ALBERT

Beschreibung: Background:Novel insights into the biology of myeloma cells have led to the identification of relevant prognosis factors.Cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) has become one of the most important prognostic factors, and the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p) are associated with poor prognosis. Although there are some reports indicating that 1q gains may be considered as a poor-risk feature, the information is not uniform. Furthermore, there are important controversies about whether or not novel agents-based combinations are able to overcome the poor prognosis of CA. In the relapse setting, the combinations including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs have shown to improve, and some of them to overcome, the outcome of patients with high-risk CA. Here we report a preplanned analysis, in a series of elderly newly diagnosed myeloma patients included in the Spanish GEM2010 trial and receiving VMP and Rd, in a sequential or alternating approach, in order to evaluate the influence of CA by FISH on the response rate and outcome. Patients and methods: 242 pts were randomized to receive a sequential scheme consisting of 9 cycles of VMP followed by 9 cycles of Rd or the same regimens in an alternating approach (one cycle of VMP alternating with one Rd, up to 18 cycles. VMP included the IV administration of weekly bortezomib (except in the first cycle that was given twice weekly) at 1.3 mg/m2 in combination with oral melphalan 9 mg/m2 and prednisone 60 mg/m2once daily on days 1-4. Rd treatment consisted on lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. FISH analysis for t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p) and 1q gains was performed at diagnosis according to standard procedures using purified plasma cells. Results: In 174 out of the 233 patients evaluable for efficacy and safety, FISH analysis at diagnosis were available and two groups were identified: high-risk group (n= 32 patients with t(4;14) and/or t(14;16) and/or del(17p)) and standard-risk group (n=142 patients without high-risk CA). The rates of CA was similar in both treatment arms. Response Rates (RR) were no different in the high-risk vs standard-risk groups, both in the sequential (74% vs 79% RR and 42% vs 39% CR) and alternating arms (69% vs 86% RR and 39% vs 38% CR). After a median follow-up of 51 months, high-risk patients showed shorter PFS as compared to standard risk in the alternating arm (24 versus 33 months, p=0.03) and this also translated into a significantly shorter OS (38.4m vs not reached, p=0.002). However, in the sequential arm, high-risk and standard-risk patients showed similar PFS (29.5 months vs 31.5 months, p=0.9) and OS (46m vs 63m, p=0.1). This beneficial effect observed in the sequential arm applied to both t(4;14) or del(17p). As far as 1q gains is concerned, 151 patients had 1q information and 76 of them had 1q gains (50.3%), defined as the presence of more than 3 copies in at least 10% of plasma cells. The rate of 1q gains was well balanced in both sequential and alternating arms. The ORR was similar in patients with or without 1q gains (83% vs 80%) as well as the CR rate (45% vs 31%), and no differences were observed between sequential and alternating arms. Patients with or without 1q gains had a similar PFS (36 months vs 29 months) and 4-years OS (63% vs 68%) in the whole series and no differences were observed between the sequential and alternating arms. This effect has been observed in patients with 1q gains as isolated CA and the outcome was slightly but not significantly worse when 1q gains were present plus either t(4;14) and/or del17p. Conclusions: The total therapy approach including VMP and Rd administered in a sequential approach is able to overcome the poor prognosis of the presence of high-risk CA in elderly patients with newly diagnosed MM. The presence of 1q gains has no impact in the PFS and OS of elderly patients treated with VMP and Rd. Disclosures Mateos: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, BMS: Honoraria. Martínez-López:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paiva:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Binding Site: Research Funding.

Beschreibung: Introduction:SMM is an asymptomatic and heterogeneous plasma cell disorder. The Spanish Myeloma Group demonstrated that patients at high risk of progression benefit from early treatment with Rd. In addition, our preliminary results of the curative approach (GEM-CESAR) showed encouraging results (Mateos ASH 2017). Aim: The primary end-point was to evaluate the Minimal Residual Disease negative (MRD-ve) rate by next generation flow (NGF) after induction and ASCT and the sustained MRD-ve rate at 3 and 5 yrs after ASCT as secondary end-points. Our aim was to increase the MRD -ve rate from 34% (reported in NDMM patients after VTD and ASCT) to 50%. As all patients have completed induction and ASCT, we report the results of the primary end point, efficacy and safety after induction and ASCT. Methods: In this phase II single arm trial, 90 SMM patients at high-risk of progression (〉50% at 2 yrs), younger than 70 yrs and transplant candidates were included. The high risk was defined by the presence of both ≥PC 10% and MC ≥3g/dL (Mayo criteria) or ifonly one criterion was present, patients must have a proportionof aberrant PCs within the total PCsBM compartment by immunophenotypingof 95% plus immunoparesis (Spanish criteria). Asymptomatic MM patients with any of the three biomarkers recently included into the definition of active MM were allowed to be included. Induction therapy consisted on six 4-weeks cycles of KRd in which K was given at dose of 36 mg/m2twice per week plus R at dose of 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone at dose of 40 mg weekly. Melphalan at dose of 200 mg/m2followed by ASCT was given as intensification therapy and three months later, patients received two KRd consolidation cycles followed by maintenance with R at dose of 10 mg on days 1-21 plus dex at dose of 20 mg weekly for up to 2 yrs Results: Between June 2015 and June 2017, the 90 SMM patients at high risk of progression were recruited. Twenty-eight pts (32%) shared at least one of the new biomarkers predicting imminent risk of progression to MM. The primary end point of the trial was met, since 55% of the patients who completed induction and ASCT achieved MRD -ve by NGF (sensitivity 3 x 10-6). Upon analyzing the results after induction, 88 patients completed the 6 induction cycles and were evaluable for response (two patients early discontinued): the ORR was 98% including 41% of ≥CR (32% sCR and 9% CR) and 41% of VGPR rate. Two patients were mobilization failures and one patient rejected ASCT. Two additional patients experienced biological progression before ASCT and went off the study. Eighty-three patients, therefore, proceeded to HDT-ASCT and were evaluable at day +100: the ORR was 100% including ≥CR in 63% of the patients (51% sCR and 12% CR) and VGPR rate in 23%. The MRD-ve rate increased from 31% after induction to 55% with the ASCT. No differences in outcome have been observed according neither to the definition of high risk (Mayo or Spanish model) nor ultra high risk SMM. Concerning toxicity, during induction, G3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 5 (6%) and 10 pts (11%), respectively. G3-4 infections were the most frequent non-hematological AE observed in 16 pts (18%), followed by skin rash in 8 pts (9%). One patient reported G1 atrial fibrillation and another cardiac failure secondary to respiratory infection. Three patients reported hypertension (G2 in two and G3 in one). Thirteen patients required lenalidomide dose reduction whilst carfilzomib was not reduced in any patient. In four patients, dexamethasone was reduced. In all but two of the pts, PBSC collection was successful with a median of 4.10 x 106/Kg CD34 cells collected. All patients engrafted. Consolidation and maintenance phases are ongoing. After a median follow-up of 17 months (5-36), 94% of patients remain alive and free of progression and 97% of them alive. Three patients experienced biological progression and discontinued the study: one of them was refractory to the rescue therapies and died and the other two are receiving rescue therapies. One additional patient died early during induction due to a massive ischemic stroke unrelated to the treatment. Conclusions: Although longer follow-up is required, this "curative strategy for high risk SMM" continues being encouraging with an acceptable toxicity profile. The study has met its primary endpoint. The depth of response improved over the treatment: 63% of patients who completed induction and ASCT achieved ≥CR with a MRD-ve rate of 55%. Disclosures Mateos: Takeda: 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; GSK: Consultancy, 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; Amgen: 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; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rodriguez Otero:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Clínica Universidad de Navarra: Employment. Ocio:AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy. Rosinol:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Alegre:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Puig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. De La Rubia:Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. García Mateo:Binding Site: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen: Honoraria. Lahuerta: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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria.

Beschreibung: Background: Survival of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) decreases with increased age (Pulte, Oncologist, 2011). In addition, MM pts with advanced disease who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with novel agents have a poor prognosis (Kumar, Leukemia, 2012). Pomalidomide (POM) is a new oral agent with antimyeloma, stromal cell inhibitory, and immune modulatory effects (Quach, Leukemia, 2010; Mark, Leuk Res, 2014). In the pivotal MM-003 trial, POM in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits vs. high-dose dexamethasone, with a tolerable safety profile in refractory or relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM; Dimopoulos, Blood, 2013). In MM-003, significant PFS and OS benefits with POM + LoDEX Tx were seen in different age groups; tolerability and dose intensity were not affected by age (Weisel, Blood, 2013). STRATUS is a multicenter, single-arm, open-label, European, phase 3b trial to further evaluate safety and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in a large pt population. This analysis examines outcomes by age (≤ 65 vs. 〉 65 yrs, and ≤ 70 vs. 〉 70 yrs). Methods: Eligible pts had refractory or relapsed and refractory disease (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days of last line of Tx), having previous BORT and LEN failure and adequate prior alkylator therapy as defined in study protocol. Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx line. Pts with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 〉 2 were excluded. Pts received 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1-21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged 〉 75 yrs) once weekly. All pts received thromboprophylaxis with low-dose aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or equivalent based on clinical recommendations. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety; the secondary endpoints included POM exposure, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Outcomes were analyzed by pt age at baseline (≤ 65 vs. 〉 65 yrs, and ≤ 70 vs. 〉 70 yrs). Results: As of March 17th, 2014, a total of 456 pts have been enrolled, and 452 had received POM + LoDEX; 48% were aged ≤ 65 yrs, 52% were 〉 65 yrs, 71% were ≤ 70 yrs, and 29% were 〉 70 yrs. Pts were heavily pretreated (median 4-5 prior Tx depending on age subgroup). Median follow-up was 6.8 mos. Younger pts (≤ 65 yrs) were more likely to have better renal function (creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min; 80%) than those aged 〉 65 (49%). Median relative dose intensity was similar independent of age (range, 0.95-0.97 mg/day). The most common grade (Gr) 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across age groups were neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and pneumonia (Table). Gr 3-4 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with prophylaxis was 1% in each subgroup. Discontinuations of POM due to TEAEs were low in pts aged ≤ 65 (0.9%), 〉 65 (3.0%), ≤ 70 (1.3%), and 〉 70 (3.8%) yrs. Outcomes by age are summarized in the Table. ORR was consistent for pts aged ≤ 65 (38%), 〉 65 (32%), ≤ 70 (35%), and 〉 70 (34%) yrs; DORs were 5.1, 6.8, and 5.8 mos and not estimable (NE) in these pt populations, respectively. Median PFS and median OS were similar across all age groups (PFS range, 4.0-4.9 mos, OS range, 10.6-11.5 mos). Conclusions: The data reported here further demonstrate the tolerability and efficacy of POM + LoDEX in pts with RRMM in the age subgroups analyzed (≤ 65 vs. 〉 65 yrs and ≤ 70 vs. 〉 70 yrs). Safety profiles were consistent, while dose intensity was similar across age groups. PFS, OS, and response rates were comparable with those previously reported in trials of POM + LoDEX in pts with RRMM and reinforce 4 mg POM as an appropriate starting dose irrespective of age. These data support POM + LoDEX as a standard Tx option for pts with refractory or RRMM regardless of age. Table 1. Age ≤ 65 yrs (n = 215) Age 〉 65 yrs (n = 237) Age ≤ 70 yrs (n = 319) Age 〉 70 yrs (n = 133) Grade 3-4 TEAEs, % Neutropenia Anemia Thrombocytopenia Pneumonia 38 30 22 13 41 24 16 10 38 29 21 11 44 23 15 11 Grade 3-4 EOI, % DVT/PE PN 1

Beschreibung: Introduction: Disease control at five years would be a desirable endpoint for elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients; however, the percentage of cases reaching this objective as well as the biomarkers to predict it, are not well defined. Objective and design: In order to gain further insight about long-term disease control (〉5 years progression-free) in elderly MM we have analyzed a homogeneous population of 435 newly-diagnosed transplant-ineligible (TNE) patients enrolled in two consecutive Spanish clinical trials (GEM2005MAS65, GEM2010MAS65), that included both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. Results: Amongst the 435 patients included in this post-hoc study, only 18.8% remained alive and progression-free after five years of initiating treatment. Noteworthy, in these patients the overall survival (OS) rate at 10-years was 69.4%, as compared to 11.4% for those patients progressing during the first five years (p〈 0.001). Baseline variables significantly associated with long-term progression free survival in the univariate analysis were younger age, ISS 1, R-ISS 1, hemoglobin ≥ 12g/dl, normal LDH, and standard-risk cytogenetic abnormalities and the presence of a monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS)-like immunophenotypic profile in the bone marrow. Complete responses (CR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity were also associated with long-term progression free survival. In the multivariate analysis, an hemoglobin level ≥12g/dl (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.47 - 4.61, p=0.001) and a MGUS-like immunophenotypic profile in the bone marrow (OR 3.33; 95% CI 1.30 - 8.54, p=0.002) were the two baseline variables significantly and independently associated with a higher probability of long-term disease-free survival. When the depth of response (including MRD) was included in the logistic regression model, Hb level ≥12g/dl (OR 2.18; p=0.010) and the MGUS-like signature (OR 4.99, p

Beschreibung: Introduction VDJH usage description in B-cell hematological malignancies has brought new insights into the clonal differentiation and clinical implications for certain pathologies, improving patients' care, although no correlation has been made in MM. We present the largest-to-date VDJH gene repertoire analysis in MM, consisting in biological and clinical data from 413 patients. This database was used to comprehensively investigate the characteristics of VDJH rearrangements: gene segment usage, somatic hypermutation (SHM), CDR3 characterization, and immunoglobulin stereotyped clusters assessment. We also investigated the potential relationship of these molecular features with the outcome. Methods Newly diagnosed MM patients were included in the study. All were managed according to the recommendations of the GEM-PETHEMA Spanish MM group, including the inclusion of most patients in the GEM2000 and GEM2005 schemes. Monoclonal assessment was carried out with FR1 VH-JH amplification, following the BIOMED-2 methods. Moreover, 113 cases were also analyzed by NGS using the LymphoTrack IGH FR1 assay (Invivoscribe Tech, San Diego, CA). VDJH usage and mutational status were analyzed with IMGT-V-Quest. ClustalX2.0 was used to perform clustering analysis with CDR3 regions from our cohort and 1117 additional sequences obtained from IMGT/LIGM-DB corresponding to unique rearrangements from both normal and tumor human B cells. Molecular and clinical data were used to perform survival studies. Results The overall VDJH detection rate was 92.5% (382/413), including 376 patients with only one detectable rearrangement, five with a biallelic rearrangement, and one with a biclonal rearrangement, also detectable by flow cytometry. Thus, 388 rearrangements where detected: 362 were productive, and 26 unproductive. Gene segments were identified in productive rearrangements. VH repertoire in MM reflected its normal counterpart, with IGHV3 being the predominant selected family, followed by IGHV4, IGHV1, IGHV2 and IGHV5. IGHD and IGHJ segment usage showed a skewed distribution, with IGHD2 and IGHD3 families accounting for 55.5% of cases, and IGHJ4 and IGHJ6 accounting for 70.8%. SHM level could be identified in 349/362 productive sequences (mean: 9.16%, SD 3.95) with statistically significant differences between certain IGHV families, namely IGHV2 was less hypermutated than IGHV1 or IGHV4. We could also collect other rearrangement features: nucleotide addition by TdT appeared in 92.5% for N1 and 88.6% for N2, with evidence of exonuclease activity in all cases. CDR3 mean length was 16±4 aminoacids (median 15, range 6-29), with preference for Gly, Ala, Asp, Tyr (~10% each one). The R/S mutation ratio was 2.39 for CDRs versus 1.74 for FWRs, showing the high influence of antigen selection over the former. No stereotyped clusters were found in our cohort. Relationship between these finding and clinical evolution was done through univariate and multivariate analyses. A shorter Progression-Free Survival (PFS) related to well-known clinical factors: presence of plasmacytomas, poor performance status or ISS stages, response to therapy, and poor-risk cytogenetics (p

Beschreibung: Introduction: BCMA is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily transmembrane glycoprotein essential for the maturation and survival of plasma cells. CC-93269 is an asymmetric 2-arm humanized IgG TCE that binds bivalently to BCMA and monovalently to CD3ε in a 2+1 format (Seckinger A, et al. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:396-410). The CC-93269-mediated interaction between T cells and BCMA-expressing myeloma cells induces T cell receptor/CD3 crosslinking leading to T cell activation, and release of proinflammatory cytokines and cytolytic enzymes, resulting in myeloma cell death. In preclinical studies with CC-93269 and related molecules, 2+1 BCMA TCEs induced tumor regression in animal models and promoted myeloma cell death in primary pt myeloma cells. Here we report interim results from a phase 1 dose-finding study (CC-93269-MM-001; NCT03486067) evaluating CC-93269 in pts with RRMM. Methods: Eligible pts had RRMM and had received ≥ 3 prior regimens without prior BCMA-directed therapy. In dose escalation, CC-93269 was administered intravenously over 2 hours on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for Cycles 1-3; Days 1 and 15 for Cycles 4-6; and on Day 1 for Cycle 7 and beyond, all in 28-day cycles. Dose escalation involved 2 stages: in stage 1, CC-93269 was given in fixed doses; in stage 2, pts received a fixed first dose on Cycle 1 Day 1, followed by intrapatient dose escalation on Cycle 1 Day 8. Primary objectives were to assess the safety and tolerability of CC-93269 and define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), non-tolerated dose (NTD), and/or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed after clinical response in pt bone marrow aspirate samples by Next Generation Flow using the EuroFlow panel. MRD negativity was reported only if a minimum sensitivity of 〈 1 tumor cell in 105 nucleated cells was achieved. Results: As of May 24, 2019, 19 pts had received CC-93269. Median age was 64 years (range 51-78), with a median of 6.2 years (range 1.4-13.9) since initial diagnosis. The median number of prior regimens was 6 (range 3-12) and included treatment with autologous stem cell transplantation (73.7%), allogenic stem cell transplantation (10.5%), lenalidomide (100%), pomalidomide (84.2%), bortezomib (100%), carfilzomib (84.2%), and daratumumab (DARA; 94.7%). All pts had MM refractory to their last line of therapy, with 16 (88.9%) refractory to DARA, 17 (89.5%) to their last proteasome inhibitor, and 16 (84.2%) to their last immunomodulatory agent. CC-93269 doses ranged from 0.15 to 10 mg; median duration of treatment was 14.6 weeks (range 1.6-32.0) with pts receiving a median of 4 cycles (range 1-8). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 15 (78.9%) pts and included 10 (52.6%) pts with neutropenia, 8 (42.1%) with anemia, 5 (26.3%) with infections, and 4 (21.1%) with thrombocytopenia. No pt required dose modifications. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 17 (89.5%) pts, the majority of whom reported a maximum grade 1 (n = 11 [57.9%]) or grade 2 (n = 5 [26.3%]), and occurred most frequently with the first or second dose (n = 22 of 27 events [81.5%]). CRS prophylaxis was implemented with dexamethasone for first dose and dose increases in pts receiving ≥ 6 mg. Of 27 CRS events, 8 (29.6%) were managed with dexamethasone and 10 (37.0%) with tocilizumab. One pt receiving 6 mg CC-93269 as first dose and 10 mg on Cycle 1 Day 8 died on study in the setting of CRS, with a potential infection as a contributing factor. Dose-related pharmacodynamic activity, including peripheral blood immune cell redistribution and transient release of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, was observed in pts. Of the 12 pts treated with ≥ 6 mg CC-93269 in Cycle 1, 10 pts achieved a partial response (PR) or better (overall response rate; 83.3%), including 7 (58.3%) with a very good partial response (VGPR) or better and 4 (33.3%) with a stringent complete response (sCR) (Table); 9 (75.0%) pts achieved MRD negativity. The median time to response was 4.2 weeks (range 4.0-13.1), and 10 of 10 responses were ongoing with follow-up ranging from 2.1 to 4.7 months. The NTD, MTD, and RP2D have not yet been reached. Conclusions: CC-93269, a 2+1 BCMA TCE, shows a manageable safety profile and promising efficacy, including MRD-negative sCRs, in pts with heavily pretreated RRMM. The study continues to enroll in the dose escalation phase. Updated safety and efficacy data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Costa: Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding. Bermúdez:MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; 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; Fresenius: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. de la Rubia:AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Mateos:Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ocio:BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rodríguez-Otero:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Li:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sarmiento:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Lardelli:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gaudy:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boss:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kelly:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Burgess:University of California: Other: Volunteer clinical faculty, without salary, Patents & Royalties: Patent - T315A and F317I mutations of BCR-ABL kinase domain; Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: Patent - CD47 antibodies and methods of use thereof. Hege:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Arcus Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mersana Therapuetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bensinger:Amgen, Celgene: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Karyopharm: Other: Grant.

Beschreibung: Background Bortezomib-based combinations, including alkylating agents (VMP or CyBorD) or immunomodulatory drugs (VTD or RVD) have been established as regimens widely used in newly diagnosed MM patients. Bendamustine is a bifunctional alkylating agent effective in relapsed and/or refractory MM patients, and approved in Europe in combination with prednisone for elderly newly diagnosed MM. Since bendamustine may be more efficient than other alkylators, an attractive possibility would be to explore it in combination with bortezomib and prednisone (BVP) in newly diagnosed MM patients both transplant and non transplant candidates. Patients and Methods 60 newly diagnosed MM patients were included in the trial. The first cycle consisted on bendamustine at 90 mg/m2 given IV on days 1 and 4, in combination with bortezomib at 1,3 mg/m2 given IV on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29 and 32 and prednisone at 60 mg/m2 given PO on days 1 to 4. In the following cycles, bendamustine was given on days 1 and 8, and bortezomib on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 (weekly schedule), and prednisone as it was previously described. Patients younger than 65 years proceeded to peripheral blood stem cell collection (PBSC) using growth factors alone after 4 cycles; HDT-ASCT was performed after 6 cycles. Patients older than 65 years received up to nine 28-day cycles. Results Between May 2011 and July 2012 enrollment was completed (60 pts). Median age was 61 years (range 38-82; 18 pts ≥65), 67% had ISS stage II/III, and 67% had unfavorable cytogenetics: t(4;14), t(14;16), del 17p or 1q gains by FISH. After a median of 6 cycles (2-9), 75% of patients achieved at least PR, including 16% of sCR, 9% CR and 28% of VGPR. Although the differences were not statistically significant, there was a trend to higher CR rate in the group of patients

Beschreibung: Background VMP and Rd are two of the most efficient and widely accepted regimens in the treatment of elderly newly diagnosed MM patients. In order to further improve the outcome of elderly patients, one possibility would be to use regimens including all these drugs simultaneously, but this may result into high toxicity. Alternatively, the use of these regimens (VMP and Rd) in a sequential or alternating scheme could improve the treatment of elderly patients. We hypothesized the alternating scheme would minimize the emergence of resistant clones, and would reduce the cumulative toxicity. In order to test this hypothesis we decided to compare VMP and RD in a sequential vs an alternating scheme. Patients and methods 241 patients were randomized to receive a sequential scheme consisting on 9 cycles of VMP followed by 9 cycles of Rd or the same regimens in an alternating approach (one cycle of VMP alternating with one Rd (half of the patients started by VMP and half by Rd) up to 18 cycles). VMP included the iv administration of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly for 1 six-weeks cycle, followed by once weekly for 8 four-weeks cycles in combination with oral melphalan 9 mg/m2 and prednisone 60 mg/m2 once daily on days 1–4 of each cycle. Rd treatment consisted on lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Results 121 patients were allocated to receive the sequential scheme and 120 the alternating regimen. Both arms were well balanced according to the baseline characteristics. 52% patients in the sequential arm and 55% in the alternating and had high risk cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p or 1q gains). After 9 cycles of treatment, in the sequential arm, 35 out of 66 (54%) achieved at least VGPR vs 51 out of 65 patients (78%) in the alternating arm (p=0.002), including sCR/CR rate of 28% vs 38% in the sequential and alternating arms, respectively (p=NS). Seven patients in each arm achieved immunophenotypic CR. Moreover, while four patients progressed in the sequential arm under treatment with VMP, no patients in the alternating scheme developed disease progression during the first 9 cycles, After a median follow up of 12 months, there was a trend for shorter TTP in the sequential as compared with the alternating scheme (18 m-TTP of 83% vs 89% (p=NS)). In terms of OS, 83% of patients in the sequential arm were alive at 18 m versus 93% in the alternating (p=NS). Patients who achieved sCR/CR had a significantly longer 18 m-TTP as compared with patients who didn’t achieve it in both sequential (100% vs 71%; p=0.006) and alternating arms (100% vs 79%; p=0.006) and this translated into a significant benefit in OS. No differences were observed in overall response rates and CR rates in standard and high risk patients. The 18 m-TTP was similar in standard and high risk groups in both sequential (86% vs 81%) and alternating arms (84% vs 94%), noting that 94% of patients receiving the alternating scheme were progression-free at 18 months. Regarding hematologic toxicity, the frequency of G3-4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the sequential than in the alternating arm (16% and 23%) and the same trend was observed for G3-4 thrombocytopenia (16% vs 20%). Concerning non-hematologic toxicity, 5% and 4% of the patients in the sequential and alternating arms developed G3-4 infections, respectively; the rate of G3-4 skin rash was 4% in the sequential and 3% in the alternating arm; 4% of patients in the sequential arm developed G3-4 peripheral neuropathy and 3% in the sequential arm. The rate of grade 3-4 thrombotic events was 2% in both arms. Nevertheless, the detailed evaluation of the toxicity will be done at the completion of the trial when all patients will have received the same amount of drugs in either a sequential or an alternating scheme (at the present time, 42 patients in the sequential arm were not yet at risk for the development of lenalidomide-related side effects). Conclusions The administration of melphalan, bortezomib, lenalidomide and steroids in elderly MM patients in a sequential or alternating scheme is feasible. Although longer follow-up is necessary, the alternating scheme may be superior in terms of response rate and outcome, as result of the early exposure of the plasma cell to different agents. Toxicity profile is acceptable. Aparently both schemes of therapy seems to overcome the poor prognosis of high risk cytogenetic. Disclosures: Mateos: Janssen, Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is not approved for newly diagnosed MM patients. Ocio:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. San Miguel:Janssen, Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.