Search

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

Background The role of consolidation treatment for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible MM (NDMM) patients has never been prospectively addressed in a randomised trial. Methods The EMN02/HOVON95 trial was designed to compare intensification therapy using 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) plus single or double autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), after induction with VCD (R1) (M. Cavo et al. Lancet Haemat 2020, 7, e456-68). A second randomisation was performed after intensification for consolidation treatment with 2 cycles of bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) vs no consolidation (R2), in both arms followed by lenalidomide (10 mg) maintenance until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients assigned to consolidation treatment received two 28-day cycles of VRD, each comprising bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either i.v. or s.c., on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) combined with lenalidomide (25 mg orally, on days 1 through 21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally, on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12). Primary study end points were progression-free survival (PFS) from R1 and PFS from R2. Secondary endpoints included response and survival. Here we report the final analysis for R2 which was performed in July 2020. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1503 pts aged ≤ 65 years with symptomatic MM were enrolled in 172 EMN centres, of whom 1500 were eligible. Of these, 1212 were randomised (stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (495 pts) or HDM (1 or 2 ASCT) (702 pts). For R2 894 patients were eligible, of whom 878 had also been included in R1. These 878 patients were randomised to consolidation (451 pts) or no consolidation (427 pts). Median follow-up from R2 was 71.3 months (IQR 63-80). Response status at time of R2 was equal in both arms, ie ≥ CR (20%), ≥ VGPR (67%), ≥ PR (92%). At the time of this final analysis, 512 events for PFS after R2 had been reported. 5-year PFS from R2 was 50% (95% confidence interval (CI) 45-55) with consolidation and 42% (95% CI 37-46) without, while median PFS from R2 was 59 vs 43 months, respectively. PFS from R2 with adjustment for R1 was prolonged in pts randomised to VRD consolidation (hazard ratio (HR)=0.80; 95% CI=0.67-0.95; P=0.013), which is consistent with the results of the first and second interim analyses (P. Sonneveld et al. ASH 2016, abstract #242; EHA 2018, abstract #1525). With Cox regression analysis revised ISS3 stage (HR 2.05, 95%CI 1.43-2.92) and ampl1q (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.38-2.06) were adverse prognostic factors at diagnosis. The PFS benefit was observed across most predefined subgroups, including revised ISS stage I-III, standard-risk cytogenetics and both treatment arms of the first randomisation (VMP or HDM treatment). The median duration of maintenance treatment was 33 months (0-97+ months), with 32% of patients still on treatment at 5 years after start of lenalidomide. The secondary endpoint response >=CR after consolidation vs no consolidation before start of maintenance was 34% vs 18%, respectively (p=CR on protocol was 59% with consolidation and 45% without, respectively (p Conclusions Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by continuous lenalidomide maintenance improves PFS and quality of response in NDMM as compared to maintenance alone. The rate of toxicity and second primary malignancies is acceptable. This study is registered with EudraCT number 2009-017903-28 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01208766, and has completed recruitment. This independent trial was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (grant 2010-4798), and unrestricted grants from Celgene and Janssen Figure Disclosures Sonneveld: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Skyline Dx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Ludwig:Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Boards, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Boards. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gay:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, 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; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mellqvist:Janssen. Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Schjesvold:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Offidani:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro: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; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) is the most effective tool to define a deep response in multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted an MRD correlative study of the EMN02/HO95 MM phase III trial in newly diagnosed MM patients achieving a suspected complete response before maintenance and every 6 months during maintenance. Patients received high-dose melphalan (HDM) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) intensification, followed by bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd) versus no consolidation, and lenalidomide maintenance. Bone marrow (BM) samples were processed in three European laboratories, applying EuroFlow-based MFC protocols (eight colors, two tubes) with 10−4−10−5 sensitivity. At enrollment in the MRD correlative study, 76% (244/321) of patients were MRD-negative. In the intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 75 months, 5-year progression-free survival was 66% in MRD-negative versus 31% in MRD-positive patients (HR 0.39; p p

We analyzed variations in terms of chromosomal abnormalities (CA) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis on purified bone marrow plasma cells throughout the progression from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance/smoldering multiple myeloma (MGUS/SMM) to newly diagnosed MM/plasma cell leukemia (NDMM/PCL) at diagnosis and from diagnostic samples to progressive disease. High risk was defined by the presence of at least del(17p), t(4;14), and/or t(14;16). 1p/1q detection (in the standard FISH panel from 2012 onward) was not available for all patients. We analyzed 139 MM/PCL diagnostic samples from 144 patients, with a median follow-up of 71 months: high-risk CA at diagnosis (MGUS/SMM or NDMM) was present in 28% of samples, whereas 37–39% showed high-risk CA at relapse. In 115 patients with NDMM who evolved to relapsed/refractory MM, we identified 3 different populations: (1) 31/115 patients (27%) with gain of new CA (del13, del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16) or 1q CA when available); (2) 10/115 (9%) patients with loss of a previously identified CA; and (3) 74 patients with no changes. The CA gain group showed a median overall survival of 66 months vs. 84 months in the third group (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34–0.92, p = 0.023). Clonal evolution occurs as disease progresses after different chemotherapy lines. Patients who acquired high-risk CA had the poorest prognosis. Our findings highlight the importance of performing FISH analysis both at diagnosis and at relapse.

Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is one of the most relevant prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma (MM); however, the impact of maintenance therapy on MRD levels remains unclear. Among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) who received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed disease progression, the role of MRD status as a predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (ASO-RQ-PCR) analysis. Methods: Seventy-three patients with NDMM enrolled in the RV-MM-EMN-441 (clinical trials.gov identifier, NCT01091831) and RV-MM-COOP-0556 (clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01208766; European Myeloma Network EMN02/HO95 MM Trial) phase 3 trials who achieved at least a very good partial response after intensification/consolidation were included. The median patient age was 57 years (interquartile range, 53-61 years), and all patients received lenalidomide maintenance until they developed progression. MRD was evaluated on bone marrow after intensification/consolidation, after 6 courses of maintenance, and every 6 months thereafter until clinical relapse using both ASO-RQ-PCR (sensitivity, 10 −5 ) and MFC (sensitivity, from 10 −4 to 10 −5 ). Results: After intensification/consolidation, 33 of 72 patients (46%) achieved a molecular complete response (m-CR), and 44 of 70 (63%) achieved a flow complete response (flow-CR). Almost 27% of patients who were MRD-positive after consolidation became MRD-negative during maintenance. After a median follow-up of 38 months, PFS was prolonged in patients who achieved negative MRD status during maintenance according to results from both ASO-RQ-PCR analysis (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.62; P =.0013) and MFC (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.41; P

multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell disorder that represents the second most frequent hematologic cancer. Although MM is still an incurable disease, prognosis has improved in the last decades thanks to the introduction of novel agents such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, and histone deacetylase inhibitors. Areas covered: ixazomib is the first oral PI recently approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicine Agency (EMA) in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as salvage therapy in MM patients. In this paper, we focus on its pharmacokinetics features, as well as its safety and efficacy in clinical studies. Expert opinion: ixazomib can be considered an oral analogue of bortezomib, with 9.5-day half-life, 58% of oral bioavailability, and a large distribution volume of 543L. These features make it a versatile molecule, potentially useful both in combination and as single agent. Oral route of administration and good efficacy/safety profile are its winning characteristics, providing the rationale for a future role also in the maintenance setting.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease characterized by clonal plasma cell proliferation and overproduction of monoclonal paraprotein, hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, osteolytic bone lesions, and infections. Melphalan, a nitrogen mustard, is an alkylating agent synthesized in 1953, and it has been used in multiple myeloma therapy for fifty years. Although novel agents have been introduced in the past few decades improving prognosis of the disease, melphalan still maintains a crucial role in the treatment of MM acting both as cytotoxic agent through damage to DNA, and as immunostimulatory drug by inhibiting Interleukin-6, as well as interaction with dendritic cells, and immunogenic effects in tumor microenvironment. Areas covered: This review focuses on available data about melphalan pharmacology and its role in clinical practice. Expert opinion: Melphalan remains crucial in therapy of multiple myeloma because of its good manageability, safety profile, efficacy, and economic sustainability. These characteristics make it pivotal also for new regimens in combination with novel agents.

