Abstract: Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance). Results In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P 〈 .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P 〈 .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients. Conclusion Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.

Abstract: Introduction: In previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), treatment with ibrutinib plus rituximab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to the standard fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen, based on the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial. The improvement in PFS with ibrutinib plus rituximab was observed in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene (IGHV) but not in those with an IGHV mutated profile. However, the efficacy of ibrutinib compared to FCR has not yet been investigated in the real-world setting. Methods: A multi-center retrospective "real-world" study to compare the efficacy of front-line ibrutinib monotherapy versus standard FCR in patients with CLL. Demographic and clinical data of the FCR cohort were retrieved from the Israeli CLL Study Group database and of the ibrutinib from the Italian multicenter "Campus CLL" network and the CLL database of the department of hematology at the Sourasky Medical Center. Patients with a documented del(17p) or those who are participating in clinical trials were excluded. In order to fit both treatment samples, the maximum follow-up was censored at 48 months. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to analyze PFS and OS by Kaplan Meier Estimator, Log-Rank test and Cox Regression. In order to control for differences in patients' characteristics, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method with stabilized weights and truncation of 5% extreme score was applied by R. Results: A total of 235 patients who had been front-line treated with either FCR (n=136, 57.9%) or ibrutinib (n=99, 42.1%) were included (Table 1). Most patients were males (n=160, 68.1%), had an unmutated IGHV status (n=115, 70.6%) and were Binet stage B/C (n=191, 83.8%). By FISH, the most frequent abnormality was del(11q) (n=45, 23.1%) followed by trisomy12 (n=34, 17.4%) and del(13q) (n=43, 22.1%). Median time to first treatment was 29.4 months (IQR, 11.9-56.2), and it was not significantly different between ibrutinib (median=24.9 months, IQR 10.3-46.6) and FCR (median=34.0 months, IQR 13.8-60.1; p=0.101). Patients treated with FCR were younger than those treated with ibrutinib (median=58.4 years vs. 71.9 years; p & lt;0.001). The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 48.0 months (37.2 months and 48 months for ibrutinib and FCR, respectively). PFS was longer with ibrutinib than with FCR, with a 3-year rate of PFS of 89.7% vs. 65.8%, respectively (HR=3.5, 95% CI [1.8-6.9], p & lt;0.001) (Figure 1). By subgroup analysis, the PFS benefit with ibrutinib over FCR was maintained in the subgroups of patients age & gt;65 years (n=100, 3-year PFS 89.4% vs. 53.1%; HR=3.9, 95% CI [1.6-9.9], p=0.002), Binet stage B/C (3-year PFS: 90.5% vs. 67.8%; HR=3.5, 95% CI [1.7-7.5] , p & lt;0.001) and unmutated IGHV (3-year PFS: 83.0% vs. 78.0%; HR=5.8, 95% CI [2.4-14.5], p & lt;0.001). Among mutated IGHV patients the PFS was not significantly different between ibrutinib and FCR (3-year PFS: 83.0% vs. 78.0%; HR=1.2, 95% CI [0.3, 4.5]; P=0.795). In multivariate analysis (Table 2), only FCR was an independent predictor of decreased PFS (HR=5.1, 95% CI [1.8, 14.3] , p=0.002). OS was also better with ibrutinib than with FCR, with a 3-year OS of 96.8% vs. 87.5%, respectively (HR=3.52, 95% CI [1.04-11.92], p=0.031) (Figure 2). Using IPTW, both PFS and OS were still superior with ibrutinib compared to FCR (HR=0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5, p & lt;0.001 and HR=0.2, 95% CI [0.1-0.7], p=0.008, respectively). Conclusions: In a real-world setting, front-line treatment with ibrutinib improves PFS and OS in patients with CLL. Similar to the results of the phase III ECOG-E1912 trial, the improvement in PFS was preferentially observed in patients with unmutated IGHV. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Goldschmidt: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fineman: AbbVie: Research Funding. Mauro: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Tskeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Reda: Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Shvidel: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Varettoni: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Aviv: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rossi: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellestia: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gaidano: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo: AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gattei: abbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Menarini: Research Funding.

Abstract: Abstract 128 Background. In newly diagnosed myeloma patients the combination of bortezomib with melphalan-prednisone (VMP) was superior to MP. In relapsed-refractory patients the 4 drug combination bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) induced a high proportion of complete responses (CR). Aims. This prospective, randomized, phase III trial, compared VMPT with a maintenance regimen including bortezomib and thalidomide with VMP without a maintenance regiment. The primary end point was PFS. Methods. Patients (N=511) older than 65 years were randomly assigned to receive VMPT followed by maintenance with bortezomib and thalidomide (N=254) or VMP (N=257). Initially, patients were treated with nine 6-week cycles of VMPT (induction: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1,4,8,11,22,25,29,32 in cycles 1–4 and days 1,8,22,29 in cycles 5–9; melphalan 9 mg/m2 days 1–4; prednisone 60 mg/m2 days 1–4 and thalidomide 50 mg days 1–42; maintenance: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 every 15 days and thalidomide 50 mg/day) or VMP (bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone at the same doses and schedules previously described without maintenance). In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT and VMP induction schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (1.3 mg/m2 days 1,8,15,22 in cycles 1–9). Results. All patients have been evaluated in intention-to-treat. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups, median age was 71 years. The response rates were always superior in the VMPT group: at least PR rate (86% vs 79%, p=0.02), at least VGPR rate (55% vs 47%, p=0.07) and CR rate (34% vs 21% p=0.0008), respectively. Maintenance treatment did not increase the best response achieved during VMPT induction. After a median follow-up of 17.8 months, the 2-year PFS was 70.0% in the VMPT group and 58.2% in the VMP group (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.44–0.88, p=0.008). The achievement of CR significantly prolonged PFS in both VMPT (p 〈 0.0001) and VMP (p=0.003) patients. Chromosomal abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17, did not affect 2-year PFS in both VMPT (p=0.51) and VMP (p=0.41) patients. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 89.6% in the VMPT group and 89.0% in the VMP group (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.51–1.72, p=0.84). The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia (37% vs 28%, p=0.02) and cardiac complications (10% vs 5%, p=0.04) was higher in the VMPT group. The incidence of other grade 3–4 adverse events was similar in the VMPT group and in the VMP group: thrombocytopenia (21% vs 19%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs 8%), infections (12% vs 9%), and gastrointestinal complications (6% vs 8%), respectively. From twice-weekly, the weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly decreased the incidence of grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy in the VMPT group (from 18% to 4%, p=0.0002) and in the VMP (from 13% to 2%, p=0.0003), without any significant change in CR rates and 2-year PFS. Conclusion. VMPT followed by maintenance with bortezomib and thalidomide was superior to VMP for response rates and PFS. The weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly reduced the incidence of peripheral neuropathy without affecting outcome. This is the first report showing the superiority of a 4-drug combination followed by maintenance in comparison with the most recent standard therapy, VMP. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib . Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Patriarca:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Musto:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding; Pharmion: Consultant, advisory committee, Research Funding.