Abstract: Rituximab is a standard treatment for non‐Hodgkin diffuse large B‐cell (DLBCL) and follicular (FL) lymphomas. A subcutaneous formulation was developed to improve the resource use of intravenous rituximab, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles except for increased administration‐related reactions (ARRs). MabRella was a phase IIIb trial to assess the safety of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous administration of rituximab during first‐line induction/maintenance for DLBCL or FL, focusing on ARRs. Efficacy, satisfaction and quality of life were also assessed. Patients received subcutaneous rituximab plus standard induction chemotherapy for DLBCL or FL for 4–7 cycles, and/or every 2 months maintenance monotherapy for FL for 6–12 cycles. The study included 140 patients: DLBCL, n  = 29; FL, n  = 111. Ninety‐five percent of patients experienced adverse events, reaching grade ≥3 in 38·6% and were serious in 30·0%. AARs occurred in 48·6%, mostly (84·9%) at the injection site, with only 2·1% of patients reaching grade 3. The end‐of‐induction complete/unconfirmed complete response rate was 69·6%. After a median follow‐up of 33·5 months, median disease‐/event‐/progression‐free and overall survivals were not attained. The Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire showed improvements in overall satisfaction and the EuroQoL‐5D a good quality‐of‐life perception at induction/maintenance end. Therefore, switching to subcutaneous rituximab showed no new safety issues and maintained efficacy with improved satisfaction and quality of life.

Abstract: Introduction: The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) has been approved on monotherapy or combined with rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL patients (pts) and combined with obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL pts. However, evidence from clinical trials can be difficult to generalize to real-world patient populations. The VENARES study assesses the real-world use of Ven following approval to inform of subpopulations underrepresented in clinical trials. Methods: This is Spanish non-interventional retrospective, multicenter post-marketing observational study. The main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of Ven in adult CLL pts by the overall response rate (ORR) at 9 months (mo) after the first Ven dose administration. Secondary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness for the Ven monotherapy and the Ven combined with rituximab subpopulations. Consecutive adult pts with diagnosis of CLL who have initiated Ven at least 9 mo before the inclusion in the study were included. Data of pts are retrospectively reviewed until the date of last follow-up or death. Results: 125 pts diagnosed with CLL and who met the eligibility criteria were analyzed. The median age was 72 years (67 - 77) with 76.8% being older than 65 years. Most patients were male (68.8%), had a concurrent disease (65.6%). ECOG PS was recorded in 76 pts: 40 pts (32%) had PS 0, 30 pts (24%) PS 1 and 6 pts (4.8%) PS 2. Pts had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range 1-13 lines). At baseline, among the 92 pts with known Binet stage, 31 (33.7%) had stage C and 38 (41.3%) had stage B; bulky nodes ≥ 5 cm were present in 20 of 87 pts; 49 pts (39.2%) had an absolute lymphocyte count ≥ 25 x 10 9/L and 33 of 54 pts (61%) baseline beta-2 microglobulin value above of 3500 ng/mL. In total, 29 of 90 patients (32%) assessed had Cr 17p deletion, 28 of 86 patients (32%) tested had TP53 mutations, and 46 of 56 patients (82%) who were tested had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) status. Ven was administered as monotherapy in 71 pts (57.6%), combined with rituximab in 36 pts (28.8%), combined with obinutuzumab in 5 pts (4%) and combined with other drugs in 13 pts (10.4%). 83 of 125 patients included were evaluable for the primary objective of the study: the ORR at 9 mo was 84.3% (70 patients): CR/CRi in 44 (53%) pts, PR/nPR in 26 pts (31.3%), SD in 9 pts (10.8%) and PD in 4 pts (4.8%). By treatment, in the evaluable patients, ORR at 9 months were 79.2% (38 of 48 patients) in the Ven monotherapy group, with 45% of CR/CRi, and 92.3% (24 of 26 patients) in the Ven combined with rituximab, with 61% CR/Cri. The median duration of PFS was not reached at the time of the analysis (1-June-2021). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability of PFS at 24 mo was 75.4% (95% CI, 58.2 - 86.3). Disease progression occurred in 21 pts. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) was available for 32 patients (25.6%) on the basis of peripheral-blood samples, bone marrow or both. Best undetectable MRD was reached in fourteen patients (43.8%). uMRD was more common in pts treated with Ven combined with R (83.3%, 5 of 6 pts) than in pts treated with Ven monotherapy (33.3%, 7 of 21 pts). Adverse events (AEs) were reported during Ven therapy in all 125 patients, 93 of these pts reported AEs related to Ven. Related to Ven, 67 patients (53.6%) experienced at least one AE: 52 pts (41.6%) had neutropenia being grade 3 and 4 in 22 (42.3%) and 9 (17.3%) pts, respectively. 9 pts (7.2%) had febrile neutropenia. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were less common occurring in 5.6% and 2.4%, respectively. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred in 4 of 125 pts during ramp-up (3 laboratory and 1 clinical), 2 of them were related to Ven both lab TLS. None of the pts discontinued therapy due to TLS. Richter transformation was observed in 6 pts (4.8%). Other common AEs was diarrhea (10.4%), but most cases were mild. Conclusions: Our first real-world data show that Ven monotherapy or combined with rituximab is effective in highly pre-treated CLL patients, ORR at 9 mo was 84.3% in all population and PFS estimate at 24 mo was 75.4% with similar outcomes to those in the pivotal clinical trials. The safety profile of Ven was consistent with prior experience of Ven in monotherapy or combined with rituximab and no new safety signals were detected. Disclosures Baltasar: Janssen, Abbvie: Consultancy. Terol: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Hospital Clinico Valencia: Current Employment. Moreno: Janssen, Abbvie: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Osorio: Janssen, Abbvie, Roche: Consultancy. De la Cruz: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JANSSEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirkin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. de la Serna: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Roche: Speakers Bureau; ABBVIE, ASTRAZENECA,ROCHE: Research Funding; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Jazzpharma, Novartis, Roche: Consultancy. Arguiñano: Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy. Loscertales: Janssen, Abbvie, Roche, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Roche, Gilead: Consultancy. García: Janssen, Roche, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen, AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie, Celgene: Other: medical meetings funding. Pérez Persona: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Pérez-Encinas: Janssen: Consultancy. Caballero: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen: Consultancy. Ruiz-Zorrilla: Abbvie: Current Employment. Moreno: abbvie: Current Employment. Ferrà: Janssen, Roche, Gilead, Takeda, Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie: Other: medical meetings funding.

Abstract: Continuous treatment with lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (d) is a standard of care for multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts) not candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). As previously reported, the addition of Clarithromycin (C) to Rd has proven to be safe and effective, and case-control analyses suggested a significant additive value with the combination. C optimizes the therapeutic effect of glucocorticoids by increasing the area under the curve, has immunomodulatory effects and may have direct antineoplastic properties. However, there are not randomized phase III trials confirming these results. GEM-Claridex in an open, randomized, phase III trial for untreated newly diagnosed MM pts ineligible for ASCT. Enrolled pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 28-day cycles of R (25mg po qd days 1-21), d (40mg po [20mg in pts & gt;75 years], days 1, 8, 15 and 22) plus or minus C (500mg po bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate and safety. MRD was evaluated in 99 pts using Euroflow NGF (limit of detection, 2x10-6). As expected, most pts in CR were tested for MRD whereas the majority of pts with missing MRD data achieved VGPR or less and were thus considered as MRD-positive for intent to treat analyses. Two hundred and eighty-eight pts were included (144 to C-Rd and 144 to Rd). Median age was 76 (range: 65-93), 36.8% of pts had ISS 3 and 15.6% presented with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The addition of C to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a ≥ complete response (CR) rate of 20.1% in the C-Rd arm compared to 11.2% in the Rd arm (p = 0.037). Also, the ≥ very good partial response (VGPR) rate was 52.8% in the C-Rd arm as compared to the 37.1% in the Rd arm (p = 0.007). MRD analysis was performed at suspected CR and yearly afterwards. On intent-to-treat, 5/144 (3,5%) and 9/143 (6,2%) of pts achieved undetectable MRD with C-Rd and Rd, respectively (p = 0,7). With a median follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-47), no significant differences were observed in PFS: in the C-Rd arm the median was 23 months and has not been reached in the Rd arm (p = 0.09); furthermore, although disease progression and/or death rate was comparable in both arms (C-Rd: 57/144 [39.6%] vs Rd: 45/144 [31.2%] ), a trend towards shorter PFS was observed in the C-Rd group (Figure 1). This effect was less evident in younger ( & lt;75) pts (median PFS, C-Rd: 24 months vs Rd NR, p = 0,588) but, in older pts (≥ 75), the addition of C to Rd resulted into a significant deleterious effect on PFS (median PFS, C-Rd: 19 vs Rd 28 months, p = 0.03) (Figure 2a and 2b). Irrespectively of treatment arm, pts with MRD negative had significantly longer PFS (NR vs 26 months, p = 0,03). Concerning OS, no differences have been identified (p = 0.41), although median has not been reached yet in any arm. Out of the 33 and 28 deaths documented in the C-Rd and Rd arms respectively, the percentage of pts dying w/o documented PD was significantly higher in the C-Rd group (27/33 [82%] vs 13/27 [48%] , p = 0.004). Furthermore, in the C-Rd arm, the most frequent causes of death were severe infections (14/27 [52%] and cardiovascular events 6/27 [22%] ) the majority of them occurring in older (≥75) pts (20/27, 74%). The most common G3-4 adverse events (AE) in the C-Rd and Rd arms were hematologic (neutropenia: 10,4% vs 16,7% [p = ns] and anemia: 2,1% vs 6,9% [p = 0,04] , respectively). G3-4 infections occurred in 16% of cases in both arms and were the most frequent non-hematological AE. 7% of pts in both arms developed G3-4 GI toxicity and there were no differences between the two arms in G3-4 skin-related AEs (2,8% vs 3,5%). Only one case of invasive SPM (colon cancer) in the C-Rd arm was reported. In conclusion, the addition of C to Rd in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed MM pts significantly increases the rate and depth of responses but it is not associated with an improved PFS and OS due to a higher proportion of deaths in the C-Rd arm, mostly infectious, in pts & gt; 75 years and being early deaths. Overexposure to steroids due to the delayed clearance induced by C in this elderly population could explain our results. Figure Disclosures Puig: The Binding Site: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rosinol Dachs:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen and Takeda: Honoraria. De Arriba:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. De La Rubia:AbbVie: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Amor:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martín Sánchez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Rossi:BMS: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Consultancy. Coleman:Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Gilead, Bayer, Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; unrestricted grants from Celgene, EngMab, Sanofi, and Takeda; and consultancy for Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bladé:Jansen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen and Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Niesvizky:Takeda, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mateos:EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; 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; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria.

Abstract: Introduction. Ibrutinib is a first-in-class, oral, once-a-day Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor that achieves high overall response rates and durable remissions in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) including those with high-risk features (unmutated IGHV, TP53 abnormalities, 11q deletion). Survival with continuous single-agent ibrutinib in previously-untreated CLL patients is comparable to an age-matched general population (Figure 1). IBRORS is an observational, retrospective, multicentre study to describe the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with CLL treated with single-agent ibrutinib in routine clinical practice in Spain. This present analysis reviews the subset of patients in IBRORS who received ibrutinib as the first-line of treatment. This series includes a significant number of patients with high risk cytogenetic/molecular alterations (del17p/TP53 M), which corresponds with the approved indication for first-line CLL patients in Spain at the time. Methods. Adult patients diagnosed with CLL treated with single-agent ibrutinib in first-line, or at first or second relapse since its commercialization in Spain (between January 2016 to January 2019) were included in the IBRORS study. Clinical characteristics of patients, efficacy and tolerability of ibrutinib as first-line treatment were analyzed here. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results. 84 patients, from a total of 269 included in IBRORS, received single-agent ibrutinib as first-line treatment. The median age was 71.3 years (range 63-77) at the time of ibrutinib initiation. 56.3% of patients presented with an intermediate/high-risk Rai-Binet stage, and the majority of patients (98.6%) had an ECOG PS of 0-1. 91.7% of patients had at least 1 high risk molecular cytogenetic factor (unmutated IGHV, TP53 abnormalities, 11q deletion or complex karyotype) described in table 1. Baseline comorbidities of patients are described in table 2. Concomitant medication included anticoagulants (9.5% patients; vitamin K antagonist [n=4], Apixaban [n=1] and LMWH [n=3] patients), antiplatelet agents (11.9% patients), and antihypertensives (50% patients). The overall response rate (ORR) was 79.5%; 14/84 (16.6%) achieved a complete response (CR), 14/84 (16.6%) achieved CR unconfirmed, 27/84 (32.14%) achieved a partial response (PR) and 12/84 (14.2%) a PR + lymphocytosis. The median PFS and OS were not reached, and the estimated PFS at 24 months was 84.5% (73.4-95.6%). OS and PFS curves are represented in figure 2. The PFS of each patient subgroup with high-risk cytogenetic characteristics was similar to that of all patients in the first-line cohort: del17p/TP53 mutation (HR = 0.963 [95% CI 0.188-4.928]; p = 0.964), del11q (HR = 0.042 [95% CI 0.000-682.736] ; p=0.521), unmutated IGHV (HR = 0.391 [95% CI 0.110-1.394]; p = 0.148). The median duration of exposure to ibrutinib was 17.3 (11.9-25.6) months. Dose reduction of ibrutinib occurred in 17/84 (20.2%) patients, 8/84 (9.52%) due to toxicity (4 hematologic toxicity and 4 non-hematologic toxicity). 27/84 (32.1%) patients had temporary interruption of treatment. 15/84 (17.8%) patients permanently discontinued ibrutinib including 6 (7.14%) patients due to progression, 4 (4.76%) due to toxicity and 5 for other reasons. Safety: 49/84 (58.3%) patients developed at least one adverse event (AE), while 12/84 (14.2%) patients developed at least one serious adverse event (SAE). Twelve (14.3%) patients reported at least one haematological toxicity while 53 patients (63.1%) recorded at least one non-haematological toxicity. Only 1 patient experienced grade 3 atrial fibrillation, which did not lead to discontinuation. The most common AEs are described in table 3. Conclusion. This population of previously-untreated CLL patients, enriched for high-risk genomic features, reflects the initial approval of ibrutinib for the treatment of first-line patients with del17p in Spain. Single-agent Ibrutinib as the first-line treatment in this real world population was effective regardless of risk factors and well tolerated, with a low rate of discontinuation due to toxicity. Findings are consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Disclosures Loscertales: 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; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria. Arguiñano:AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS-Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Hernandez-Rivas:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rovi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pérez Persona:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy. Loriente:Janssen Cilag: Current Employment. Villanueva:Janssen Cilag: Current Employment.

Abstract: 7540 Background: Tafasitamab is a humanized, Fc-modified anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody that enhances antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. It is FDA-approved with LEN for adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. First-MIND (NCT04134936) is a Phase Ib, open-label, randomized study of tafa + R-CHOP or tafa + LEN + R-CHOP in newly diagnosed DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years, treatment-naïve, with histologically confirmed DLBCL not otherwise specified, international prognostic index (IPI) 2–5 and ECOG performance status (PS) 0–2. Pts with known double- or triple-hit and transformed lymphoma were excluded. Treatment (Tx) comprised six 21-day cycles of tafa (12 mg/kg IV, Day [D] 1, 8, 15) + R-CHOP (arm A) or tafa (12 mg/kg IV, D1, 8, 15) + LEN (25 mg orally, D1–10) + R-CHOP (arm B). G-CSF and VTE prophylaxis was mandatory. Primary objective is safety; secondary objectives are ORR, PET-CR rate at end of Tx, PFS, long-term safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity. Results: From Dec 2019 to Aug 2020, 83 pts were screened in Europe and the US; 66 were randomized (33 per arm). Data cut-off for this analysis: 9 Dec 2020; study is ongoing. Median age was 64.5 years (range 20–86). Overall, 30% (20/66) of pts were ≥70 years and many had high-risk disease: IPI 2 29%, IPI 3 46%, IPI 4 26%. ECOG PS: 47% of pts were ECOG PS 0, 44% PS 1, 9% PS 2. Most pts had stage III/IV disease (92%); 46% had bulky disease. All pts experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 54.5% and 12.1% (arm A) and 66.7% and 30.3% (arm B) of pts, respectively (Table). Serious TEAEs occurred in 42.4% (arm A) and 51.5% (arm B) of pts. There were three deaths, unrelated to tafa and/or LEN (sepsis, urosepsis, and COVID-19 pneumonia). R-CHOP dose intensity was maintained in both arms. Among 60 pts who completed tumor assessments after cycle 3, ORR was 89.7% (arm A) and 93.5% (arm B). Conclusions: These data suggest R-CHOP + tafa or tafa + LEN is tolerable in pts with Tx-naïve DLBCL and that R-CHOP dosing is not affected. Toxicities are similar to those expected with R-CHOP or R-CHOP + LEN. Updated safety and early efficacy data will be presented at the conference. Clinical trial information: NCT04134936. [Table: see text]

Abstract: Introduction: Over the last few years, novel agents-based combinations have been incorporated into the treatment of MM patients, particularly in relapse setting. However, these novel combinations have been evaluated in clinical trials and patients included represent a selected population. Patients in real life are usually older with comorbidities and disabilities and not allowed to be included in the trials, so, in real setting, is expected worse outcomes and shorter survival. The information about treatment burden in real life is scarce. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcome of MM patients in the real life outside clinical trials, in terms of treatment lines in a single institution setting, and to analyze the influence of comorbidities on the treatment burden. Material and methods: Medical records of MM patients treated at Txagorritxu hospital (Spain) between 2009 and January 2017 were retrospectively evaluated with the aim of mapping the course of patients as well as to investigate the factors that influence treatment-decisions at different stages of the disease. Results: 176 patients with MM were diagnosed from jan-2009 to jan-2017. Baseline patient's characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median age at diagnosis was 71 years (range 33.2-93), main of the patients where non-transplant eligible newly diagnosed MM (NTENDMM): 114 (65%). With a median follow-up of 25 months, 90.6% of newly diagnosed MM patients transplant-eligible (TENDMM) remain alive versus 65% NTENDMM patients (p value: 0.000)(figure 1). Overall, patients received a median of 2 lines of treatment, it should be noted that 86% of patients had received 3 or less lines of treatment and only 14% of the patients could receive more than 3 lines of therapy. To better evaluate treatment burden, we focused on deceased patients. At the time of analysis, 19% of TENDMM (12 patients) and 51.4% of in NTENDMM (57 patients) has died with a median time to death of 29.6 months and 18 months to death, respectively. Median lines of therapy for death patients TENDMM was 3.5 (range 1-8), with a 75 percentile of 5 lines of therapy, by contrast, death NTENDMM patients received a median of 2 lines of therapy (range: 1-6), with an 80 percentile of 3 lines of therapy (figure 2). In order to evaluate the influence of comorbidities in treatment burden for NTENDMM patients, CIRS score was estimated retrospectively. Median CIRS score was 5.5 (1-19). CIRS scale did not predict progression free survival (PFS) among the different groups: CIRS 〈 4: 23.4 months; CIRS4-8: 25.1 months and CIRS 〉 8: 30.6 months (p: 0.819), however, interestingly CIRS scale predicted overall survival (OS): CIRS 〈 4: 48 moths; CIRS4-8: 50.8 months and CIRS 〉 8: 12.3 months, (p: 0.012) (figure 2). Analyzing treatment burden for each CIRS score group 63% of patients with CIRS 〉 8 received only one line of treatment before death, compared to 39.5% and 37.5% of patients with CIRS4-8 and CIRS 〈 4, respectively. Conclusion: Although the impressive progress in the management of relapse/refractory MM patients in recent years, half of the patients, particularly those not suitable to received an autologous transplant, will be able to received only 2 lines of treatment before dying. In fact, an adequate comorbidity assessment could select patients that will only need only one line of treatment. To the best of our known, this is the first study that correlate treatment burden according to comorbidities at diagnostic. This study could guide strategies adapted according to the comorbidity of the patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Introduction Approximately 15-20% of treatment-naïve patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have CD20-low tumors, while CD19 is homogeneously expressed in & gt;90% of cases of DLBCL. CD20-low DLBCL is associated with poor response to rituximab-based regimens (Johnson NA, et al. 2009). CD19 functions as a positive regulator of B-cell receptor signaling and is important for B-cell activation and proliferation and is therefore an attractive therapeutic target in addition to CD20. Tafasitamab (MOR208) is a humanized, Fc-enhanced, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody with improved antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and phagocytosis. Monotherapy with tafasitamab has shown clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Jurczak W, et al. 2018). In the Phase II, single-arm L-MIND study (NCT02399085) in patients with R/R DLBCL, combined treatment of tafasitamab with lenalidomide resulted in a high proportion of patients having a complete response (Salles GA, et al. 2020). First-MIND (NCT04134936) is a Phase Ib, randomized study of tafasitamab + R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab + lenalidomide + R-CHOP (Arm B) in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Here, we report data from the safety run-in phase. Study design and methods Patients must be aged ≥18 years, treatment naïve, with histologically confirmed DLBCL not otherwise specified and have intermediate- to high-risk disease (International Prognostic Index [IPI] 2-5) and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. Known double- or triple-hit lymphoma and transformed lymphoma are excluded. Treatment consists of six 21-day cycles of tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously [IV] , on Day [D] 1, 8 and 15) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, on D1, 8 and 15) + lenalidomide (25 mg orally, on D1-10) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm B). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in all patients. The study includes a safety run-in phase and a main phase. In the safety run-in phase, 24 patients were enrolled. The primary objective is to assess safety; secondary objectives include ORR, PET-CR rate at end of treatment, PFS, event-free survival, long-term safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of tafasitamab. Exploratory objectives include the assessment of circulating cell-free tumor DNA. Approximately 60 patients will be recruited in 9 countries across Europe and the US. Results Recruitment is ongoing. Thirty-six patients were randomized; 18 in each arm. The data presented for the safety run-in phase consist of 24 patients: 13 patients in Arm A and 11 patients in Arm B. All completed the first treatment cycle; 88% of patients entered into Cycle 2 and 50% of patients entered into Cycle 3 of treatment. At baseline, their median age was 67 years (range: 47-76; Arm A) and 65 years (range: 40-74; Arm B). Overall, 33% of patients were male and 67% female; IPI scores were: IPI 2, 33%; IPI 3, 42%; IPI 4, 25%. Most patients had advanced stages III/IV (92%) and approximately 50% had bulky disease. Cell of origin was determined to be germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL in 13%, non-GCB DLBCL in 42% and not yet classified in 46% of cases. A total of 248 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) by system organ class were documented: 111 in Arm A and 137 in Arm B. Grade ≥3 neutropenia was observed in 54% (Arm A) and 46% (Arm B) of patients. Thrombocytopenia Grade ≥3 was observed in 8% (Arm A) and 18% (Arm B) of patients. Diarrhea, fatigue and vomiting were comparable between the two arms. Febrile neutropenia was uncommon in both arms, with one event each (Figure 1). To date, 23 serious AEs were observed: 11 in Arm A (Grade 2, 1; Grade 3, 6; Grade 4, 4) and 12 in Arm B (Grade 2, 3; Grade 3, 7; Grade 4, 2). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in Arm B - pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. No treatment-associated deaths occurred. Conclusions R-CHOP can be safely combined with tafasitamab or tafasitamab + lenalidomide in patients with treatment-naïve DLBCL. Toxicities appear to be similar to what is expected with R-CHOP alone or in combination with lenalidomide. Enrollment is ongoing and updated safety and early efficacy data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Belada: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. André:Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Amgen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Celgene: Other, Research Funding; CHU UCL Namur, site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Pérez Persona:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy. Klöpfer:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brackertz:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lohrmann:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Lahiry:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Shah:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Brugger:MorphoSys AG: Current Employment. Burke:Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy.

Abstract: Monoclonal Gammopathy of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) is a monoclonal disorder defined by the presence of a serum monoclonal protein 〈 3g/dL, bone marrow plasma cells 〈 10% and absence of end-organ damage. The risk of progression to multiple myeloma (MM) is about 1% per year, and therefore these patients require long follow-up. Accordingly, the definition of new parameters that could be used for the identification of patients at risk of progression could be of great value. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the utility of multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) for predicting the risk of progression of MGUS patients. From January 1996 to September 2004, bone marrow aspirate samples from 350 patients, who fulfil the criteria of MGUS according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, were analysed by multiparametric flow cytometry. A specific gate on PC was performed based on CD138/CD38 expression and FSC/SSC characteristics and PC were immunophenotypically classified as normal (polyclonal) or aberrant (clonal) according to the expression of CD138, CD38, CD45, CD19 and CD56 antigens. Twenty seven patients (8 %) progressed to MM, with a median time to progression (TTP) of 46 months (range 9 to 109 months). Interestingly, the percentage of aberrant PC within the total BM PC compartment (aPC/BMPCc) clearly identify patients at different risk of progression. Thus, TTP in patients with ≥ 95% aPC/BMPCc was 85 months vs not reached cases with 〈 95% aPC/BMPCc (p=0.0000). Other parameters with a significant influence on progression in the univariate analysis were: paraprotein level (higher vs lower of 2 mg/dl; p= 0.0004), the presence of immunoparesis (no paresis vs. decreased levels in one or two Ig. p= 0.0005), Bence-Jones proteinuria (p= 0.0003), PC BM infiltration assessed both by morphology and flow cytometry (p=0.0074; and p= 0.001, respectively), and DNA index assessed by flow cytometry (diploid vs aneuploid; p=0.0064). Moreover, the cut off level of 95% aPC/BMPCc, also allows the discrimination of two risk categories upon considering only patients at low risk of progression, based on a low paraprotein level or absence of inmunoparesis (p= 0.0000 and p= 0.0000, respectively). On multivariate analysis only the percentage of aPC/BMPCc (≥95%) (p=0.000), the DNA index (p=0.007), and the Bence-Jones proteinuria (p=0.000) showed independent prognostic value. In summary, our results show that multiparameter FC evaluation of BMPC at diagnosis is a simple, cost-effective and valuable tool for predicting the risk of progression of MGUS patients.

Abstract: Background Older patients are increasingly prevalent in oncological practice. However, the evidence suggests that this group of patients is undertreated, mainly because of their advanced age, regardless of whether they are highly functional patients, do not present comorbidities, or could benefit from oncological therapies. The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology have recommended that some form of geriatric assessment should be conducted to help Hematologists and Oncologists in order to identify current health problems and to guide interventions to reduce adverse outcomes and optimize the functional status Currently, the main tool for assessing older patients is a comprehensive geriatric assessment, although its complexity and duration may hinder its regular use in daily practice as a tool for clinical decision making. Several attempts have been made to assess comorbidities in the specific field of mielodysplasia, but mainly focused on organic damage rather than global assessment. Aim We are in the process of developing and validating a comprehensive health status assessment scale (Geriatric Assessment in Hematology, GAH Scale) with eight dimensions in patients ≥ 65 years with: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) and multiple myeloma (MM). Methods After item-pool generation, stakeholder consultation and content validation, a brief scale of 8 dimensions with selected items has been created. Feasibility was confirmed in 83 patients. Afterwards, a multicenter, observational, prospective study has been carried out in 20 hospitals in Spain, enrolling 189 elderly naïve to treatment patients with newly diagnosed MDS, AML or MM. The scale validation process integrates the analysis of criterion and concept validity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability, as well as the evaluation of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and factor analysis. After psychometric validation phase, further studies will be carried out in order to evaluate its clinical use for prognosis and clinical decision making. Results 189 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria have been enrolled in the study, 54% women. Median age at diagnosis was 73.3 ± 6.64 years. According to diagnosis, 103 patients (54.5%) had MDS or AML and 86 (45.5%) had MM. Regarding feasibility, mean time for filling in the questionnaire was 12.1 ± 4.5 min. 83.6% of patients answered 100% of questions of the scale. Mean percentage of unanswered questions per patient was 1%. Test-retest was completed by 112 patients. GAH Scale showed satisfactory test-retest reliability. ICC was statistically significant for each dimension, being greater than 0.65 for 6 of the 8 dimensions (p 〈 0.05), indicating that GAH Scale is independent of the observer and is stable in clinically stable patients along the time. Floor and ceiling effects were no detected. Internal consistency, content validity and factor analysis are being carried out and results will be presented in the forthcoming congress. Conclusion This new GAH Scale is a valid, reliable and consistent tool, simple enough to assess health status in older patients with haematological malignancies. Further studies will have to stablish if it may be a tool to improve decision making in such patients. Disclosures: Bonanad: Celgene: Consultancy. Gonzalez:Celgene: Consultancy. Durán:Celgene: Employment. Marcos:Celgene: Employment. López:Celgene: Employment. Cruz-Jentoft:Celgene: Research Funding.