Abstract: Background Induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma less than 66 years old. The quality of response to the induction treatment is an important prognostic factor and is predictive of progression free survival (PFS) following ASCT. The triplet combinations bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) have demonstrated high response rates in prospective phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials, they are 2 of the most commonly used induction regimens prior to ASCT, and are both recommended in the International guidelines. To date, no comparative data from prospective randomized trials of the safety and efficacy of VTD vs VCD are available. This provided the rationale for the phase 3 investigation of VTD vs VCD prior to ASCT in patients with de novo MM in this randomized multicenter study (NCT01564537). Methods Patients with de novo symptomatic MM less than 66 years old were prospectively randomized to receive either 4 cycles of VTD (arm A) or 4 cycles of VCD (arm B) followed by ASCT. The VTD regimen consisted of four 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m²/d, subcutaneously (SC) D1, 4, 8 and 11, Dexamethasone 40 mg/d, PO D1 to 4, D9 to 12 and Thalidomide 100 mg/d, PO D1 to D21. The VCD regimen consisted of four 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m²/d, SC D1, 4, 8 and 11, Dexamethasone 40 mg/d, PO D1 to 4, D9 to 12 and Cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m²/d, PO D1, 8, 15. Patients were stratified according to ISS (1-2 versus 3) and cytogenetics (high-risk defined by 17p deletion and t(4;14) versus other).The primary endpoint was very good partial response (VGPR) rate following 4 cycles. Response was assessed in a central lab according to the IMWG criteria. Assuming a VGPR rate of 60% in the VTD arm versus 45% in the VCD arm (15% difference), the possibility to detect a statistically significant difference required the enrolment of 340 patients overall (170 per arm). Adverse events were graded using the NCI CTCAE catalogue, version 4.0. Results From 11/2013 to 02/2015, 358 patients were enrolled into the study. 18 were screening failures, and 170 were randomized each to arm A (VTD) and arm B (VCD). The median age was 60 years (range, 26-65), 62% of the patients were male, and overall, the patient characteristics were well-balanced across the 2 arms of the study. The median number of induction cycles administered in both arms was 4 (1-4). On an intent-to-treat basis, the overall response rate ( 〉 partial response [PR]) was 92.3% in arm A, including a 10.7% complete response (CR) rate and a VGPR rate of 66.7%, while in arm B the overall response rate was 84%, with a 9.5% CR and a 56.2% VGPR rate. VGPR and PR rates were significantly higher in the VTD arm with p-values of 0.04 and 0.02, respectively. Seven patients died during induction therapy (2%), 3 in arm A from infections (2) and pulmonary embolism (1), and 4 in arm B from progression to extramedullary myeloma (2) and infections (2). Grades 3 / 4 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 4% and 2.2% in Arm A and B, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was seen in 11.9% vs 22.5% in Arm A and B, respectively. Conclusion This trial is the first prospective randomized comparison of 4 cycles of VTD versus 4 cycles of VCD administered as induction therapy prior to ASCT. VTD was shown to be significantly superior to VCD in terms of VGPR and PR rates. Neuropathy rates low in both arms, while neutropenia was more frequent with VCD. Disclosures Moreau: Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hulin:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. MACRO:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garderet:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Stoppa:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: 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; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pierre Fabre: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Laribi:Hospira SAS: Research Funding. Avet-Loiseau:jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Attal:jansen: Honoraria; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Serum FLC analysis is a more sensitive indicator of disease than urinalysis. Improved sensitivity of serum over urine measurements during monitoring translates into valuable prognostic information.

Abstract: The overall response rate following 4 induction cycles of VTD prior to ASCT is higher than that of 4 cycles of VCD.

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: 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: 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.