Search

The indentation technique has been used to measure the adhesion of plasma- sprayed ceramic coatings on metals intended for thick thermal barrier coating ( TTBC) applications. This approach provides the adhesion value as the critical strain energy release rate, Gc, of the interface, which also takes into account any residual stresses. The theoretical background of the method is outlined, and specific examples are reported with respect to the effect of substrate temperature on the metal/ceramic adhesion of thick TBCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), marked by the accumulation of somatic mutations in hematopoietic stem cells, significantly elevates the risk of all-cause mortality, mainly due to cardiovascular events. Therefore, investigating this pathophysiological phenomenon is crucial for understanding cardiovascular aging and enhancing both health span and lifespan. In the present study, we examined samples of subjects enrolled within the angiographically controlled Verona Heart Study (VHS), which provides a robust model for cardiovascular aging, particularly regarding coronary artery disease (CAD). We analyzed 44 older subjects diagnosed with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 42 healthy, sex- and age-matched controls (CAD-FREE). Employing deep sequencing and an amplicon-based approach, we focused on 11 key genetic regions in ASXL1, DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, PPM1D, SF3B1, SRSF2, TET2, TP53, and U2AF1 genes to investigate clonal hematopoiesis. Subjects in the CAD group exhibited a significantly higher variant burden than those in the CAD-FREE group, both in terms of the total number of somatic variants and disruptive variants affecting protein function. This increased mutational load was notably influenced by six specific genetic regions: ASXL1, DNMT3A, IDH2, JAK2, TET2, and U2AF1, which displayed elevated variant rates in the CAD subjects. Moreover, ASXL1, DNMT3A, IDH2, JAK2, SF3B1, TET2, and TP53 exhibited substantially higher levels of disruptive variants in the CAD group. In summary, our findings highlight a correlation between clonal hematopoiesis and the accumulation of disruptive variants in specific genomic regions in the VHS cohort, thereby shedding light on their potential role in cardiovascular aging., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to American Aging Association.)

Multiple myeloma is an incurable plasma cell malignancy that evolves over decades through the selection and malignant transformation of monoclonal plasma cells. The evolution from precursor states to symptomatic disease is characterized by an increasing complexity of genomic alterations within the plasma cells and a remodelling of the microenvironment towards an immunosuppressive state. Notably, in patients with advanced disease, similar mechanisms of tumour escape and immune dysfunction mediate resistance to modern T cell-based therapies, such as T cell-engaging bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells. Thus, an increasing number of clinical trials are assessing the efficiency and safety of these therapies in individuals with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge about tumour intrinsic and extrinsic processes underlying progression from precursor states to symptomatic myeloma and discuss the rationale for early interception including the use of T cell-redirecting therapies., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

Additional copies of chromosome 1 long arm (1q) are frequently found in multiple myeloma (MM) and predict high-risk disease. Available data suggest a different outcome and biology of patients with amplification (Amp1q, ≥4 copies of 1q) vs. gain (Gain1q, 3 copies of 1q) of 1q. We evaluated the impact of Amp1q/Gain1q on the outcome of newly diagnosed MM patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). Among 400 patients with available 1q data, 52 (13%) had Amp1q and 129 (32%) Gain1q. After a median follow-up of 62 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.2 months in the Amp1q group, 54.9 months in Gain1q, and not reached (NR) in Normal 1q. PFS was significantly hampered by the presence of Amp1q (HR 3.34 vs. Normal 1q, P < 0.0001; HR 1.99 vs. Gain1q, P = 0.0008). Patients with Gain1q had also a significantly shorter PFS compared with Normal 1q (HR 1.68, P = 0.0031). Concomitant poor prognostic factors or the failure to achieve MRD negativity predicted a median PFS < 12 months in Amp1q patients. Carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone plus autologous stem cell transplantation treatment improved the adverse effect of Gain1q but not Amp1q. Transcriptomic data showed that additional 1q copies were associated with deregulation in apoptosis signaling, p38 MAPK signaling, and Myc-related genes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the current standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) outside the bone marrow (BM) in multiple myeloma (MM), recently standardised applying the Deauville scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) and defining the complete metabolic response (CMR) as uptake below the liver background (DS <4)., Methods: In this analysis, we aimed at confirming the role of CMR, and complementarity with BM multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) at 10 -5 , in an independent cohort of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM patients previously enrolled in the phase II randomised FORTE trial. 109 of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial between February 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, who had paired PET/CT (performed at baseline [B] and preceding maintenance therapy [PM]) and MFC evaluation, were included in this analysis., Findings: At B, 93% of patients had focal lesions within the bones (FS ≥4 in 89%) and 99% increased BM uptake (BMS ≥4 in 61%). At PM, CMR was achieved in 63% of patients, which was a strong predictor for prolonged PFS in univariate analysis at landmark time PM (HR 0.40, P  = 0.0065) and in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.31, P  = 0.0023). Regarding OS, a trend in favour of CMR was present in univariate (HR 0.44, P  = 0.094), and Cox multivariate model (HR 0.17, P  = 0.0037). Patients achieving both PET/CT CMR and MFC negativity at PM showed significantly extended PFS in univariate (HR 0.45, P  = 0.020) and multivariate analysis (HR 0.41, P  = 0.015)., Interpretation: We herein confirm the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define CMR and its prognostic relevance and complementarity with MFC at the BM level., Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Italian Ministry of Health (RC-2022-2773423)., Competing Interests: EZ receives honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda. SO has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. MD has received honoraria for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AB has served on the advisory board for Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline. MGa has received honoraria from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline. RZ has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. BG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. AV received honoraria from Novartis, Advanced Accelerator Applications and GE Healthcare. FP receives honoraria and travel accommodation support from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and has served on the advisory boards for Celgene BMS, Janssen, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline. PT has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; has served on the data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. KM has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. PM has received honoraria from and/or served on scientific boards for AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Adaptive Biotechnologies; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; has served on the speakers’ bureaus for Janssen, Celgene, and Sanofi. CN has been PET revisor for Keosys-Sanofi. The other authors declare no competing financial interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk., Methods: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m 2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m 2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA., Interpretation: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need., Funding: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RM has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, and Amgen; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen, Takeda, and Sanofi. PM has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKlin; and has served on scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline. LP has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Janssen; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen. BG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. AP has served on the advisory board for Amgen; has received support for meeting fees, travel, and lodging expenses from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and has received non-financial support from Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and Amgen. NG has received research grants from Celgene and Janssen Pharmaceutical; has received sponsorship for clinical studies from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Millennium Pharmaceutical; has served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen Pharmaceutical; and has received support for attending meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AG has received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Janssen; and has served on the advisory boards for Takeda and Janssen. MC has received advisory fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Celgene. SB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen. EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. AB has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; has served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, bluebird bio, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

The current strategies for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) have improved, thanks to effective drug classes and combination therapies, for both the upfront and relapsed settings. Clinical trials for newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible patients led to the approval of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in combination with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), to be administered during the induction phase before transplantation and during maintenance treatment, with lenalidomide recommended until relapse. In relapsed/refractory patients, the complex treatment scenario currently includes several options, such as triplets with anti-CD38 mAbs plus IMiDs or PIs, and novel targeted molecules. Comparisons among clinical trials and real-world data showed a good degree of reproducibility of some important results, particularly in terms of overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. This may help clinicians towards a proper selection of the best treatment options, particularly in real-world settings. However, as compared with the management of real-world settings, clinical trials have some pitfalls in terms of outcome and especially in terms of safety and quality of life. In fact, trials include younger and presumably healthier patients, excluding those with worst clinical conditions due to MM features (e.g., renal insufficiency or bone disease, which can impair the performance status) and comorbidities (e.g., cardiac and pulmonary disease), thus resulting in a possible lack of representativeness of data about the patients enrolled. In this review, we analyze comparable and discrepant results from clinical trials vs. real-world settings published in the last 10 years, focusing on different drugs and combinations for the treatment of MM and providing an overview of treatment choices., Competing Interests: Author SO has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, Amgen, and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Bertamini, Bertuglia and Oliva.)

Background: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m 2 ) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m 2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m 2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group., Interpretation: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone., Funding: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Translation: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Oncopeptides, and bluebird bio. PM has received honoraria from Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Jazz, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline. AB has served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline; and received consultancy fees from Takeda. MGa has received, in the past 2 years, honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. MO has received honoraria from and served on the scientific advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. EZ has received honoraria from and served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides. SB has received honoraria from and served on the scientific advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Novartis. MC has received advisory fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and received research funding from Celgene. FP has served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline. MD has received honoraria for lectures from Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline; and served on advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline. NG has received research grants from Celgene and Janssen Pharmaceutical; received sponsorship for clinical studies from Janssen Pharmaceutical and Millennium Pharmaceutical; served on advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen Pharmaceutical; and received support for attending meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Celgene, and Bristol Myers Squibb. AP has received support for meetings fees and travel and lodging expenses from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and received non-financial support from Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and Amgen. BG has received honoraria from Janssen, Amgen, Celgene, and Takeda; and served on the advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda. RZ has served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, and Takeda. MTP has received honoraria from and served on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, and Karyopharm. PC has received honoraria from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; received support for attending meetings and for travel from Novartis, Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Gilead/Kite, Amgen, and AbbVie; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ADC Therapeutics. MC has received honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Roche; served on the advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Roche, and Adaptive Biotechnologies. MB has received honoraria from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AbbVie; served on the advisory boards for Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline; and received research funding from Sanofi, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Mundipharma. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need., Experimental Design: We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data ( n = 1,218) were split into training ( n = 844) and validation sets ( n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment., Results: The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P < 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P < 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P < 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM., Conclusions: On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Extreme longevity is the paradigm of healthy aging as individuals who reached the extreme decades of human life avoided or largely postponed all major age-related diseases. In this study, we sequenced at high coverage (90X) the whole genome of 81 semi-supercentenarians and supercentenarians [105+/110+] (mean age: 106.6 ± 1.6) and of 36 healthy unrelated geographically matched controls (mean age 68.0 ± 5.9) recruited in Italy. The results showed that 105+/110+ are characterized by a peculiar genetic background associated with efficient DNA repair mechanisms, as evidenced by both germline data (common and rare variants) and somatic mutations patterns (lower mutation load if compared to younger healthy controls). Results were replicated in a second independent cohort of 333 Italian centenarians and 358 geographically matched controls. The genetics of 105+/110+ identified DNA repair and clonal haematopoiesis as crucial players for healthy aging and for the protection from cardiovascular events., Competing Interests: PG, MD, CP, EM, KK, VI, LX, DM, BA, MC, EF, DM, BN, SS, DL, DP, GC, CS, GP, FD, PD, LB, NM, DG, OO, CG, CF No competing interests declared, JM, AV, JC, FR, SC, PD is affiliated with Nestlé Research, Société des Produits Nestlé SA. The author has no other competing interests to declare. MB s affiliated with Nestlé Research, Société des Produits Nestlé SA. The author has no other competing interests to declare. AF is affiliated with Menarini Silicon Biosystems SpA. The author has no other competing interests to declare., (© 2021, Garagnani et al.)

Purpose of Review: Over the last decade, the development of effective treatment approaches for multiple myeloma (MM) has been associated with higher response rates and longer survival. In patients who achieve complete response, several high sensitivity techniques have been studied to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) and detect residual neoplastic cells within the bone marrow (by flow cytometry or molecular biology techniques) or outside the bone marrow (by imaging or circulating disease markers in the peripheral blood). This is of utmost importance, since residual disease can drive clinical relapse. This review focuses on the progress made in the assessment of MRD in MM., Recent Findings: The achievement of MRD negativity after therapy is considered prognostically important for MM patients, and data from clinical trials and meta-analyses have confirmed that it is strongly associated with better survival. Along with well-known techniques, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), next-generation flow (NGF), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), other methods such as mass spectrometry (MS) and circulating tumor cells are under study. Intensive treatment regimens at diagnosis can lead up to 70% of MRD negativity in MM patients, although the current proportion of curable patients is still unknown. Today, clinicians who treat MM deal with MRD assessment in routine clinical practice. Its appropriate use in therapeutic decision making may be the most fascinating and challenging issue to be addressed over the next few years.

The treatment landscape for relapsed multiple myeloma has expanded considerably in recent years, as numerous agents with new mechanisms of action have been introduced, increasing responses even in advanced disease and prolonging survival. The wealth of novel regimens comes with the challenges of balancing toxicities and aligning a regimen with the biology of the myeloma and the nature of the relapse in conjunction with patient treatment history and personal preference. Herein, we provide an overview of treatment options for both early and late relapsing disease as well as a discussion of the role of emerging immune-based therapies.

Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has a poor prognosis, and new therapies are a major clinical need. When mutated, FLT3 drives neoplastic cell proliferation. New drugs (i.e., tyrosine kinase inhibitors, TKIs) showed effectiveness in FLT3-AML and promise to change disease history and outcome. We evaluated the benefit conferred by TKIs in terms of survival, burden of complications and surrogate endpoint of quality of life in a retrospective cohort of 49 FLT3 positive, R/R AML patients. Patients who received TKIs were compared to those treated with conventional chemotherapy. Treatment with TKIs conferred a better OS and wea associated with a lower burden and severity of adverse events. Importantly, patients who received TKIs showed reduced time of hospitalization. In conclusion, treatment with TKI in R/R FLT3-AML was related to a better survival, less and milder AEs, and shorter hospitalization., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The last twenty years have introduced new therapeutic agents for multiple myeloma (MM); these include proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMDs) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). However, MM remains incurable, hence there is an unmet need for new agents for the treatment of advanced refractory disease. New agents could also be used in early lines to achieve improved, more sustained remission., Areas Covered: We review the most promising agents investigated in early-phase trials for the treatment of MM and provide an emphasis on new agents directed against well-known targets (new PIs, IMDs and anti-CD38 mAbs). Drugs that work through distinct and numerous mechanisms of action (e.g. pro-apoptotic agents and tyrosine kinase inhibitors) and innovative immunotherapeutic approaches are also described. The paper culminates with our perspective on therapeutic approaches on the horizon for this disease., Expert Opinion: IMD iberdomide and the export protein inhibitor selinexor demonstrated efficacy in heavily pretreated patients who had no other therapeutic options. We expect that immunotherapy with anti-BCMA BTEs and ADCs will revolutionize the approach to treating the early stages of the disease. Data on venetoclax in t(11;14)-positive patients may pave the way for personalized therapy. Not all new agents under early clinical evaluation will be investigated in regulatory phase III trials; one of the most important challenges is to identify those that could make a difference.

Introduction: Clinical response and chemosensitivity of relapse or refractory AML patients were evaluated after rescue and bridge-to-transplant MEC (mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine) regimen., Methods and Patients: Fifty-five consecutive AML patients were treated with MEC from 2009 to 2018. Chemosensitivity was evaluated by WT1 quantification., Results: 27/55 patients (49.1%) had AML resistant to induction and 28/55 patients (50.9%) had AML relapse. 25/55 patients (45.5%) achieved a CR after one course of MEC, and 12 patients (21.8%) achieved WT1 negativity. In 12 patients, a second MEC was administered. Four out of 12 patients improved significantly their response with the 2nd MEC. MEC was an effective bridge to transplant, 32/55 patients (58.2%) received an allogenic stem cell transplant. Median overall survival (OS) from MEC was 455 days (95% CI 307-602 days.); patient with WT1 negative CR had the best OS (P<.000)., Conclusion: WT1 is a useful marker of chemosensitivity after MEC as rescue and bridge-to-transplant therapy., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Multiple myeloma (MM) is still considered an incurable hematologic cancer and, in the last decades, the treatment goal has been to obtain a long-lasting disease control. However, the recent availability of new effective drugs has led to unprecedented high-quality responses and prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival. The improvement of response rates has prompted the development of new, very sensitive methods to measure residual disease, even when monoclonal components become undetectable in patients' serum and urine. Several scientific efforts have been made to develop reliable and validated techniques to measure minimal residual disease (MRD), both within and outside the bone marrow. With the newest multidrug combinations, a good proportion of MM patients can achieve MRD negativity. Long-lasting MRD negativity may prove to be a marker of "operational cure", although the follow-up of the currently ongoing studies is still too short to draw conclusions. In this article, we focus on results obtained with new-generation multidrug combinations in the treatment of high-risk smoldering MM and newly diagnosed MM, including the potential role of MRD and MRD-driven treatment strategies in clinical trials, in order to optimize and individualize treatment.

The introduction of novel agents, characterized by favorable toxicity profiles and higher manageability compared to conventional drugs employed in the past, has considerably changed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma. Continuous therapy currently represents the standard approach for myeloma patients both at diagnosis and at relapse. In younger patients, long-term maintenance after autologous transplantation significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to observation. Also in transplant-ineligible patients, continuous treatment with combinations of newer agents and maintenance treatment following a more intense induction phase proved to be superior as compared to fixed-duration therapy. Maintenance and continuous therapy at diagnosis have shown to deepen responses and suppress minimal residual disease. At relapse, continuous therapy allowed better disease control over time. This review covers the main evidence supporting the use of continuous therapy in multiple myeloma as well as the open issues, such as the optimal agents to be used and the optimal candidates for receiving them., Competing Interests: FG has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, and served on the advisory boards for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Roche, Takeda, and AbbVie. AL has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Janssen; has served on the advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests., (© 2019 International Academy for Clinical Hematology. Publishing services by Atlantis Press International B.V.)

Background: Extramedullary involvement of B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (EM-ALL) is a rare occurrence, characterized by dismal outcome and the absence of a defined and shared therapeutic approach. In the landscape of innovative compounds, inotuzumab ozogamicin (IO) is a promising drug, whose mechanism of action relies on the killing of CD22 positive leukemic cells, through the delivery, after cell binding, of a molecule of calicheamicin., Case Presentation: We report two cases of CD22 positive relapsed EM-ALL treated with IO, obtained as compassionate use. Case 1, a 66 years old woman, affected by Philadelphia (Ph) negative B-ALL, relapsed with extramedullary involvement after 6 standard chemotherapy courses, who reached a complete metabolic response with IO treatment. Case 2, a 67 years old man with Ph positive B-ALL, initially treated with ponatinib, a third generation tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI), obtaining a prolonged deep molecular remission. Nevertheless, for skin relapse during TKI treatment, the patient received local radiotherapy and, shortly after, standard chemotherapy, as multiple abdominal sites of relapse were detected too, with no response. The patient then received IO, obtained as compassionate use, with a good metabolic response., Conclusions: These two cases suggest a possible key role of IO in the setting of advanced CD22 positive ALL, and underline its potential activity also in patients with EM involvement, relapsed after or refractory to conventional chemotherapy. Despite the well known hepatotoxic effect of the compound (Sinusoid Occlusive Syndrome), neither of them had such adverse event, moreover the second patient safely underwent allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.