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

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

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

Objective There is no strong evidence to guide therapeutic approach to multiple myeloma (MM) patients who experience first relapse. The treatment choice can be difficult since currently all patients are exposed to novel agents as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. Methods In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the best therapeutic sequence, the role of retreatment, and the most beneficial cutoff of first remission in order to choose retreatment, analyzing 476 patients relapsed after first-line therapy. Results Bortezomib-based regimens upfront followed by lenalidomide-based regimens at first relapse resulted in significantly better second progression-free survival (2ndPFS), PFS2, and overall survival (OS) compared to the opposite sequence. Changing therapy resulted in significantly better 2ndPFS in the whole population, whereas PFS2 was significantly longer only in patients who underwent maintenance therapy. Moreover, until PFS1 was shorter than 27 months, changing therapy at first relapse significantly extended 2ndPFS and PFS2 compared to retreatment, whereas similar outcomes were observed between the two strategies, when PFS1 was longer than 27 months. Conclusion Lacking randomized trials, our study could help to choose the most appropriate therapy algorithm in patients with MM.

The 26S proteasome has many important roles in the biological functions of the cells, and proteasome inhibitors have multiple and complex activities on cells. These compounds can be natural or synthesized. Most synthetic derivatives have been rationally designed, synthesized and optimized to obtain the best selectivity and increase the activity. The design of chemical entities with desired molecular identification, which plays an important role in biological systems, is provided by pharmacophore modeling. Indeed, pharmacophore models can be established either in a ligand-based manner or in a receptor-based manner.The authors discuss the application of pharmacophore modeling techniques to proteasome inhibitors development. Furthermore, the article reviews the classification of the currently discovered proteasome inhibitors where the principal mechanism of action and clinical application are represented.In the era of new drug development, database of compounds should be thoroughly evaluated with a combination of methods that consider both pharmacophore- and ligand-based virtual screening. The concept of pharmacophore helps to discover new active compounds and to evaluate their activity. The nature of proteasome inhibitor pharmacophore affects the secondary active-site specificity; indeed, increasing specificity decreases the cytotoxicity of the proteasome inhibitors. It is hypothesized that the balanced simultaneous modulation of a few druggable targets may have superior efficacy and fewer side effects than single-target or combination therapies for the treatment of human cancers. The discovery of new compounds should aim to find more active compounds that improve the compliance of patients.

Introduction: Despite the introduction of novel agents, such as thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease and new therapies are needed. mAbs are a new promising anticancer treatment option.Areas covered: This review will focus on mAbs that are currently under evaluation in Phase II and III clinical trials, as single agent and in combination with established treatment options.Expert opinion: mAbs are a new strategy against MM, and they have demonstrated encouraging results in preclinical models. mAbs have a relatively benign side-effect profile and work synergistically with traditional chemotherapies and with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors.

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

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

Background The role of up-front consolidation for newly diagnosed, transplant eligible MM (NDMM) patients (pts) has not yet been prospectively addressed in the novel agents era. Methods The EMN02/HO95 trial was designed to randomly (R) compare (R1) 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), either single or double, as intensification therapy after induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) (M Cavo et al, ASCO 2016, abstract #8000). A second randomization to consolidation therapy with 2 cycles of VRD vs no consolidation (R2) was performed after intensification, to be followed by lenalidomide maintenance (lenalidomide 10 mg continuously) until progression or toxicity in both arms. (VRD: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously days 1, 4, 8, 11; lenalidomide 25 mg orally days 1 - 21; dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 28 days cycle). Primary study end points were progression-free survival (PFS) from R1 and PFS from R2. A first planned interim analysis for R2 was performed in July 2016 when at least 33% (= 172) of the required events for PFS had been observed. Results From February 2011 to April 2014, 1510 pts aged ≤ 65 years with symptomatic MM were enrolled, of whom 1499 were eligible. Of these, 1211 were randomized (stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (505 pts) or HDM (1 or 2 ASCT) (706 pts). For R2 903 eligible patients were randomized to consolidation (459 pts) or no consolidation (444 pts). Median follow up from R2 was 25 months (maximum 53). Response status at time of R2 was ≥ CR (23%), ≥ VGPR (67%), ≥ PR (93%), and will be updated for status at start of maintenance. At the time of analysis, 258 events for PFS after R2 had been reported. 3-year. PFS from R2 was 62% in all patients, i.e., 60% without consolidation and 65% in patients with consolidation, and median PFS had not yet been reached. PFS from R2 with adjustment for R1 was prolonged in pts randomized to VRD (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.61-1.00; P=0.045), a benefit retained across predefined subgroups with revised ISS stage III (HR=0.67; P=0.26) and in patients randomized in R1 to VMP (HR=0.76; P=0.19) and to HDM (HR=0.79; P=0.13). The benefit of consolidation was observed in patients with low-risk cytogenetics (HR=0.68; P=0.03), but not in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (del(17p) and/or t(4;14) and/or t(14;16); HR=1.03; P=0.91). At 3 years OS from R2 was 86% and 87%, respectively. Toxicity from VRD was limited with 5% CTCAE grade 4, mainly hematological. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with VRD followed by Lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity shows promising results as compared to maintenance alone for younger NDMM pts, but further study follow-up is needed. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR 2528, EudraCT 2009-017903-28 This trial was supported by unrestricted grants from Celgene and Janssen. Disclosures Sonneveld: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Carella:Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Driessen:janssen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma-EDO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gay:Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Mellqvist:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schjesvold:Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Palumbo:Takeda: Employment, Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

8011 Background: MRD detection is a sensitive tool to measure response in MM. We assessed MRD by MFC in newly diagnosed MM patients (pts) enrolled in the EMN02/HO95 phase 3 trial. Methods: Pts were ≤65 years old and received Bortezomib-Cyclophosphamide-Dexamethasone (VCD) induction, intensification with Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone (VMP) vs High-Dose-Melphalan (HDM) followed by stem cell transplant, consolidation with Bortezomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (VRD) vs no consolidation, and Lenalidomide maintenance. MRD analysis was performed in pts achieving at least a very good partial response (VGPR) before starting maintenance (after HDM, VMP or VRD) and during maintenance every 6-12 months; samples were centralized to 3 European labs. MFC was performed on bone marrow according to Euroflow-based methods (8 colors, 2 tubes) with a sensitivity of 10-5. Quality checks were performed to compare sensitivity and to show correlation between protocols (Hofste op Bruinink D ASH 2016 abstract 2072). Results: 316 pts were evaluable before maintenance: median age was 57 years, 18% (57/316) pts had ISS III and 22% (70/316) had high risk cytogenetic (HR-C) defined as having at least one among del17, t(4;14) or t(14;16); 63% (199/316) had received HDM and 37% (117/316) VMP; thereafter 51% (160/316) had received VRD. 76% (239/316) were MRD negative (MRD-) of whom 64% (153/239) received HDM vs 36% (86/239) VMP, with a median follow-up time of 30 months from MRD enrolment. 3-year PFS was 50% in MRD positive (MRD+) vs 77% in MRD- pts (HR: 2.87, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for MRD+ according to baseline characteristics and therapies: HR-C was the most important risk factor (HR 9.87, interaction-p = 0.001). Finally, 48% of MRD+ pts at pre-maintenance who had a second MRD evaluation after at least 1 year of lenalidomide became MRD-. Conclusions: MRD by MFC is a strong prognostic factor in MM pts receiving intensification with novel agents or transplant; lenalidomide maintenance further improved depth of response; HR-C is the most important prognostic factor in MRD+ pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01208766.

