ALBERT

Description: Introduction: Multiple myeloma is a heterogeneous disease with survival ranging from months to more than 10 years. Cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are of major prognostic significance, since e.g. patients with del(17p), t(4;14) or gain 1q21 show dismal outcome. We evaluated CA at primary diagnosis and relapse to investigate clonal evolution in patients treated with upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: We identified 128 patients with paired samples at primary diagnosis before the start of therapy (1st FISH) and at relapse after ASCT (2nd FISH). Forty-four patients were initially treated within the GMMG HD4 trial which compared 3 cycles of conventional induction chemotherapy (Arm A) with a bortezomib-based induction therapy (Arm B) followed by tandem ASCT and thalidomide (Arm A) or bortezomib (Arm B) maintenance. Eighty-four non-study patients (NSP) treated outside clinical trials were included who had received comparable induction therapies (bortezomib: n=45, thalidomide: n=11, other: n=28) before ASCT. FISH was performed on purified plasma cells using probes for 1q21, 5p15, 5q35, 8p21, 9q34, 11q23, 13q14, 15q22, 17p13 and 19q13, immunoglobulin H (IgH) translocations, t(11;14), t(4;14) and t(14;16). McNemar`s test was used to assess differences between FISH assessments. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used to analyze survival differences between patients without CA or with CA only at 1st, 2nd or both FISH assessments. Last follow-up for the whole cohort was performed in 06/2016. Results: Median time to first progression for the whole cohort was 27.0 months (HD4: 29.8 months; NSP: 25.5 months). There were no significant differences in CA as well as remission after induction therapy or ASCT between the HD4 and NSP cohort. The number of patients with high-risk CA was significantly higher after relapse (odds ratio (OR): 6.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.86, 33.42; p

Description: 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.

Description: Introduction The ReLApsE trial compared lenalidomide (LEN)/dexamethasone (DEX; Rd) re-induction, salvage high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and LEN maintenance with continuous Rd in relapsed multiple myeloma. Landmark (LM) analyses from salvage HDCT were performed due to the fact that ~30% of patients in the HDCT arm did not receive salvage HDCT/ASCT. These analyses showed a survival benefit in patients actually undergoing salvage HDCT/ASCT. Median PFS and OS from LM were 23.3 vs. 20.1 months (HR 0.74; p=0.09) and not reached vs. 57 months (HR 0.56; p=0.046) favoring the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm. Multivariate LM analyses showed significant associations of the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm with superior PFS (HR 0.6; p=0.01) and OS (HR 0.39; p=0.006). The present analysis aims to dissect treatment efficacy in relevant subgroups and provide clues for treatment stratification. Methods The ReLApsE trial (ISRCTN16345835) compared 3 Rd (LEN 25 mg, d1-21; DEX 40 mg, d1,8,15,22; 4 week cycles) re-induction cycles, HDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2), ASCT and LEN maintenance (10 mg/d) until PD (arm B, n=139) with Rd until PD (arm A, n=138). Key inclusion criteria were 1-3 prior therapy lines, age ≤ 75, time to PD in case of front-line HDCT/ASCT (TTP1) ≥ 12 months and WHO PS ≤ 2. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed in the ITT population for PFS/OS using an LM at HDCT (B; n=103) and the contemporaneous Rd cycle 5 (A; n=114). The median interval from randomization to LM was 117/122 days in arm B/A. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed by cox regression with interaction term between treatment and subgroup factor. Results No significant differences in the PFS/OS benefit between arms were observed in subgroups according to baseline ISS (I/II/III; interaction p[i-p]=0.5/0.66), age (3 copies and t(14;16)) had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.21; p=0.01; n=57[A]/35[B]), whereas patients with high risk cytogenetics had no significant difference in OS according to trial arm (HR 0.82, p=0.67; n=25[A]/28[B]). Patients with R-ISS I had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.08; p=0.02; n=33[A]/25[B]), whereas no significant difference in OS according to trial arm was seen in patients with R-ISS II (HR 0.72, p=0.42; n=52[A]/43[B]) and R-ISS III (HR 0.65, p=0.6; n=3[A]/5[B]). Conclusions The ReLApsE trial is the first RCT of salvage HDCT/ASCT vs. continuous novel agent treatment. In the absence of a significant survival benefit for the primary endpoint, LM analyses indicated a significant PFS/OS benefit in patients actually undergoing HDCT/ASCT. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed according to ISS, age, renal function, response to re-induction, prior therapy lines, single vs. tandem front-line HDCT/ASCT, and TTP1. Subgroup effects regarding PFS and/or OS benefit from HDCT/ASCT were seen favoring patients with front-line HDCT/ASCT and patients with low risk according to LDH, cytogenetics and R-ISS. Disclosures Baertsch: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Raab:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillengass:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding. Graeven:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria. Fenk:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Haenel:Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Scheid:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Salwender:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel: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; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Background: We and others have previously shown that non-permissive T cell epitope (TCE) group mismatches at HLA-DPB1 are associated with the risks of mortality after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from 10/10 HLA-matched unrelated donors (Fleischhauer et al, Lancet Oncol 2012; Pidala et al, Blood 2014). Moreover, we recently reported that TCE groups are reflected by a numerical score assignable to each HLA-DPB1 allele based on the combined median impact of 12 naturally occurring amino acid substitutions (AAS) on allorecognition of HLA-DPB1*09:01 as reference, termed functional distance (FD) (Crivello et al, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015). Here we studied the association between the Delta in FD scores of HLA-DPB1 alleles present in the patient and in the donor (Delta-FD), and the clinical outcome of unrelated HCT. Methods: 417 consecutive adult patients transplanted from a 10/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor AML (n=302 [72%]), ALL (n=58 [8%]), or MDS (n=57 [14%]) at the University Hospital Essen between the years 2005 and 2014 were included in the analysis. 37 pairs were matched for both HLA-DPB1 alleles (12/12 HLA matches) while the remaining 380 pairs were HLA-DPB1 mismatched. Among the latter, Delta-FD scores were calculated as the absolute number of [FDpatient-FDdonor] on the basis of previously described FD scores for each HLA-DPB1 allele (Crivello et al, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015). Results: The median Delta-FD score of HLA-DPB1 mismatched pairs was 1.64 (0.01-7.46). Receiver Operator Curves indicated stratification into 2 subgroups with Delta-FD scores 2.665 (n=127 [34%]) as the best predictor of overall survival (OS). The 2 subgroups showed no significant differences for the distribution of major variables including diagnosis, disease status at transplant, immune prophylaxis and conditioning regimen, except for the percentage of permissive HLA-DPB1 TCE mismatches which was significantly higher in the subgroup with Delta-FD scores

Description: Background Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)-study IV was designed to explore whether treatment with imatinib (IM) at 400mg/day (n=400) could be optimized by doubling the dose (n=420), adding IFN (n=430) or cytarabine (n=158) or using IM after IFN-failure (n=128). Methods From July 2002 to March 2012, 1551 newly diagnosed patients in chronic phase were randomized into a 5-arm study. The study was powered to detect a survival difference of 5% at 5 years. The impact of patients' and disease factors on survival was prospectively analyzed. At the time of evaluation, at least 62% of patients still received imatinib, 26.2% were switched to 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results After a median observation time of 9.5 years, 10-year overall survival was 82%, 10-year progression-free survival 80% and 10-year relative survival 92%. In spite of a faster response with IM800mg, the survival difference between IM400mg and IM800mg was only 3% at 5 years. In a multivariate analysis, the influence on survival of risk-group, major-route chromosomal aberrations, comorbidities, smoking and treatment center (academic vs. other) was significant in contrast to any form of initial treatment optimization. Patients that reached the response milestones 3, 6 and 12 months, had a significant survival advantage of about 6% after 10 years regardless of therapy. The progression probability to blast crisis was 5.8%. Blast crisis was proceeded by high-risk additional chromosomal aberrations. Conclusions For responders, monotherapy with IM400mg provides a close to normal life expectancy independent of the time to response. Survival is more determined by patients' and disease factors than by initial treatment selection. Although improvements are also needed for refractory disease and blast crisis, more life-time can currently be gained by carefully addressing non-CML determinants of survival. Disclosures Hehlmann: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Saussele: Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pfirrmann: BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Krause: Novartis: Honoraria. Baerlocher: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Bruemmendorf: Novartis: Research Funding. Müller: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jeromin: MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Burchert: BMS: Honoraria. Waller: Mylan: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mayer: Eisai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Link: Novartis: Honoraria. Scheid: Novartis: Honoraria. Schafhausen: Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus: Incyte: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding.