ALBERT

Description: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare form of non-Langerhans histiocytosis, with noncodified therapeutic management and high mortality. No treatment has yet been shown to improve survival in these patients. We conducted a multicenter prospective observational cohort study to assess whether extraskeletal manifestations and interferon-α treatment would influence survival in a large cohort of ECD patients. To achieve this goal, we thoroughly analyzed the clinical presentation of 53 patients with biopsy-proven ECD, and we performed a survival analysis using Cox proportional hazard model. Fifty-three patients (39 men and 14 women) with biopsy-proven ECD were followed up between November 1981 and November 2010. Forty-six patients (87%) received interferon-α and/or PEGylated interferon-α. Multivariate survival analysis using Cox proportional hazard model revealed that central nervous system involvement was an independent predictor of death (hazard ratio = 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.52; P = .006) in our cohort. Conversely, treatment with interferon-α was identified as an independent predictor of survival (hazard ratio = 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.70; P = .006). Although definitive confirmation would require a randomized controlled trial, these results suggest that interferon-α improves survival in ECD patients. This may be seen as a significant advance, as it is the first time a treatment is shown to improve survival in this multisystemic disease with high mortality.

Description: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major therapeutic issue in cancer. Advances in this field and heterogeneities in clinical practices prompted us to establish guidelines related to VTE treatment and to central venous catheter thrombosis (CVCT) management. in cancer patients according to the SOR Standards, Options: Recommendations (SOR) methodology for the development of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) as endorsed by the French National Cancer Institute. Methods: After reviewing the published studies on the topics between 1999 and 2007, a first version of the guidelines was based on the levels of evidence derived from analysis of the 38 out of 418 selected studies for VTE treatment and the 40 out of 175 selected studies for the CVCT management. The recommendations were classified as Standards or Options and then peer-reviewed by 65 independent experts. Detailed methodology is available at www.sor-cancer.fr Standards in cancer patients: The treatment of VTE should be based on Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) at curative doses for at least 3 months. During the initial treatment (up to 10 days), there are no specific requirements and all drugs approved (including LMWH, Unfractionnated Heparin (UFH), fondaparinux and danaparoid) may be used. Beyond the first 10 days, VTE treatment should be based on LMWH at curative doses for at least 3 and optimally for 6 months, as validated with the following drugs and dosage regimens: dalteparin 200 IU/kg once daily for one month, then 150 IU/kg once daily; enoxaparin 150 IU/kg once daily; and tinzaparin 175 IU/kg once daily. In case of: severe renal impairment, UFH should be used rapidly followed by Vitamins K Antaogonist (VKA) for at least 3 months; severe Pulmonary Embolism (hemodynamic failure), the indications and usages of thrombolytic drugs are the same as in non-cancer patients; absolute contra-indication to anticoagulation or VTE recurrence despite optimal anticoagulation, vena cava filters (VCF) should be considered; intracranial malignancies, VTE treatment is the same as in cancer patients with non-intracranial tumors. CVCT treatment relies on long term use of LMWH. In case of severe renal failure, UFH with early AVK must be used. Treatment is to be continued as long as the catheter is maintained. This can only be achieved if the catheter is functional, well positioned, not infected and if adapted anticoagulation has resumed the CVCT. If catheter withdrawal is necessary, there is no standard concerning the anticoagulation management. CVCT prophylaxis relies on positioning the catheter distal extremity at the “superior vena cava - right atrium” junction. Systematic CVCT anticoagulant prophylaxis is not recommended. Options: Treatment of VTE: If LMWH administration for 3 months is impossible, short-term use of LWMH followed by VKA for at least 3 months may be proposed. It is recommended to administer LMWH for 3 to 6 months; LMWH should be used according to the same curative dosage regimen as during the first 3 months. Beyond the first 6 months, the anticoagulant treatment should be continued as long as the cancer is active or treated. In the event of a first VTE episode secondary to a transient risk factor and if the cancer is not active nor treated, anticoagulation may be discontinued after 6 months. The choice between LMWH and VKA depends on their benefit-risk ratio (influenced by drug interactions, chemotherapy, invasive procedures, and general health status) and acceptability. If a VCF is considered, a retrievable VCF may be discussed. CVCT treatment: If another catheter has to be inserted, prior evaluation of the venous circulation by scanner or ultrasound examination is recommended. If prolonged use of LMWH is impossible, VKA can be proposed. In case of severe superior vena cava syndrome, fibrinolytics can be used in the absence of contra-indications. Treatment by LMWH can be stopped 6 weeks after catheter withdrawal in non active cancer or after 3 to 6 months of LMWH followed by VKA in the other cases. CVCT prophylaxis: Right side catheter insertion and vein localisation by ultrasonography are preferred. Conclusion: The French recommendations further support the 2006 Italian and the 2007 North American guidelines on VTE treatment in cancer patients and were extended to the use of VCF and treatment of patients with intracranial malignancies. In addition, we provide recommendations on CVCT treatment in cancer patients.

Description: Intravascular lymphoma (IVL) is characterized by exclusive or predominant presence of lymphoma cells in the lumina of small vessels. Even though T-cell phenotype has been reported, IVL has recently been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification as a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). IVL is considered an aggressive, disseminated and usually fatal malignancy that affects older individuals. Its initial clinical presentation varies according to geography. "Classical" IVL, mainly reported in Europe, is characterized by cutaneous and/or neurological involvement. "Asian variant" IVL, mainly reported in Asia, is characterized by hemophagocytosis, bone marrow (BM) involvement, fever, hepatosplenomegaly and/or thrombocytopenia. This heterogeneous clinical presentation of IVL often causes a delay in diagnosis and treatment instauration. IVL has been mainly studied through European and Asian cases. However, the majority of these case series and cumulative reviews have been based on a restricted number of patients, limiting the clinicopathological understanding and treatment options of this disease. Given the lack of previous large North American studies, we decided to analyze a case series in our country (Canada, Québec) in order to compare our results with the European and Asian series. We report the largest North American study to date on IVL. We reviewed all IVL cases in all Quebec hospitals between 1990 and 2016 (n= 29). The aim of our study was to describe the clinical presentations, investigations, therapeutic management and clinical outcomes of IVL patients in our population and compare the disease phenotype to European and Asian cases. In our cohort, 100% of patients had stage IV IVL at diagnosis, with a median age of 66.7 years (range 47.2-90.8). Clinical presentation was characterized by constitutional symptoms (100%), poor ECOG-PS (100% ≥ 2), cytopenias (93% anemia) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (97%) and C-reactive protein (96%). Our cohort presented with mainly cutaneous and neurological symptoms. However, neurological involvement (75.9%) was predominant and no "cutaneous variant" was observed; this differs from European literature, where "classical" IVL is reported with mainly cutaneous involvement. Two of our Caucasian patients presented "Asian variant" IVL; this observation is not unusual, as cases of "classical" IVL have been reported in Asians and "Asian variant" IVL has been reported in Europeans. All patients were classified according to their immunophenotypic features in 3 different subgroups (CD5+ or CD5-CD10+, CD5-CD10-, CD5+CD10-). According to the literature, no significant difference between these subgroups was found. Finally, 62% of our cohort received anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and within this group, 53% and 20% of patients achieved a complete and partial response, respectively. Overall survival at 3 years was 42.7% and 47.4% for the entire cohort and for the cases with in vivo diagnosis, respectively. Event-free survival at 3 years was 64.2%. Median follow-up of our cohort was 328 days (CI 181-474). Unlike European studies on "classical" IVL, our study showed that the Canadian presentation of this subtype of IVL is more frequently observed with neurological rather than cutaneous involvement. Based on the fact that two of our Caucasian patients presented "Asian variant" IVL, we suggest that the IVL nomenclature should use "classical" IVL and "IVL associated with haemophagocytic syndrome", instead of "European" IVL and "Asian variant" IVL. Disclosures Fleury: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Description: Background: Incidence of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), an aggressive but curable Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) is increasing in the oldest old. Treatment of these patients is challenging due to advanced age, concomitant comorbidities present in this population and the paucity of data from this population in clinical trials. Aims: to evaluate which parameters are considered by medical oncologists in the management and systemic treatment of DLBCL in the oldest old patients (³80 years old) in our centers. Method: This retrospective study evaluated the management of 118 patients ³80 years old diagnosed with DLBCL between 2006 and 2016 in two Quebec hospitals. Baseline demographics, systemic chemotherapy regimens, and overall survival were obtained. Documentation of patient characteristics influencing management options offered by medical oncologists was analyzed when available. Results: Median age was 83.5 years, maximum age was 96 years old, with a total of 8 patients aged ³90 years, and included 65 (55.1%) men. Median Charlson score was 1 [0-2], with 28 (23.7%) patients having a Charlson score 〉 2. Main patient characteristics according to management are reported in table 1. Of all 73 patients who received systemic chemotherapy, 38 (52.1%) had either a complete or partial response. Median overall survival (OS) of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy (either rituximab alone, R-CHOP, R-mini-CHOP or R-CEOP) was 54.8 months [95% IC 15.7-93.9 months] compared to 4.6 months for patients that did not received systemic chemotherapy [95% IC 0-12.6 months], p 〈 0.005. Median number of chemotherapy cycles was 3 (1-6), with 19 patients whom received 6 to 8 cycles. 33 (28%) of the cohort received radiotherapy, mostly as an adjunct to the systemic treatment: only 5 patients received radiotherapy alone. Median OS for the different chemotherapy regimens are reported in table 2. 54.8% of the treated patients received prophylactic G-CSF. Febrile neutropenia developed in 13 (17.8%) patients, 10 of whom were prophylactically treated with G-CSF. We observed 54 deaths in our cohort. Main cause of death was lymphoma: 12 in the untreated group (N= 44) and 7 in the treated group (N= 73). Other known causes were sepsis, heart failure, and respiratory failure. Comorbidities were mentioned as influencing treatment option in 33 files: 16 did not receive systemic treatment whereas 17 received systemic treatment. Median Charlson score for these patients was 2 [1-3]. 14 patients had documented geriatric syndromes (i.e. dementia, malnutrition, frailty, delirium or functional decline) as the main concern for treatment; 9 of them did not receive systemic chemotherapy. Conclusion: Very elderly DLBCL patients, despite their advanced age, still have a significant survival benefit when treated with systemic chemotherapy. In our study, main factors contributing to overall survival were ECOG status and aaIPI as they are known to be important considerations in the management decision process. Interestingly, comorbidities, as measured by the Charlson score, do not seem as important in the management decision process. Instead, geriatric syndromes, some of them potentially reversible, appear to play an important role. Disclosures Pavic: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Description: BACKGROUND As lenalidomide (LEN) becomes increasingly established as a standard of care in the treatment (Tx) of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including those who have become refractory to LEN, represent a clinical reality. These pts represent the largest population with MM at first relapse in the United States and a growing population globally. To date, they have been poorly studied and remain difficult to treat. Previous trials have demonstrated a clinical benefit with pomalidomide (POM) therapy in LEN-refractory pts with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM), including those who were heavily pretreated (median of 5 prior regimens) (San Miguel et al. Lancet Oncol 2013; Richardson et al. Blood 2014; Dimopoulos et al. Blood 2016). These studies led to the approval of POM + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in RRMM. The pomalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) regimen has shown promising activity in early-phase clinical trials in LEN-refractory pts. In the phase 3 OPTIMISMM trial, PVd showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable safety profile compared with bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in intent-to-treat population of pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated; 70% of pts were LEN refractory (Richardson et al. ASCO 2018 abstract 8001). Here, we present efficacy and safety results in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts treated at first relapse. METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles: POM 4 mg/day on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and DEX 20 mg/day (10 mg/day if aged 〉 75 yrs) on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN therapy, including LEN-refractory pts. BORT-exposed pts were eligible to enroll, provided they did not have progressive disease during therapy or within 60 days of the last dose of a BORT-containing regimen with BORT dosed at 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS Out of 559 pts enrolled patients, 226 were treated in the second line (2L), data cut off October 26, 2017: 111 with PVd and 115 with Vd. Median follow-up for 2L pts was 16.4 mos. Among 2L pts, 129 (57.1%) were LEN refractory (64 PVd; 65 Vd) and 97 (42.9%) were LEN nonrefractory (47 PVd; 50 Vd). In LEN-refractory pts (PVd vs Vd) median age was 68.0 vs 69.0 yrs, 57.8% vs 58.5% were male, and 56.3% vs 47.7% had prior BORT. In LEN-nonrefractory pts, median age was 66.0 vs 65.5 yrs, 63.8% vs 38% were male, and 66.0% vs 72.0% had prior BORT. Other key baseline characteristics were similar between Tx arms and subgroups. Median PFS was 17.8 mos with PVd vs 9.5 mos with Vd in LEN-refractory (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94; Figure 1A) and 22.0 vs 12.0 mos in LEN-nonrefractory pts (HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.01; Figure 1B). Response outcomes are shown in Figure 2. ORR was 85.9% with PVd vs 50.8% with Vd in LEN-refractory pts (P 〈 .001) and 95.7% vs 60.0% in LEN-nonrefractory pts (P 〈 .001). In 2L LEN-refractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (35.9% vs 12.9%), thrombocytopenia (17.2% vs 22.6%), and anemia (17.2% vs 8.1%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 29.7% vs 21.0% of pts. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, the most common grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were neutropenia (36.2% vs 6.3%) and thrombocytopenia (23.4% vs 18.8%). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 27.7% vs 8.3% of pts. In 2L LEN-refractory pts, median Tx duration of PVd vs Vd was 9.7 vs 6.1 mos. In 2L LEN-nonrefractory pts, median Tx duration of Pvd vs Vd was 13.6 vs 6.6 mos. CONCLUSIONS To date, OPTIMISMM is the only phase 3 trial to address Tx of pts with RRMM following LEN exposure in early lines and the first to report data in LEN-refractory pts after first relapse. PVd reduced the risk of progression and death by 45% and 46% vs Vd in LEN-refractory and -nonrefractory pts, respectively. Further, in both subgroups, 2L Tx with PVd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses compared with Vd. AEs with PVd therapy were generally consistent with the known AEs of POM, BORT, and DEX. These data further demonstrate that PVd is effective and tolerable in pts for whom LEN is no longer a Tx option, including LEN-refractory pts, supporting its use as 2L therapy in RRMM. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: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; Abbvie: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Anderson:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. White:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Sonneveld:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: 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, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Salomo:Cilag: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Bensmaine:Celgene: Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Description: Introduction. Erythrocytosis is a common reason for a hematology consultation. Most of the patients are over 50 years of age. The diagnostic approach is already well established, but determining the etiology of erythrocytosis in the young adult may be a real diagnostic challenge. Hereditary causes are often first suspected, but the real etiologic panorama of erythrocytosis in this population is still poorly understood. Methods. This Canadian single-center retrospective observational study was conducted in a Québec university hospital over a period of 20 years (1995 - 2015). Data were collected by a single investigator in a standardized database. From a computer-generated query over a chosen period of time, all patients between 16 and 35 years of age with high levels of hemoglobin or hematocrit were selected (hemoglobin 〉 185 g/L and/or hematocrit 〉 0.52 in men; hemoglobin 〉 165 g/L and/or hematocrit 〉 0.48 in women). Files were analyzed after approval from the scientific and ethical committees. Results. 426 patients fulfilled the above criteria (on a total of 113 453 complete blood counts conducted in the same age range during the analysis period), but only 56 benefitted from further investigations. Only those cases were included in the study. The male-to-female ratio was 5 : 3. Among them, 59% were smokers, 11% had a high alcohol intake and 27% were using drugs on a regular basis. Obesity was present in 43% of patients (morbid obesity in nearly one third of cases). More than half of the patients had one visit or less with a specialist for investigation of their erythrocytosis. Among those who had a medical follow-up, the median length is 42 months. Erythropoietin was measured in 23% of cases and the JAK2 mutation was screened in 18% of cases. The diagnosis of an acquired polycythemia was made in 41% of cases: hypoxemia (n= 13), renal disorders (n = 6) and drug-induced (n= 4). No case of myeloproliferative syndrome was identified. Two cases were associated with congenital polycythemia (high oxygen affinity hemoglobinopathy). Diagnosis of relative polycythemia was made in slightly over 10% of cases (n= 7). In 24 patients, no conclusive cause could be identified. One third of those patients (n= 8) were hospitalised for mental health decompensation or self-induced intoxication when high hemoglobin levels were detected. When JAK2 mutation testing was not available, the complete blood count was further analyzed and it did not provide any evidence for myeloproliferative syndrome. One in five patients received treatment for their polycythemia, whatever the cause: aspirin (n= 7) and phlebotomy (n= 5). There has been no reported patient death associated with polycythemia or its treatment. Only two major complications occurred: thrombosis (n =1) and bleeding (n= 1). Conclusion. This is the first study to specifically analyze erythrocytosis in young adults. Despite the retrospective design, it demonstrates patient management often inconsistent with the actual recommendations and a lack of follow-up after initial investigations. Congenital polycythemia deserves to be systematically evoked in this age range, but represents only a small part of cases. Acquired polycythemia dominates the etiologies whereas myeloproliferative syndromes were not depicted in this study. Harmonisation of patient care for young adults with erythrocytosis is therefore highly desirable. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: BACKGROUND Lenalidomide (LEN), an established treatment (Tx) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, is routinely administered until disease progression. Therefore, patients (pts) for whom LEN is no longer an option at first relapse, including LEN-refractory pts, are a clinically relevant and growing population. Tx of these pts remains challenging, as they have been poorly represented in phase 3 clinical trials. OPTIMISMM (NCT01734928), a phase 3 trial specifically designed to address this population, demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with pomalidomide (POM), bortezomib (BORT), and low-dose dexamethasone (PVd) compared with BORT and low-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in pts who received 1-3 prior regimens and were 100% LEN pretreated (70% LEN refractory) (Richardson PG, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:781-794). Here, we report the efficacy and safety of PVd in pts treated after 1 prior line of therapy (LOT) according to age, prior stem cell transplant (SCT), and in pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HR CAs). METHODS Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive PVd or Vd in 21-day cycles. POM 4 mg/day was given on days 1-14 (PVd arm only); bortezomib (BORT) 1.3 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycles 9+; and dexamethasone 20 mg/day (10 mg/day for pts aged 〉 75 yrs) was given on the days of and after BORT. Key eligibility criteria included ≥ 2 cycles of prior LEN, including LEN-refractory pts. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS As of October 26, 2017, 226 of 559 pts enrolled in OPTIMISMM had 1 prior LOT; 100 pts were aged ≤ 65 yrs (49 PVd, 51 Vd) and 126 were aged 〉 65 yrs (62 PVd, 64 Vd). In pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (PVd vs Vd), the median age was 58.0 vs 59.0 yrs, 63.3% vs 47.1% were male, 55.1% vs 51.0% were LEN refractory, and 83.7% vs 72.5% had prior BORT. In pts aged 〉 65 yrs, the median age was 73.0 vs 71.5 yrs, 58.1% vs 51.6% were male, 59.7% vs 60.9% were LEN refractory, and 41.9% vs 46.9% had prior BORT. After 1 prior LOT, PVd vs Vd significantly improved PFS in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 mos; P = .0305) and those 〉 65 yrs (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 mos; P = .0348) (Figure). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with PVd vs Vd across the age groups (Table). The rate of ≥ very good partial response (VGPR) was 65.3% vs 17.6% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and 58.1% vs 26.6% in pts aged 〉 65 yrs. Comparable PFS and ORR outcomes were noted for an age cutoff of ≤ 70 yrs (median PFS, 17.8 vs 13.1 mos with PVd [n = 71] vs Vd [n = 78]; ORR, 88.7% [≥ VGPR, 62.0%] vs 55.1% [≥ VGPR, 21.8%], respectively) vs 〉 70 yrs (median PFS, 16.5 vs 9.5 mos with PVd [n = 40] vs Vd [n = 37]; ORR, 92.5% [≥ VGPR, 60.0%] vs 54.1% [≥ VGPR, 24.3%], respectively). These PFS and ORR findings were similar to those reported in pts with and pts without prior SCT (Table). Median PFS was 22.0 mos with PVd vs 13.8 mos with Vd in pts with prior SCT (P = .0241) and 16.5 vs 9.5 mos, respectively, in pts without prior SCT (P = .0454). Pts with HR CAs (n = 32 [18 PVd, 14 Vd]), defined as having a del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16), had a median PFS of 14.7 mos with PVd and 9.9 mos with Vd. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with PVd vs Vd were neutropenia (49.0% vs 6.3%), infections (30.6% vs 14.6%), and thrombocytopenia (26.5% vs 18.8%) in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and neutropenia (25.8% vs 12.9%), infections (27.4% vs 16.1%), and thrombocytopenia (14.5% vs 22.6%) in pts aged 〉 65 yrs. CONCLUSIONS In pts with LEN-pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at first relapse, PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 50% in pts aged ≤ 65 yrs and by 43% in pts aged 〉 65 yrs vs Vd. Additionally, across age subgroups, second-line Tx with PVd vs Vd significantly improved ORR and led to deeper responses. Similar findings were observed in pts with and pts without prior SCT. PVd also benefited pts with HR CAs vs Vd. Overall, TEAEs with PVd were generally consistent with the known profiles of the constituent agents. These data in pts at first relapse continue to demonstrate that PVd is effective and safe as a second-line Tx following LEN, regardless of age, prior SCT status, and presence of HR CAs. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Weisel:GSK: Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Anderson:Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. White:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jenner:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dürig:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel or accommodations, Speakers Bureau. Pavic:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Casal:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes. The triplet combination is not currently approved in the US for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Description: Large granular lymphocyte (LGL) leukemia is a spectrum of rare lymphoproliferative disorders, classified into T-cell LGL leukemia, chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK-cells and aggressive NK-cell leukemia; chronic NK-cell leukemia is a provisional diagnosis. However, we identified fourteen cases of aggressive T-LGL leukemia retrieved in the literature. Considering this unusual and rare clinical presentation, we are reporting a literature review and presenting an additional case. Leukemic cells of T-LGL leukemia have a characteristic phenotype (CD3+CD8+CD16+CD57+) and show clonal TCR gene rearrangement, while leukemic cells of aggressive NK cell leukemia show a distinguishable phenotype (CD3-CD4-CD8-CD16+CD56+CD57-) and are EBV-related. In contrast with the aggressive NK cell leukemia, the chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of T-cell is not EBV-associated and has a distinguishable immunophenotype (CD16+CD56−CD57+). While T-LGL leukemia and chronic lymphoproliferative disorder of NK-cells have a more chronic disease (years), mainly reported with autoimmune disease (rheumatoid arthritis), numerous infections due to neutropenia and a mild-to-moderate splenomegaly, aggressive NK-cell leukemia is characterized by systemic manifestations and a disseminated disease after a few weeks of presentation despite treatment instauration. In contrast to the T-LGL leukemia, aggressive T-LGL leukemia has a clinical presentation similar to the aggressive NK-cell leukemia, characterized by constitutional symptoms, rapidly progressive hepatosplenomegaly, cytopenia and organ infiltration. The atypical clinical presentation and pathological findings of the aggressive T-LGL leukemia explain the diagnostic challenge of this entity for clinicians. In fact, cases of aggressive T- LGL leukemia retrieved atypical size, irregular nuclei and atypical immunophenotype. Some cases had features similar to those described for patients with NK-cell leukemia (CD56+CD57-) while others did not present neither NK nor T-cell classical immunophenotype (CD56-57-). Facing the heterogeneity of aggressive LGL leukemia, the rapidly evolutive disease (multi-organic infiltration) and the absence of randomized trials on large numbers of patients, no consensus on the treatment approach exists. (Table 1) Our patient presented, at the age of 24 yo, with transitory and autonomous resolution of hepatosplenomegaly and pancytopenia. Almost 30 years later, the patient developed a similar and persistent episode, which lead to a diagnosis of aggressive T-cell LGL leukemia. Was this first episode the early and indolent presentation of his T- LGL leukemia or was it only related to an indolent and transitory etiology? Considering the clinical evolution of previously reported case and of our patient, LGL leukemia tends to evolve in many ways; resolution, indolent and chronic or aggressive evolution and transformation into a lymphoma. As the cases retrieved in literature, the diagnosis of our patient was complicated by atypical clinical presentation and unusual pathological findings; massive medullary involvement without real images of intra-sinusal lymphocytosis and atypical T- LGL based on their small-medium size with slightly irregular nuclei and the lack of expression of CD56/CD57. Facing the heterogeneity of treatments attempted for aggressive T-LGL leukemia and their unpredictable response, we believe that the treatments given to our patient were consistent with the current literature and did not add an additional mortality risk (3 cycles of CHOP, 4 cycles of ESHAP, methotrexate, splenectomy). As reported in literature, even though our patient was treated with varying regimens, his disease rapidly evolved into a multi-organic infiltration (skin, lungs, liver, kidney, facial cranial nerves, conus medullaris and bone marrow involvement) Large granular lymphocyte (LGL) leukemia represent a spectrum of indolent and aggressive diseases, whereby an indolent form can evolve into an aggressive form. Aggressive T-cell LGL leukemia are characterized by a multisystem disease, an atypical immunophenotype (CD56-CD57- or CD56+CD57-) and are associated with an uncertainty regarding therapeutics.Our case report of an aggressive T-cell LGL leukemia adds to the few available studies on the subject. Disclosures Pavic: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.