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

Introduction: The introduction and exploration of novel agents has significantly improved patient outcome in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). One such compound, bortezomib, was the first proteasome inhibitor (PI) to be approved as a MM therapeutic. The efficacy and safety data provided by bortezomib usage has provided the basis for the development of a second generation of PIs.Areas covered: This review focuses on PIs that are currently under evaluation in Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of MM. Furthermore, the article summarizes the currently understood mechanisms of action and the available clinical data for its use in MM.Expert opinion: Second generation PIs have demonstrated promising activity in patients with advanced-stage myeloma, including those refractory to bortezomib. It should be noted, however, that their efficacy in upfront settings is currently under investigation. Future PI development should include schedule optimization and the investigation of PIs potential synergistic...

Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who relapse, or become refractory to currently available novel agents, have limited treatment options with poor outcomes. The introductions of the newer proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib and the immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide have provided new treatment strategies within the relapse setting. Pomalidomide, a novel 4-amino derived from thalidomide, was recently introduced for the treatment of MM. In addition to being immune-adjuvant with anti-inflammatory properties, pomalidomide has shown several biological activities that directly and indirectly inhibit MM cells.Herein, the authors review the chemistry, the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetic properties of pomalidomide. The data reviewed within this article based on the relevant literature pertaining to pomalidomide's Phase I, II and III clinical trials.Pomalidomide has shown to be a safe and active agent, both alone and in combination with dexamethasone, in heavily pretreated patients. Furthermore, pomalidomide represents an effective treatment option for relapsed/refractory patients. Results from the ongoing trials evaluating the synergistic activity of pomalidomide combined with conventional chemotherapy or novel agents look promising and may prove to be viable treatment options in the future.

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

8000Background: The role of upfront ASCT for newly diagnosed (ND) MM (NDMM) patients (pts) has been questioned in the novel agent era. Methods: A phase 3 study was designed to compare [random (R) 1] 4 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) vs high-dose melphalan (HDM) and single or double ASCT (this latter limited to centers applying a tandem ASCT policy) as intensification therapy following induction with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone and subsequent collection of peripheral blood stem cells. Consolidation therapy with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs no consolidation (R2) was planned after VMP and HDM, followed by lenalidomide maintenance until progression or toxicity in both treatment arms. Primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from R1. A first prespecified interim analysis was performed in January 2016 when at least 33% of the required events had been observed. Results are herein reported. Results: From February 2011 through April 2014, 1503 pts aged ≤65 years with symptomatic NDMM were registered. Of these, 1308 pts were eligible for R1 and 1266 who were randomized (1:1 ratio; stratification by ISS stage) to VMP (512 pts) or HDM (1±2 ASCT) (754 pts) were analyzed. Median follow up from R1 was 24 months. PFS was significantly prolonged in pts randomized to HDM (HR=0.76; 95% CI=0.61-0.94; P=0.010), a benefit retained across predefined pt subgroups, including those with revised ISS stage III (HR=0.52; CI=0.32-0.84; P=0.008) and high-risk cytogenetics [t(4;14) ± del(17p) ± del(1p) ± 1q gain] (HR=0.72; CI=0.54-0.97; P=0.028). Superior rate of ≥ very good partial response was observed with HDM (84%) vs VMP (74%) (odds ratio=1.90; CI=1.42-2.54; P

8002 Background: High and comparable rates of MRD negativity were seen in NDMM pts after 4 28-day induction cycles with KRd followed by ASCT and 4 KRd consolidation (KRd_ASCT_KRd) and after 12 KRd cycles (KRd12), showing the superiority of both regimens over KCd induction-ASCT-KCd consolidation (KCd-ASCT-KCd) (Gay F ASH 2018). Here we evaluated the benefit of KRd_ASCT_KRd vs KRd12 in specific subgroups of pts. Methods: 474 NDMM pts ≤65 years were randomized to KRd_ASCT_KRd or KRd12 or KCd_ASCT_KCd. We compared rate of ≥VGPR, ≥CR, sCR, MRD negativity (centralized, second generation flow cytometry, sensitivity 10-5) after consolidation with KRd_ASCT_KRd vs KRd12 in patients with R-ISS 1 and R-ISS 2/3. Since high-risk pts may sometimes respond rapidly, but then relapse early, we also analyzed the rate of early relapse (