 , Nicola Giuliani 9 , Daniele Vallisa 10 , Massimiliano Bonifacio 11 , Patrizia Accorsi 12 , Cristina Salbe 13 , Vinicio Fazio 14 , Milena Gusella 15 , Eleonora Toffoletti 16 , Marzia Salvucci 3 , Mirija Svaldi 18 , Filippo Gherlinzoni 19 , Francesca Cassavia 20 , Francesco Orsini 20 , Giovanni Martinelli 1 1 Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, Institute of Hematology ‘L. and A. Seragnoli’, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy 2 Molecular Hematology Laboratory U.O.C of Hematology Hospital Mazzoni, Ascoli Piceno, Italy 3 Medical Genetics Unit- Hub Laboratory AUSL Romagna, Pievesestina di Cesena, Italy 4 Imaging and Laboratory Diagnostic Department, Clinical Chemistry and Endocrinology Laboratory, Hematology Unit, Oncology and Technology Department, Hospital S. Maria Nuova, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy 5 Clinical Pathology Laboratory, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy 6 Center Hemostasis and Thrombosis, Section of Medical Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Department of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 7 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Division of Hematology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy 8 Clinical Hematology Laboratory, Department of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy 9 Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy 10 Clinical Pathology, Molecular Biology Laboratory, and Hematology/Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, AUSL Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy 11 Section of Clinical Biochemistry and Section of Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Verona, Italy 12 Department of Hematology, Blood Bank and Biotechnology, Ospedale Civile Pescara, Pescara, Italy 13 UOS Molecular Diagnostics, Department of Clinical Pathology, ULSS12 Venetian, Venice, Italy 14 UOC laboratory medicine, P.O. San Salvatore, Sulmona, L’Aquila, Italy 15 Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Pharmacology and Molecular Biology, ULSS 18, Rovigo, Italy 16 Clinical Hematology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy 17 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy 18 Department of Haematology and BMT, Healthcare Company of South Tyrol, District of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy 19 Department of Pathology and Haematology, Treviso General Hospital, Treviso, Italy 20 Werfen, Milano, Italy 21 QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany, member of the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) Foundation Circle Correspondence to: Margherita Perricone, email: margherita.perricon2@unibo.it Keywords: JAK2 V617F mutation, myeloproliferative neoplasms, qPCR standardization, molecular diagnosis Received: November 01, 2016 Accepted: February 22, 2017 Published: March 06, 2017 ABSTRACT To date, a plenty of techniques for the detection of JAK2 V617F is used over different laboratories, with substantial differences in specificity and sensitivity. Therefore, to provide reliable and comparable results, the standardization of molecular techniques is mandatory. A network of 19 centers was established to 1) evaluate the inter- and intra-laboratory variability in JAK2 V617F quantification, 2) identify the most robust assay for the standardization of the molecular test and 3) allow consistent interpretation of individual patient analysis results. The study was conceived in 3 different rounds, in which all centers had to blindly test DNA samples with different JAK2 V617F allele burden (AB) using both quantitative and qualitative assays. The positivity of samples with an AB < 1% was not detected by qualitative assays. Conversely, laboratories performing the quantitative approach were able to determine the expected JAK2 V617F AB. Quantitative results were reliable across all mutation loads with moderate variability at low AB (0.1 and 1%; CV = 0.46 and 0.77, respectively). Remarkably, all laboratories clearly distinguished between the 0.1 and 1% mutated samples. In conclusion, a qualitative approach is not sensitive enough to detect the JAK2 V617F mutation, especially at low AB. On the contrary, the ipsogen JAK2 MutaQuant CE-IVD kit resulted in a high, efficient and sensitive quantification detection of all mutation loads. This study sets the basis for the standardization of molecular techniques for JAK2 V617F determination, which will require the employment of approved operating procedures and the use of certificated standards, such as the recent WHO 1st International Reference Panel for Genomic JAK2 V617F .

Background: The most important drawback of clinical trials of high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in lymphomas is the high heterogeneity of histological entities. Therefore, the statistical power is reduced, and data are not conclusive. We previously demonstrated the safety of a new conditioning regimen with bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BeEAM) prior to ASCT in resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. This combination of drugs was able to induce a high CR rate in a population that did not have an opportunity of being cured with other therapies. However, that study enrolled both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Aims: We designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of the BeEAM conditioning in resistant/relapsed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Patients and methods: The study was registered at European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) N. 2011-001246-14. Until now, 61 patients (median age 54 years, range 19-69) with resistant/relapsed DLBCL were enrolled. The primary end-point of the study is to evaluate the 1-year complete remission rate. Results: Briefly, 46/61 patients had advanced stage disease (III-IV); 20 were primary refractory and 41 had relapsed after a median number of 2 lines of therapy (range: 1-3). Twenty-one patients had 1 or more relevant comorbidities (range: 1- 5). 30 patients were in II or subsequent CR after salvage therapy, whereas 27 were in PR and 4 had stable or progressive disease. A median number of 5.72x106 CD34+/kg cells (range 2.21-10.60) collected from peripheral blood was reinfused to patients. All patients engrafted, with a median time to ANC>0.5x109/l of 10 days. Median times to achieve a platelet count >20x109/l and >50x109/l were 12 and 17 days respectively. Twenty-two out of 61 patients presented a fever of unknown origin (36%), whereas 24 patients (39%) presented a clinically documented infection. All patients received G-CSF after transplant for a median time of 8 days (range: 8-13). One patient died due to an incomplete hematological recovery after transplant, producing an overall transplant related mortality of 2.7%. Fifty-seven patients are evaluable for response: 48/57 (84%) obtained a CR, 3/57 (5%) a PR, whereas 6/57 (11%) did not respond to therapy. After a median follow-up of 10.5 months after transplant (range 3-37), 6/57 (11%) patients were refractory, 12/57 (21%) relapsed and 39/57 (68%) are still alive, in continuous CR. Conclusion: Our clinical trial was designed to closely resemble real-world treatment for these patients. During the study, we transplanted a similar proportion of the patients that would have received ASCT in a real-world scenario. While we cannot make sound comparisons without head-to-head trials, results from previous studies using HDT regimens in DLCBL have not been as encouraging as ours. Accordingly, our data preliminary provide the evidence that the Benda-BEAM regimen is safe and has promising high efficacy in resistant-relapsed aggressive DLBCL patients. Acknowledgments: The study was supported in part by AIL Pesaro Onlus. Mundipharma Italy is grateful acknowledged for providing Bendamustine free of charge. Disclosures Patriarca: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Zinzani:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Multiple myeloma (MM) therapy should be tailored according to patient characteristics although we do not know which ones to use. By studying the characteristics of 266 real-life patients, we found performance status (PS) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) as factors affecting survival of MM patients regardless of their disease characteristics. This study might help to select patients for tailoring therapy in clinical practice.Multiple myeloma is a typical disease of the elderly but how many and which patients can be considered 'vulnerable' and how this may affect patient outcome remain unsolved issues.Data from 266 symptomatic MM patients registered at Marche MM registry from 2007 to 2010 were evaluated retrospectively. Vulnerability was defined as age75 years, PS (World Health Organization) ≥ 2, renal insufficiency (RI), bone fracture, cytopenias, and CCI score ≥ 1. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used to assess survival and associated factors. A vulnerability score (VS) incorporating significant vulnerability features was pursued to predict survival.Thirty-eight percent of patients were older than 75 years, 39% had PS = 2-4, 35% had at least 2 cytopenias, 40% had bone fracture, 14% RI, and 51% had CCI score ≥ 1. Cox regression selected international staging system (ISS) = III (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.6; P = .033), PS = 2-4 (HR = 2.5; P = .007), and CCI = 1-3 (HR = 2.1; P = .028) as factors associated with a worse overall survival. A VS including PS and CCI predicted median survival of 27 months in the 63 patients having a VS = 2 (both PS = 2-4 and CCI = 1-3) versus not reached (NR) in the 203 patients with VS = 0-1 (HR = 4.0; P.0001). In younger patients multivariate analysis selected ISS = III (HR = 5.2; P = .006) and VS = 2 (HR = 5.5; P = .024) as factors associated with shorter survival whereas only VS = 2 (HR = 3.5; P = .002) affected worse survival in elderly.Such VS proved to be a powerful prognostic factor for survival of MM patients and it might be useful to identify true vulnerable patients regardless of age.

The literature provides scant data concerning infectious complications and their effect on the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with new drug combinations. Despite no substantial myelotoxic effect, thalidomide increases the risk of severe infections in patients with MM. We studied 202 patients who received regimens containing thalidomide in order to assess the time, type, outcome, and factors affecting development of severe infections, role of antibiotic prophylaxis, and effect of severe infections on final outcome. Thirty-eight patients (19%) developed a severe infection early during induction therapy and most infections were pneumonia. Only one patient died due to septic shock during neutropenia. No significant differences were reported in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients developing a severe infection and those who did not. Multivariate analysis determined a monoclonal component3 g/dL and platelets130 ,000/μL as factors associated with increased risk of severe infection. Primary antibiotic prophylaxis significantly decreased the probability of severe infection only in patients having both the above risk factors. Patients with MM receiving thalidomide combinations with high tumor burden are at high risk of developing severe infections and require primary antibiotic prophylaxis, whereas in other patients it is questionable. However, patient final outcome was not affected by infection development.

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

INTRODUCTION: High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, such as del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16), are associated to an unfavorable prognosis. Several trials investigating current approved regimens have shown that high-risk multiple myeloma (MM) patients have shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as compared to standard-risk patients. Carfilzomib, a second generation proteasome inhibitor, demonstrated to be able to improve the survival of high-risk MM patients in the relapse setting. Here we present a pooled analysis of two phase 1/2 studies to investigate the role of carfilzomib in high-risk, newly diagnosed (ND) MM patients. METHODS: Transplant ineligible patients with NDMM enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 and IST-CAR 506 studies were pooled together and analyzed. All patients received 9 28-day induction cycles of carfilzomib, either 70 mg/m2 once weekly (IST-CAR 561) or 36 mg/m2 twice weekly (IST-CAR 506), combined with weekly cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (40 mg) (CCyd). After the induction phase, patients proceeded to maintenance with single-agent carfilzomib until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare response to treatment, PFS, PFS-2 and OS in standard versus high-risk FISH, defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). A 15% cut-off point was used for detection of translocation [t(4;14) and t(14;16)] and 10% for detection of del(17p). RESULTS: 121 NDMM patients were enrolled in the IST-CAR 561 (n=63) and in the IST-CAR 506 (n=58) study. Cytogenetic data were available in 94 patients: 37 (31%) had high-risk chromosomal abnormalities by FISH, including 10% of patients with t(4;14), 3% with t(14;16) and 18% with del(17p), while 57 patients (47%) were classified as standard-risk. After the induction phase, no difference in terms of overall response rate (ORR; 86% vs. 92%; p=0.52) and at least near complete response (39% vs. 41%; p=1) was observed between standard and high-risk patients. After a median follow-up of 39 months, median PFS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 27.8 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.76; p=0.38) (Figure 1); at 3 years, 52% and 43% of patients, respectively, were alive and free from progression. The PFS benefit for the comparison between standard and high-risk patients was more pronounced in patients who received once weekly carfilzomib at 70 mg/m2, (median: NR vs. 39.6 months; HR: 0.78, p=0.63) as compared to those treated with twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2 (median: NR vs. 24.2 months; HR: 0.52, p=0.12). Median PFS-2 from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months in high-risk ones (HR: 0.66; p=0.26), without significant differences in the once weekly (median, NR vs. 39.6; p=0.27) and the twice weekly group (median; NR vs. 44.1; p=0.63). Median OS from enrollment was NR in standard-risk patients and 47.5 months in high-risk ones (HR:0.71; p=0.36) (Figure 1). In patients who received once weekly carfilzomib, median OS was NR and 47.5 months (HR:0.66, p=0.48) in standard and high-risk patients, respectively, while median OS in the twice weekly group was NR in standard-risk patients and 44.1 months (HR:0.73; p=0.55) in high-risk ones. CONCLUSION: In transplant ineligible patients with NDMM, carfilzomib combined with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone as initial treatment mitigated the poor prognosis of high-risk FISH in terms of PFS, PFS-2 and OS. The median PFS of high-risk patients treated with CCyd compares favorably with those reported with current standard of care. As compared to twice weekly carfilzomib at 36 mg/m2, once weekly carfilzomib, at the dose of 70 mg/m2, confirmed to be effective in high-risk patients. These data support the use of carfilzomib for the treatment of high-risk NDMM patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Larocca: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Petrucci:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Musto:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Cavo:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Caravita di Toritto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel and Accomodation EMN; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Johnson & Johnson: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation EHA; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Travel and Accomodation ASH, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Advisory Board. Montefusco:Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment. Boccadoro:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria.

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.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) can be associated with paraskeletal (PP) or extramedullary (EMP) plasmocytomas (PL). Although PLs are relatively frequent, even at diagnosis, our knowledge on the subject mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Remarkably, little is known regarding the role of new drugs on MM with PL. Aim To perform a meta-analysis of 8 EMN-GIMEMA studies focused on the description of PLs characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. The trials involved in this meta-analysis have the following identification codes: EUDRACT 2005-00473041, NCT01093196, NCT01063179, NCT01091831, NCT01857115, NCT01190787, NCT00551928, NCT01346787. Patients A total of 2332 newly diagnosed MM patients have been included in the analysis, and 267 (11.4%) had a PL, defined as PP in 243 (10.4%), EMP in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. PLs were evaluated with different techniques as PET, CT, NMR or physical examination accordingly to their site and local guidelines. PP and EMP were single in 195, and multiple in 60 cases, and their median size was 4 cm (range 1-26 cm). Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 18-87) in PL, and 69 years (range 25-91) in non-PL patients; male patients were 149 (55.8%) in PL and 1007 (48.8) in non-PL patients. ISS stage in PL and non-PL patients was as follows: stage I in 119 (44.6%) and 682 (33.0%), stage II in 89 (33.3%) and 792 (38.3%), stage III in 38 (14.2%) and 508 (24.6%), unknown in 21 (7.8%) and 83 (4.0%) patients, respectively. Cytogenetics was available in 166 PL, and 1528 non-PL patients, and high risk status, defined as having t(4;14) or t(14;16) or del(17p), was observed in 51 (30.7%) PL, and 446 (21.6%) non-PL patients. PL and non-PL patients received treatment with the following drugs: bortezomib in 65 (24.3%) and 598 (29.0%), lenalidomide in 182 (68.1%) and 1366 (66.1%), and carfilzomib in 20 (7.5%) and 101 (4.9%), respectively. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was performed in 112 (41.9%) PL and 782 (37.9) non-PL patients. PL and non-PL patients received maintenance in 108 (40.4%) and 815 (39.5%), continuous treatment in 128 (47.9%) and 1007 (48.7%), and fixed-duration treatment in 31 (11.6%) and 243 (11.7%) cases, respectively. Results With a median follow-up of 62 months (IQ range 34-75) in PL and 65 months (IQ range 40-77) in non-PL patients, 4-years overall survival (OS) was 56% in PL and 67% in non-PL patients (p3 cm PL, 53% ≤3 cm PL vs 67% in non-PL), and a 5 cm threshold (55% >5 cm PL, 57% ≤5 cm PL vs 67% in non-PL), neither by the number of PLs (58% single PL, 50% multiple PLs vs 67% in non-PL), or the onset site (57% PP, 55% EMP vs 67% in non-PL). Four-years OS in PL patients treated with either bortezomib or carfilzomib was 44%; it was 56% in patients treated with lenalidomide; in non-PL patients was 62% when treated with bortezomib or carfilzomib, or 65% when treated with lenalidomide. Four-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 26% in PL and 27% in non-PL patients. In patients that received maintenance, the 4-years PFS from maintenance start was 24% in PL and 30% in non-PL patients. When considering the PFS-2, i.e. the PFS calculated from the treatment start to the time of second relapse/progression, the median time was 42.3 months (95% CI, 36.3 - 51.5) in PL and 46.4 months (95% CI, 44.1 - 48.9) in non-PL patients. Conclusions Our meta-analysis studied the largest number of newly diagnosed MM patients with PL so far reported. We observed that in patients treated with new generation therapies incorporating new drugs, the detrimental effect of PL at diagnosis is limited. The 4-years OS is modestly reduced for PL patients, while we observed that PSF and PFS-2 were similar in PL and non-PL patients, suggesting that effective treatment can overcome the unfavorable prognostic significance of PLs. We also observed that lenalidomide is effective in patients with MM and PL, as are bortezomib and carfilzomib. Disclosures Montefusco: Janssen: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board. Gay:Roche: Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. De Paoli:Gilead: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board. Di Raimondo:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Patriarca:Janssen: Other: advisory role; Celgene: Other: advisory role & travel, accommodations, expenses; MSD Italy: Other: advisory role; Medac: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Jazz: Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. 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; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ballanti:BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. 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. Corradini:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sandoz: Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Lecturer. Boccadoro:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Objectives: With the aim to address the issue whether high-dose therapy (HDT) is required after new drugs combinations to improve outcome of elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, we compared the toxicity and the outcome of ThaDD plus maintenance to those of ThaDD plus HDT-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: Sixty-two patients not eligible for HDT receiving six courses of ThaDD regimen plus maintenance with thalidomide were compared to 26 patients eligible for HDT treated with four courses of ThaDD followed by melphalan 100–200 mg ⁄ m 2 and ASCT. The two groups were matched for the main characteristics except for age favouring the HDT group. Results and conclusions: Complete remission (CR) obtained with ThaDD plus maintenance was 24% whereas it was 57% after ThaDD plus HDT-ASCT (P = 0.0232). However, after a median follow-up of 36 months, median time to progression (TTP) and progression free survival (PFS) of the group of patients undergone HDT were not significantly different to those of patients receiving ThaDD plus maintenance (32 vs. 31 months: P = 0.962; 32 vs. 29 months: P = 0.726, respectively). Five-year overall survival (OS) was 49% in the first group and 46% in the latter one (P = 0.404). As expected, a significantly higher incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infections, mucositis and alopecia were observed in the ThaDD plus HDT group. Our results suggest that in elderly MM patients ThaDD plus HDT, albeit significantly increases CR rate, seems to be equivalent to ThaDD plus maintenance in terms of TTP, PFS and OS. These results challenge the requirement for HDT consolidation in this subset of patients.

The presenting clinical features of 163 previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma were correlated with survival duration using univariate and multivariate regression analyses. The univariate proportional hazard analysis ranked the parameters in the following order of importance: platelet count, haemoglobin level (Hb), tumour cell mass stage, lytic bone lesions, creatinine and age. When the individual contribution of each variable was assessed by multivariate regression analysis, platelet count was confirmed to be the dominant feature for prognosis, while clinical stage provided additional information. The introduction of platelet count could then be used to improve the discriminating power of Durie & Salmon staging, by allowing separation of the high-risk group (stages II and III) into a smaller subgroup (22%) of thrombocytopenic patients (less than 150 x 10(9) platelets/l) whose risk of death was actually very high (median survival: 9 months) and a larger subgroup (46%) of patients with normal platelet count and intermediate or standard risk (median survival: 48 months).

Serum levels of 13 different cytokines and receptors were measured serially in 78 patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) treated by 4 cycles of an intensive multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was administered subcutaneously in 36 of these patients from day + 5 to day + 18 after each chemotherapy. Statistically significantly higher pretreatment levels of interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin-10 (IL-10), the soluble IL-2 receptor (sIL-2r), the soluble transferrin receptor (sTf-r), and neopterin, were observed in NHL patients as compared to controls (p < 0.001 for all molecules). sIL-2r and sTf-r levels correlated with tumor burden (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) whereas IL-6 was higher in patients presenting B symptoms (p < 0.001). Cytokine levels progressively declined to normal ranges in responding patients, while they remained elevated in non-responders. Relapsed patients also presented increased concentrations of several molecules. During the administration of GM-CSF, we observed the drastic increase of sIL-2r, while lower elevations were recorded for a number of cytokines, including IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-2. However, upon completion of the induction treatment, cytokine/receptor levels were comparable among individuals with the same type of response, whether or not they had received GM-CSF. No single parameter was found to be of prognostic significance, but the combination of elevated IL-10 and of sIL-2r greater than 3000 U/ml selected a subgroup of 7 patients who failed induction treatment (p = 0.002). These results demonstrate that cytokine and soluble receptor measurements can provide valuable informations for a better management of NHL, in terms both of markers to monitor disease activity and of prognostic indicators.