Predictors of unsustained measurable residual disease negativity in patients with multiple myeloma.

ABSTRACT: The prognostic impact of achieving and in particular maintaining measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity in multiple myeloma is now established; therefore, identifying among MRD-negative patients the ones at higher risk of losing MRD negativity is of importance. We analyzed predictors of unsustained MRD negativity in patients enrolled in the FORTE trial (NCT02203643). MRD was performed by multiparameter flow cytometry (sensitivity of 10-5) at premaintenance and every 6 months thereafter. The cumulative incidence (CI) of MRD resurgence and/or progression was analyzed in MRD-negative patients. A total of 306 of 474 (65%) MRD-negative patients were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 50.4 months from MRD negativity, 185 of 306 (60%) patients were still MRD negative and progression free, 118 (39%) lost their MRD-negative status, and 3 patients (1%) died without progression. Amp1q vs normal (4-year CI, 63% vs 34), ≥2 concomitant high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities vs 0 (4-year CI, 59% vs 33%), circulating tumor cells at baseline (high vs low at 4-year CI, 62% vs 32%), and time-to-reach MRD negativity postconsolidation vs preconsolidation (4-year CI, 46% vs 35%) were associated with a higher risk of unsustained MRD negativity in a multivariate Fine-Gray model. During the first 2 years of maintenance, patients receiving carfilzomib-lenalidomide vs lenalidomide alone had a lower risk of unsustained MRD negativity (4-year CI, 20% vs 33%).

An unusual form of BRAF-V600E mutated hairy cell neoplasm with clinical resistance to BRAF inhibition: Challenging precision medicine.

Distinct outcomes of BRAF inhibition in BRAF-mutated hairy cell neoplasms with wild-type or mutant TP53, and alternative strategies to overcome mutant TP53.

Carfilzomib induction, consolidation, and maintenance with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: pre-planned cytogenetic subgroup analysis of the randomised, phase 2 FORTE trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) represent an unmet medical need. In the FORTE trial, lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus carfilzomib (KRd) induction resulted in a higher proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response as compared with carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and carfilzomib plus lenalidomide maintenance prolonged progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide maintenance. In this prespecified analysis of the FORTE trial, we described the outcomes of enrolled patients according to their cytogenetic risk. METHODS: The UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done at 42 Italian academic and community practice centres, which enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 18-65 years. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on standard International Myeloma Working Group criteria, a Karnofsky performance status of at least 60%, and had not received any previous treatment with anti-myeloma therapy. At enrolment, patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; four 28-day induction cycles with KRd, melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and ASCT [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), 12 28-day KRd cycles, or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with KCd, MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles), using a web-based system (block randomisation, block size of 12). Carfilzomib was administered at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1, followed by 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of cycle 1, and then 36 mg/m2 intravenously administered for all subsequent doses on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16; lenalidomide 25 mg was administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg was administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. After the consolidation phase, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1; block size of 8) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and days 15-16, every 28 days for up to 2 years, and lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment. In this preplanned analysis, we included patients enrolled in the FORTE trial with complete cytogenetic data on del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), del(1p), gain(1q) (3 copies), and amp(1q) (≥4 copies) assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis on CD138-positive sorted cells. We assessed progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease negativity, and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity according to the presence of zero, one, and two or more HRCA across treatment groups. The FORTE trial is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 477 patients were enrolled, of whom 396 (83%) had complete cytogenetic data and were analysed (176 [44%] of whom were women and 220 [56%] were men). The median follow-up from first randomisation was 51 months (IQR 46-56). 4-year progression-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64-78) in patients with zero HRCA, 60% (95% CI 52-69) in patients with one HRCA, and 39% (95% CI 30-50) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of progression or death was similar in patients with one HRCA (hazard ratio [HR] 1·33 [95% CI 0·90-1·97]; p=0·15) and higher in patients with two or more HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·74-3·75]); p<0·0001) across the induction-intensification-consolidation groups. Moreover, the risk of progression or death was also higher in patients with two or more HRCA versus those with one HRCA (HR 1·92 [95% CI 1·34-2·76]; p=0·0004). 4-year overall survival from the first randomisation was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in patients with zero HRCA, 83% (95% CI 76-90) in patients with one HRCA, and 63% (95% CI 54-74) in patients with two or more HRCA. Compared with patients with zero HRCA, the risk of death was significantly higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 2·55 [95% CI 1·22-5·36]; p=0·013) and two or more HRCA (HR 6·53 [95% CI 3·24-13·18]; p<0·0001). Patients with two or more HRCA also had a significantly higher risk of death than those with one HRCA (HR 2·56 [95% CI 1·53-4·28]; p=0·0004). The rates of 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity were similar in patients with zero HRCA (53 [35%] of 153] and with one HRCA (57 [41%] of 138) and were lower in patients with two or more HRCA (25 [24%] of 105). The median duration of follow-up from second randomisation was 37 months (IQR 33-42). 3-year progression-free survival from the second randomisation was 80% (95% CI 74-88) in patients with zero HRCA, 68% (95% CI 59-78) in patients with one HRCA, and 53% (95% CI 42-67) in patients with two or more HRCA. The risk of progression or death was higher in patients with one HRCA (HR 1·68 [95% CI 1·01-2·80]; p=0·048) and two or more HRCA (2·74 [95% CI 1·60-4·69], p=0·0003) than in patients with zero HRCA. INTERPRETATION: This preplanned analysis of the FORTE trial showed that carfilzomib-based induction-intensification-consolidation regimens are effective strategies in patients with standard risk (zero HRCA) and high-risk (one HRCA) myeloma, resulting in similar rates of progression-free survival and 1-year sustained minimal residual disease negativity. Despite promising progression-free survival, patients with ultra-high-risk disease (those with 2 or more HRCA) still have an increased risk of progression and death and therefore represent an unmet medical need. FUNDING: Amgen and Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

A prospective, multicenter study on hematopoietic stem-cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and 'on-demand' plerixafor in multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents.

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and adequate hematopoietic stem-cell (HSC) collection is crucial to ensure hematologic recovery after ASCT. In this prospective, observational study we evaluated HSC mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), cyclophosphamide, and 'on-demand' plerixafor (in patients with.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 3-year follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective clinical experience with 319 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloRd) enhanced the clinical benefit over Rd with a manageable toxicity profile in the ELOQUENT-2 trial, leading to its approval in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The present study is a 3-year follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloRd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-55), 236 patients experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18.4 and 34 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analyses showed a significant reduction of PFS and OS benefit magnitude only in cases with International Staging System stage III. Major adverse events included grade 3/4 neutropenia (18.5%), anemia (15.4%), lymphocytopenia (12.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 33.9% and 18.9%, respectively. No new safety signals with longer follow-up have been observed. Of 319 patients, 245 (76.7%) reached at least a partial remission. A significantly lower response rate was found in patients previously exposed to lenalidomide. In conclusion, our study confirms that EloRd is a safe and effective regimen for RRMM patients, maintaining benefits across multiple unfavorable subgroups.

Adjusted comparison between elotuzumab and carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as salvage therapy for multiple myeloma patients.

The lack of a randomized trial comparing carfilzomib (K) versus elotuzumab (Elo) associated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) prompted us to assess the relative usefulness of one triplet over the other. Five independent retrospective cohorts of 883 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients, including 300 EloRd and 583 KRd cases, outside clinical trials, entered this non-randomized comparison. KRd cohort accounted for a higher incidence of younger patients, cases with ≥3 lines of therapy, already exposed to lenalidomide, International Staging System (ISS) stage III, and abnormal lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level compared with EloRd cohort. Moreover, cytogenetic risk categories, detected in roughly one-third of cases, were equally distributed between the two therapy arms. The probability of CR+VGPR response was significantly higher in KRd (n = 314, 53.9%) than in EloRd patients (n = 111, 37.0%). Likewise, the cumulative incidence function of CR+VGPR, taking into account the competitive risk of death, was significantly higher in KRd arm patients than those in the EloRd arm (p = .003). Moreover, KRd treatment significantly reduced the progression or death risk by 46% in an adjusted multivariate analysis (HR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, p < .0001). Finally, in an adjusted illness-progression/death model, the effect of KRd versus EloRd was of higher magnitude among those who achieved CR+VGPR (-39% hazard ratio reduction, p = .02) than among those who achieved < VGPR (-29% hazard ratio reduction, p = .007). With limitations characteristic to any retrospective analysis, this current clinical practice study's overall results demonstrated potential benefits of KRd therapy compared with EloRd. This observation may help the daily clinical practice.

Invasive aspergillosis in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia patients: Results from SEIFEM 2016-B survey.

BACKGROUND: In patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia (R/R AML) who received salvage chemotherapy, limited and not updated studies explored the incidence of invasive aspergillosis (IA) and the role of antifungal prophylaxis (AP). The aims of this multicentre retrospective 'SEIFEM 2016-B' study were as follows: (1) to evaluate the current rate and the outcome of proven/probable IA and (2) to assess the efficacy of AP, in a large 'real life' series of patient with R/R AML submitted to salvage chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 2250 R/R AML patients, a total of 74 cases of IA (5.1%) were recorded as follows: 10 (0.7%) proven and 64 (4.3%) probable. Information about AP were available in 73/74 (99%) patients. Fifty-eight (79%) breakthrough infections occurred, mainly during AP with posaconazole [25 (43%)]. The patients who received AP during salvage chemotherapy showed a benefit from antifungal therapy (AT) than patients who did not received AP [43 (86%) vs 7 (14%); p < .033]. In a multivariate analysis, AP and absence of severe mucositis had a significant favourable effect on overall response rate. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that the incidence of IA during the salvage chemotherapy is similar to the past. Nevertheless, the attributable mortality rate (AMR) appears to be lower than that previously reported in R/R AML. Further prospective studies should be performed to confirm our preliminary observation and understand and the why a decreased AMR is reported in this setting of high-risk patients.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. FUNDING: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies.

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Outcome of paraosseous extra-medullary disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with new drugs.

Extramedullary disease is relatively frequent in multiple myeloma, but our knowledge on the subject is limited and mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Little is known regarding the role of new drugs in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis of eight trials focused on the description of extramedullary disease characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. A total of 2,332 newly diagnosed myeloma patients have been included; 267 (11.4%) had extramedullary disease, defined as paraosseous in 243 (10.4%), extramedullary plasmocytoma in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 25.3 months and 25.2 in extramedullary disease and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease did not impact on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.15, P=0.06), while other known prognostic factors retained their significance. Patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs, mainly lenalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors had similar progression-free survival and progression-free survival-2 regardless of extramedullary disease presence. Median overall survival was 63.5 months and 79.9 months (P=0.01) in extramedullary and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively, and in multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.41, P<0.001), in line with other prognostic factors. With the limits of the use of low sensitivity imaging techniques, that lead to an underestimation of extramedullary disease, we conclude that in patients treated with new drugs the detrimental effect of extramedullary disease at diagnosis is limited, that lenalidomide is effective as are proteasome inhibitors, and that these patients tend to acquire a more aggressive disease in later stages. (EUDRACT2005-004714-32, NCT01063179 NCT00551928, NCT01091831, NCT01093196, NCT01190787, NCT01346787, NCT01857115).

Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial.

n the EMN01 trial, the addition of an alkylator (melphalan or cyclophosphamide) to lenalidomide-steroid induction therapy was prospectively evaluated in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. After induction, patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone or with prednisone continuously. The analysis presented here (median follow-up of 71 months) is focused on maintenance treatment and on subgroup analyses defined according to the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Score. Of the 654 evaluable patients, 217 were in the lenalidomide-dexamethasone arm, 217 in the melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide arm and 220 in the cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide arm. With regards to the Frailty Score, 284 (43%) patients were fit, 205 (31%) were intermediate-fit and 165 (25%) were frail. After induction, 402 patients were eligible for maintenance therapy (lenalidomide arm, n=204; lenalidomide-prednisone arm, n=198). After a median duration of maintenance of 22.0 months, progression-free survival from the start of maintenance was 22.2 months with lenalidomide-prednisone vs 18.6 months with lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.85, P=0.14), with no differences across frailty subgroups. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was neutropenia (10% of lenalidomide-prednisone and 21% of lenalidomide patients; P=0.001). Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were rare (<15%). In fit patients, melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared to cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.05) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0.72, P=0.04). Likewise, a trend towards a better overall survival was noted for patients treated with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide or cyclophosphamide-prednisone-lenalidomide, as compared to lenalidomide-dexamethasone. No differences were observed in intermediate-fit and frail patients. This analysis showed positive outcomes of maintenance with lenalidomide-based regimens, with a good safety profile. For the first time, we showed that fit patients benefit from a full-dose triplet regimen, while intermediate-fit and frail patients benefit from gentler regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01093196.

Candidaemia in haematological malignancy patients from a SEIFEM study: Epidemiological patterns according to antifungal prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia is an important infectious complication for haematological malignancy patients. Antifungal prophylaxis reduces the incidence of candidaemia but may be associated with breakthrough candidaemia. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the Candida species' distribution and relative antifungal susceptibility profiles of candidaemia episodes in relation to the use of antifungal prophylaxis among Italian SEIFEM haematology centres. METHODOLOGY: This multicentre retrospective observational SEIFEM study included 133 single-species candidaemia episodes of haematological malignancy patients for whom antifungal susceptibility testing results of blood Candida isolates were available between 2011 and 2015. Each participating centre provided both clinical and microbiological data. RESULTS: Non-Candida albicans Candida (NCAC) species were the mostly isolated species (89, 66.9%), which accounted for C parapsilosis (35, 26.3%), C glabrata (16, 12.0%), C krusei (14, 10.5%), C tropicalis (13, 9.8%) and uncommon species (11, 8.3%). C albicans caused the remaining 44 (33.1%) episodes. Excluding 2 C albicans isolates, 23 of 25 fluconazole-resistant isolates were NCAC species (14 C krusei, 6 C glabrata, 2 C parapsilosis and 1 C tropicalis). Fifty-six (42.1%) of 133 patients developed breakthrough candidaemia. Systemic antifungal prophylaxis consisted of azoles, especially fluconazole and posaconazole, in 50 (89.3%) of 56 patients in whom a breakthrough candidaemia occurred. Interestingly, all these patients tended to develop a C krusei infection (10/56, P = .02) or a fluconazole-resistant isolate's infection (14/50, P = .04) compared to patients (4/77 and 10/77, respectively) who did not have a breakthrough candidaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of prophylactic strategies is necessary to limit the occurrence of breakthrough candidaemia and, importantly, the emergence of fluconazole-resistant NCAC isolates' infections in haematological malignancy patients.

'Real-life' analysis of the role of antifungal prophylaxis in preventing invasive aspergillosis in AML patients undergoing consolidation therapy: Sorveglianza Epidemiologica Infezioni nelle Emopatie (SEIFEM) 2016 study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the incidence of proven/probable invasive aspergillosis (IA) and the role of antifungal prophylaxis (AP) in a 'real-life' setting of patients with AML receiving intensive consolidation therapy. METHODS: Cases of IA, observed during consolidation in adult/paediatric patients with AML between 2011 and 2015, were retrospectively collected in a multicentre Italian study. RESULTS: Of 2588 patients, 56 (2.2%) developed IA [43 probable (1.7%) and 13 proven (0.5%)]. IA was diagnosed in 34 of 1137 (2.9%) patients receiving no AP and in 22 of 1451 (1.5%) who were given AP (P = 0.01). Number-needed-to-treat calculation indicates that, on average, 71 patients should have received AP (instead of no AP) for one additional patient to not have IA. Initial antifungal therapy was 'pre-emptive' in 36 (64%) patients and 'targeted' in 20 (36%) patients. A good response to first-line therapy was observed in 26 (46%) patients, mainly those who received AP [16 of 22 (73%) versus 10 of 34 (29%); P = 0.001]. The overall mortality rate and the mortality rate attributable to IA by day 120 were 16% and 9%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, age ≥60 years (OR = 12.46, 95% CI = 1.13-136.73; P = 0.03) and high-dose cytarabine treatment (OR = 10.56, 95% CI = 1.95-116.74; P = 0.04) independently affected outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, AP appears to prevent IA from occurring during consolidation. However, although the incidence of IA was low, mortality was not negligible among older patients. Further prospective studies should be carried out particularly in elderly patients treated with high-dose cytarabine to confirm our data and to identify subsets of individuals who may require AP.

Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase I/II studies.

Twice-weekly carfilzomib is approved at 27 and 56 mg/m2 to treat relapsed multiple myeloma patients. In the phase III study ARROW, once-weekly 70 mg/m 2 carfilzomib prolonged the median progression-free survival of relapsed multiple myeloma patients in comparison with twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib, without adding significant toxicity. Data were pooled from two phase I/II studies of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who received nine induction cycles of carfilzomib (either 70 mg/m2 once-weekly or 36 mg/m2 twice-weekly), cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, followed by carfilzomib maintenance. Overall, 121 transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were analyzed (once-weekly, n=63; twice-weekly, n=58). We found no significant difference in median progression-free survival [35.7 months (95%CI: 23.7-not reached, NR) vs 35.5 months (95%CI: 24.3-NR); HR: 1.39; P=0.26] and 3-year overall survival [70% [95%CI: 59%-84%) vs 72% (95%CI: 60%-85%); HR: 1.27; P=0.5] between once-weekly and twice-weekly carfilzomib. From the start of maintenance, 3-year progression-free survival [47% (95%CI: 33%-68%) vs 51% (95%CI: 38%-70%); HR: 1.04; P=0.92] and overall survival [72% (95%CI: 58%-89%) vs 73% (95%CI: 59%-90%); HR: 0.82; P=0.71] were similar in the once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib. The rate of grade 3-5 hematologic (24% vs 30%; P=0.82) and non-hematologic (38% vs 41%; P=0.83) adverse events was similar in the two groups. Once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib as induction and maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients was as safe and effective as twice-weekly 36 mg/m2 carfilzomib and provided a more convenient schedule. The trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and 01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Systemic antifungal treatment after posaconazole prophylaxis: results from the SEIFEM 2010-C survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, treatment and outcome of breakthrough invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in adult acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients after posaconazole prophylaxis. METHODS: From January 2010 to April 2012, all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AML were prospectively registered at 33 participating Italian centres. All cases of IFIs occurring within 30 days after the end of the first induction chemotherapy were recorded. The strategy of antifungal treatment (empirical, pre-emptive or targeted) and the drugs used were analysed. ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01315925. RESULTS: In total, 1192 patients with newly diagnosed AML were enrolled in the study, of whom 510 received posaconazole prophylaxis and were included in the present analysis. Of these patients, 140 (27%) needed systemic antifungal treatment. Among the 127 evaluable cases, an empirical approach was utilized in 102 patients (80%), a pre-emptive approach in 19 patients (15%) and targeted therapy in 6 patients (5%). Only five patients died of IFIs (three in the empirical group and two in the targeted group; 4%). A critical review of IFI diagnoses at 30 days demonstrated that among the patients treated empirically, ∼30% were not affected by IFIs but rather only by fever of unidentified origin. A comparison between the empirical and the pre-emptive groups showed no significant differences regarding the attributable and overall mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that posaconazole prophylaxis reduces the incidence of breakthrough IFIs and does not modify the efficacy of subsequent systemic antifungal treatment, regardless of the approach (empirical or pre-emptive) or the antifungal drug used.

Bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone is superior to thalidomide-dexamethasone as consolidation therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

In a randomized, phase 3 study, superior complete/near-complete response (CR/nCR) rates and extended progression-free survival were demonstrated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) versus thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) as induction therapy before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed myeloma patients (intention-to-treat analysis; VTD, n = 236; TD, n = 238). This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specifically assessed the efficacy and safety of consolidation with VTD or TD. Before starting consolidation, CR/nCR rates were not significantly different in the VTD (63.1%) and TD arms (54.7%). After consolidation, CR (60.6% vs 46.6%) and CR/nCR (73.1% vs 60.9%) rates were significantly higher for VTD-treated versus TD-treated patients. VTD consolidation significantly increased CR and CR/nCR rates, but TD did not (McNemar test). With a median follow-up of 30.4 months from start of consolidation, 3-year progression-free survival was significantly longer for the VTD group (60% vs 48% for TD). Grade 2 or 3 peripheral neuropathy (8.1% vs 2.4%) was more frequent with VTD (grade 3, 0.6%) versus TD consolidation. The superior efficacy of VTD versus TD as induction was retained despite readministration as consolidation therapy after double autologous transplantation. VTD consolidation therapy significantly contributed to improved clinical outcomes observed for patients randomly assigned to the VTD arm of the study. The study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01134484.

Bloodstream infections due to Gram-negative bacteria in patients with hematologic malignancies: updated epidemiology and risk factors for multidrug-resistant strains in an Italian perspective survey.

Bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) have been associated with high mortality rates, particularly with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant strains. A multicenter cohort study including all consecutive episodes of GNB BSI in HM patients was conducted to update the epidemiology and antibiotic resistance patterns (compared to our previous survey conducted between 2009 and 2012) and investigate risk factors for GNB BSI due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. A total of 834 GNB were recovered in 811 BSI episodes from January 2016 to December 2018. Compared to the previous survey, there was a significant reduction in use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and a significant recovery in susceptibility rates to ciprofloxacin among Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae isolates. In addition, there was a shift to a significantly increased susceptibility of P. aeruginosa isolates to ceftazidime, meropenem, and gentamicin. A total of 256/834 (30.7%) isolates were MDR. In multivariable analysis, MDR bacteria culture-positive surveillance rectal swabs, previous therapy with aminoglycosides and carbapenems, fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, and time at risk were independently associated with MDR GNB BSI. In conclusion, despite the persistence of a high prevalence of MDR GNB, there was a shift to a reduced use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and increased rates of susceptibility to fluoroquinolones in almost all isolates and to almost all antibiotics tested among P. aeruginosa isolates, compared to our previous survey. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and previous rectal colonization by MDR bacteria were independent risk factors for MDR GNB BSI in the present study.