ALBERT

Description: Introduction. Azacitidine (AZA) is able to induce hematologic responses in 50-60 % of patients (pts) with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and moreover to prolong survival in higher risk MDS pts. Recently, several studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining, in high-risk MDS pts, AZA with Lenalidomide (LEN), either administered concurrently (Sekeres, 2010; 2012), or sequentially (Platzbecker, 2013), in both cases showing promising results, although in a limited number of pts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination vs the sequential use of AZA and LEN in high-risk MDS pts (IPSS score risk: High or INT-2). Primary endpoint: ORR, defined as the Rate of Complete Remission (CR), Partial Remission (PR), Marrow Complete Remission (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI), following the International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson, 2006). Methods. This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter, open label study, including pts with MDS (WHO 2008 classification) with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk High or Intermediate-2, without previous treatment with AZA or LEN. ARM 1 (combined treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 1-21), orally, every 4 weeks. ARM 2 (sequential treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 6-21), orally, every 4 weeks. The induction treatment was planned for 8 cycles (32 weeks). For responder patients (CR, PR, mCR, or HI) the same treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A sample size of 44 pts was planned. Results. From March 2013, 44 pts (27 males), with a median age of 72 (48-83 yrs) were enrolled, from 13 hematologic italian Centers. At baseline, WHO diagnosis was: RCMD: 2 pts; RCMD-RS: 1 pt ; RAEB-1: 11 pts; RAEB-2: 30 pts; IPSS risk was: Intermediate-2: 31 pts; High: 9 pts; not determined (N.D.) (because of lack of cytogenetic data): 2 pts. (all with RAEB-2). In 2 pts IPSS risk was Intermediate-1, but they were enrolled because of severe thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, respectively. IPSS-R risk was: intermediate: 8 pts; High: 16 pts; Very-High: 18 pts; N.D.: 2 pts; IPSS cytogenetic risk was: Good: 17 pts; Intermediate: 11 pts; Poor: 14 pts; N.D.: 2 pts. 21 pts were randomly assigned to ARM 1, and 23 pts to ARM 2. At the time of this analysis, enrolment of the planned 44 pts was completed. 34/44 pts (77.3%) completed ≥ 6 cycles of treatment, and are evaluable for response. The remaining 10 pts (4 in ARM 1 and 6 in ARM 2) are not evaluable for response, as they discontinued treatment before completing the 6th cycle because of adverse events (6 pts, 13.6%), consent withdrawal (2 pts, 4.5%) or medical decision (2 pts, 4.5%), respectively. Treatment was given for a median of 8 (1-28) cycles; in ARM 1: 9 (1-22) cycles, in ARM 2: 8 (1-28) cycles, respectively. Among the 34 pts evaluable for response, 26/34 pts (ORR: 76.5 %) showed a favourable response to treatment. The Best Response achieved was: CR: 8 pts (23.5%), PR: 1 pt (2.9%), mCR: 3 pts (8.8%), HI: 8 pts (23.5%), mCR+HI: 6 pts (17.6%). The remaining 8 pts showed either Stable Disease (SD) (6 pts, 17.6%) or Disease Progression (DP) (2 pts, 5.9%). First Response was detected after a median of 2 (1-8) cycles. Responder pts were: 13/17 (ORR: 76.5 %) in ARM 1 (3 CR; 1 PR; 1 mCR; 4 HI, 4 mCR+HI), and 13/17 (ORR: 76.5 %) in ARM 2 (5 CR; 2 mCR; 4 HI; 2 mCR+HI), respectively. Overall, the median duration of response was 8.5 (2-23) months: 6 (2-19) months in ARM 1; 16 (2-23) months in ARM 2. A grade 〉 2 non hematologic toxicity was observed in 24/44 (54.5 %) pts (ARM 1: 66.7%; ARM 2: 43.5%). 27/44 pts (61.4 %) (ARM 1: 61.9%; ARM 2: 60.9%) had a dose reduction of LEN because of hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity. 22 pts (50%) died (ARM 1: 47.6%; ARM 2: 52.2%). 14 pts (31.8%) (ARM 1: 23.8%; ARM 2: 39.1%) showed progression to AML. Overall, median survival was 13 (1-28) months; ARM 1: 13 (1-25) months; ARM 2: 14 (2-28) months. Conclusions. Our results confirm the efficacy of both AZA + LEN treatment regimens in high-risk MDS pts. Moreover, at a molecular level, a significant increase of phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase C (PI-PLC) beta1 and/or PI-PLCgamma1 expression was associated with a favourable clinical response to treatment. Responder cases also showed an increase of Beta-globin expression, hinting at a specific contribution of LEN on erythroid activation Disclosures Finelli: Janssen: Other: Speaker; Novartis: Other: Speaker; Celgene: Other: Speaker, Research Funding. Visani:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, BMS: Honoraria.

