Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Leukemia, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 33, No. 1 ( 2019-1), p. 258-261

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0887-6924 , 1476-5551

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41375-018-0195-9

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2008023-2

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 114, No. 22 ( 2009-11-20), p. 3400-3400

Abstract: Abstract 3400 Poster Board III-288 To analyse the impact of complete response (CR), near CR (nCR) and very good partial response (VGPR) before and after first high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), we evaluated all patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent an ASCT in frontline treatment at our centre. The transplantations were performed between June 1992 and February 2009 giving a minimum follow up of 5 months after ASCT. The retrospective analysis included a total of 994 patients (579 males and 415 females) with a median age of 58 years at time of first ASCT (range 25 - 76 years). Median follow-up after first ASCT was 5.8 years. All patients suffered from symptomatic MM. Before induction treatment 48%, 31% and 21% of patients were in ISS-stage I, II and III, respectively. The following induction regimes were applied prior to HDT: VAD (n=683), TAD (n=74), PAD (n=64), and other regimes (n= 173). The patients were treated with HDT once (n= 460), twice (n=437) or thrice (n=97). 91 patients received an allogeneic SCT, 30 of these before first progression after ASCT. These were censored for PFS at time of allogeneic SCT. Maintenance therapy (interferon n=332, thalidomide n=203, bortezomib n=48 or others n=13) was administered in 596 patients. Overall survival and progression-free survival were calculated from the time of first ASCT. The median OS time was 5.7 years and the median PFS was 2.2 years. Log-rank test, univariate and multivariate Cox PH regression as well as landmark analyses were utilized to assess the prognostic impact of response. We analysed the effect of achievement of CR, of nCR or CR and of VGPR or CR or nCR before and after HDT, respectively. Achieving CR or nCR is a highly significant prognostic factor for PFS and OS before (p 〈 0.001 and p=0.01, respectively) and after first HDT (both p 〈 0.001). The group including VGPR showed superior outcome when assessed after HDT, driven by the effect of CR/nCR. When adjusting for the effect of age, beta-2 microglobulin before ASCT, albumin before ASCT, new drugs before ASCT (thalidomide and bortezomib; yes/no), second ASCT within 9 months (yes/no), maintenance therapy (yes/no), and date of first ASCT, achieving CR or nCR remained a significant prognostic factor (PFS after ASCT: HR=0.66 [0.54;0.80], p 〈 0.001; OS after ASCT: HR=0.65 [0.51;0.83], p=0.001). In addition, we analyzed the effect of duration of response compared to response achievement per se. Patients who sustained their remission (overall response = PR and better) at 3 yrs after first ASCT had a favourable prognosis with respect to OS compared to patients losing remission. Conclusion: In our single-center cohort achieving CR or nCR before and after first HDT is highly prognostic for PFS and OS in MM. Sustained duration of response is also associated with an improved prognosis (3 years landmark analysis). At our centre we recommend that patients not achieving at least an nCR should be treated with a second cycle of HDT. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V114.22.3400.3400

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2009

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Anti-Cancer Drugs, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 15, No. 9 ( 2004-10), p. 915-919

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0959-4973

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1097/00001813-200410000-00013

Language: English

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication Date: 2004

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2025803-3

In: The Lancet Haematology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 11, No. 2 ( 2024-02), p. e101-e113

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2352-3026

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00366-6

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2024

In: Blood Cancer Journal, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 11, No. 1 ( 2021-01-07)

Abstract: Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MT) post autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) but has not been compared to other agents in clinical trials. We retrospectively compared bortezomib (BTZ; n  = 138) or LEN ( n  = 183) MT from two subsequent GMMG phase III trials. All patients received three cycles of BTZ-based triplet induction and post-ASCT MT. BTZ MT (1.3 mg/m 2 i.v.) was administered every 2 weeks for 2 years. LEN MT included two consolidation cycles (25 mg p.o., days 1–21 of 28 day cycles) followed by 10–15 mg/day for 2 years. The BTZ cohort more frequently received tandem ASCT (91% vs. 33%) due to different tandem ASCT strategies. In the LEN and BTZ cohort, 43% and 46% of patients completed 2 years of MT as intended ( p  = 0.57). Progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.83, p  = 0.18) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.70, p  = 0.15) did not differ significantly with LEN vs. BTZ MT. Patients with 〈 nCR after first ASCT were assigned tandem ASCT in both trials. In patients with 〈 nCR and tandem ASCT (LEN: n  = 54 vs. BTZ: n  = 84), LEN MT significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.61, p  = 0.04) but not OS (HR = 0.46, p  = 0.09). In conclusion, the significant PFS benefit after eliminating the impact of different tandem ASCT rates supports the current standard of LEN MT after ASCT.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2044-5385

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41408-020-00390-3

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2600560-8

In: BMC Cancer, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 16, No. 1 ( 2016-12)

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1471-2407

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2321-2

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2041352-X

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 132, No. Supplement 1 ( 2018-11-29), p. 254-254

Abstract: Introduction The ReLApsE trial compared lenalidomide (LEN)/dexamethasone (DEX; Rd) re-induction, salvage high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and LEN maintenance with continuous Rd in relapsed multiple myeloma. Landmark (LM) analyses from salvage HDCT were performed due to the fact that ~30% of patients in the HDCT arm did not receive salvage HDCT/ASCT. These analyses showed a survival benefit in patients actually undergoing salvage HDCT/ASCT. Median PFS and OS from LM were 23.3 vs. 20.1 months (HR 0.74; p=0.09) and not reached vs. 57 months (HR 0.56; p=0.046) favoring the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm. Multivariate LM analyses showed significant associations of the salvage HDCT/ASCT arm with superior PFS (HR 0.6; p=0.01) and OS (HR 0.39; p=0.006). The present analysis aims to dissect treatment efficacy in relevant subgroups and provide clues for treatment stratification. Methods The ReLApsE trial (ISRCTN16345835) compared 3 Rd (LEN 25 mg, d1-21; DEX 40 mg, d1,8,15,22; 4 week cycles) re-induction cycles, HDCT (melphalan 200 mg/m2), ASCT and LEN maintenance (10 mg/d) until PD (arm B, n=139) with Rd until PD (arm A, n=138). Key inclusion criteria were 1-3 prior therapy lines, age ≤ 75, time to PD in case of front-line HDCT/ASCT (TTP1) ≥ 12 months and WHO PS ≤ 2. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed in the ITT population for PFS/OS using an LM at HDCT (B; n=103) and the contemporaneous Rd cycle 5 (A; n=114). The median interval from randomization to LM was 117/122 days in arm B/A. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed by cox regression with interaction term between treatment and subgroup factor. Results No significant differences in the PFS/OS benefit between arms were observed in subgroups according to baseline ISS (I/II/III; interaction p[i-p]=0.5/0.66), age ( 〈 /≥65 yrs; i-p=0.13/0.89), renal function (MDRD 〈 /≥ 60 ml/min; i-p=0.68/0.34), response to re-induction ( 〈 /≥ PR; i-p=0.92/0.48), prior therapy lines (1/ 〉 1; i-p=0.37/0.22), single vs. tandem front-line HDCT/ASCT (i-p=0.34/0.56), and TTP1 (12-24 vs. 24-48 vs. 〉 48 months; i-p=0.91/0.21). The subgroups according to front-line HDCT/ASCT (yes/no) differed significantly with regard to PFS/OS benefit in arm B (i-p=0.006/0.001). A significant benefit was observed in patients with front-line HDCT/ASCT treated in arm B regarding PFS (HR 0.68, p=0.03; n=107[A]/98[B] ) and OS (HR 0.43, p=0.009). Patients without front-line HDCT/ASCT constituted a very small subgroup with imbalances in baseline parameters adversely affecting arm B and had expectably inferior survival in arm B (PFS: HR 4.35, p=0.08; OS: HR 19.83, p=0.0078; n=7[A]/5[B] ). The subgroup with baseline LDH 〈 / 〉 upper limit of normal (ULN) differed significantly in PFS benefit in arm B (i-p=0.03) but not in OS benefit (i-p=0.46). Patients with LDH 〈 ULN had significantly better PFS (HR 0.61, p=0.01; n=98[A]/85[B] ) in arm B whereas no significant difference between trial arms was observed in patients with LDH 〉 ULN (PFS: HR 1.54, p=0.31; n=16[A]/18[B] ). The subgroups according to baseline cytogenetic risk and R-ISS showed a trend towards a differential benefit in arm B regarding OS (i-p=0.05 and 0.09) but not PFS (i-p=0.5 and 0.88). Patients with low risk cytogenetics (i.e. absence of t(4;14), del17p, +1q 〉 3 copies and t(14;16)) had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.21; p=0.01; n=57[A]/35[B] ), whereas patients with high risk cytogenetics had no significant difference in OS according to trial arm (HR 0.82, p=0.67; n=25[A]/28[B] ). Patients with R-ISS I had significantly superior OS in arm B (HR 0.08; p=0.02; n=33[A]/25[B] ), whereas no significant difference in OS according to trial arm was seen in patients with R-ISS II (HR 0.72, p=0.42; n=52[A]/43[B] ) and R-ISS III (HR 0.65, p=0.6; n=3[A]/5[B] ). Conclusions The ReLApsE trial is the first RCT of salvage HDCT/ASCT vs. continuous novel agent treatment. In the absence of a significant survival benefit for the primary endpoint, LM analyses indicated a significant PFS/OS benefit in patients actually undergoing HDCT/ASCT. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed according to ISS, age, renal function, response to re-induction, prior therapy lines, single vs. tandem front-line HDCT/ASCT, and TTP1. Subgroup effects regarding PFS and/or OS benefit from HDCT/ASCT were seen favoring patients with front-line HDCT/ASCT and patients with low risk according to LDH, cytogenetics and R-ISS. Disclosures Baertsch: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Raab:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillengass:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Sanofi: Research Funding. Graeven:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria. Fenk:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel grant; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Haenel:Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Scheid:Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Salwender:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel suppport, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Juno, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; ArtTempi: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-119762

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2018

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 118, No. 21 ( 2011-11-18), p. 4124-4124

Abstract: Abstract 4124 BACKGROUND: Most patients (pts) undergoing high-dose therapy with melphalan 200 mg/m2 (HDM) and autologous transplant for multiple myeloma (MM) develop disease recurrence. The optimal salvage treatment including autologous (auto-) and allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) as consolidation therapy for these patients is not yet defined. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 116 pts with MM treated in our institution between 1999 and 2005. Inclusion criteria were relapse after auto-SCT (n=88) or failure of induction treatment (n=28) and age ≤ 65 years. Re-induction was performed with TCED (thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, etoposide and dexamethasone (Möhler et al, Blood 2001). Seventy-one pts (median age, 59 yrs) received auto-SCT (auto-group) after HDM followed by maintenance therapy with thalidomide or interferon-alpha in 42 pts. Forty-five pts (allo-group, median age, 53 yrs) underwent a reduced-intensity allo-SCT (related in 24 pts), mostly using conditioning with 2 Gy total body irradiation and fludarabine. Thirty-eight pts received an auto-allo-tandem-SCT (Maloney, Blood 2003) and 7 pts have been directly transplanted after TCED. Statistical analysis was done using the two-stage test of Qiu & Sheng (JRSS Ser. B 2008) to compare two possibly crossing survival curves. Extended Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to allow for time-varying differences between the two SCT groups. RESULTS: Estimated median follow-up after start of TCED was 95 months. All pts received a median number of 3 TCED cycles for re-induction therapy. 64 of 116 pts (55%) showed at least a PR after TCED chemotherapy (CR in 3 pts). TRM was 17% after 2 years in the allo-group and differed significantly from the auto-group (3%, p=0.02). More CR were achieved after allo-SCT compared to auto-SCT (17 vs. 4 pts., p 〈 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 26 months for the auto group and 23 months for the allo group (Figure 1, p=0.16). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months for both groups but crossing hazards were observed (Figure 2, p=0.03, two-stage test of Qiu & Sheng). The results of multivariate regression analysis for OS and PFS including age at relapse-SCT, response to TCED, time between first diagnosis until first relapse-SCT and primary progression are shown in table 1. In the allo group, there was no OS or PFS difference between related and unrelated donors (multivariate analysis). Cumulative incidence of chronic GvHD was 73% (53% extensive). Patients with chronic GvHD showed a better OS and PFS than pts without (univariate analysis, both p 〈 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis in a large number of patients with a long follow-up comparing allo with auto SCT in 1st myeloma relapse which were treated uniformly with TCED therapy for re-induction. Main problem was MM recurrence. However, younger pts with disease response after TCED and longer time from first diagnosis to first SCT after relapse profit best from TCED and this transplant approach. Most interestingly, disease control is better after allo compared to auto SCT in univariate and multivariate analysis leading to a PFS of about 20% after 4 years. In our opinion, allo SCT is a valuable clinical option for patients with 1st relapse after HDM and auto SCT. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V118.21.4124.4124

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2011

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 486-486

Abstract: Background: Treatment regimens including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulating agent and a monoclonal antibody (moAb) play an emerging role in the treatment of newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). This multicenter phase III trial of the German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG HD6) investigated the addition of the anti-SLAMF7 moAb elotuzumab to lenalidomide / bortezomib / dexamethasone (RVd) in induction and consolidation therapy as well as to lenalidomide maintenance treatment in transplant-eligible NDMM. Patients and Methods: Patients were equally randomized into four treatment arms, stratified by International Staging System (ISS). Treatment consisted of four 21-day cycles of RVd (arms A1/A2) or elotuzumab-RVd (arms B1/B2) induction therapy, respectively. High-dose melphalan (HDM) and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were followed by two 21-day cycles of RVd or elotuzumab-RVd consolidation and lenalidomide or elotuzumab-lenalidomide maintenance for two years (arms A1/B1 vs. A2/B2). Primary objective of the trial was determination of the best of four treatment strategies regarding progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates and safety. Results: Between 06/2015 and 09/2017, 564 patients were included in the trial. The evaluable intention-to-treat (ITT) and safety population comprised 559 and 555 patients (A1: n=139/137; A2: n=141/138; B1: n=137/138; B2: n=142/142). Median age at randomization was 59 (range 27-70) years. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the four treatment arms. Four cycles of induction therapy were completed by 517 patients (92.5% of ITT). At least one HDM/ASCT was applied in 495 (88.6%), of which 116 patients (20.8%) received tandem HDM/ASCT. Consolidation and maintenance therapy were initiated in 469 (83.9%) and 454 (81.2%) patients, respectively. Rates of very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) prior to start of consolidation therapy were 78.9%, 78.2%, 81.5% and 80.7% in arms A1, A2, B1 and B2, respectively (p=0.95). With a median follow-up time of 49.8 months, PFS was not significantly different between the four treatment arms (adjusted log-rank p value stratified by ISS, p=0.86; primary endpoint). OS was similar in all treatment arms (stratified log-rank p=0.43). 3-year PFS/OS rates are 68.8%/89.4%, 68.5%/89.1%, 66.2%/92.5% and 67.2%/89.7% in arm A1, A2, B1 and B2, respectively. Multivariate analyses including age, sex, ISS stage, performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase level, renal impairment at diagnosis, adverse cytogenetics (del17p, t[4;14] and t[14;16] ) and treatment arms identified ISS stages II and III (hazard ratio [HR]=1.42/2.04, 95% conf idence interval [95% CI]= 1.00-2.02/1.36-3.07, p=0.048/ & lt;0.001) and adverse cytogenetics (HR=1.63, 95% CI: 1.19-2.25, p=0.003) as significant predictors for shortened PFS. On induction, consolidation and maintenance treatment, at least one (serious) adverse event (grade ≥3 for all AE or ≥2 for infections and infestations, neuropathy, cardiac disorders and thromboembolic events, and any grade for serious AE) occurred in 95.6%, 91.3%, 92.8% and 89.4% of patients in arm A1, A2, B1 and B2, respectively (p=0.25). Most common system organ classes (SOCs) were "infections and infestations", "neurological disorders", "blood and lymphatic system disorders", and "investigations" with no significant differences between the four treatment arms (p=0.39/0.64/0.13/0.42). Overall AE/SAE during lenalidomide vs. elotuzumab-lenalidomide maintenance were comparable (A1/B1: 65.5% vs. A2/B2: 66.4%,p=0.86), though SOC "infections and infestations" was increased in the elotuzumab-lenalidomide arms (A1/B1: 42.9% vs. A2/B2: 51.4%, p=0.05). Conclusions: This is the first phase III trial evaluating elotuzumab in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM. The addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction/consolidation therapy and lenalidomide maintenance did not result in improved PFS or OS. This is in line with previous reports from the ELOQUENT-1 and SWOG-1211 trials, investigating elotuzumab in non-transplant-eligible and high-risk NDMM, while elotuzumab-based combination therapies are effective in relapsed MM (ELOQUENT-2/-3 trials). Further analyses to identify potential subgroups that benefit from elotuzumab-based treatment in our trial are ongoing. Disclosures Goldschmidt: Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. Mai: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations and expenses, Research Funding. Besemer: GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenk: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria. Munder: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding. Dürig: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hose: LamKap Bio: Consultancy, Current Employment; BMS: Research Funding. Scheid: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schroers: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Metzler: GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Schieferdecker: Sebia: Consultancy. Mahlberg: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Graeven: Amgen: Honoraria; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Fujifilm: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Ipsen Bioscience: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Research Funding. Martens: Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Weisel: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raab: Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salwender: Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Pfizer: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide and ELotuzumab in first line therapy prior to autologous stem cell transplantation, Elotuzumab in maintenance after autologous transplantation.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-147323

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Elsevier BV, Vol. 19, No. 10 ( 2019-10), p. e286-e287

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2152-2650

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.471

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2540998-0

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2193618-3