The European Myeloma Network (EMN) organized two flow cytometry workshops. The first aimed to identify specific indications for flow cytometry in patients with monoclonal gammopathies, and consensus technical approaches through a questionnaire-based review of current practice in participating laboratories. The second aimed to resolve outstanding technical issues and develop a consensus approach to analysis of plasma cells. The primary clinical applications identified were: differential diagnosis of neoplastic plasma cell disorders from reactive plasmacytosis; identifying risk of progression in patients with MGUS and detecting minimal residual disease. A range of technical recommendations were identified, including: 1) CD38, CD138 and CD45 should all be included in at least one tube for plasma cell identification and enumeration. The primary gate should be based on CD38 vs. CD138 expression; 2) after treatment, clonality assessment is only likely to be informative when combined with immunophenotype to detect abnormal cells. Flow cytometry is suitable for demonstrating a stringent complete remission; 3) for detection of abnormal plasma cells, a minimal panel should include CD19 and CD56. A preferred panel would also include CD20, CD117, CD28 and CD27; 4) discrepancies between the percentage of plasma cells detected by flow cytometry and morphology are primarily related to sample quality and it is, therefore, important to determine that marrow elements are present in follow-up samples, particularly normal plasma cells in MRD negative cases.

Promising new drugs are being evaluated for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but their impact should be measured against the expected outcome in patients failing current therapies. However, the natural history of relapsed disease in the current era remains unclear. We studied 286 patients with relapsed MM, who were refractory to bortezomib and were relapsed, refractory, or ineligible, to an IMiD (Immunomodulatory Drug), with measurable disease and ECOG PS of 0, 1 or 2. The date patients satisfied the entry criteria was defined as time zero (T0). The median age at diagnosis was 58 years and time from diagnosis to T0 was 3.3 years. Following T0, 213 (74%) patients had a treatment recorded with one or more regimens (median=1; range 0-8). The first regimen contained bortezomib in 55 (26%) patients and an IMiD in 70 (33%). A minor response or better was seen to at least one therapy after T0 in 94 patients (51%) including >=partial response in 69 (38%). The median overall survival and event free survival from T0 were 9 and 5 months respectively. This study confirms the poor outcome once patients become refractory to current treatments. The results provide context for interpreting ongoing trials of new drugs.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The WHO and iwCLL diagnostic criteria for CLL rely on morphology and immunophenotype based on the co-expression of CD19/CD5/CD23 on B-cells with weak CD20 and monoclonal sIg expression. These diagnostic criteria are likely to persist in the near future because there is no specific diagnostic molecular abnormality for CLL. The current criteria have some limitations affecting reproducibility, particularly flexibility in marker expression with many centres using a scoring system that permits absence of CD5 or CD23. Potentially informative new markers have been identified but there is no consensus yet on which should be routinely assessed. AIM: To identify reproducible criteria and to achieve a consensus on markers recommended for the diagnosis of CLL METHODS: ERIC/ESCCA members were invited to classify 35 flow-cytometry markers as being required or recommended for the diagnosis of CLL. Consensus was considered to be achieved if >75% of participants agreed on the marker classification. A diagnostic panel was identified by the steering committee and characteristics of component markers that could be reproducibly validated within an individual laboratory were identified. The proposed panel was assessed in 13 different centres. RESULTS: Responses were received from 154 members (100 laboratory staff, 14 clinicians and 36 from both laboratory and clinic) with a diagnostic workload >20 cases per week in 23/154 (15%), 5-20 in 82/154 (53%) and <5 cases per week in 49/154 (32%). The consensus minimum diagnostic panel should include : CD19, CD5, CD20, CD23, Kappa and Lambda. Participants recommended the following markers: CD38, CD45, CD79b, CD10, CD22, CD43, CD200, and FMC7. A minimum and recommended panel with reproducible criteria for component reagents were determined and the criteria were applied to 10,876 cases diagnosed with a B-LPD, of which 8120 were CD5+ B-LPD. Out of 5947 sent as a primary referrals for diagnosis, 4493 (75.6%) met the proposed diagnostic criteria for CLL, 821 (13.8%) did not and had a clear alternative diagnosis (e.g. MCL) and 633 (10.6%) would not be readily classified by flow cytometry if the proposed criteria were applied. Out of 2173 cases previously diagnosed as CLL at another centre, 2028 (93.3%) met the proposed diagnostic criteria, 19 (0.9%) had a clear alternative diagnosis while 126 (5.8%) did not meet the flow-cytometry criteria. CONCLUSIONS: We present flow-cytometry criteria for the diagnosis of CLL largely consistent with current practice. In addition, reproducible definitions of the required expression pattern and performance characteristics of reagents are provided. Prospective evaluation of the proposed criteria as well as a parallel project to facilitate definitive diagnosis of CD5+ B-LPD cases that do not meet the proposed criteria are underway. Figure 1. required and recommended markers for use in the diagnosis of CLL with reagent specification based on expression patterns in normal peripheral blood. Figure 1. required and recommended markers for use in the diagnosis of CLL with reagent specification based on expression patterns in normal peripheral blood. ‡ Weak expression = median fluorescence intensity at least 20% lower than median for normal peripheral blood B-cells, reference range determined within each laboratory, based on ICSH/ISLH/CLIA guidelines for reproducibility *consensus, not specifically validated Disclosures Rawstron: Abbvie: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BD Biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cuneo:Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Kern:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trneny:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding. Mulligan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Hillmen:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hallek:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Boards, Research Funding. Ghia:AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

PURPOSE Oral melphalan and dexamethasone (MDex) were considered a standard of care in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. In the past decade, bortezomib has been increasingly used in combination with alkylating agents and dexamethasone. We prospectively compared the efficacy and safety of MDex and MDex with the addition of bortezomib (BMDex). METHODS This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients were stratified according to cardiac stage. Patients with advanced cardiac stage (stage IIIb) amyloidosis were not eligible. The primary end point was hematologic response rate at 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01277016 . RESULTS A total of 109 patients, 53 in the BMDex and 56 in the MDex group, received ≥ 1 dose of therapy (from January 2011 to February 2016). Hematologic response rate at 3 months was higher in the BMDex arm (79% v 52%; P = .002). Higher rates of very good partial or complete response rates (64% v 39%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.71) and improved overall survival, with a 2-fold decrease in mortality rate (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.90), were observed in the BMDex arm. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (the most common being cytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and heart failure) were more common in the BMDex arm, occurring in 20% versus 10% of cycles performed. CONCLUSION BMDex improved hematologic response rate and overall survival. To our knowledge, this is the first time a controlled study has demonstrated a survival advantage in AL amyloidosis. BMDex should be considered a new standard of care for AL amyloidosis.