Abstract: Carfilzomib is a novel generation proteasome inhibitor. The Carmysap trial demonstrated that twice-weekly KMP (carfilzomib, melphalan, prednisone) might challenge the MPV (melphalan, prednisone, bortezomib) standard. We sought to study KMP weekly, allowing to increase carfilzomib's dose with maintained efficacy and improved safety profile. Patients and Methods: IFM2012-03, a phase I multicenter study of KMP weekly in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (eNDMM), aimed to determine the MTD of carfilzomib. Carfilzomib was given intravenously at 36, 45, 56, and 70 mg/m2/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with melphalan and prednisone, for nine 35-day induction cycles, followed by carfilzomib maintenance for 1 year. Three dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) determined MTD at the lower dose. Results: Thirty eNDMMs were treated, 6 per cohort at 36, 45, and 56 mg/m2 and 12 at 70 mg/m². There was one DLT at 36 mg/m2 (lymphopenia), one at 45 mg/m2 (lysis syndrome), two at 56 mg/m2 (cardiac insufficiency and febrile neutropenia), and two at 70 mg/m2 (vomiting and elevated liver enzymes). The safety profile was acceptable; however, specific attention must be paid to the risk of cardiovascular events, especially for elderly patients. The overall response rate was 93.3%, with 46.6% complete response. Conclusions: The MTD dose of carfilzomib was 70 mg/m2 in this KMP weekly study in eNDMM. Response rates, and especially CR rate, were remarkable in this population, and would benefit from being assessed in a larger-scale study. The IFM2012-03 study demonstrated that the MTD of carfilzomib weekly is 70 mg/m2 in eNDMM, and 56 mg/m2 for patients older than 75 years. Carfilzomib used weekly in combination has a good efficacy and safety profile in eNDMM.

Abstract: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) discontinuation is an emerging goal in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) management and several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of safely stopping imatinib. A sustained deep molecular response on long-term TKI is critical prior to attempting treatment-free remission. Reproducible results from several studies reported recently, failed to identify robust and reproducible predictive factors for the selection of the best candidates for successful TKI cessation. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective national phase II study evaluating the cessation of imatinib after at least 2 years of MR4.5 obtained on imatinib first-line in patients with chronic phase CML. Results: A total of 218 patients with de novo chronic phase CML were involved in the study. The median follow-up after imatinib cessation was 23.5 (1–64) months, 2 patients died from unrelated causes, and 107 experienced a confirmed increase in BCR-ABL1 levels defined as molecular recurrence. The molecular recurrence-free survival was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI), 45%–59%] at 6 months, and 50% (95% CI, 43%–57%) at 24 months. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used to evaluate more accurately low levels of BCR-ABL1 in 175 of 218 patients at imatinib cessation. To apply positive BCR-ABL1/ABL1 ratios on the international scale (IS), a conversion factor was calculated for ddPCR and the significant cut-off point was established at 0.0023%IS. In a multivariate analysis, the duration of TKI (≥74.8 months) and ddPCR (≥0.0023%IS) were the two identified predictive factors of molecular recurrence, with P = 0.0366 (HR, 0.635; 95% CI, 0.415–0.972] and P = 0.008 (HR, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.360–0.858), respectively. Conclusions: We conclude that the duration of TKI and residual leukemic cell load as determined by ddPCR are key factors for predicting successful treatment-free remission for patients with de novo chronic phase CML. See related commentary by Yan et al., p. 6561

Abstract: Background. Progression by serum free light chain (sFLC) test without or preceding progression with intact immunoglobulin (Ig) is called light chain escape. This event alone is not considered a progression for patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) according to International guidelines, although it is often considered a progression in real life and by clinical trials' investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether light chain escape would be a predictor of relapse and thus question a possible need to modify the current criteria for progression according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Material and method. We have reviewed 325 (323 for analysis) patients that presented with a progression in the IFM/DFCI2009 phase 3 study (Attal et al. NEJM 2017). Among these 323 patients, 260 had initial tumor bulk measurement with intact Ig by serum protein electrophoresis test (SPEP; Ig ≥ 10 g/L) and 63 light chain MM (Ig 〈 10 g/L) measured using urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP). All progressions were validated in the central laboratory of CHU de Nantes (Dr T. Dejoie) and followed IMWG recommendations. sFLC increase was determined by absolute increase ≥ 100 mg/L and ≥ 25% from nadir value of the difference between involved and uninvolved FLC (ΔiFLC). Light chain escape was defined as sFLC increase without progression by SPEP (Ig increase ≥ 5 g/L and ≥ 25%) or UPEP (increase ≥ 200 mg/24h and ≥ 25%). Results. Among the 260 patients with intact Ig at diagnosis, 3 (1.15%) patients presented a light chain escape: progression by sFLC test without progression by SPEP. In parallel, 228 patients (87.7%) progressed by SPEP, of whom 18/228 (6.25%) showed a sFLC increase preceding the increase of intact Ig, with a median delay of 63 days. Among the 63 light chain MM, 6 (9.5%) patients presented a light chain escape: progression by sFLC test without progression by UPEP. Interestingly, 6 other patients (9.5%) progressed by SPEP even though Ig was 〈 10 g/L at diagnosis. Of the remaining 46 patients, 38 (60.3%) showed sFLC increase before progression by UPEP. Finally, 8 patients (12.7%) progressed but with intact Ig pauci-secreting MM meeting none of the M spike based progression criteria. Median time from iFLC nadir to ΔiFLC ≥ 100 mg/L was 280 days for light chain MM, 496 days for intact Ig MM, and 651 days for light chain escape. Median time from ΔiFLC ≥ 100 mg/L to follow-up visit to assess progression was 402 days light chain MM, 536 days for intact Ig MM, and 713 days for light chain escape. Overall, 9 (3%) patients had true light chain escape with progression by sFLC test without any other progression criteria. In parallel, in 56 (17%) patients, sFLC increase preceded progression to MM by standard test (SPEP or UPEP). Still the vast majority of patients had a regular relapse using the standard markers for progression. Conclusion. Based on a large study of patients treated into a phase 3 clinical trial with centralized assessment of response and progression, we showed that 20% of patients had progression by sFLC without meeting standard progression markers, of whom 3% had true light chain escape and 17% early light chain increase. Even though true light chain escape seems to be a rare phenomenon, analysis of sFLC test could help to avoid delayed or missed diagnosis of progression in 20% of patients in this clinical trial. This data should be confirmed in another database to assess whether a modification in the progression criteria in MM International guidelines should be proposed. Disclosures Hulin: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Roussel:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hebraud:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees; travel and accommodation for congress, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding. Karlin: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, Other: travel support; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support. Belhadj:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Decaux:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Garderet:Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moreau: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; 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Attal:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janseen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy. Leleu:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership steering committee membership ; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Merk: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; BMS: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: steering committee membership ; Janssen: Honoraria, Other.

Abstract: Introduction Anemia is a common complication of hematological chemotherapy for acute leukemia and following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Exposure to allogeneic blood transfusions has been associated with unfavorable outcome in several studies in a non-surgical settings. Retrospective studies in hematological intensive unit have suggested that single red blood cell (RBC) unit transfusion policy may reduce the number of RBC used in comparison with a classical double RBC unit transfusion policy, without clinical impact. The aim of the study was to demonstrate that single RBC transfusion was non inferior to the standard double RBC transfusion arm in terms of severe complication or mortality for inpatient with hematological malignancies. Key secondary endpoint, was the comparison of the numbers of RBC units transfused in each arm. Method In a phase 3 multicenter randomized trial, 245 adults' patients with acute leukemia requiring intensive chemotherapy or patients receiving autologous or allogeneic HSCT were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either single RBC unit (1 RBC arm, n=125) per transfusion or double RBC (2 RBC arm, n=120) per transfusion when hemoglobin level was below 8g/dL. The primary composite endpoint was the percentage of patients who developed a grade ≥3 complications defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, elevated troponin level, intensive care unit transfer, death, new pulmonary infiltrates, and/or transfusion-related infections during hospital stays. The secondary endpoint was the number of red cell units transfused per patient per hospital stay. The primary endpoint was compared between groups by non-inferiority analysis for the proportion risk difference using Farrington-Manning method with a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, in ITT dataset. Results Hematological disease were as followed: AML (59%), ALL (13.1%), Lymphoma (16.4%), others (11.5%). The median age was 55 years. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms (Figure 1A). A total of 981 and 592 transfusions have been necessary in the 1 RBC arm and 2 RBC arm, respectively. The median of RBC unit per transfusion was 1(1-1) and 2(2-2) in the 1 RBC and 2 RBC arm, respectively. The mean pre transfusion hemoglobin level was 7.49 +/- 0.83 g/dL in the 1 RBC arm and 7.46 +/- 0.67 g/dL in the 2 RBC arm (p=0.275). Hemoglobin level at discharge was 9.35 +/-1.14 g/dL in the 1 RBC arm and 9.58 +/-1.13 g/dL in the 2 RBC arm (p=0.118). The median (IQR) of red-cell units transfused per patient was 7 (4-12) in the single arm and 8 (4-12) in the double arm (p=0.65). The median number of platelet transfusion event was 7 (3.5-11.5) in the 1 RBC arm and 7 (3-13) in the 2 RBC arm (p=0.69). The median (IQR) number of red cell unit transfused per cycle and per day was 7 (3-9) and 0.28 (0.17-0.37) in the 1RBC arm and 6 (4-10) and 0.27 (0.20-0.38) in the 2 RBC arm (p=0.61 and p=0.47). The predefined non-inferiority criteria was achieved with 28 patients developing a serious complication in the 1 CGR arm (22.4%) and 28 patients in the 2 RBC arm (23.3%) (Risk difference 0.009; 95% Confidence interval [-0.0791- 0.0978] (Figure 1B). Conclusion: Single RBC transfusion policy is non inferior to double RBC transfusion policy in hematological intensive care unit for patient receiving a bone marrow transplant or intensive chemotherapy. Single RBC unit transfusion can be used safely in daily clinical practice. The single RBC transfusion policy does not reduce the number of RBC transfusion. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Jardin: Genexpath: Patents & Royalties: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application for the LymphoSign, which has been licensed for by Genexpath Patents & Royalties. .

Abstract: 8029 Background: Prolonged treatments have significantly improved survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Lenalidomide (IMiDs), is currently approved in this indication, but remains a daily treatment, although oral, and may favor side effects in the long run. Furthermore, the use of a proteasome inhibitor (PI) is warranted in certain type of MM, such as high-risk. Carfilzomib, a second generation PI, has proved active combined with an acceptable security profile but its added benefit when given continuously is unknown. We thought to study maintenance Carfilzomib for elderly NDMM (eNDMM). Methods: The IFM 2012-03 multicenter phase I KMP (Carfilzomib, Melphalan, Prednisone) weekly study for eNDMM (≥ 65 years old) determined the maximal tolerated dose of weekly Carfilzomib at 70mg/m². We focus herein on the second part of the study with IV Carfilzomib monotherapy given at 36mg/m² for 13 cycles maintenance on an every 2 weeks schedule. Results: Thirty eNDMM were recruited in IFM 2012-03. Median age is 75, with 56% R-ISS 2 or 3 and 11% high-risk cytogenetic. With K weekly from 36 to 70mg/m², OS is reported at 93.3%, including 46.7% ≥CR; median PFS is 35.8 months and median OS was not reached. Twenty-two (73%) patients started K maintenance and 16 (73%) completed it. Four patients progressed and 2 stopped for AEs (renal amylosis, sensory neuropahty) during the maintenance phase. At maintenance completion, 50% were ≥CR. From the start of maintenance, in landmark analysis, median PFS is 28.1 months and the estimated 36-months OS approximately 70%. Conclusions: Carfilzomib monotherapy can be used safely in maintenance for 1 year in eNDMM, including for patients above 75 years. K maintenance may lead to deep response rate, certainly a most relevant prognostic factor for prolonged survival. Therefore, Carfilzomib maintenance, characterized with a simple administration modality, might be considered as an alternative to Lenalidomide and integrate the armamentarium of prolonged therapy in eNDMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02302495.

Abstract: Discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia is feasible in clinical practice based on recently published international recommendations. Nevertheless, factors predictive of molecular recurrence have not been fully elucidated and long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in clinical studies are required in order to update knowledge on discontinuation attempts particularly in terms of the safety and durability of treatment-free remission (TFR). In the current study, we updated results from the STIM2 study in the light of the consensual criterion of molecular recurrence reported in different international recommendations. Among the 199 patients included in the perprotocol study, 108 patients lost a major molecular response. With a median follow-up of 40.8 months (5.5-111 months), the probability of treatment-free remission was 43.4% [36.3-50.4] at 5 years, 40.9% [32.8-47.3] at 7 years and 34.5% [25.6- 43.3] at 9 years. Molecular recurrence occurred between 0 to 6 months, 6 to 24 months and after 24 months in 75 patients (69%), 15 patients (14%) and 18 patients (17%), respectively. Notably, the kinetics of molecular recurrence differed significantly between these three subgroups with a median time from loss of MR4 (BCR::ABL1 IS≤0.01%) to loss of major molecular response of 1, 7 and 22 months, respectively. Predictive factors of molecular recurrence differed according to the time of occurrence of the molecular recurrence. Durations of imatinib treatment and deep molecular response as well as BCR::ABL1/ABL1 levels at cessation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, as quantified by reverse transcriptase droplet digital polymerase chain reaction, are involved in molecular recurrence occurring up to 24 months but not beyond. (ClinicalTrial. gov Identifier NCT#0134373).

Abstract: Aims: Combining 2GTKI+pegylated IFN-a (Peg-IFN) represents an attractive approach for first-line treatment of CP CML, while providing somewhat light additional AEs, it induces high rates of deep molecular responses. We evaluated nilotinib (NIL) alone versus NIL+Peg-IFN in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients (pts) in a randomised phase III trial (PETALs, EudraCT 2013-004974-82) and analysed here the proportion of patients reaching Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) and outcome. Methods: Newly diagnosed CP CML pts ≤65 years, without vascular history were randomized 1:1 to get NIL 300 mg BID alone [M0 to M72 (unless TFR), arm A] vs Peg-IFN alone for 30 days (M-1→M0) 30 mg/wk, prior to NIL 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 30 mg/wk 2 wks, upgraded to 45 mg/wk thereafter, for up to 2 y (M0 to M24, arm B) followed by NIL alone until M72 unless TFR. The primary endpoint was the rate of MR4.5 by M12, and after amendment, the trial was extended to 72 months follow-up in order to add, as a secondary endpoint, the TFR rate in pts reaching MR4.5 ≥2 y. The trigger for treatment resumption was loss of MMR. All molecular assessments were centralised until M36, and in case of TFR, MR4.5 was centrally confirmed at M0 TFR, and further molecular follow-up was then performed locally. All molecular quantifications are expressed as BCR-ABL1/ABL1 (IS) in % with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control in the central lab and in the local labs all involved to the pluri-annual French external quality controls. Results are analysed in intention-to-treat. Results: As previously reported, 200 pts were randomized (99 in A, 101 in B), 130 M and 35 F in each arm, median age of 46 (18-66) y. The median follow-up (FU) since diagnosis is now 47.5 (33.77-62.39) Mo. and the median FU since discontinuation is 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. in arm A and 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo. in arm B. Sokal and ELTS scores were high in 25% and 2.5%, intermediate in 33% and 16.5% and low in 42% and 81% pts respectively, equally balanced. All pts harboured a "Major" BCR transcript. We have previously shown that by M12, the rate of MR4.5 was 15.9% vs 21.5% (primary endpoint met, p=0.049) and that the overall cumulative incidence of MR4.5 was somewhat superior in arm B (54.6 [43.7-65.5] %) vs A (44 [31.5-54] %), p=0.05. Two pts died, one from myeloid blast crisis before TFR (arm A), one from a solid tumour (arm A). Overall, 40 pts (20%) reached the TFR criteria, 21 in arm A with a median FU of 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. and 19 in arm B with a median FU since Nilo cessation of 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo, partly related to slightly different time for obtaining sustained MR4.5 in favour of arm B (16 vs 13 Mo.). For these 40 pts reaching TFR criteria, there was no statistical difference in terms of age at diagnosis and age at TFR, gender, Sokal, ELTS, FU since diagnosis, undetectability at cessation, BCR-ABL1 levels at 3 Mo. after cessation between the 2 arms. The survival without loss of MMR after cessation is illustrated in Figure 1. It looks superior in arm B over arm A, but did not reach statistical difference (p=0.445), but the FU is very short after cessation yet, especially in arm A. Once NIL was resumed in the pts that failed TFR, all pts recovered MMR within 6 Mo., with no difference between arms (p=1.00). In univariate analysis, we did not identify significant factor impacting on the TFR success (age at cessation, sex, undetectability at cessation, Sokal, ELTS) except the BCR-ABL1 value at M3-TFR (undetectable versus detectable, HR 7.15 [2.06-24.75], p=0.002), and the duration of MR4.5 before discontinuation (HR 1.11 [1.03-1.19] , p=0.004). During this TFR phase 7 SAEs were reported in arm A (2 pregnancies, 1 obstructive sleep apnea, 1 fever episode, 1 carotid stenosis and 1 femoral stenosis in the same patient at 2 Mo. after cessation, 1 lung carcinoid tumor) and 2 in arm B (1 persistent atrial fibrillation, 1 cholecystectomy). Conclusions: The combination of NIL + Peg-IFN induces higher MR4.5 rates by M36 in newly diagnosed CP CML pts that may translate in higher successful TFR rates, however a longer follow-up is needed to see consistent significant differences. Updated data will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Kartos Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Huguet: Novartis: Other: Advisor; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisor; Celgene: Other: Advisor; BMS: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Other: Advisor; Pfizer: Other: Advisor. Guerci-Bresler: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Charbonnier: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot: Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Rea: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Background. Continuous therapy, such as maintenance approach, appears to be a major therapeutic change in multiple myeloma, improving response rate and overall survival. Novel agents widen the range of treatment options, still Lenalidomide (IMiD) is widely used in this indication. Even though usually well tolerated, it remains a daily treatment, and can lead to some side effects on a long term basis. Carfilzomib, a second generation PI, allows interesting response rate and prolonged survival, with manageable adverse events. Nevertheless, only few clinical trials focused on its use in maintenance rather than in first or second line treatment. We therefore thought to study the role of 1 year Carfilzomib exposure following KMP IFM 2012-03. Methods. IFM 2012-03 is a multicenter phase I study for eNDMM (patients aged 65 years old and more) that determined the maximal tolerated dose of weekly carfilzomib, associated with melphalan and prednisone (KMP), at 70mg/m². The following results will concern the second phase of the study using intravenous Carfilzomib monotherapy in maintenance. K was administered at 36 mg/m² for 13 cycles on an every 2 weeks schedule. Results. Thirty eNDMM were recruited in IFM 2012-03. Median age is 75, with 56% R-ISS 2 or 3 and 11% high-risk cytogenetic. With K weekly from 36 to 70mg/m², ORR is reported at 93.3%, including 46.7% ≥CR ; median PFS is 35.8 months and median OS was not reached. Twenty-two (73%) patients started K maintenance and 16 (73%) completed it. Four patients progressed and 2 stopped for AEs (renal amylosis, sensory neuropahty) during the maintenance phase. At maintenance completion, 50% were ≥CR. From the start of maintenance, in landmark analysis, median PFS is 28.1 months and the estimated 36-months OS approximately 70%. Moreover, 3 patients (14%) improved their responses during maintenance. Conclusion. Carfilzomib monotherapy can be used safely in maintenance for 1 year in eNDMM, including for patients above 75 years. K maintenance may lead to deep response rate, certainly a most relevant prognostic factor for prolonged survival. Therefore, Carfilzomib maintenance, characterized with a simple administration modality, might be considered as an alternative to Lenalidomide and integrate the armamentarium of prolonged therapy in eNDMM. Further studies should still bring additional information in order to confirm our results. Disclosures Karlin: AMGEN: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; 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, Other: Travel Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolb:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Other: travel and registration for my participation to international medical congres (ASH). Jaccard:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Belhadj:Celgene: Other: personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hulin:Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leleu:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria.