Abstract: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) carrying standard- or high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) achieve similar complete response (CR) rates, but the later have inferior progression-free survival (PFS). This questions the legitimacy of CR as a treatment endpoint and represents a biological conundrum regarding the nature of tumor reservoirs that persist after therapy in high-risk MM. We used next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry to evaluate measurable residual disease (MRD) in MM patients with standard- vs high-risk CAs (n = 300 and 90, respectively) enrolled in the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 trial, and to identify mechanisms that determine MRD resistance in both patient subgroups (n = 40). The 36-month PFS rates were higher than 90% in patients with standard- or high-risk CAs achieving undetectable MRD. Persistent MRD resulted in a median PFS of ∼3 and 2 years in patients with standard- and high-risk CAs, respectively. Further use of NGF to isolate MRD, followed by whole-exome sequencing of paired diagnostic and MRD tumor cells, revealed greater clonal selection in patients with standard-risk CAs, higher genomic instability with acquisition of new mutations in high-risk MM, and no unifying genetic event driving MRD resistance. Conversely, RNA sequencing of diagnostic and MRD tumor cells uncovered the selection of MRD clones with singular transcriptional programs and reactive oxygen species–mediated MRD resistance in high-risk MM. Our study supports undetectable MRD as a treatment endpoint for patients with MM who have high-risk CAs and proposes characterizing MRD clones to understand and overcome MRD resistance. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01916252.

Abstract: Background: The international criteria for definition CR, requires, among other parametres, a negative IF both in serum and urine; however, urine IF is not always performed. In the belief that this lack could bias the comparison between trials, the First Trial Independent Response Adjudication Committee (FTIRAC) recommended that patients who met all CR criteria except the availability of a urine IF should be classified as VGPR (Blood 2014; 124 [abstract 3460]) but this criteria is not always applied which may translate into differences in CR rates between trials. However, it is unknown (1) if this conversion has a real clinical basis, (2) if urine IF results alter the clinical meaning of CR, or (3) on the contrary, if patients in CR with and those without a documented negative urine IF have a similar prognosis, in which case this rule would underestimate the CR rates, increasing the biases and magnifying the problem that was intended to improve. Aim: To determine the value of urine negative IF in the definition of CR. Methods: 459 patients were enrolled into the GEM2012MENOS65phase3 trial and treated with 6 induction cycles of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, HDT/ASCT and 2 consolidation courses. Evaluable patients were enrolled in a maintenance trail (NCT02406144). Excluding 6 patients who discontinued early, 453 were evaluable. At diagnosis, the M-component was detected exclusively in serum in 173 of these patients and in serum and urine in 212 patients; 68 patients had pure Bence-Jones M-protein (BJMM). The protein studies were performed in each cycle. At the time of negative IF, bone marrow aspirates were analysed for count of PCs and monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) following EuroFlow SOPs (median limit of detection of 3x10-6).The response classifications were made according to the IMWG criteria, but we applied the FTIRAC criteria, and, patients with 〈 5% BM PCs and negative serum IF but with unavailable urine IF (or vice versa for patients with BJMM) were classified as VGPR. For the purpose of this study, we called these uncertain CR (uCR). Stringent Complete Responses were classified as CR.Median follow-up was 40 months. Results: Overall, 3774 protein evolution studieswere performed: 691 (18%) in CR, 802 (21%) in uCR and 868 (23%)in VGPR.In all patients with M-component exclusively in serum at diagnosis butwith negative serum IF after treatment, and available urine IF (174 patients, 1476 protein studies), the urine paraprotein IF detection rate was 0%. In patients with a positive M-component in both serum and urine at diagnosis, but with negative serum IF after treatment, and available urine IF (212patients, 1763 protein assessment), 11 protein evaluations in 6 patients (2.8%) tested positive in urine; in other words: in 97,2% of the patients a negative serum IF predicts for negative urine.Since MRD is a robust subrogate of depth of responses (J ClinOncol. 2017;35:2900-10), we compared MRD-verates in patients achieving CR, uCR and VGPR. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the post-consolidation MRD-verates among patients in CR vsthose in uCR (68% vs 77%, P=.1), whereas significant differences were seen when comparing CR and uCRvs VGPR (23% in the latter; P≤.0001). Accordingly, a landmark analysis performed at HDT/ASCT, - time pointselected to improve the PFS observation time- , showed 2-year PFS rates of 88%, 87% and 77% inpatients in CR, uCR and VGPR, no differences in 2-year PFS rates between patients in CR vsuCR (P=.6) while patients in VGPR showed inferior PFS compared with those in uCR (P=.04). With this landmark, the MRD-negativity ratios are similar to those described after consolidation. Conclusions: In MM patients with M-component exclusively in serum at diagnosis, urine IF follow-up is unnecessary, while in patients with paraprotein in both serum and urine,a negative serum IF response is accompanied by a negative urinary IF in 97.8% of patients. Moreover, patients with CR but without available IF in urine display similar MRD-veand PFS rates compared withthose in CR. By contrast, MRD-veand PFS values in these patients are significantly superior to those in VGPR. Thus, our results suggest that, except for those with pure BJMM, patients fulfilling CR criteria but with unavailable urine IF should be classified as CR instead of VGPR. This data discourages the application of the FTIRAC conversion criteria. Also, the IMWG criteria for CR should be reviewed. Disclosures Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Puig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Garcia-Sanz:Affimed: Research Funding. Oriol:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy. De La Rubia:Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. Mateos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, 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. San-Miguel:Brystol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bladé:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Takeda: 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; 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.

Abstract: The existence of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and light-chain (AL) amyloidosis who present with a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)–like phenotype has been hypothesized, but methods to identify this subgroup are not standardized and its clinical significance is not properly validated. PATIENTS AND METHODS An algorithm to identify patients having MGUS-like phenotype was developed on the basis of the percentages of total bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) and of clonal PC within the BM PC compartment, determined at diagnosis using flow cytometry in 548 patients with MGUS and 2,011 patients with active MM. The clinical significance of the algorithm was tested and validated in 488 patients with smoldering MM, 3,870 patients with active MM and 211 patients with AL amyloidosis. RESULTS Patients with smoldering MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed significantly lower rates of disease progression (4.5% and 0% at 2 years in two independent series). There were no statistically significant differences in time to progression between treatment versus observation in these patients. In active newly diagnosed MM, MGUS-like phenotype retained independent prognostic value in multivariate analyses of progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .001) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.56; P = .039), together with International Staging System, lactate dehydrogenase, cytogenetic risk, transplant eligibility, and complete remission status. Transplant-eligible patients with active MM with MGUS-like phenotype showed PFS and OS rates at 5 years of 79% and 96%, respectively. In this subgroup, there were no differences in PFS and OS according to complete remission and measurable residual disease status. Application of the algorithm in two independent series of patients with AL predicted for different survival. CONCLUSION We developed an open-access algorithm for the identification of MGUS-like patients with distinct clinical outcomes. This phenotypic classification could become part of the diagnostic workup of MM and AL amyloidosis.

Abstract: Assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) has become standard with many tumors, but the clinical meaning of MRD in multiple myeloma (MM) remains uncertain, particularly when assessed by next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry. Thus, we aimed to determine the applicability and sensitivity of the flow MRD-negative criterion defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). PATIENTS AND METHODS In the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 trial, 458 patients with newly diagnosed MM had longitudinal assessment of MRD after six induction cycles with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), autologous transplantation, and two consolidation courses with VRD. MRD was assessed in 1,100 bone marrow samples from 397 patients; the 61 patients without MRD data discontinued treatment during induction and were considered MRD positive for intent-to-treat analysis. The median limit of detection achieved by NGF was 2.9 × 10 −6 . Patients received maintenance (lenalidomide ± ixazomib) according to the companion PETHEMA/GEM2014MAIN trial. RESULTS Overall, 205 (45%) of 458 patients had undetectable MRD after consolidation, and only 14 of them (7%) have experienced progression thus far; seven of these 14 displayed extraosseous plasmacytomas at diagnosis and/or relapse. Using time-dependent analysis, patients with undetectable MRD had an 82% reduction in the risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.30; P 〈 .001) and an 88% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29; P 〈 .001). Timing of undetectable MRD (after induction v intensification) had no impact on patient survival. Attaining undetectable MRD overcame poor prognostic features at diagnosis, including high-risk cytogenetics. By contrast, patients with Revised International Staging System III status and positive MRD had dismal progression-free and overall survivals (median, 14 and 17 months, respectively). Maintenance increased the rate of undetectable MRD by 17%. CONCLUSION The IMWG flow MRD-negative response criterion is highly applicable and sensitive to evaluate treatment efficacy in MM.

Abstract: Background: Within the spectrum of monoclonal gammopathies, there are various subgroups with unique biological and clinical profiles. Namely, the presence of multiple myeloma (MM) and light-chain amyloidosis (AL) pts with MGUS-like phenotype has been hypothesized, but the criteria to identify this subgroup are poorly defined and lack clinical validation. Aim: Develop an algorithm based on a large flow cytometry dataset across the spectrum of monoclonal gammopathies, for automated identification of MM and AL pts with MGUS-like phenotype. Methods: This study included 5,114 pts with monoclonal gammopathies and available flow cytometry data on the frequency of bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) and the percentages of normal and clonal PC within the BM PC compartment, at diagnosis. An algorithm to classify pts with MGUS-like phenotype was developed based on these three parameters, obtained from 548 MGUS, 393 smoldering MM (SMM) and 2,011 MM pts. Newly diagnosed MM pts were homogeneously treated according to the GEM2000 (n = 486), GEM2005MENOS65 (n = 330), GEM2005MAS65 (n = 239), GEM2010MAS65 (n = 230), GEM2012MENOS65 (n = 450) and CLARIDEX (n = 276) protocols. The prognostic value of the MGUS-like phenotype was validated in 96 SMM pts studied in Arkansas and 1,859 MM pts treated outside clinical trials in Czech Republic. The clinical significance of the algorithm was investigated in two independent series of Spanish (n = 102) and Italian (n = 105) AL pts. Results: The frequency of BM PC and of normal and clonal PC within the BM PC compartment were used to plot MGUS, SMM and MM pts in a principal component analysis (PCA). Lines defining 1.5 standard deviations of MGUS and MM pts were used as reference to classify each of the 5,114 cases. Once plotted against the dataset, individual pts were classified as MGUS-, intermediate- or MM-like, if their location in the PCA fell inside the MGUS, the overlapping or the MM reference lines, respectively. In the training SMM series, patient classification into MGUS-, intermediate- and MM-like phenotype resulted in significantly different rates of disease progression (0%, 54% and 66% at 5y, respectively; P & lt; .001). These results were validated in the Arkansas series (8%, 27% and 71% at 5y, respectively; P & lt; .001). Only 5% of SMM pts with high-risk disease according to Mayo or PETHEMA criteria had an MGUS-like phenotype, and these had virtually no risk of progression at 5y. In the training MM series, pts with MGUS-like phenotype showed significantly longer progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs the remaining pts. Median PFS was 10y vs 3y (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46, P & lt; .001) and median OS was not reached (NR) vs 6.5y (HR: 0.48, P & lt; .001), respectively. These results were validated in the Czech Republic series with significant differences in PFS (HR: 0.45, P & lt; .001) and OS (HR: 0.38, P & lt; .001) between MGUS-like vs other MM pts. MGUS-like classification in the training MM series retained independent prognostic value in multivariate analyses of PFS (HR: 0.48, P & lt; .001) and OS (HR: 0.54, P = .033), together with ISS, LDH, cytogenetics, induction regimen, transplant-eligibility and complete remission (CR). MGUS-like pts showed similar PFS (P = .932) and OS (P = .285) regardless of having standard vs high risk cytogenetics. Notably, MGUS-like transplant-eligible MM pts treated with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and corticoids during induction showed PFS and OS rates at 5y of 86% and 96%, respectively. Differences in PFS among MGUS-like MM pts achieving ≥CR vs & lt;CR were not significant (median of 13y vs 9y, respectively; P = .122), which suggests that attaining CR is not mandatory to reach long-term survival in this subgroup of pts, treated with fixed-duration regimens. Classification of AL pts into the MGUS-, intermediate- and MM-like phenotype resulted in significantly different PFS in the Spanish (median of 28, 20 and 1 months, respectively; P = .001) and Italian (median 32, 11 and 3 months, respectively; P & lt; .001) cohorts. Conclusions: We developed an algorithm that can be readily installed in clinical flow cytometry software, and requires three parameters that are routinely assessed at screening. Patient' automated classification using the algorithm was validated in large series across the spectrum of monoclonal gammopathies. Because pts with MGUS-like phenotype have a distinct clinical behavior, their identification could become part of the diagnostic workup in SMM, MM and AL. Disclosures Cedena: Janssen, Celgene and Abbvie: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Cordon: Cytognos SL: Research Funding. Oriol: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. de la Rubia: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb,: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria; Ablynx/Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Arriba: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Cabañas: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Gonzalez De La Calle: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Rodríguez-Otero: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, 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; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and other expenses. Hajek: Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jimenez-Zepeda: BMS, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen: Honoraria. Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Siemens: Honoraria. Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen and Takeda: Honoraria. Bladé Creixenti: Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen and Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Martínez-López: Janssen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte, Roche, GSK, Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche, Novartis, Incyte, Astellas, BMS: Research Funding. Mateos: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; Celgene - 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; Sea-Gen: 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; AbbVie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. San-Miguel: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board. Paiva: Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Consultancy; Adaptive, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Sanofi and Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, EngMab, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract: The genetic heterogeneity of multiple myeloma (MM) makes it unlikely that established or novel chemotherapy could be equally effective in all genetic subgroups. Therefore, genetics alone is insufficient to fully capture different disease outcomes, and there is growing body of evidence showing that detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), using immunophenotypic or molecular-based approaches, also provides powerful independent prognostic information particularly among transplant-eligible patients. However, it is perhaps in elderly MM, the major patient subgroup and in which optimal balance between efficacy and toxicity is critical, that sensitive response assessment could help to tailor patients’ treatment. Here, we used for the first time sensitive 8-color multidimensional flow cytometry (cut-off of 10-5) to monitor MRD among elderly MM patients included in the PETHEMA/GEM2010MAS65 trial (sequential chemotherapy with 9 cycles of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) followed by 9 cycles of lenalidomide-low dose dexamethasone (Rd), or alternating cycles of VMP and Rd up to 18 cycles). A single 8-color antibody combination (CD45-PacB/CD138-OC515/CD38-FITC/CD56-PE/CD27-PerCPCy5.5/CD19-PECy7/CD117-APC/CD81-APCH7) was used to detect phenotypically aberrant clonal plasma cells (PCs), and MRD-negativity was defined when & lt;20 clonal PCs were detected among ≥2.000.000 leukocytes ( & lt;0.001%). MRD assessment was centralized in three PETHEMA/GEM laboratory-cores, cytometrists were blinded to all clinical data, and results were prospectively uploaded into a locked intranet dataset. Median follow-up of the series was 27 months, and time-to-progression (TTP) / overall survival (OS) was measured from the moment of MRD assessment. First, we evaluated the MRD status at cycle 9 of chemotherapy (n=117), and no significant differences were observed for MRD-negative rates between the sequential vs alternating regimens (23% vs 25%; P = .86). However, when we focused on patients in complete response (CR; n=41) and compared the quality of CR achieved in each arm according to patients’ MRD status, we found significantly higher frequencies of MRD-negative rates after the sequential vs alternating schema (75% vs 40%; P = .03). Patients in CR attaining MRD-negativity at cycle 9 showed a significantly prolonged TTP (100% vs 41% at 2-years; P = .001) as well as OS (100% vs 71% at 2-years; P= .03) as compared to patients in CR but with persistent MRD cells. To understand the kinetics of MDR response with sequential vs alternating 18 cycles of chemotherapy, we focused on 72 patients with paired Flow-MRD assessments at cycles 9 and 18. No MRD-negative patients at cycle 9 turned into MRD-positive at cycle 18; however, 21% of MRD-positive patients at cycle 9 became MRD-negative at cycle 18, with no significant differences between rates of transformation after sequential vs alternating regimens (P = .23). At the end of cycle 18, MRD-negative rates among patients randomized to the sequential vs alternating schema were of 48% vs 31% (P = .08), and the quality of CR (according to patients’ MRD status) was slightly but not significantly superior in the sequential vs alternating arm (66% vs 48%; P = .16). Again, patients in CR at cycle 18 attaining MRD-negativity showed superior TTP as compared to those in CR with persistent MRD: TTP at 2-years of 83% vs 56% (P= .06). We also compared the impact of Flow-MRD among cytogenetically defined standard- and high-risk [+1q, t(4;14), t(14;16), and/or del(17p)] patient subgroups (n=125). As expected, standard-risk patients attaining MRD-negativity had significantly prolonged TTP as compared to MRD-positive patients (94% vs 58% at 2-years; P = .035); however, also high-risk cytogenetic patients achieving Flow-CR showed significantly superior TTP (median not reached vs 10 months; P= .001). In summary, we unravel the clinical impact of sensitive Flow-MRD monitoring (10-5) among elderly MM patients in which attaining MRD-negativity, particularly early in therapy, translated into virtually relapse-free intervals at 2-years. In parallel, we also show the value of sensitive MRD kinetics to understand the benefit of additional (sequential or alternating) chemotherapy to further reduce MRD levels, as well as the significance of Flow-MRD among cytogenetically defined standard- and high-risk patents. Disclosures Paiva: Millenium: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Ocio:Array Biopharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rosiñol:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gutierrez:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Blade:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Mateos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. San Miguel:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract: MRD monitoring is one of the most relevant prognostic factors in elderly MM patients, irrespective of age or cytogenetic risk. Second-generation MFC immune profiling concomitant to MRD monitoring also helped to identify patients with different outcomes.

Abstract: Melphalan, in combination with bortezomib, should be maintained as one of the standards of care for the treatment of elderly MM patients. Complete response and particularly flow complete response should be an important goal in the treatment of elderly myeloma patients.