Description: Background: The most important drawback of clinical trials of high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in lymphomas is the high heterogeneity of histological entities. Therefore, the statistical power is reduced, and data are not conclusive. We previously demonstrated the safety of a new conditioning regimen with bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BeEAM) prior to ASCT in resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. This combination of drugs was able to induce a high CR rate in a population that did not have an opportunity of being cured with other therapies. However, that study enrolled both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Aims: We designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of the BeEAM conditioning in resistant/relapsed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Patients and methods: The study was registered at European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) N. 2011-001246-14. Until now, 61 patients (median age 54 years, range 19-69) with resistant/relapsed DLBCL were enrolled. The primary end-point of the study is to evaluate the 1-year complete remission rate. Results: Briefly, 46/61 patients had advanced stage disease (III-IV); 20 were primary refractory and 41 had relapsed after a median number of 2 lines of therapy (range: 1-3). Twenty-one patients had 1 or more relevant comorbidities (range: 1- 5). 30 patients were in II or subsequent CR after salvage therapy, whereas 27 were in PR and 4 had stable or progressive disease. A median number of 5.72x106 CD34+/kg cells (range 2.21-10.60) collected from peripheral blood was reinfused to patients. All patients engrafted, with a median time to ANC〉0.5x109/l of 10 days. Median times to achieve a platelet count 〉20x109/l and 〉50x109/l were 12 and 17 days respectively. Twenty-two out of 61 patients presented a fever of unknown origin (36%), whereas 24 patients (39%) presented a clinically documented infection. All patients received G-CSF after transplant for a median time of 8 days (range: 8-13). One patient died due to an incomplete hematological recovery after transplant, producing an overall transplant related mortality of 2.7%. Fifty-seven patients are evaluable for response: 48/57 (84%) obtained a CR, 3/57 (5%) a PR, whereas 6/57 (11%) did not respond to therapy. After a median follow-up of 10.5 months after transplant (range 3-37), 6/57 (11%) patients were refractory, 12/57 (21%) relapsed and 39/57 (68%) are still alive, in continuous CR. Conclusion: Our clinical trial was designed to closely resemble real-world treatment for these patients. During the study, we transplanted a similar proportion of the patients that would have received ASCT in a real-world scenario. While we cannot make sound comparisons without head-to-head trials, results from previous studies using HDT regimens in DLCBL have not been as encouraging as ours. Accordingly, our data preliminary provide the evidence that the Benda-BEAM regimen is safe and has promising high efficacy in resistant-relapsed aggressive DLBCL patients. Acknowledgments: The study was supported in part by AIL Pesaro Onlus. Mundipharma Italy is grateful acknowledged for providing Bendamustine free of charge. Disclosures Patriarca: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Zinzani:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Introduction. Azacitidine (AZA) as single agent has been shown to improve overall survival in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), with an overall response rate (ORR) of 50-60% (Silverman 2002; 2006; Fenaux 2009). However as a significant proportion of patients (pts) do not respond to treatment, and moreover, as the the duration of therapeutic response to AZA is limited, several attempts have been made to associate AZA with other drugs, with the aim to improve the outcome. In particular, the addition of lenalidomide (LEN) to AZA, either administered concurrently (Sekeres, 2010; 2012), or sequentially (Platzbecker, 2013), has shown promising results, although these data await confirmation by larger series of pts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy (ORR) and safety of the combination vs the sequential use of AZA and LEN in high-risk MDS pts. Moreover, as in previous studies we demonstrated that the increase in PI-PLCβ1 gene expression during AZA treatment is related to haematological response and frequently anticipates the response (Follo, 2009; 2012), another aim of our study was to assess the evaluation of PI-PLCβ1 expression as early predictive biomarker of response also with the association of AZA and LEN, and to look for other possible biomarkers able to predict response, as the mutational status assessed by next generation sequency (NGS). Methods. This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter, open label study, including pts with MDS (according to WHO 2008 classification) with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk High or Intermediate-2, without previous treatment with AZA or LEN. ARM 1 (combined treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 1-21), orally, every 4 weeks. ARM 2 (sequential treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 6-21), orally, every 4 weeks. The treatment for both arms was planned for 8 cycles (32 weeks) in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A sample size of 44 pts was planned. Results. From March 2013, 40 pts (23 males), with a median age of 72 (48-83 yrs) were enrolled, from 13 hematologic italian Centers. At baseline, WHO diagnosis was: Refractory Cytopenia with Multilineage Dysplasia (RCMD): 3 pts; Refractory Anemia with Excess of Blasts-1 (RAEB-1): 9 pts; RAEB-2: 23 pts; MDS-unclassified (MDS-U): 5 pts; IPSS risk was: Intermediate-2: 29 pts; High: 6 pts; not determined (N.D.) (because of lack of cytogenetic data): 5 pts. (all with RAEB-2). IPSS cytogenetic risk was: intermediate in 10 pts and high in 9 pts (3 with complex karyotypes and 6 with isolated -7 or 7q-). 5 pts showed del5q (in 3 cases in the context of a complex karyotype, and in 1 case associated with another single additional cytogenetic alteration). 2 pts had therapy-related MDS. 21 pts (52.5%) were transfusion-dependent at baseline. 19 pts were randomly assigned to ARM 1, and 21 pts to ARM 2. At the time of this analysis, 22/40 pts (55%) completed ≥ 6 cycles of treatment, and are evaluable for response. 13/22 pts (59,1%) showed a favourable response to treatment, following the International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson, 2006): 2 pts achieved Complete Remission (CR), 2 pts attained Partial Remission (PR), 2 pts showed Marrow Complete Remission (mCR), and 7 pts obtained Hematological Improvement (HI), while the 9 non responder pts maintained a Stable Disease (SD). Responder pts were 7/10 (70%) in ARM 1 (2 CR; 1 PR; 4 HI), and 6/12 (50%) in ARM 2 (1 CR; 1 PR; 2 mCR; 2 HI), respectively. Median time to first response: 2 (2-7) months. A significant toxicity (grade 〉 2) was observed in 10/40 (25%) pts. 15/40 pts (37,5%) had a dose reduction of LEN because of hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity. 8 pts (20%) early discontinued therapy before completing the planned 8 cycles, because of prolonged thrombocytopenia (1 pt), death (3 pts), evolution into acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (2 pts) and withdrawal of consent (2 pts), respectively. Causes of death were: febrile neutropenia, myocardial infarction and sudden death, respectively . Conclusions. Our results, although preliminary, seem to confirm the feasibility of the association of AZA and LEN in high-risk MDS pts. More data are needed in order to compare the efficacy and safety of combined vs sequential treatment and vs AZA monotherapy. Moreover, possible relationships with signal transduction pathways and with mutational status are under evaluation. Disclosures Finelli: Celgene: Research Funding, Speaker Other; Novartis: Speaker, Speaker Other; Janssen: Speaker, Speaker Other. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide in higher-risk MDS and AML. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Description: Introduction. The association of Azacitidine (AZA) and Lenalidomide (LEN), either administered concurrently (Sekeres, 2010; 2012; 2017), or sequentially (Platzbecker, 2013; Di Nardo 2015; Mittelman 2016; Narayan 2016) has proven effective in Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), however the optimum dose and schedule remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination vs the sequential use of AZA and LEN in higher-risk MDS pts. Primary endpoint: ORR, defined as the Rate of Complete Remission (CR), Partial Remission (PR), Marrow Complete Remission (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI), following the IWG criteria (Cheson, 2006). Secondary endpoints: a) rate of CR; b) duration of responses; c) overall survival (OS). Methods. This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter, open label study, including pts with MDS with IPSS risk High or Intermediate-2, without previous treatment with AZA or LEN. ARM 1 (combined treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 1-21), orally, every 4 weeks. ARM 2 (sequential treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 6-21), orally, every 4 weeks. The induction treatment was planned for 8 cycles. For responder patients the same treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results. From March 2013, 44 pts (27 males), median age: 72 (48-83 yrs) were enrolled, from 13 hematologic Centers. At baseline, IPSS risk was: Intermediate-2: 31 pts; High: 9 pts; not determined (N.D.) (because of lack of cytogenetic data): 2 pts. (all with RAEB-2). In 2 pts IPSS risk was Intermediate-1, but they were enrolled because of severe thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, respectively. IPSS-R risk was: intermediate: 8 pts; High: 16 pts; Very-High: 18 pts; N.D.: 2 pts. In 5 pts (11.4%) del(5q) was present (additional cytogenetic alterations: 1 in 1 pt, and 〉 1 in 4 pts , respectively). 21 pts were randomly assigned to ARM 1, and 23 pts to ARM 2. Treatment was given for a median of 8.5 (1-52) cycles; in ARM 1: 9 (1-51) cycles; in ARM 2: 8 (1-52) cycles, respectively. Median follow-up: 15 (2-54) months; 47 (37-54) months for survivors. 10/44 pts (22.7%) did not complete at least 6 cycles of treatment for causes other than disease progression (6 pts for adverse events, 2 pts for consent withdrawal and 2 pts for medical decision), and were not considered evaluable for response. Among the 34/44 pts (77.3%) evaluable for response, 26/34 pts (ORR: 76.5 %) showed a favourable response to treatment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis: ORR: 59.1%. First response was observed after a median of 2 (1-8) cycles. The Best Response achieved was: CR: 8 pts (23.5%) (ITT: 18.1%), PR: 1 pt (2.9%) (ITT: 2.2%), mCR: 3 pts (8.8%) (ITT: 6.8%), HI: 8 pts (23.5%) (ITT: 18.1%), mCR+HI: 6 pts (17.6%) (ITT: 13.6%). The remaining 8 pts showed either Stable Disease (SD) (6 pts, 17.6%) or Disease Progression (DP) (2 pts, 5.9%). Among the 27 pts (21 evaluable for response) with an abnormal karyotype at baseline, ORR was 66.7% (ITT: 51.8%) and 4 pts achieved complete cytogenetic response. Median duration of hematologic response: 10.5 months. 34 pts (77,3%) died , and 17 pts (38.6%) showed progression to AML. Grade 〉2 non haematological toxicity: 54.5%. Median OS: 15 months. No significant differences between the 2 arms were observed, in terms of ORR (ARM 1: 76.5%, ITT: 61.9%; ARM 2: 76.5%, ITT: 56.5%), CR rate (ARM 1: 17.6%, ITT: 14.3%; ARM 2: 29.4%, ITT: 21.7%), grade 〉2 non haematological toxicity (ARM 1: 66.7%; ARM 2: 43.5%), AML incidence (ARM 1: 28.6%; ARM 2: 47.8%) and OS (ARM 1: 14 months; ARM 2: 16 months), but the median response duration was significantly longer in ARM 2 (18 months) as compared to ARM 1 (6 months) (p=0.0459). At the time of last analysis, 5/44 (11.4%) patients, 1/21 (4.8%) in ARM 1, and 4/23 (17.4%) in ARM 2, were still maintaining the haematological response, and were still in treatment, after 54, 54, 52, 51 and 37 months, and after 52, 51, 33, 48 and 35 cycles of therapy, respectively. The changes observed during treatment in mutational status of inositide-specific genes and microRNA expression profiling were related to clinical outcome, predicting a negative response to therapy. Conclusions. Our results confirm the efficacy of both AZA+LEN treatment regimens in higher-risk MDS pts, in terms of ORR and OS, although pts treated with the sequential regimen showed a significantly longer duration of haematological response. Disclosures Finelli: Celgene: Other: speaker fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: speaker fees. Candoni:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck SD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gobbi:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfister: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rigolin:Gilead: Research Funding. Cavo:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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.

Description: Introduction. Azacitidine (AZA) is the standard of care of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but the duration of clinical response is limited, and outcome after AZA failure is dismal. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of combining AZA with Lenalidomide (LEN), either administered concurrently or sequentially, however the optimum dose and schedule for this combination remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination vs the sequential use of AZA and LEN in higher-risk MDS pts (IPSS score risk: High or INT-2), and to look for possible biomarkers able to predict response. Primary endpoint: ORR, defined as the Rate of Complete Remission (CR), Partial Remission (PR), Marrow Complete Remission (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI), following the International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson, 2006). Methods. This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter, open label study, including pts with MDS (WHO 2008 classification) with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk High or Intermediate-2, without previous treatment with AZA or LEN. ARM 1 (combined treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 1-21), orally, every 4 weeks. ARM 2 (sequential treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 6-21), orally, every 4 weeks. The induction treatment was planned for 8 cycles (32 weeks). For responder patients (CR, PR, mCR, or HI) the same treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A sample size of 44 pts was planned. Results. From March 2013, 44 pts (27 males), with a median age of 72 (48-83 yrs) were enrolled, from 13 hematologic italian Centers. At baseline, IPSS risk was: Intermediate-2: 31 pts; High: 9 pts; not determined (N.D.) (because of lack of cytogenetic data): 2 pts. (all with RAEB-2). In 2 pts IPSS risk was Intermediate-1, but they were enrolled because of severe thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, respectively. IPSS-R risk was: intermediate: 8 pts; High: 16 pts; Very-High: 18 pts; N.D.: 2 pts. In 5 pts (11.4%) del(5q) was present. 21 pts were randomly assigned to ARM 1, and 23 pts to ARM 2. 34/44 pts (77.3%) completed ≥ 6 cycles of treatment, and are evaluable for response. The remaining 10 pts (4 in ARM 1 and 6 in ARM 2) are not evaluable for response, as they discontinued treatment before completing the 6th cycle because of adverse events (6 pts, 13.6%), consent withdrawal (2 pts, 4.5%) or medical decision (2 pts, 4.5%), respectively. Treatment was given for a median of 8.5 (1-37) cycles; in ARM 1: 9 (1-32) cycles, in ARM 2: 8 (1-37) cycles, respectively. 6 pts (ARM 1: 2; ARM 2: 4) are still on treatment. Pts have been followed for a median of 15 (2-37) months for all subjects, for a median of 32 (18-37) months for survivors. Among the 34 pts evaluable for response, 26/34 pts (ORR: 76.5 %) showed a favourable response to treatment. The Best Response achieved was: CR: 8 pts (23.5%), PR: 1 pt (2.9%), mCR: 3 pts (8.8%), HI: 8 pts (23.5%), mCR+HI: 6 pts (17.6%). The remaining 8 pts showed either Stable Disease (SD) (6 pts, 17.6%) or Disease Progression (DP) (2 pts, 5.9%). First Response was detected after a median of 2 (1-8) cycles. The median duration of hematologic response was 10.5 months. A grade 〉 2 non hematologic toxicity was observed in 54.5 % of pts, and an emerging (from grade 0-2 to 〉 2) hematologic toxicity in 27.3% of pts. In 61.4% of pts LEN dose was reduced because of hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity. 32 pts (72.7%) died , and 17 pts (38.6%) showed progression to AML. Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months. No significant differences between the 2 arms were observed, in terms of ORR, CR rate, toxicity, AML incidence and OS, but there was a trend (although still not significant) towards a longer median duration of response in the sequential arm: ARM 1: 6 months; ARM 2: 18 months (p=0.0847). MDS cells showed alterations of the inositide-dependent signalling as well as an altered microRNA profile. In particular, responder cases showed a frequent downregulation of miR-3613 and mir-4668, that were upregulated in non responder cases. Further analyses are ongoing. Conclusions. Our results confirm the efficacy of both AZA+LEN treatment regimens in higher-risk MDS pts, in terms of ORR, although the sequential schedule seems to induce more durable responses. Moreover, possible relationships with signal transduction pathways and microRNA profile are under evaluation. Disclosures Finelli: Novartis: Other: Speaker fees; Celgene: Other: Speaker fees; Celgene: Research Funding. Gobbi:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Description: Abstract 5123 Vertebral compression fractures occur in approximately 60% of MM patients and can cause pain, persistent disability and dismail quality of life. Appropriate therapy of MM or radiotherapy can lead to improvement of symptoms in a significant percentage of patients, but these positive effects can take time to be perceived. Vertebral agumentation techniques have been recently proposed as suitable options to relieve bone pain from vertebral compression fractures in patients with benign osteoporosis or neoplastic diseases such as MM. Aim of this study was to analyze the clinical course and outcome of 40 consecutive MM patients (23M, 17F, median age = 67.6yrs) treated in the Centers referring to GER, who underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty from 2006 to 2010. Seventeen patients (43%) were newly diagnosed while 23 patients were relapsed or refractory after 1–3 lines of therapy. All the patients were treated because of severe pain, the extent of vertebral fractures was assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Sixty-nine procedures were performed at C2-L5 levels, 51% of the patients were treated at a single level, a maximum of three levels were treated in 6 patients, 13 procedures (32%) were performed at L1 level. Thirty seven patients (92%) experienced reduction of pain, with 55% showing complete disapperance of symptoms prior to any further treatment, 3 patients reported no or little improvement. Responses were durable, after a median follow-up of 14 months no further collapse of the treated vertebrae was observed. After vertebroplasty, first line or salvage therapy was administered to 35 patients, 10 newly diagnosed patients were scheduled to receive autologous stem cell transplant, and peripheral blood stem cell collection was not affected by the procedure. In conclusion, percutaneous vertebroplasty appears to be useful in MM patients with painful vertebral fractures as it allows rapid and durable achievement of pain control, without interfering with further therapeutic programs Work supported in part by RiminiAIL Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Introduction. The association of Azacitidine (AZA) and Lenalidomide (LEN), either administered concurrently or sequentially, has proven effective in Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), however the optimum dose and schedule remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination vs the sequential use of AZA and LEN in higher-risk MDS pts. Primary endpoint: ORR, defined as the Rate of Complete Remission (CR), Partial Remission (PR), Marrow Complete Remission (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI), following the IWG criteria (Cheson, 2006). Moreover, the aim of this analysisis is to enucleate the clinical and biological features of pts who showed long-lasting (≥ 20 cycles) responses. Methods. This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter, open label study, including pts with MDS with IPSS risk High or Intermediate-2, without previous treatment with AZA or LEN. ARM 1 (combined treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 1-21), orally, every 4 weeks. ARM 2 (sequential treatment): AZA: 75 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) I.C. + LEN: 10 mg/day (days 6-21), orally, every 4 weeks. The induction treatment was planned for 8 cycles. For responder pts the same treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results. From March 2013, 44 pts (27 males), median age: 72 (48-83 yrs) were enrolled, from 13 hematologic Centers. 21 pts were randomly assigned to ARM 1, and 23 pts to ARM 2. Treatment was given for a median of 8.5 (1-68) cycles; in ARM 1: 9 (1-68) cycles; in ARM 2: 8 (1-63) cycles, respectively. Median follow-up: 15 (2-77) months. 10/44 pts (22.7%) did not complete at least 6 cycles of treatment for causes other than disease progression, and were not considered evaluable for response. Among the 34/44 pts (77.3%) evaluable for response, 26/34 pts (ORR: 76.5 %) showed a favourable response to treatment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis: ORR: 59.1%. First response was observed after a median of 2 (1-8) cycles. The Best Response achieved was: CR: 8 pts (23.5%) (ITT: 18.1%), PR: 1 pt (2.9%) (ITT: 2.2%), mCR: 3 pts (8.8%) (ITT: 6.8%), HI: 8 pts (23.5%) (ITT: 18.1%), mCR+HI: 6 pts (17.6%) (ITT: 13.6%). Median duration of hematologic response: 10.5 months. 37 pts (84.1%) died , and 20 pts (45.4%) showed progression to AML. Grade 〉2 non haematological toxicity: 54.5%. Median OS: 15 months. OS was significantly longer in responder pts as compared to the other pts (28 vs 7 months, p2 non haematological toxicity (ARM 1: 66.7%; ARM 2: 43.5%), AML incidence (ARM 1: 33.3%; ARM 2: 56.5%; p=0.2150) and OS (ARM 1: 14 months; ARM 2: 16 months). However, among responder pts, sequential treatment showed a longer clinical benefit, as compared to combined treatment. Responder pts of ARM 2 showed a significantly longer median duration of response (18 vs 6 months, p=0.0481), a longer median duration of therapy (28 vs 10 months, p=0.0870; 20 vs 10 cycles, p=0.1181), more long-lasting (≥ 20 cycles) responses (34.8% vs 9.5%, p=0.1017) and a longer OS (35 vs 26 months, p=0.3868), as compared to responder pts of ARM 1. Overall, 10/44 long-responder pts (22.7%) received ≥ 20 cycles; 5/10 pts (50%) achieved CR. IPSS risk: Intermediate-2 (8 pts); High (2 pts); IPSS-R risk: Intermediate (2 pts); High (6 pts); Very High (2 pts); IPSS cytogenetic risk: Good (5 pts); Intermediate (3 pts); Poor (2 pts); IPSS-R cytogenetic risk: Good (5 pts); Intermediate (4 pts); Very Poor (1 pt); 4/6 patients with altered karyotype achieved cytogenetic remission; it is noteworthy that the only 3 pts of the entire series who showed no gene mutations at baseline are included in this subset of long-responders pts, while 5/10 pts showed at baseline ≥ 1 prognostically unfavorable gene mutations (none with TP53 mutations), with variable VAFs during treatment. Moreover all long-responder pts showed a common gene mutation on SOD2 gene, and mutations on PLCG2 gene. Conclusions. Our results confirm the efficacy of both AZA+LEN treatment regimens in higher-risk MDS pts, in terms of ORR and OS, although sequential treatment was associated with a longer clinical benefit among responder pts. A subset of pts (22,7 %) with less unfavorable cytogenetic and molecular characteristics showed a long-lasting response to treatment. Disclosures Finelli: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Crugnola:BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Jannsen, BMS, Celgene, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Oncopeptides, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria.