Abstract: Abstract 3029 Background. In a recent phase 3 trial, bortezomib–melphalan – prednisone–thalidomide followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib–thalidomide (VMPT-VT) demonstrated superior efficacy compared with VMP. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) was the most important dose limiting toxicity. To decrease neurologic toxicities, the protocol was amended and patients in both arms received once-weekly instead of the initial twice-weekly bortezomib infusions. This post-hoc analysis assessed the impact of bortezomib dose-modification schedule on clinical outcomes and safety. Methods. Patients (N=511) older than 65 years were randomized to receive nine 6-week cycles of VMPT-VT (N=254; induction:V 1.3 mg/m2, d 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32, cycles 1–4, d 1, 8, 22, 29, cycles 5–9; M 9 mg/m2 d 1–4, P 60 mg/m2, d 1–4, T 50 mg d 1–42; maintenance: V 1.3 mg/m2 every 14 days and T 50 mg/day) or VMP (N=257) alone. In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT-VT and VMP induction schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (1.3 mg/m2 d 1,8,15,22, all cycles). Patients receiving VMPT-VT and VMP were pooled together and stratified according to the once-weekly or twice-weekly infusion modality; analyses were also conducted for patients receiving VMP only, to eliminate the influence of thalidomide and of maintenance on efficacy and safety. Results. Patients were evaluated in intention-to-treat: 372 patients received once-weekly and 139 twice-weekly bortezomib infusion. Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups, median age was 71 years. The efficacy data did not appear to be affected by the bortezomib schedule. Overall response rates were 85% with once weekly and 86% with twice- weekly schedule (P = .78), including CR rates of 30% and 35% (P = .27).Three-year PFS was 50% in the once-weekly and 47% in the twice-weekly group (P = 1.00), and 3-year OS was 88% and 89%, respectively (P = .54). Similar outcome was seen in the analyses restricted to VMP patients: CR rates were 23% with once-weekly and 27% with twice-weekly schedule (P = .54), 3-years PFS was 46% in once-weekly and 39% (P = .86) in twice-weekly group and 3-years OS was 87% and 89% (P = .47), respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was similar in the two groups (44% vs 45%, P = .83), but severe thrombocytopenia was slightly less common in the once-weekly patients (19% vs 26%, P = .08).The incidence of non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events was significantly reduced in the once-weekly: 35% vs 51% (P = .003). Grade 3/4 gastrointestinal events (6% vs 11%, P = .08), severe systemic events (4% vs 7%, P = .09) and grade 3/4 dermatologic events (2% vs 7%, P = .006) were less frequent in patients receiving once-weekly bortezomib. There was a significantly reduced overall incidence of grade 3/4 PN (8% vs 28%, P 〈 .001) in the once-weekly group. The median time to onset of grade 3/4 sensory PN was 4.3 months in the once-weekly group and 3.2 months in the twice-weekly group (P = .10). The cumulative incidence of sensory PN appeared to plateau after 12 months of therapy in both groups. Rates of discontinuations (5% versus 15%) and dose reductions (15% versus 41%) due to PN were also significantly lower in the once-weekly group (P 〈 .001). These results were reflected in analysis restricted to VMP patients, in which the incidence of grade 3/4 PN (7% vs 29%, P 〈 .001), the discontinuation rate (4% vs 16%, P = 0.002), and the dose reductions rate (15% vs 41% P 〈 0.001) were significantly lower in once-weekly group. Despite the cumulative planned dose being lower in the once-weekly group (46.8 vs 67.6 mg/m2), the delivered cumulative dose of bortezomib was similar in the two groups (39.4 mg/m2 vs 40.1 mg/m2). No association of PN with age or other baseline characteristics was outlined. The only significant factor influencing the incidence of PN was the reduction of bortezomib infusion from twice- to once-weekly (p 〈 0.001). Low dose thalidomide did not affect grade 3/4 PN rate (p=0.16). Conclusion. These results demonstrate that 1. both once-weekly and twice-weekly schedules in combination with MP ± thalidomide are highly effective in patients ≥ 65 years; 2. once-weekly schedule significantly reduced the incidence of PN and decreased the rate of discontinuation, resulting in similar cumulative bortezomib doses in the two groups; 3. the improvement in the safety profile was not associated with any reduction in the efficacy. Disclosures: Bringhen: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Leoni:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Patriarca:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Guglielmelli:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Elice:Celgene: Honoraria; Novatis: Honoraria. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:Celgene: 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.

Abstract: Background: In multiple myeloma (MM), different clinical parameters and molecular prognostic factors can predict disease course and response to therapy. The classification of myeloma patients includes laboratory parameters associated with higher tumor activity, resistance to therapy and proliferative competence. Tumor circulating plasma cells (TCPC) in MM patients showed a strong correlation with a more aggressive disease. Aim: For the first time, we quantified the amounts of TCPC with single platform flow cytometric method and evaluated their relationship with patients' baseline characteristics and response to therapy before maintenance. Methods: Whole peripheral blood samples from 413 newly diagnosed MM patients ≤65 years enrolled in the UNITO-MM-01/FORTE trial were collected. Patients were randomized [1:1:1; stratification: International Staging System (ISS) and age] to ARM A: carfilzomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCyd) followed by melphalan 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and consolidation with 4 KCyd; ARM B: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KRd; ARM C: 12 KRd cycles. Enrollment was completed in March 2017; data cut-off was November 30, 2018. For the single platform tube, the antibody combination CD38PC7/CD138PC5.5/ CD45KO/CD56PE/CD19PB was mixed with 100µL of EDTA peripheral blood, dispensed with reverse pipetting, and incubated for 15 min, added with 500µL of lysing solution and, after 15 min, 100µL of flow count fluorospheres were dispensed with reverse pipetting and cells acquired with Navios flow cytometer. Intracytoplasmic tube was set up to confirm the clonality of CPC. Results: Circulating plasma cells (CPC) were quantified in 413 samples, with median values of 0.03% (range: 0-51%) and 2.37/mm3 (range: 0-6272/mm3). White blood cells were 5710/mm3 (range: 1752-26102/mm3); total events acquired 1285000 (range: 40000-2000000); median CPC events were 58 (range: 0-441000); cellular events acquired were 190000 (range: 4428-1300000). In 390 out of 413 samples (94.4%), CPC were detected; 272 samples (66%) showed TCPC with a median of 1.24/mm3 (range 0.06- 6272/mm3). Patients were sorted according to different baseline characteristics and the medians of absolute TCPC were compared. The most statistically significant differences (p 〈 0.001) were: haemoglobin (Hb) 〈 10 (12.9/mm3) vs. ≥10 (0.81/mm3); ISS I (0.30/mm3) vs. ISS II (2.85/mm3) vs. ISS III (5.14/mm3); R-ISS I (0.25/mm3) vs. II (2.76/mm3) vs. III (7.45/mm3); albumin 〈 3.5g/dL (2.76/mm3) vs. ≥3.5g/dL (1.05/mm3); β2-microglobulin 〈 3.5mg/dL (0.67/mm3) vs. 3.5mg/dL-5.5mg/dL (3.88/mm3) vs. 〉 5.5mg/dL (16.47/mm3); lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) ≤upper limit of normal (ULN, 1.14/mm3) vs. 〉 ULN (7.36/mm3); plasma cells (PC) in biopsy 〈 60% (0.60/mm3) vs. ≥60%(2.76/mm3); with (3.18/mm3) vs. without amp1q (1.18/mm3); Morgan risk standard (1.21/mm3) vs. high (3.00/mm3). Finally, we compared the absolute number of TCPC and the quality of response at the end of consolidation therapy. Higher values of TCPC were related to worst response: 〈 partial response (PR, 4.23/mm3) vs. ≥PR (1.23/mm3); 〈 very good PR (VGPR, 2.91/mm3) vs. ≥VGPR (1.20/mm3); 〈 complete response (CR, 1.95/mm3) vs. ≥CR (1.09/mm3); 〈 stringent CR (sCR, 1.71/mm3) vs. ≥sCR (1.00/mm3), p 〈 0.05. Conclusions: Single-platform flow cytometry is a simple method to quantify TCPC, present in almost all peripheral blood from MM patients; a high number is related to poor clinical response to therapy and helps in identifying high-risk patients. Moreover, it allows the discrimination between normal and pathological plasma cell population in peripheral blood. However, a longer follow up is needed to evaluate how TCPC can affect survival in patients with MM. Disclosures Musto: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:Janssen: 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; AbbVie: 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; Celgene: 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; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Omedé:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: This presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Abstract: Introduction: High throughput techniques, such as massively parallel sequencing, are becoming an attractive approach to characterize multiple myeloma (MM) genomic profiles. However, the clinical relevance and contribution to risk assessment of such approaches need to be established. The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF)CoMMpass trial (NCT01454297) has collected data from 1000 newly-diagnosed MM patients enrolled worldwide and observed through an expected follow-up of up to eight-years. Comprehensive analysis of somatic mutations detected in purified MM cells could reveal disease features with prognostic value, which may not have been detected using traditional approaches. Materials and methods: We analyzed data from the interim analysis 8 cohort. CD138+ purified MM specimens from bone marrow aspirates and mononuclear cells from peripheral blood were collected at diagnosis. Whole exome libraries from both tumor and constitutional DNA samples were created. Somatic single nucleotide variants (SNV) were identified using three different variant callers (Seurat,Strelka andMutect), only nonsynonymous SNV calls made from at least two callers were included in the analysis. Patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. We evaluated the impact on progression free survival (PFS) of recurrently mutated genes (with at least a nonsynonymous SNV in more than 10 patients) in a Cox model adjusted for international staging system (ISS) and cytogenetic profile (high risk, standard risk and missing). An additive score related to mutated genes was calculated on the basis the level of each coefficient estimated using a Cox Model with backward selection based on theAkaikeInformation Criterion (AIC). Results: 517 patients with baseline somatic mutation data were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 27-93). All patients received novel agents as first line treatment; 236 (45.6%) received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Each patient showed a median number of 55 nonsynonymous somatic SNV (range 8-1970) in a median number of 47 genes (range 5-1741). Excluding immunoglobulin genes, the most recurrent mutated genes were KRAS (25%), NRAS (19.5%), TTN (12.1%), MUC16 (9.1%) and DIS3 (9.1%). Based on the results of a multivariable Cox model corrected for ISS and cytogeneticprofile, we created a scoring system determined by the mutational status of 9 genes identified in a nonbiased manner (Table 1). Three groups were identified: group I (score 0-2, 17%); group II (score=3, 51%), and group III (score 〉 3, 32%). After a median follow-up of 371 days, the 18-month PFS rate was 93% for group I, 85% for group II, and 67% for group III. In a Cox model adjusted for ISS and cytogeneticprofile, the hazard ratio was 2.34 (p=0.112) for group II versus group I, and 5.96 (p 〈 0.001) for group III versus I. The prognostic trend of the score was confirmed in different patient subgroups including ASCT/no ASCT, standard/high risk cytogenetic profile, ISS I, II, or III. Of note, 23.3% of patients in group I had an ISS III and 30.4% of patients in group III had an ISS I. Conclusion: The use of a prognostic model based on the mutational status of 9 recurrently mutated genes could improve risk assessment of newly-diagnosed MM patients. To our knowledge, this is the largest study correlating nonsynonymous somatic SNV with MM patients' outcome. Longer follow-up and validation in independent cohorts are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Larocca: Amgen, Celgene, BMS, Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Gay:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Takeda: Employment, Honoraria.

Abstract: Introduction Several trials have shown that maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients, eligible and ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); conflicting data exist about its impact on overall survival (OS). The role of maintenance in patients with a sensitive disease is still unclear. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis to clarify the impact of continuous treatment in patients achieving a complete response (CR). Methods Data from newly diagnosed MM patientsenrolled in 4 phase III trials were analysed. Two trials included ASCT-eligible patients: RV-MM-209 [melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) vs melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200), followed by lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance), RV-MM-EMN-441 (cyclophosphamide-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs Mel200, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). Two studies enrolled elderly, ASCT-ineligible patients: GIMEMA-MM0305 (bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide vs bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone) and EMN01 (MPR vs cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-dexamethasone, followed by lenalidomide vs lenalidomide-prednisone maintenance). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the impact of maintenance on PFS and OS in patients who achieved CR. Univariate analyses of OS and PFS were performed. Response was considered as a time-dependent variable with a landmark point at 12 months. Lastly, a multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of maintenance and ASCT as independent variables. Results A total of 1964 patients were retrospectively analysed. Of 1503 patients who received maintenance therapy, 254 achieved a CR and 931 a very good partial response (VGPR) or partial response (PR). After a median follow-up of 41 months, a significant 5-year OS (80% vs 54%; HR 0.55, p=0.02; Figure 1) and 5-year PFS (52% vs 19%; HR 0.47, p 〈 0.001; Figure 2) advantage was reported among CR patients who received maintenance in comparison with no maintenance. The same analysis was conducted in patients achieving a suboptimal response (VGPR or PR): the 5-year PFS advantage was confirmed in patients who received maintenance vs patients who did not (30% vs 13% HR 0.65, p 〈 0.001); the 5-year OS was 68% vs 38% in patients who received maintenance vs no maintenance respectively (HR 0.8, p=0.2). A subgroup analysis was conducted in CR patients according to the treatment received [ASCT vs conventional chemotherapy (CC)]; the PFS benefit among patients treated with maintenance was confirmed across both the subgroups (ASCT group: HR 0.45, p=0.02; CC group: HR 0.45 P 〈 0.001). In multivariate analysis, maintenance therapy and treatment with ASCT confirmed the favourable impact on PFS and OS in patients achieving CR. Conclusion In CR patients,maintenance therapy significantly prolongs PFS and OS. In order to optimize treatment efficacy and to prolong survival in patients with a sensitive disease, the intensification with maintenance is strongly recommended. Disclosures Off Label Use: Use off-label of drugs for the dose and/or schedule and/or association. Gay:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Celgene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Morphosys: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards. Offidani:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Sanofi, Amgen, Mundipharma: Honoraria. Patriarca:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Janssen-Cilag, Celgene: Honoraria. Hájek:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palumbo:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Janssen-Cilag, Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract: Background. Proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based induction/consolidation proved to be effective in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) eligible for melphalan 200 mg/m2 plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT). High response rates have been reported with carfilzomib (K) plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (KCd). Lenalidomide (R) alone is a standard of care for post-ASCT maintenance; K maintenance showed promising results in phase I/II studies, but no data on KR maintenance vs R are available. Aims. The aims of this analysis were to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) of KRd induction-ASCT-KRd consolidation (KRd_ASCT) vs 12 cycles of KRd (KRd12) vs KCd induction-ASCT-KCd consolidation (KCd_ASCT) and the PFS of KR vs R maintenance. Secondary aims were efficacy in different subgroups of pts and safety of the maintenance phase. Methods. NDMM pts ≤65 years were randomized [R1: 1:1:1, stratification International Staging System (ISS) and age] to: KRd_ASCT: 4 28-day cycles with KRd induction (K 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; R 25 mg days 1-21; dexamethasone [d] 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KRd consolidation cycles; KRd12: 12 KRd cycles; KCd_ASCT: 4 28-day induction cycles with KCd (K 20/36 mg/m2 IV days 1,2,8,9,15,16; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 days 1,8,15; d 20 mg days 1,2,8,9,15,16) followed by MEL200-ASCT and 4 KCd consolidation cycles. Thereafter, pts were randomized (R2) to maintenance with KR (K 36 mg/m2 days 1,2,15,16, subsequently amended to 70 mg/m2 days 1,15 for up to 2 years; plus R 10 mg days 1-21 every 28 days until progression) or R alone (10 mg days 1-21 every 28 days until progression). Centralized minimal residual disease (MRD) evaluation (8-color second-generation flow cytometry, sensitivity 10-5) was performed in pts achieving ≥very good partial response before maintenance and every 6 months (m) during maintenance. Data cut-off was June 30, 2020. Results. 474 NDMM pts were randomized (KRd_ASCT, n=158; KRd12, n=157; KCd_ASCT, n=159) and analyzed. Pt characteristics were well balanced. Intention-to-treat (ITT) data of pre-maintenance MRD (KRd_ASCT, 62%; KRd12 56%, KCd_ASCT 43%) and safety of the induction/consolidation phases in the 3 arms were already reported (F. Gay et al. ASH 2018; S. Oliva et al. ASH 2019). After a median follow-up from R1 of 45 m, median PFS was not reached with KRd_ASCT, 57 m with KRd12 and 53 m with KCd_ASCT (KRd_ASCT vs KCd_ASCT: HR 0.53, P & lt;0.001; KRd_ASCT vs KRd12: HR 0.64, P=0.023; KRd12 vs KCd_ASCT: HR 0.82, P=0.262). The benefit of KRd_ASCT vs both KCd_ASCT and KRd12 was observed in most subgroups (Figure). 3-year overall survival (OS) was 90% with KRd_ASCT and KRd12 vs 83% with KCd. 356 pts (KR, n=178; R, n=178) were randomized to maintenance; pt characteristics, pre-maintenance response (≥complete response [CR]: KR 62% vs R 59%; stringent CR: KR 50% vs R 48%) including MRD negativity (KR 65% vs R 66%) in the 2 groups were well balanced. After a median follow-up from R2 of 31 m and a median duration of maintenance of 27 m in both arms, 46% of MRD-positive pts at randomization turned negative in KR vs 32% in R (P=0.04). By ITT analysis, 3-year PFS from R2 was 75% with KR vs 66% with R (HR 0.63; P=0.026). The benefit of KR vs R was observed in most subgroups (Figure). 3-year OS was 90% in both arms. During maintenance, a similar proportion of pts experienced ≥1 grade (G)3-4 hematologic adverse events (AEs)/serious AEs (SAEs) in the 2 arms (KR 22% vs R 23%); the most frequent were neutropenia (KR 18% vs R 21%) and thrombocytopenia (KR 3% vs R 3%). Rate of ≥1 G3-4 non-hematologic AEs/SAEs was higher with KR (27%) compared with R (15%), P=0.012; the most frequent were infections (KR 4% vs R 7%); all other events were reported in ≤5% of pts and included: gastrointestinal (KR 5% vs R 2%), cardiac (KR 4% vs R 1%), hypertension (KR 3% vs R 0%), and thrombotic microangiopathy (3% vs 0%). 4 pts developed a second primary malignancy in KR (breast 1 pt; thyroid 1 pt; myelodysplastic syndrome 1 pt; non-melanoma skin cancer 1pt) vs 1 pt in R (acute lymphoblastic leukemia). Dose reductions of R were reported in 23% of KR and 29% of R pts; dose reductions of K were reported in 20% of pts. The rate of discontinuation due to AEs was similar in the 2 arms (KR 10% vs R 9%). Conclusions. Treatment with KRd_ASCT significantly improved PFS compared with both KRd12 and KCd_ASCT. Maintenance with KR also improved PFS vs R. Figure Disclosures Gay: Amgen: 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; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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. Musto:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Galli:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Belotti:Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zamagni:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau. Zambello:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Sabbata:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. D'Agostino:GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liberati:VERASTEM: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Honoraria, Research Funding; PFIZER: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONCOPEPTIDES AB: Honoraria, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria, Research Funding; MORPHOSYS: Honoraria, Research Funding; ONCONOVA: Honoraria, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Honoraria, Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Research Funding; KARYOPHARM: Honoraria, Research Funding; INCYTE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria; CELGENE: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; BEIGENE: Honoraria; ARCHIGEN: Honoraria; BIOPHARMA: Honoraria; FIBROGEN: Honoraria. Offidani:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cavo:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau. Boccadoro:AbbVie: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: The presentation includes discussion of off-label use of a drug or drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (including carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone).