Search

Objective In older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the overall outcome is still dismal and long-term data on survival are scarce, particularly outside of clinical trials. Here, we assess characteristics, prognostic factors and long-term survival in patients ≥60 years who were treated for AML at our center over the past 17 years. Methods 590 older adults with newly diagnosed AML were characterized according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk, type of therapy, serum ferritin (SF) and further baseline characteristics. Survival analysis was performed accordingly. Results Median age was 68 years and most patients were in good general condition. Median follow-up was 55.8 months. Of all patients, 66% received intensive chemotherapy (IC) +/− allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). The remaining cohort received palliative chemotherapy (PC, 26%) or best supportive care only (BSC, 8%). Enrollment rate for interventional clinical trials was 26%. 5-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were 18% (median 12.5 months) and 11,5% (median 10.0 months). Long-term survival was independently influenced by ECOG score, ELN risk group, baseline SF, previous myocardial infarction, and choice of therapy, but not consistently by age or CCI. Considering therapeutic subgroups, the contribution of particular parameters in predicting OS was most compelling in IC patients, but less consistent with PC or BSC. Conclusion Our results provide thorough insights into prognostication within therapeutic subgroups and emphasize the need for more detailed prognostic algorithms and routine geriatric assessment in the treatment of older adults with AML.

We aimed to evaluate the determinants of survival in myelofibrosis patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and to describe factors predicting the main post-HCT complications. This retrospective study by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation included 2916 myelofibrosis patients who underwent first allo-HCT from an HLA-identical sibling or unrelated donor between 2000 and 2016. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years from transplant, projected median survival of the series was 5.3 years. Factors independently associated with increased mortality were age ≥ 60 years and Karnofsky Performance Status

Introduction Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this observational, noninterventional European post-authorization safety study, the safety profile of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone was investigated and compared with that of other agents in the treatment of RRMM in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods Patients had received ≥ 1 prior antimyeloma therapy; prior lenalidomide was excluded. Treatment was per investigator’s routine practice. Adverse events were analyzed by incidence rates per 100 person-years to account for differences in observation length and treatment duration. Results In total, 2150 patients initiated lenalidomide, and 1479 initiated any other antimyeloma therapy, predominately bortezomib (80.3%), which was primarily administered intravenously (74.3%). The incidence rate of neuropathy was lower with lenalidomide (10.5) than with bortezomib (78.9) or thalidomide (38.7). Lenalidomide also had a lower incidence rate of infections (68.7) versus bortezomib (95.9) and thalidomide (76.0). Conversely, the incidence rate of neutropenia was higher with lenalidomide (38.0) than with bortezomib (18.2) or thalidomide (25.7). The incidence rates of thrombocytopenia were 24.4, 40.4, and 14.4 with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and thalidomide, respectively. Conclusion No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified in this study, which is the largest prospective real-world European study of lenalidomide in patients with RRMM to date. These results confirm that the safety profile of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in RRMM in a real-world setting is comparable to that reported in clinical trials.

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

Summary Background Treatment of multiple myeloma is not curative, but targeting CD38 improves patient survival. To further explore this therapeutic approach, we investigated the safety and activity of MOR202, a novel monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, in patients with multiple myeloma. Methods This is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1–2a trial done at ten hospitals in Germany and Austria. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and Karnofsky performance status of 60% or higher. Patients were assigned to the different treatment regimens with MOR202 ranging between 0·01 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg in a 3 + 3 design. Dose-escalation and expansion was done either with MOR202 intravenous infusions alone (MOR202 q2w [twice a week] and q1w [weekly] groups) or in combination with dexamethasone (MOR202 with dexamethasone group), with dexamethasone plus pomalidomide (MOR202 with dexamethasone plus pomalidomide group) or plus lenalidomide (MOR202 with dexamethasone plus lenalidomide group). Primary endpoints were safety, MOR202 maximum tolerated dose (or recommended dose) and regimen, and immunogenicity. The primary analysis was assessed in the safety population, which included patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01421186 . Findings Between Aug 24, 2011, and Aug 1, 2017, 91 patients were treated, 35 with MOR202 monotherapy, and 56 with MOR202 combination regimens (18 in the MOR202 with dexamethasone group, 21 in the MOR202 with dexamethasone plus pomalidomide group, and 17 in the MOR202 with dexamethasone plus lenalidomide group). MOR202 intravenous infusions were safely administered within 30 min. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 14 (40%) of 35 patients receiving MOR202 monotherapy without steroids, and in four (7%) of 56 patients receiving MOR202 combination treatment. MOR202 maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the recommended regimens were MOR202 administered as an intravenous infusion for 30 min at doses up to 16 mg/kg with dexamethasone (40 mg), or in combination with dexamethasone plus lenalidomide (25 mg) or pomalidomide (4 mg). 35 (38%) of 91 patients developed lymphopenia, 30 (33%) developed neutropenia, and 27 (30%) developed leukopenia; these were the most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 51 (56%) of 91 patients. None of the deaths were associated with MOR202. One pomalidomide-associated death occurred in the MOR202 with dexamethasone plus pomalidomide group. No anti-MOR202 antibodies were detected in patients. Interpretation MOR202 is safe and its clinical activity in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma is promising. Further clinical investigations of combinations with an immunomodulatory drug and dexamethasone are recommended. Funding MorphoSys AG.

Summary Background Polycythaemia vera is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterised by excessive proliferation of erythroid, myeloid, and megakaryocytic components in the bone marrow due to mutations in the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) gene. Ruxolitinib, a JAK 1 and JAK 2 inhibitor, showed superiority over best available therapy in a phase 2 study in patients with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. We aimed to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib with best available therapy in patients with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. Methods We report the 5-year results for a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (RESPONSE) that enrolled patients at 109 sites across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (18 years or older) with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib or best available therapy. Patients randomly assigned to the ruxolitinib group received the drug orally at a starting dose of 10 mg twice a day. Single-agent best available therapy comprised hydroxyurea, interferon or pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, approved immunomodulators, or observation without pharmacological treatment. The primary endpoint, composite response (patients who achieved both haematocrit control without phlebotomy and 35% or more reduction from baseline in spleen volume) at 32 weeeks was previously reported. Patients receiving best available therapy could cross over to ruxolitinib after week 32. We assessed the durability of primary composite response, complete haematological remission, overall clinicohaematological response, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety after 5-years of follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01243944 . Findings We enrolled patients between Oct 27, 2010, and Feb 13, 2013, and the study concluded on Feb 9, 2018. Of 342 individuals screened for eligibility, 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib (n=110, 50%) or best available therapy (n=112, 50%). The median time since polycythaemia vera diagnosis was 8·2 years (IQR 3·9–12·3) in the ruxolitinib group and 9·3 years (4·9–13·8) in the best available therapy group. 98 (88%) of 112 patients initially randomly assigned to best available therapy crossed over to receive ruxolitinib and no patient remained on best available therapy after 80 weeks of study. Among 25 primary responders in the ruxolitinib group, six had progressed at the time of final analysis. At 5 years, the probability of maintaining primary composite response was 74% (95% CI 51–88). The probability of maintaining complete haematological remission was 55% (95% CI 32–73) and the probability of maintaining overall clinicohaematological responses was 67% (54–77). In the intention-to-treat analysis not accounting for crossover, the probability of survival at 5 years was 91·9% (84·4–95·9) with ruxolitinib therapy and 91·0% (82·8–95·4) with best available therapy. Anaemia was the most common adverse event in patients receiving ruxolitinib (rates per 100 patient-years of exposure were 8·9 for ruxolitinib and 8·8 for the crossover population), though most anaemia events were mild to moderate in severity (grade 1 or 2 anaemia rates per 100 patient-years of exposure were 8·0 for ruxolitinib and 8·2 for the crossover population). Non-haematological adverse events were generally lower with long-term ruxolitinib treatment than with best available therapy. Thromboembolic events were lower in the ruxolitinib group than the best available therapy group. There were two on-treatment deaths in the ruxolitinib group. One of these deaths was due to gastric adenocarcinoma, which was assessed by the investigator as related to ruxolitinib treatment. Interpretation We showed that ruxolitinib is a safe and effective long-term treatment option for patients with polycythaemia vera who are resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. Taken together, ruxolitinib treatment offers the first widely approved therapeutic alternative for this post-hydroxyurea patient population. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

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

Background Most COVID‐19‐associated mucormycosis (CAM) cases are reported from India and neighbouring countries. Anecdotally cases from Europe have been presented. Objective To estimate the disease burden and describe the clinical presentation of CAM in Germany. Methods We identified cases through German mycology networks and scientific societies, and collected anonymised clinical information via FungiScope®. Results We identified 13 CAM cases from six tertiary referral hospitals diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021. Twelve patients had severe or critical COVID‐19, eleven were mechanically ventilated for a median of 8 days (range 1‐27 days) before diagnosis of CAM. Eleven patients received systemic corticosteroids. Additional underlying medical conditions were reported for all but one patient, five were immunocompromised because of malignancy or organ transplantation, three were diabetic. Eleven patients developed pneumonia. Mortality was 53.8% with a median time from diagnosis of mucormycosis to death of 9 days (range 0–214 days) despite treatment with liposomal amphotericin B and/or isavuconazole in 10 of 13 cases. CAM prevalence amongst hospitalised COVID‐19 patients overall (0.67% and 0.58% in two centres) and those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.47%, 1.78% and 0.15% in three centres) was significantly higher compared to non‐COVID‐19 patients (P

Background: Extramedullary plasma cell (PC) disorders may occur as extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma (MM-EMD) or as primary extramedullary plasmocytoma (pEMP)/solitary osseous plasmocytoma (SOP). In this study, we aimed to obtain insights into the molecular mechanisms of extramedullary spread of clonal PC. Methods: Clinical and biological characteristics of 87 patients with MM-EMD (n = 49), pEMP/SOP (n = 20) and classical MM (n = 18) were analyzed by using immunohistochemistry (CXCR4, CD31, CD44 and CD81 staining) and cytoplasmic immunoglobulin staining combined with fluorescence in situ hybridization (cIg-FISH). Results: High expression of CD44, a cell-surface glycoprotein involved in cell-cell interactions, was significantly enriched in MM-EMD (90%) vs. pEMP/SOP (27%) or classical MM (33%) (p &lt, 0.001). In addition, 1q21 amplification by clonal PC occurred at a similar frequency of MM-EMD (33%), pEMP/SOP (57%) and classical MM (44%). Conversely, del(17p13), t(4, 14) and t(14, 16) were completely absent in pEMP/SOP. Besides this, 1q21 amplification was identified in 64% of not paraskeletal samples from MM-EMD or pEMP compared to 9% of SOP or paraskeletal MM-EMD/pEMP and 44% of classical MM samples, respectively (p = 0.02). Conclusion: Expression of molecules involved in homing and cytogenetic aberrations differ between MM with or without EMD and pEMP/SOP.

International audience; The association of Cyclosporine A (CsA) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has increased in the setting of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). Nevertheless, the use of CsA or CsA+MMF has not been reported in a large and uniform cohort. We analyzed 497 patients with acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission (CR) who underwent matched unrelated donor (MUD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All patients received a fludarabine busulfan RIC regimen and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) with either CsA alone or in combination with MMF. The cumulative incidence (CI) of grade II-IV acute GvHD was 27% (95% CI 21-33%) for CsA and 33% (95% CI 27-38%) for CsA+MMF (p = 0.25). The 2-year CI of chronic GvHD was 38% (95% CI 31-45%) and 33% (95% CI 28-39%) for the CsA and the CsA+MMF group, respectively (p = 0.26). On multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences with respect to relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), leukemia-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS), acute and chronic GvHD were found between the two groups, also when conducting a subgroup analysis in peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) recipients. Our results support the importance of randomized trial to identify patients who could benefit from the addition of MMF in MUD HSCT.

Objectives: Limited data is available on HCV directly acting agents (DAAs) in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. This study aimed at reporting the characteristics, treatment practices and treatment efficacy in HSCT recipients with chronic HCV. Methods: Prospective observational study from EBMT Infectious Diseases Working Party (IDWP). Patients with chronic HCV infection were included. Results: Between 12/2015 and 07/2018, 45 patients were included: male in 53%; median age 49 years (range, 8-75); acute leukaemia in 48.9%, lymphoma in 17.7%, non-malignant disorders in 22.3%; allogeneic HSCT in 84%; 77.8% no immunosuppressive treatment. Genotypes 1, 2, 3 and 4 were detected in 54.5%, 20.5%, 13.6% and 11.4%, respectively; advanced fibrosis in 40%, including cirrhosis in 11.4%. Overall, 37 (82.2%) patients received DAAs, at a median of 8.4 years after HSCT (16.2% within 6 months from HSCT). Sofosbuvir-based treatment was given to 62.2%. Thirty-five patients completed planned treatment course, with sustained virological response (SVR) of 89.1%, and 94.3% (33/35) in those who completed the treatment. Side effects possibly related to DAAs were reported in 5 (14%) and did not require treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: DAAs treatment was effective, saf e and feasible in this cohort of mainly allogeneic HSCT recipients with mild/moderate liver damage. (c) 2021 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

Purpose Endothelial vulnerability is a potential risk factor for complications after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT). The CD40/CD40 ligand (CD40L) axis contributes to inflammatory diseases and is upregulated in endothelial cells upon activation, suggesting a role in alloSCT biology. Here, we studied single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the CD40L gene in recipients of alloSCT. Patients and Methods Three CD40L SNPs (rs3092920, rs3092952, rs3092936) were analyzed for association with transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy, overall nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and NRM after acute graft-versus-host disease in 294 recipients of alloSCT without statin-based endothelial prophylaxis (SEP). The significant genotype was then put into perspective with established thrombomodulin ( THBD) gene polymorphisms. Findings were validated in an independent cohort without SEP and in an additional 344 patients who received SEP. Results The rs3092936 CC/CT genotype was associated with an increased risk of transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy ( P = .001), overall NRM ( P = .03), and NRM after acute graft-versus-host disease ( P = .01). The rs3092936 CC/CT genotype was largely mutually exclusive of high-risk THBD SNPs. Both CD40L and THBD SNPs predicted adverse overall survival (OS) and overall NRM to a similar extent in training cohort (OS, P = .04; NRM, P < .001) and validation cohort (OS, P = .01; NRM, P = .001) without SEP. In contrast, SEP completely abolished the influence of the high-risk CD40L and THBD SNPs ( P = .40). Conclusion An increased risk of endothelial complications can be predicted before alloSCT by genetic markers in the recipient’s genome. The normalization of mortality risks in patients treated with SEP suggests a way of overcoming the negative effect of high-risk genotypes and warrants further clinical validation.

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

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

Introduction Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative treatment option in patients with advanced Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) who have disease resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or who cannot tolerate these agents. In the absence of a matched sibling donor (MSD), the use of an unrelated donor (UD) is recommended; however, this approach is associated with a higher incidence of both graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has been found to result in similar rates of GvHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) in allo-HCT using UD, haploidentical donors (HD) and MSD across a range of haematological malignancies. However, the role of PTCy in allo-HCT using UD and HD in CML is unknown. We here report an observational, retrospective, comparative study on the role of PTCy in UD and HD in CML patients undergoing allo-HCT. Methods Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis of CML, first AlloHCT from 2012 to 2019, and UD and HD. The main endpoints of the study were to compare the one-year GRFS of allo-HCT using UD with standard GvHD prophylaxis (SP), PTCy UD and PTCy HD. Secondary endpoints were 3-year OS, 3-year PFS, 3-year NRM, 3-year RI, Day +100 acute GvHD (aGvHD) and one-year chronic GvHD (cGvHD). The Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test were used for GRFS, OS and PFS, and the crude cumulative incidence estimator and Gray's test were used for competing events (RI/NRM, aGvHD/death before aGvHD and cGvHD/death before cGvHD). Cox proportional hazard regression was used in multivariable analyses (MVA) using patients with complete data with cause-specific models for competing risk outcomes. Results A total of 1,341 CML patients treated in EBMT centers were included. 1,094 patients received allo-HCT from SP UD, 113 from PTCy UD and 134 from PTCy HD. 61% and 54% of patients received an allo-HCT from matched UD in the SP UD and PTCy UD cohort, respectively. SP UD GvHD prophylaxis was calcineurin inhibitor-based in 88% of patients; some form of T-cell depletion was used in 82%, 19% and 9% in the SP UD, PTCy UD, and PTCy HD cohorts, respectively. Further transplant and patient details can be found in Table 1. The median follow-up was 34.9 (IQR 13.2-61.2) months. One-year GRFS was comparable in the three cohorts: 56%, 53% and 48% in SP UD, PTCy UD, and PTCy HD, respectively (log-rank p=0.30). There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of aGvHD at D+100 (Gray's test p=0.10) and one-year cGvHD (p=0.40) among cohorts. Conversely, the 3-year relapse incidence (RI) was significantly lower in the SP UD cohort (26%), compared to the PTCy UD (35%) and PTCy HD (34%) cohorts (Gray's test p=0.03) and the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 53% vs 47% vs 45% in the SP UD, PTCy UD and PTCy HD cohorts, respectively (log-rank p=0.05). 3-year NRM was similar among cohorts 20% vs 18% vs 21% in SP UD, PTCy UD and PTCy HD, respectively (Gray's test p=0.80) and the three cohorts had a similar 3-year OS (64%, 60% and 59% in SP UD, PTCy UD and PTCy UD, respectively) (p=0.50). In total 902 patients (68%) had complete data. In MVA, higher age (HR per 10 year increase in age 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.45, p=0.007) and high HCT-CI (HR high vs. low 2.43, 1.59-3.71, p Conclusion Based on our results, PTCy resulted in comparable outcomes in UD and HD allo-HCT, when compared to SP UD allo-HCT, as GRFS, PFS, NRM and OS were similar. However, there was a trend to a lower RI and higher PFS in SP UD allo-HCT which may have reached significance in a larger cohort. Furthermore, the findings of this study confirm that PTCy HD allo-HCT in CML is a valid option for patients lacking a MSD or UD. In addition, disease stage pre-transplant remains a major prognostic factor with CP1 patients having better outcomes when compared to those with more advanced phases and ≥CP1 CML. Overall, our results provide information on the efficacy of PTCy in allo-HCT for CML, and show that PTCy UD and PTCy HD are feasible allo-HCT platforms for patients diagnosed with CML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ortí: BMS, Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kulagin: X4 Pharmaceuticals, Alexion, Apellis, Biocad: Research Funding; Novartis, Generium, Sanofi, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Apperley: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte, Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Bloor: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Angelucci: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene BSM: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Blue Bird Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini-Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: steering commitee, Speakers Bureau; Vertex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Crispr therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Glaxo: 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. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Lopez Corral: Gilead, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anagnostopoulos: Abbvie: Other: clinical trials; Sanofi: Other: clinical trials ; Ocopeptides: Other: clinical trials ; GSK: Other: clinical trials; Incyte: Other: clinical trials ; Takeda: Other: clinical trials ; Amgen: Other: clinical trials ; Janssen: Other: clinical trials; novartis: Other: clinical trials; Celgene: Other: clinical trials; Roche: Other: clinical trials; Astellas: Other: clinical trials . Wrobel: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Rigacci: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead Science: 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; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hayden: Jansen, Takeda: Other: Travel, Accomodation, Expenses; Amgen: Honoraria. Chalandon: Incyte, BMS, Pfizer, Abbie, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Incyte, BMS, Pfizer, Abbie, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Gilead, Amgen, Jazz, Astra Zenec: Other: Travel EXpenses, Accomodation. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

Background: During the past decade, prognostic tools and outcomes of patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) markedly improved. Data from clinical trials evaluating early morbidity and mortality including patients with transplant-eligible NDMM treated with novel agents are scarce. Thus, we aimed to analyze early morbidity and mortality in this patient cohort, devise and validate a predictive score to identify patients at risk. Patients and methods: Between July 2005 and January 2018, 1333 patients with transplant-eligible NDMM from three subsequent phase III trials, HD4, MM5 and HD6 from the German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), received a novel agent-based induction therapy with either bortezomib (BTZ) / doxorubicine / dexamethasone (DEX; PAD: n=192, HD4; PAd: n=296, MM5), BTZ / cyclophosphamide / DEX (VCD: n=300, MM5), BTZ / lenalidomide / DEX (VRD: n=272, HD6) or elotuzumab / VRD (ELO-VRD: n=273, HD6). Severe infections (SI) were defined as any infection grade ≥ 3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). SI and early deaths were counted on and up to 30 days post induction therapy. Uni-/multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess predictive factors for SI and early death and to account for trial effects. Data from the European Myeloma Network (EMN) 02 / Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology Foundation (HOVON) 95 phase III trial including 1497 patients with transplant-eligible NDMM receiving induction therapy with VCD were used to validate a predictive score for SI and early mortality. Results: Overall, early mortality during induction therapy was low (n=24, 1.8%) in the GMMG cohort. SI were the most common cause for early deaths (n=15, 62.5%) as compared to MM progression-related death (n=5, 20.8%) and other causes (n=4, 16.7%). Rates of SI during induction therapy were 11.9% (n=159) and decreased in subsequent trial generations: HD4-PAD: 27.1%, MM5-PAd: 10.8%, MM5-VCD: 9.3%, HD6-VRD: 7.3% and HD6-ELO-VRD: 9.9% of patients. In the EMN02/HO95 trial, early mortality was 1.7% (n=25) and rates of SI were 6.8% (n=101). A multivariate model including patient and disease baseline characteristics identified four major risk factors for SI and/or early death on induction therapy in the GMMG cohort: age (>60 years; odds ratio [OR]=1.70, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.21-2.40, p=0.002), International Staging System (stage III; OR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.22-2.94, p=0.005), platelet count (1; OR=1.82, 95% CI: 1.10-3.06, p=0.022). A sum score based on these four risk factors (one risk factor = one point) was built and included 519 (39.5%), 550 (41.9%) and 245 (18.6%) patients with a score of 0, 1 and ≥2 points. A higher score gradually predicted an increasing risk for SI and/or death during induction therapy: 0 points=7.9%, 1 point=11.5% and ≥2 points=23.2% (p In the EMN02/HO95 cohort, 673 (45.6%), 587 (39.7%) and 217 (14.7%) patients had a score of 0, 1 and ≥2 points. The score was successfully validated in the EMN02/HO95 cohort: SI and/or death during induction therapy: 0 points=5.0%, 1 point=8.3% and ≥2 points=11.9% (p Conclusions: To date, this is the largest pooled analysis of individual patient data on early morbidity and mortality in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM treated with novel agent-based induction therapy. Our analysis highlights a decreasing incidence of SI and early mortality and proposes a validated, easy-to-use score to identify patients at excessive risk for SI and/or early death during induction therapy. This allows the implementation of intensive monitoring, preventive and supportive strategies for this subgroup of patients in further clinical trials and also routine care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mai: Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding. Salwender: AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Zweegman: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Munder: GSK: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding. Pantani: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Brossart: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria. Beksac: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Raab: BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dürig: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Besemer: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Fenk: GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Haenel: Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Metzler: Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Graeven: Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Fujifilm: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Ipsen Bioscience: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Research Funding. Boccadoro: Janssen and GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie: Honoraria; Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma: Research Funding. Scheid: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: 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. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria. Weisel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: 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, Research Funding; Karyopharm: 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, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Cavo: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, 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, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sonneveld: SkylineDx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Mundipharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Isatuximab (Isa), a CD38 monoclonal antibody, is approved in combination with pomalidomide (P) and dexamethasone (d) for treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and d (VRd), is currently standard of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed MM not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (Durie Lancet 2017). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the approved short-duration fixed-volume infusion of Isa, combined with VRd in pts with NDMM ineligible or with no immediate intent for ASCT. A weight-based volume infusion of Isa-VRd in the same study (Part A) was well tolerated and efficacious (Ocio Blood 2018). Methods: In Part B of this Phase 1b study (NCT02513186), Isa (10 mg/kg) is administered as a fixed-volume infusion of 250 mL (mL/h infusion rate vs mg/h) with standard doses of VRd. The primary endpoint is complete response rate of Isa-VRd. The purpose of this first analysis is to assess the feasibility and safety of the fixed-volume infusion, particularly in relationship to infusion reactions (IRs). Recommended premedications are: diphenhydramine 25-50 mg IV (or equivalent), dexamethasone 20 mg IV/PO, ranitidine 50 mg IV (or equivalent), acetaminophen 650-1000 mg PO, montelukast 10 mg PO (or equivalent). The use of montelukast is strongly recommended in Cycle 1, optional from Cycle 2 onward. Results: Of 46 pts enrolled and treated in Part B, 39 (84.8%) were receiving study treatment at data cut-off (June 15, 2020). Median pt age was 70.0 years (range 49-87), with 8 (17.4%) pts ³75 years old. 24 (52.2%) pts were male. 23 (50.0%) pts were International Staging System Stage 1, with 19 (41.3%) and 3 (6.5%) pts at Stages 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, 23 (50%) pts had an ECOG performance status of 0, with 22 (47.8%) and 1 (2.2%) pt(s) having an ECOG status of 1 and 2, respectively. Eight (17.4%) pts had bone marrow plasma cells ≥50%. Three (6.5%) pts had a creatinine clearance At data cut-off, 777 infusions had been initiated, median treatment duration was 7.8 months (range 0.5-14), and median number of cycles was 6 (range 1-12). The median duration of Isa infusion decreased from 3.6 hr (range 1.5-8.9) at 1st infusion, to 1.9 hr (range 1.3-4.8) at 2nd infusion, to 1.3 hr (range 1.1-3.4 hr) at 3rd infusion, with subsequent infusion durations averaging 1.3 hr (range 0.3-4.7hr). In Part A, the median duration of infusion was 3.7 hr at 1st infusion, 2.8 hr at 2nd infusion, 2.75 hr at 3rd and 2.5 hr at subsequent infusions. IRs occurred less frequently with the fixed-volume short infusion method. A total of 15 IRs were reported in 12 (26.1%) pts vs 21 IRs in 17/27 (63.0%) pts in Part A. No Grade ≥3 IRs were reported in Part B vs 1 (5.9%) in Part A. In Part B, IRs occurred in 11 (91.7%) pts during the 1st infusion, 0 (0%) during the 2nd, 1 (8.3%) during the 3rd, 2 (16.7%) during the 4th, and 1 (8.3%) in subsequent infusions. This distribution is similar to Part A, in which 16 (94.1%) pts had IRs during the 1st infusion, 0 (0%) during the 2nd, 1 (5.9%) during the 3rd, 0 (0%) during the 4th, and 3 (17.6%) in subsequent infusions. In Part B, of the 12 pts with an IR, 8 (66.7%) had Isa dose interruption vs 14 (82.4%) pts in Part A. In Part B, 31 (67.4%) pts received montelukast as premedication, among them 7 (58.3%) had an IR. All 46 pts had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Of these, 28 (60.9%) had a Grade ≥3 event and 3 (6.5%) pts had a TEAE leading to permanent discontinuation of Isa. The most common non-hematologic TEAEs (all grades) included asthenia 25 (54.3%), peripheral edema 17 (37.0%) and fatigue 6 (13.0%). Grade ≥3 infections were reported in 5 (10.9%) and infection SAEs were reported in 17 (37.0%) pts. The most common hematologic abnormalities (Grade ≥3) included anemia (6.5%), neutropenia (34.8%), and thrombocytopenia 13 (28.3%). One pt died (on study) due to progressive disease. At a median follow-up of 7.28 months (range 1.5-12.4), efficacy data are not sufficiently mature for analysis. Conclusions: The results of this analysis confirm the safety and feasibility of fixed-volume Isa plus VRd in pts with NDMM. Median Isa infusion duration was approximately 1.3 hr from the 3rd infusion onwards vs 2.5 hr in Part A. IR incidence (26.1% all grade, 0% Grade ≥3) compared favorably with weight-based administration (63% all grade, 5.9% Grade 3) in Part A. These results support Isa 10 mg/kg administered with a 250 mL fixed-volume, plus VRd, in pts with NDMM. Disclosures Ocio: MDS: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Secura-Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Asofarma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Perrot:Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bories:Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. San-Miguel:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Other: Personal fees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, personal fees. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mateos:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: 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; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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. Rodriguez-Otero:Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen, BMS: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, Sanofi, GSK, Oncopeptides, Kite, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Le Roux:Sanofi: Current Employment. Dong:Sanofi: Current Employment. Fitzmaurice:Sanofi: Current Employment. Oprea:Sanofi: Current Employment. Moreau:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria.

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

Background: Preservation of kidney function in newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) helps to prevent excess toxicity. Patients (pts) from two prospective trials were analyzed, provided postinduction (PInd) restaging was performed. Pts received three cycles with bortezomib (btz), cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (dex, VCD) or btz, lenalidomide (len), and dex (VRd) or len, adriamycin, and dex (RAD). The minimum required estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was &gt, 30 mL/min. We analyzed the percent change of the renal function using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)-defined categories. Results: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients were eligible. Three hundred and fifty-six received VCD, 214 VRd, and 202 RAD. VCD patients had the best baseline eGFR. The proportion of pts with eGFR &lt, 45 mL/min decreased from 7.3% at baseline to 1.9% PInd (p &lt, 0.0001). Thirty-seven point one percent of VCD versus 49% of VRd patients had a decrease of GFR (p = 0.0872). IMWG-defined “renal complete response (CRrenal)” was achieved in 17/25 (68%) pts after VCD, 12/19 (63%) after RAD, and 14/27 (52%) after VRd (p = 0.4747). Conclusions: Analyzing a large and representative newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) group, we found no difference in CRrenal that occurred independently from the myeloma response across the three regimens. A trend towards deterioration of the renal function with VRd versus VCD may be explained by a better pretreatment “renal fitness” in the latter group.

// Michael Schmitt 1, * , Angela G. Huckelhoven 1, * , Michael Hundemer 1 , Anita Schmitt 1 , Susanne Lipp 1 , Martina Emde 1 , Hans Salwender 2 , Mathias Hanel 3 , Katja Weisel 4 , Uta Bertsch 1 , Jan Durig 5 , Anthony D. Ho 1 , Igor Wolfgang Blau 6 , Hartmut Goldschmidt 1, 7 , Anja Seckinger 1 and Dirk Hose 1 1 Universitatsklinikum Heidelberg, Medizinische Klinik V, Heidelberg, Germany 2 Department of Internal Medicine II, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany 3 Department of Internal Medicine III, Klinikum Chemnitz GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany 4 Department of Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, University of Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany 5 Department of Hematology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany 6 Medical Clinic III Hematology and Oncology, Charite University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany 7 Nationales Centrum fur Tumorerkrankungen, Heidelberg, Germany * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Dirk Hose, email: dirk.hose@med.uni-heidelberg.de Keywords: tumor associated antigens, T cells, immunogenicity, multiple myeloma, RNA-sequencing Received: May 20, 2016 Accepted: July 13, 2016 Published: August 11, 2016 ABSTRACT Background: Raising T-cell response against antigens either expressed on normal and malignant plasma cells (e.g. HM1.24) or aberrantly on myeloma cells only (e.g. cancer testis antigens, CTA) by vaccination is a potential treatment approach for multiple myeloma. Results: Expression by GEP is found for HM1.24 in all, HMMR in 318/458 (69.4%), MAGE-A3 in 209/458 (45.6%), NY-ESO-1/2 in 40/458 (8.7%), and WT-1 in 4/458 (0.8%) of samples with the pattern being confirmed by RNA-sequencing. T-cell-activation is found in 9/26 (34.6%) of patient samples, i.e. against HM1.24 (4/24), RHAMM-R3 (3/26), RHAMM1-8 (2/14), WT-1 (1/11), NY-ESO-1/2 (1/9), and MAGE-A3 (2/8). In 7/19 T-cell activation responses, myeloma cells lack respective antigen-expression. Expression of MAGE-A3 , HMMR and NY-ESO-1/2 is associated with adverse survival. Experimental design: We assessed expression of HM1.24 and the CTAs MAGE-A3 , NY-ESO-1/2 , WT-1 and HMMR in CD138-purified myeloma cell samples of previously untreated myeloma patients in the GMMG-MM5 multicenter-trial by gene expression profiling (GEP; n = 458) and RNA-sequencing ( n = 152) as potential population regarding vaccination trials. We then validated the feasibility to generate T-cell responses ( n = 72) against these antigens by IFN-γ EliSpot-assay ( n = 26) related to antigen expression ( n = 22). Lastly, we assessed survival impact of antigen expression in an independent cohort of 247 patients treated by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Conclusions: As T-cell responses can only be raised in a subfraction of patients despite antigen expression, and the number of responses increases with more antigens used, vaccination strategies should assess patients’ antigen expression and use a “cocktail” of peptide vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: In primary immunodeficiency (PID), immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) for infection prevention is well-established and supported by a wealth of clinical data. On the contrary, very little evidence-based data is available on the challenges surrounding the use of IgRT in secondary immune deficiencies (SID), and most published guidelines are mere extrapolations from the experience in PID.AREAS COVERED: In this article, four European experts provide their consolidated opinion on open questions surrounding the prophylactic use of IgRT in SID, based on their clinical experience. The main topics are IgRT initiation, route of administration, dose optimization, and therapy discontinuation. The authors hope this discussion will be of assistance to practicing physicians in their daily decision-making. Expert commentary: Although growing experience indicates that IgRT could play an important role in the management of SID, very little robust evidence is available to guide clinical practice. The authors stress the urgent need for new studies in the field and discuss points they find of importance to design them adequately.

8521 Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) remains a standard of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM). While lenalidomide (R) maintenance is acknowledged to improve outcomes, intensified consolidation (such as tandem-SCT) has yielded conflicting results. Allogeneic (allo) SCT holds the promise of curative potential at the cost of higher treatment-related mortality (TRM). In a previous phase 2 study, we showed a very low TRM rate (6.1%) and feasibility of 12 months (mos) of R maintenance (maint), with auto/allo SCT after R/adriamycin/dexamethasone (RAD). This prompted us to compare, on a randomized rather than a “biological assignment” basis, a second auto- versus (vs) an allo-SCT in pts with an unfavorable prognosis. Methods: The current protocol (DSMM XIV, NCT01685814) was set up according to a double 2x2-factorial design. Post-induction (PInd) CR rate was the efficacy endpoint for the comparison of RAD vs bortezomib (V)/RD (VRD; 3 cycles each). If pts had achieved >VGPR to HDT, a second randomization (2ndR) compared immediate R maint (arm A2) with a second auto-SCT (B2). In case of < VGPR, pts were randomized between a second auto- (C2) and allo-SCT (D2). Planned R maint. duration was 36 mos, except after allo (12 mos). Results: Between 05/2012-06/2016, 476 pts were randomized and 469 received at least one dose of study drug. Pts’ median age was 55 (range, 32–65) years. 11.3% of pts had FISH del17p; 11.6% had t(4;14); and 4.4% had t(14;16). PInd CR rate was 11.8% (90% CI, 7.9%-16.3%) with RAD and 13.0% (90% CI, 8.9-18.0) with VRD (P = .697). 382 pts underwent R2 with 279 pts. (73%) in >VGPR and 103 (27%) in < VGPR, respectively. Median duration of R maint (N = 298) was 21.2 mos for A2, 23.1 mos for B2, 27.4 mos for C2, and 11.0 mos. for D2. At a median follow-up of 40.2 (0.5-87.0) months, median PFS from first randomization with RAD was 41.7 (95% CI, 35.4-48.5) mos vs. 53.7 (95% CI, 46.2-63.1) mos with VRD (P = .0439). Median PFS from 2ndR was 38.7 (95% CI, 30.3-47.3) mos for the 181 RAD vs. 50.7 (95% CI, 44.4-64.9) mos for the 201 VRD pts (P = .0126). Median overall survival (OS) cannot be estimated. With 47 deceased RAD vs 36 VRD pts, HR was .671 (95% CI, .435-1.037; P = .0703). Conclusions: In this study, median PFS benefit was 12 mos in favor of VRD vs. RAD despite comparable PInd CR. We show for the first time a len-PI to be superior to a len-chemo triplet, confirmed with positive OS trends. 3-year PFS for all consolidation arms will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT01685814 .

8508 Background: High-risk (HR) multiple myeloma (MM) still has a significant impaired prognostic outcome. Addition of CD38 monoclonal antibodies to standard-of-care regimens significantly improved response rates and depth of response in newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory MM patients (pts). Here, we report the prespecified end of induction interim analysis (IA) of the investigator-initiated GMMG-CONCEPT trial (NCT03104842), evaluating the quadruplet regimen isatuximab plus carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-KRd) in HR NDMM pts. Methods: 153 pts with HR NDMM are planned to be included into the trial. HR MM is defined by the presence of del17p or t(4;14) or t(14;16) or > 3 copies 1q21 and ISS 2 or 3 stage disease. Pts receive 6 cycles of Isa-KRd induction, 4 cycles of Isa-KRd consolidation and Isa-KR maintenance. Transplant eligible pts (arm A) undergo high-dose therapy. Transplant ineligible pts (arm B) receive 2 additional cycles of Isa-KRd induction. The primary endpoint is MRD negativity measured by next-generation flow after consolidation. This IA reports on overall response rates (ORR) after induction. Additional MRD analysis will be presented. Results: 50 pts (46 arm A, 4 arm B) were included in the IA population for ORR. HR MM was defined by del17p in 52%, t(4;14) in 38%, t(14;16) in 12% and > 3 copies 1q21 in 42%. 39/46 pts in arm A and 4/4 pts in arm B completed induction treatment. ORR was 100%, with 5 pts (10.0%) showing partial response (PR), 22 (44.0%; including 4 in arm B) very good partial response (VGPR) and 23 (46.0 %) complete response (CR). Median stem cell yield was 6.6 × 106CD34+ cells/kg. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 10%) with Isa-KRd included neutropenia (34.0%), leukopenia (26.0%) and thrombocytopenia (14.0%). Main non-hematologic toxicities grade 3/4 were hypertension (12.0%) and infection (8.0%). Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, we report for the first time on a trial investigating solely HR NDMM and Isa-KRd quadruplet treatment. Isa-KRd induction induces deep responses in HR MM pts. The overall safety profile of Isa-KRd is expected and consistent with previous reports. The study is ongoing, with pts continuing to be included. Clinical trial information: 03104842 .

Acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21)(q22;q22) is characterized by considerable clinical and biological heterogeneity leading to relapse in up to 40% of patients. We sequenced coding regions or hotspot areas of 66 recurrently mutated genes in a cohort of 331 t(8;21) patients. At least 1 mutation, in addition to t(8;21), was identified in 95%, with a mean of 2.2 driver mutations per patient. Recurrent mutations occurred in genes related to RAS/RTK signaling (63.4%), epigenetic regulators (45%), cohesin complex (13.6%), MYC signaling (10.3%), and the spliceosome (7.9%). Our study identified mutations in previously unappreciated genes: GIGYF2, DHX15, and G2E3. Based on high mutant levels, pairwise precedence, and stability at relapse, epigenetic regulator mutations were likely to occur before signaling mutations. In 34% of RAS/RTKmutated patients, we identified multiple mutations in the same pathway. Deep sequencing (∼42 000×) of 126 mutations in 62 complete remission samples from 56 patients identified 16 persisting mutations in 12 patients, of whom 5 lacked RUNX1-RUNX1T1 in quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis. KIThigh mutations defined by a mutant level ≥25% were associated with inferior relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.15; P = .005). Together with age and white blood cell counts, JAK2, FLT3-internal tandem duplicationhigh, and KIThigh mutations were identified as significant prognostic factors for overall survival in multivariate analysis. Whole-exome sequencing was performed on 19 paired diagnosis, remission, and relapse trios. Exome-wide analysis showed an average of 16 mutations with signs of substantial clonal evolution. Based on the resemblance of diagnosis and relapse pairs, genetically stable (n = 13) and unstable (n = 6) subgroups could be identified.

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

The impact of MYC locus aberrations on the outcome of multiple myeloma (MM) patients is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to further investigate their influence on the survival of MM patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy. Our data suggest that the favorable prognosis factor

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutation is an aggressive hematologic malignancy with a grave prognosis. To identify the mutational spectrum associated with relapse, whole-exome sequencing was performed on 13 matched diagnosis, relapse, and remission trios followed by targeted sequencing of 299 genes in 67 FLT3-ITD patients. The FLT3-ITD genome has an average of 13 mutations per sample, similar to other AML subtypes, which is a low mutation rate compared with that in solid tumors. Recurrent mutations occur in genes related to DNA methylation, chromatin, histone methylation, myeloid transcription factors, signaling, adhesion, cohesin complex, and the spliceosome. Their pattern of mutual exclusivity and cooperation among mutated genes suggests that these genes have a strong biological relationship. In addition, we identified mutations in previously unappreciated genes such as MLL3, NSD1, FAT1, FAT4, and IDH3B. Mutations in 9 genes were observed in the relapse-specific phase. DNMT3A mutations are the most stable mutations, and this DNMT3A-transformed clone can be present even in morphologic complete remissions. Of note, all AML matched trio samples shared at least 1 genomic alteration at diagnosis and relapse, suggesting common ancestral clones. Two types of clonal evolution occur at relapse: either the founder clone recurs or a subclone of the founder clone escapes from induction chemotherapy and expands at relapse by acquiring new mutations. Relapse-specific mutations displayed an increase in transversions. Functional assays demonstrated that both MLL3 and FAT1 exert tumor-suppressor activity in the FLT3-ITD subtype. An inhibitor of XPO1 synergized with standard AML induction chemotherapy to inhibit FLT3-ITD growth. This study clearly shows that FLT3-ITD AML requires additional driver genetic alterations in addition to FLT3-ITD alone.

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a heterogeneous group of myeloid disorders. MDS remains a disease of elderly patients; moreover, the incidence of high risk MDS is proportionally greater in elderly patients, with increased frequency of secondary acute myeloid leukemia, as well as adverse cytogenetic abnormalities. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is a therapeutic approach with known curative potential for patients with MDS that allows the achievement of long-term disease control. Numerous controversies still exist regarding transplantation in MDS: timing of transplantation, disease status at transplantation and comorbidity, conditioning intensity, pretransplant therapy, and stem cell source. Various transplant modalities of different intensities and alternative donor sources are now in use. Current advances in transplant technology are allowing the consideration of older patients. This should result in a greater number of older patients benefiting from this potentially curative treatment modality. Despite advances in transplantation technology, there is still considerable morbidity and mortality associated with this approach. Nevertheless, with the introduction of reduced-intensity conditioning and thereby reduced early mortality, transplant numbers in MDS patients have significantly increased. Moreover, recent new developments with innovative drugs, including hypomethylating agents, have extended the therapeutic alternatives for MDS patients. Hypomethylating agents allow the delay of allogeneic stem cell transplantation by serving as an effective and well-tolerated means to reduce disease burden.

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

Circulating tumor cells as a biomarker for response to therapy in multiple myeloma patients treated within the GMMG-MM5 trial

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

We analyzed the prognostic impact of donor and recipient cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus in 16,628 de novo acute leukemia patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Compared with CMV-seronegative recipients who underwent allograft from a CMV-seronegative donor, cases of CMV seropositivity of the donor and/or the recipient showed a significantly decreased 2-year leukemia-free survival (44% vs 49%, P < .001) and overall survival (50% vs 56%, P < .001), and increased nonrelapse mortality (23% vs 20%, P < .001). Both groups showed a comparable relapse incidence and 2-year probability of graft-versus-host disease. The negative prognostic effects of CMV seropositivity of the donor and/or the recipient (vs CMV seronegativity of both) were significantly stronger for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) than for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), resulting in a markedly reduced 2-year overall survival (46% vs 55% for ALL compared with 52% vs 56% for AML). The important prognostic impact of donor/recipient CMV serostatus remained in a multivariate Cox regression analysis including the other prognostic variables. We conclude that donor and/or recipient CMV seropositivity is still associated with an adverse prognosis in de novo acute leukemia patients after allo-SCT despite the implementation of sophisticated strategies for prophylaxis, monitoring, and (preemptive) treatment of CMV.

The gold standard of cytogenetic analysis in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is conventional chromosome banding (CCB) analysis of bone marrow (BM) metaphases. Most aberrations can also be detected by fluorescence-in situ-hybridization (FISH). For this prospective multicenter German diagnostic study (www.clinicaltrials.gov: #NCT01355913) 360 patients, as yet, were followed up to 3 years by sequential FISH analyses of immunomagnetically enriched CD34+ peripheral blood (PB) cells using comprehensive FISH probe panels, resulting in a total number of 19,516 FISH analyses. We demonstrate that CD34+ PB FISH correlates significantly with CCB analysis and represents a feasible method for a reliable non-invasive cytogenetic monitoring from PB.

RESPONSE is an open-label phase 3 study evaluating the Janus kinase 1/Janus kinase 2 inhibitor ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for efficacy/safety in hydroxyurea-resistant or intolerant patients with polycythemia vera. This preplanned analysis occurred when all patients completed the Week 80 visit or discontinued. Objectives included evaluating the durability of the primary response (Week 32 phlebotomy-independent hematocrit control plus ≥35% spleen volume reduction), its components, and that of complete hematologic remission; and long-term safety. Median exposure was 111 weeks; 91/110 (82.7%) patients randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment. No patients continued best available therapy (98/112 [87.5%] crossed over to ruxolitinib, most at/soon after Week 32). At Week 32, primary response was achieved by 22.7% vs. 0.9% of patients randomized to ruxolitinib and best available therapy, respectively (hematocrit control, 60.0% vs. 18.8%; spleen response, 40.0% vs. 0.9%). The probability of maintaining primary and hematocrit responses for ≥80 weeks was 92% and 89%, respectively; 43/44 spleen responses were maintained until Week 80. Complete hematologic remission at Week 32 was achieved in 23.6% of ruxolitinib-randomized patients; the probability of maintaining complete hematologic remission for ≥80 weeks was 69%. Among ruxolitinib crossover patients, 79.2% were not phlebotomized, and 18.8% achieved a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume after 32 weeks of treatment. New or worsening hematologic laboratory abnormalities in ruxolitinib-treated patients were primarily grade 1/2 decreases in hemoglobin, lymphocytes, and platelets. The thromboembolic event rate per 100 patient-years was 1.8 with randomized ruxolitinib treatment vs. 8.2 with best available therapy. These data support ruxolitinib as an effective long-term treatment option for hydroxyurea-resistant or intolerant patients with polycythemia vera. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01243944. V received funding from and participated in advisory boards for Incyte Corporation. AMV served as a consultant for Novartis, participated in speakers bureaus for Novartis and Shire, and received research funding from Novartis. MG received travel reimbursements from Amgen, Roche, Novartis, and Shire. TM served as a consultant for Novartis and Janssen-Cilag. SD received honoraria and research funding from Novartis. CNH received honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, and Baxter; served on speakers bureaus for Sanofi, Novartis, Shire, and Baxter; received research funding from Novartis; and received travel reimbursement from Novartis. KK received honoraria from Novartis. CB received honoraria from Novartis and Shire. FPan received honoraria from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche; served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Ariad; received research funding from Novartis; and received travel reimbursements from Novartis and Roche. BM served on speakers bureaus for Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CBM received honoraria and served on a speakers bureau and as a consultant for Incyte Corporation. RM received honoraria and served as a consultant for Novartis and received research funding from Incyte Corporation, Gilead, CTI BioPharma, and Celgene. MMJ and HZ are employees and stockholders of Incyte Corporation. JL, NF, and DH are employees and stockholders of Novartis. J-JK served as a consultant for Novartis, Shire, and Incyte Corporation and received research funding from Novartis and AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals.

Mutation of the FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) gene occurs with a frequency of 20-25% in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Different studies have reported conflicting results, stating the importance of the length, position and number of internal tandem duplications (ITDs) for prognostic significance. In the present study, FLT3-ITD mutations were found in 51 (23%) of 218 patients with AML. Using sequence analysis we categorized ITD integration sites according to functional regions of the FLT3 receptor. Median ITD size was 61 bp. The insertion site was strongly correlated with ITD size: more C-terminal located inserted fragments were significantly bigger. Our data confirm that FLT3-ITD mutations identify a subset of young patients with AML with normal cytogenetics but with inferior outcome. Patients with AML with mutation localization outside the juxtamembrane domain showed no correlation with worse prognosis. A high mutant/wild-type ratio appears to have a major impact on the prognostic relevance.

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are an essential cell type of the hematopoietic microenvironment. Concerns have been raised about the possibility that MSCs undergo malignant transformation. Several studies, including one from our own group, have shown the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities in MSCs from leukemia patients. The aim of the present study was to compare genetic aberrations in hematopoietic cells (HCs) and MSCs of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Cytogenetic aberrations were detected in HCs from 25 of 51 AML patients (49%) and 16 of 43 MDS patients (37%). Mutations of the FLT3 and NPM1 genes were detected in leukemic blasts in 12 (23%) and 8 (16%) AML patients, respectively. Chromosomal aberrations in MSCs were detected in 15 of 94 MDS/AML patients (16%). No chromosomal abnormalities were identified in MSCs of 36 healthy subjects. We demonstrate herein that MSCs have distinct genetic abnormalities compared with leukemic blasts. We also analyzed the main characteristics of patients with MSCs carrying chromosomal aberrations. In view of these data, the genetic alterations in MSCs may constitute a particular mechanism of leukemogenesis.

Background An alternative reduced-toxicity conditioning regimen for allogeneic transplantation, based on treosulfan and fludarabine, has recently been identified. The rationale for this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of this regimen prospectively in patients with a primary myelodysplastic syndrome. Design and Methods A total of 45 patients with primary myelodysplastic syndromes were conditioned with 3×14 g/m2 treosulfan and 5×30 mg/m2 fludarabine followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Subtypes of myelodysplastic syndromes were refractory anemia with excess blasts-2 (44%), refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (27%), refractory anemia (9%), refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (4%), refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and ringed sideroblasts (4%), refractory anemia with excess blasts-1 (2%), and myelodysplastic syndrome with isolated del (5q) (2%). The myelodysplastic syndrome was unclassified in 7% of the patients. Forty-seven percent of the patients had a favorable karyotype, 29% an unfavorable one, and 18% an intermediate karyotype. Patients were evaluated for engraftment, adverse events, graft- versus -host disease, non-relapse mortality, relapse incidence, overall survival and disease-free survival. Results All but one patient showed primary engraftment of neutrophils after a median of 17 days. Non-hematologic adverse events of grade III–IV in severity included mainly infections and gastrointestinal symptoms (80% and 22% of the patients, respectively). Acute graft- versus -host disease grade II–IV developed in 24%, and extensive chronic graft- versus -host disease in 28% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 780 days, the 2-year overall and disease-free survival estimates were 71% and 67%, respectively. The 2-year cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality and relapse were 17% and 16%, respectively. Conclusions Our safety and efficacy data suggest that treosulfan-based conditioning therapy is a promising treatment option for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. [clinicaltrials.gov][1] identifier: [NCT01062490][2] [1]: http://clinicaltrials.gov [2]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01062490&atom=%2Fhaematol%2F96%2F9%2F1344.atom

Introduction High-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant (SCT) remains a standard of care in medically fit patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) MM. Induction triplets with at least one of the newer compounds are recommended. Bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (D; VRD) ranks among the most effective regimens and VRD/SCT was superior to VRD alone in an RCT. In a phase 2 study, we demonstrated RAD induction (lenalidomide 25 mg d1-21; Adriamycin 9 mg/m2 iv d1-4; dexamethasone 40 mg d 1-4 and 17-20 every 4 weeks) followed by SCT to be safe and effective (Knop et al., Leukemia 2017). Therefore, we decided to compare RAD versus (vs) VRD (lenalidomide 25 mg, d1-14; subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 d 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone 20 mg d 1+2, 4+5, 8+9, 11+12 every 3 weeks) induction (3 cycles each) in an RCT. MethodsThe current study was set up according to a double 2x2-factorial design to enrol transplant-eligible pts up to 65 years. The post-induction (PI) complete response (CR) rate as per IMWG criteria was the efficacy co-primary endpoint. We hypothesized the CR rate following RAD to be non-inferior to VRD which was estimated to be 20%. The study was powered to confirm non-inferiority of RAD at a margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha level of .05. Cytogenetic characterization was performed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) from CD138-enriched plasma cells. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by second-generation eight-color flow cytometry (FC; EuroFlow protocol). Bone marrow (BM) samples from baseline and defined restaging time points were analyzed for an acquisition of ⩾107cells/sample. In a subgroup of 103 pts, we evaluated the applicability of comprehensive immunoglobulin (Ig) amplicon next generation sequencing (NGS) to detect molecular MRD markers and to compare the results with FC. NGS-based marker screening was performed in baseline BM. Sequencing libraries were prepared using 2-step PCR employing multiplex primer sets for IGH V-D-J (FR1, FR2 and FR3), IGH D-J and IGK loci (V-J and KDe). For MRD detection, we used 1-step library preparation with the same primer sets. Results476 pts with a median age of 55 (range, 32-65) years were randomized between 05/2012 and 06/2016 and 469 received at least one dose of study drug. High-risk (HR) FISH abnormalities comprised del17p (11.3% of pts); t(4;14) (11.7%); and t(14;16) (4.5%). 232 pts were randomized to receive RAD, and 237 to VRD, respectively. 90.5% of RAD vs 93.7% of VRD pts completed all 3 cycles. PI CR rate was 13.5% (95% CI, 9.4%-18.7%) with RAD vs 13.4% (95% CI, 9.3-18.5) with VRD, (P=.971). Rates of ≥VGPR were 40.6% (50% CI, 34.2%-47.3%) with RAD vs 48.9% (95% CI, 42.3-55.6%) with VRD (P=.076). In pts with HR cytogenetics, rates of ≥VGPR were 43.3% (RAD) vs. 59.3% (VRD; P=.096). From 317 pts with paired samples, 33/151 (21.9%) of RAD vs 45/166 (27.1%) of VRD pts were FC MRD negative (P=.169) following induction at a median sensitivity level of 6.73x10-6. 197/239 positive pts (82.4%%) had MRD levels above 0.01%, and 42 (17.6%), between 0.0001 and 0.01%. Flow MRD negativity as per IMWG MRD criteria (Kumar et al, Lancet Oncol 2016) was seen in 8/151 (5.2%) pts with RAD vs 6/166 (3.6%) with VRD (P=.27). The remainder of pts did not (yet) fulfil IMWG CR for various reasons. NGS marker screening identified at least 1 Ig marker in 98/103 evaluable patients. To date, 47/98 pts were analyzed for NGS MRD following induction. Four out of 47 (8.5%) subjects were sequencing negative (3/4 post-VRD) with all of them also being IMWG FC MRD negative. One VRD patient died during induction for a mortality rate of 0.2 %. 62.1% of RAD vs 55.3% of VRD pts experienced at least one serious adverse event (SAE; p=.16). SAEs with relationship to study drugs of at least °3 severity occurred in 26.3% (RAD) vs 23.6% (VRD) pts (p=.523). ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to compare two R-based triplets in SCT-eligible pts. The co-primary efficacy endpoint was met with identical PI CR rates of around 13% for RAD and VRD, respectively. However, a trend emerges to favor VRD over RAD in terms of at least VGPR including HR FISH subjects. Analysis of MRD by multicolor FC showed 5% of pts to be already IMWG flow MRD-negative. Results for all 98 pts evaluable for NGS MRD will be presented. As of yet, too few progression events have occurred to estimate the second co-primary endpoint, 3-year progression-free survival. Longitudinal response and MRD analysis are ongoing. Disclosures Langer: Celgene: Consultancy. Mügge:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Blau:Amgen: Other: Advisory board; BMS: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory boards; Takeda: Other: Advisory board; Janssen: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding. Rollig:Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Dechow:AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Gramatzki:Affimed: Research Funding. Brümmendorf:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schmidt:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Honoraria. Knop:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background RESPONSE is a randomized (1:1), open-label, phase 3 study of rux vs BAT in pts with PV who are resistant/intolerant of HU. In RESPONSE, significantly more pts achieved the primary composite end point (hematocrit control [Hct] and a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume [SVR]) with rux compared to BAT (23% vs 1%; P ˂ .0001). The 4-year (y) follow-up confirmed that primary and clinicohematologic (CLHM) responses were sustained with the rux treatment, and the safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Here, we report the long-term efficacy and safety after 5 ys (256 weeks [wks]) of treatment (after last pt first treatment visit) in RESPONSE. Methods PV pts resistant/intolerant of HU (per modified ELN criteria) with splenomegaly requiring phlebotomy (PBT) for Hct control were randomized to rux 10 mg BID or BAT (selected based on investigator's choice). The primary response was a composite end point of achieving both Hct control without PBT (defined as no PBT eligibility between wks 8 to 32 with no more than 1 PBT eligibility from randomization to wk 8) through wk 32 and a ≥ 35% SVR by imaging at wk 32. Key secondary endpoints were durability of the primary response, overall CLHM (Hct control without PBT, platelet count ≤ 400 × 109/L, WBC count ≤ 10 × 109/L, SVR ≥35% by imaging), and long-term safety. Overall survival (OS) was an exploratory end point. Pts randomized to BAT could cross over (CO) to rux after wk 32. Results Pts were randomized to rux (n = 110) and BAT (n = 112). Baseline characteristics were mostly balanced between arms. At baseline, pts randomized to rux were reported to have longer prior exposure to HU compared to BAT (162.9 vs 145.6 wks) and higher frequency of prior nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or pre-cancerous skin conditions (10.9 vs 6.3%). No pt remained on randomized BAT treatment after wk 80 and median CO time was 34.7 wks. At study completion, 72 pts (66%) in the rux arm and 64 of the 98 pts (65%) who crossed over from BAT completed 5 ys of on-study treatment. Main reason for discontinuation in the BAT arm was lack of efficacy (89%). Adverse events (AEs; 15% and 16%), disease progression (11% and 9% ) and pt decision (6% and 6%) primarily led to treatment discontinuations in the rux arm and CO population, respectively. At final analysis, the KM estimated probability of maintaining primary response for 224 wks (starting from wk 32) in the rux arm was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.88) (Figure 1); 6/25 primary responders had progressed by the time of study completion. The probability of maintaining CLHM response for 224 wks (starting from wk 32) was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.77) with 21/70 pts who achieved CLHM at wk 32 had progressed. Median duration of primary and CLHM responses had not been reached. In the intent-to-treat analysis not accounting for CO, KM estimates for OS at 5 ys in the rux and BAT arms were 91.9% (95% CI: 84.4, 95.9) and 91.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 95.4), respectively (HR = 0.95 [95% CI: 0.38, 2.41]). There were 2 on-treatment deaths in the rux arm (adenocarcinoma gastric [n = 1, investigator suspected event to be related to study drug] and neoplasm malignant [n = 1, not related to study drug]). In the CO population, 4 pts had fatal AEs leading to 4 on-treatment deaths (not related to rux). No pt died while on BAT. With longer exposure of rux, there was no notable increase in rate of AEs. The most common AEs (exposure-adjusted rate ≥ 5) in the rux arm and CO population were anemia (8.9 and 8.8), pruritus (7.0 and 6.1), diarrhea (7.0 and 3.6), weight increased (6.1 and 4.2), headache (5.8 and 5.2), arthralgia (5.6 and 3.3), fatigue (5.1 and 3.9) and muscle spasms (5.1 and 3.3). Rates (per 100 pt-y) of thromboembolic events were lower in rux-treated pts (1.2) and the CO population (2.7) compared to BAT pts (8.2). The exposure adjusted rates of second malignancies were 7.0 (rux) vs 4.5 (CO) vs 4.1 (BAT). The exposure-adjusted rate of NMSC was 5.1 (rux) vs 2.7 (CO) vs 2.7 (BAT). Rates of transformation to myelofibrosis and acute myeloid leukeimia in the rux arm were 2.1 and 0.2 per 100 pt-y, 1.8 and 0.6 per 100 pt-y in CO population, and 1.4 and 0.0 per 100 pt-y in BAT arm, respectively. Conclusion In HU resistant/intolerant PV pts, clinical benefits of rux treatment (Hct control and CLHM) were durable with long-term therapy. Considering that the OS findings from this analysis are confounded by extensive CO, the observed HR from this analysis represents a conservative estimate of rux benefit. The long-term safety was consistent with previous findings. Disclosures Kiladjian: AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hino:Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Pane:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Speakers Bureau. Masszi:Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Harrison:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa:CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Miller:Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Passamonti:Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy. Durrant:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Griesshammer:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kirito:Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria. Besses:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Shire: Honoraria. Francillard:Novartis: Employment. Dong:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wroclawska:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: 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, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: CD38 is a type II transmembrane glycoprotein widely expressed in many hematological malignancies including multiple myeloma. MOR202, a human IgG1 CD38 monoclonal antibody demonstrates cytotoxic activity. The main mode of action for MOR202-induced cell lysis is through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cell-mediated phagocytosis. MOR202 does not induce complement-dependent cytotoxicity, a suspected major contributor to infusion-related reactions (IRRs) observed with other monoclonal antibodies. MOR202 has demonstrated activity as monotherapy and synergy in combination with the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM) in preclinical models of multiple myeloma. Methods: The primary objectives of this multicenter, dose-escalation phase I/IIa study in patients with RRMM (NCT01421186) are to evaluate the safety, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase II dose of MOR202. We present the primary analysis of safety and efficacy data from patient cohorts treated with MOR202 at doses of 4, 8 and 16 mg/kg q1w plus Dex (≤40 mg), or MOR202 at 8 or 16 mg/kg q1w plus LEN/Dex or POM/Dex. MOR202 infusion time was 2 hours for all three regimens, which was successfully reduced to 30 minutes for the majority of patients at the time of primary analysis (cutoff 31 Dec 2017). Results: As of 31 December 2017, 91 patients had been treated, 56 at the doses previously described: 18 patients were treated with MOR202 + Dex, 17 with MOR202 + LEN/Dex and 21 with MOR202 + POM/Dex. Before entering the study, patients had undergone a median of 3, 2 and 3 prior treatment lines, respectively. Notably all patients in the MOR202 + POM/Dex group were refractory to lenalidomide. The MTD of MOR202 was not reached. The combinations were generally well tolerated. In the 56 patients, grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were mainly hematological in nature. Two patients discontinued due to a MOR202-related AE (one a grade 4 thrombocytopenia and one a grade 3 bacterial infection complicated by acute kidney failure). IRRs to MOR202 (all grade 1 or 2) were observed in 4/56 (7%) patients. These mainly occurred during the first infusion. Twelve of 16 patients remaining on study at the time of primary completion received MOR202 as a 30 minute infusion without obvious safety concerns. In patients treated with MOR202 + Dex, 28% (5/18) showed a response: 3 partial responses (PRs) and 2 very good PRs (VGPRs). Higher response rates of 65% and 48% were observed in patients treated with MOR202 + LEN/Dex (11/17, 7 PRs, 2 VGPRs, 2 complete responses [CRs]) and MOR202 + POM/Dex (10/21, 5 PRs, 3 VGPRs and 2 CRs) respectively. Median time on study was 3.8 months for patients treated with MOR202 + Dex, 9 months for patients who received MOR202 + LEN/Dex and 4.7 months for those treated with MOR202 + POM/Dex. Longest response duration was 27.6 months (MOR202 + POM/Dex). Median progression-free survival was 8.4 months in patients treated with MOR202 + Dex, was not reached in those receiving MOR202 + LEN/Dex and was 17.5 months in those receiving MOR202 + POM/Dex. Conclusions: MOR202 administered as infusions as short as 30 minutes at doses up to 16 mg/kg with Dex or in combination with LEN/Dex or POM/Dex in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM showed a favorable safety profile, including good infusion tolerability. Promising efficacy and long-lasting tumor control were observed for MOR202 + Dex and in particular for MOR202 combined with LEN/Dex or POM/Dex. Disclosures Raab: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy. Agis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ferstl:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel EHA. Gramatzki:Affimed: Research Funding. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jarutat:Morphosys AG: Employment. Weinelt:Morphosys AG: Employment. Winderlich:Morphosys AG: Employment. Peschel:Morphosys AG: Honoraria.

Introduction: Conflicting results from two recently reported randomized studies comparing double vs single autotransplantation (ASCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) [(Cavo M et al, Blood 2017;130(1); Stadtmauer EA et al, Blood 2016;128(22)] are likely to reflect differences in the design of the trials. To address this controversial issue, we performed a long-term follow-up analysis of pt-level data from three phase 3 trials of bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) (Cavo M et al, Lancet 376; 2075-85, 2010; Rosinol L et al, Blood 120; 1589-96, 2012) or bortezomib-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (PAD) (Sonneveld P et al, J Clin Oncol 30; 2946-55, 2012) as induction therapy before ASCT, followed by post-ASCT bortezomib-based consolidation and/or maintenance treatment. According to study design, patients were assigned to receive either a single or double ASCT (ASCT-1 or ASCT-2), thus allowing a comparison between these treatments. Methods: The intent-to-treat population included 909 pts who were randomized to either VTD or PAD arms of the studies and for whom ASCT-1 (n=501) or ASCT-2 (n=408) were planned at study entry. Median age was 58 yrs in both groups; the rate of ISS stage III was 20% and 17%, respectively, while 18% and 23% of pts in ASCT-1 and ASCT-2 groups were positive for t(4;14) and/or del(17p) (cut-off levels ≥10% and ≥20%, respectively) by FISH analysis. Results: With a median follow up of 117 mos (IQR 91-126), assignment to ASCT-2 resulted in superior PFS (median: 47 vs 38 mos; HR 0.76, 95%CI=0.65-0.89, p=0.0008) and OS (estimated 10-yr probability: 58% vs 47%; HR 0.69, CI 0.56-0.84, p=0.0002) in comparison with ASCT-1 (Figure 1). PFS benefit with ASCT-2 was retained across prespecified subgroups, including pts with both standard-risk (median: 53 vs 43 mos; HR 0.74, CI 0.61-0.91, p=0.005) and high-risk cytogenetics (cyto) (median: 36 vs 20 mos; HR 0.67, CI 0.46-0.97, p=0.032). The 10-yr OS rates were 72% with ASCT-2 vs 60% with ASCT-1 (HR 0.68, CI 0.52-0.88, p=0.004) for pts with standard-risk and 51% vs 34% (HR 0.54, CI 0.36-0.83, p=0.004) for those with high-risk cyto. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, independent predictors for prolonged PFS included ASCT-2 (HR 0.81, CI 0.66-0.99, p=0.048), platelet (PLT) count >150.000/mmc (HR 0.74, CI 0.54-0.99, p=0.049), ISS stage I+II (HR 0.62, CI 0.48-0.80, p HR estimates of the leading, not including therapy, predictors of outcomes (ISS stage II+III, high-risk cyto and failure to achieve best CR) were used to build a score index that stratified patients into 3 subgroups at low-risk (20%, none of the 3 adverse variables), intermediate-risk (42%, 1 adverse variable) and high-risk (38%, 2 or 3 adverse variables). Median PFS for these subgroups was 87, 53 and 27 mos (p Conclusions: Results of this pooled analysis of phase 3 studies incorporating bortezomib-based triplets into ASCT confirmed the superiority of ASCT-2 over ASCT-1 in terms of extended PFS and OS. The subgroup of pts at high-risk mostly benefited from ASCT-2, in particular those who had advanced ISS stage, adverse cyto and failed to achieve CR. Disclosures 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. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rosinol:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corp.: 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. Salwender:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding. Lahuerta:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Petrucci:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Oriol:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rios:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy. Patriarca:Celgene: Other: Advisory Role; Travel, accommodations, expenses; Medac: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Jazz: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Other: Advisory role; MSD Italy: Other: Advisory Role. Mateos:GSK: 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; GSK: 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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; Janssen: 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. Galli:Sigma-Tau: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. San-Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Blade:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.