Efebera, Yvonne A.

Maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) is the standard treatment and recommended to be continued until disease progression. However, in the real world, patients discontinue treatment due to various reasons. We sought to determine the effect of early versus late discontinuation on survival outcomes in MM patients who underwent ASCT at The Ohio State University. We retrospectively reviewed 340 patients who underwent ASCT from 2005 to 2016 and received maintenance therapy for at least six months without progression. We compared the outcomes of patients who received maintenance for three years or less (early group) to the patients who continued maintenance beyond three years (late group). Lenalidomide (89%) and bortezomib (10%) were the most common agents used for maintenance chemotherapy. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, patients in the late group had prolonged progression-free (PFS) (p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001). The 5-year estimated OS in late group was 96% vs. 79% in the early group and 5-year PFS was 80% in late group vs. 50% in the early group. The most common reasons for discontinuation of maintenance in early group were adverse events (55.9%) and patient preference (22.5%). For the late group, it was disease progression (23.9%) and adverse events (14.3%). Fifty-five percent of patients in the late group were still on maintenance treatment at the last follow-up. Continuation of maintenance therapy was thus associated with improved outcomes, while adverse events prevented most patients from continuing treatment.

8009 Background: Measuring response among patients with multiple myeloma is essential for the care of patients. Deeper responses have been associated with better progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Serum (SIFE) and urine immunofixation are the currently used markers for biochemical documentation of CR after which marrow is tested for plasma cell clearance. Next generation flow cytometry and sequencing are used to document the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD). Mass spectrometry of blood by MALDI (Mass-Fix) is a new simple, inexpensive, sensitive, and specific means of detecting monoclonal immunoglobulins. To better test the hypothesis that Mass-Fix is superior to existing methodologies to predict for survival outcomes—especially SIFE-- samples from the STAMINA trial (NCT01109004), a trial comparing 3 transplant approaches among patients who have already received induction, were employed. Methods: Five-hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Samples from enrollment post-induction (post-I) and 1-year post enrollment (1YR) were tested when available. Four response parameters were assessed univariately: Mass-Fix, SIFE, complete response, and MRD by next generation flow cytometry. Mass spectrometry spectra were evaluated in a blinded fashion. Complete response was according to the 2006 International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models using stepwise regression were developed to explore the independent effect of the different response parameters on PFS and OS and interactions with other risk factors. Results: Of the 4 response measures, only MRD and Mass-Fix predicted for PFS and OS at multiple testing points on multivariate analyses (Table). Of the 4 post-I measurements, only MRD predicted for PFS; however, Mass-Fix was the only post-I measurement to predict for OS. Of all the 1-year measures, both 1YR Mass-Fix and 1YR MRD positivity predicted for inferior PFS and OS. In models including MRD and Mass-Fix, SIFE and CR were not prognostic for PFS or OS. Conclusions: Mass-Fix is a powerful means to track monoclonal proteins. The full utility of Mass-Fix was not exploited given the absence of a diagnostic sample and the fact that only serum (and not urine) was tested. Despite these limitations, it performed well at pre-induction and at 1 year. Mass-Fix provides a convenient and non-invasive means of predicting for myeloma outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT01109004. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Amphiregulin (AREG) is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligand that can restore integrity to damaged intestinal mucosa in murine models of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). We previously described AREG as a circulating biomarker of late-onset aGVHD, but its relevance combined with clinical risk factors has not yet been tested in a large cohort of patients with aGVHD occurring prior to day 100 post-transplant. We therefore tested samples from two aGVHD first-line treatment trials, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0302 and 0802, and identified a clinically relevant threshold level of circulating AREG at aGVHD onset. We then investigated whether incorporating AREG into the refined Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Patients and Methods: Blood samples were obtained at the onset of systemic aGVHD treatment within BMT CTN 0302 (serum) and BMT CTN 0802 (plasma). All patients with response data and samples for analysis from both trials were included (N=251). We determined the association of AREG with clinical outcomes, including risk stratification by the refined Minnesota criteria, day 28 complete/partial response (CR/PR) to first-line therapy, 2-year overall survival (OS) and 6-month and 2-year non-relapse mortality (NRM). We investigated the effect of AREG on clinical endpoints per a doubling in the value of AREG, defined a clinically relevant threshold level in the AREG values using two-fold cross-validation, and confirmed the clinical relevance of this cut-point in independent samples (N=92) from pooled from drawn from the Chronic GVHD Consortium and the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Results: In patients enrolled in BMT CTN 0302/0802, AREG levels were 1.7-fold higher in patients with Minnesota high-risk (HR) compared to standard-risk (SR) aGVHD (HR median 53.4 vs SR 31 pg/ml, p&lt;0.01). Every 2-fold increase in AREG was associated with a 33% decrease in the likelihood of day 28 CR/PR (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, p&lt;0.01, table). Clinical factors alone, as determined by the refined Minnesota Risk Score, were associated with day 28 CR/PR (p=0.02, table). Adding AREG to the Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Minnesota SR patients with elevated AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL showed a 59% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR than SR patients with low AREG (OR 0.41, p=0.02). Patients with Minnesota HR aGVHD with AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL had the worst outcomes, with an 82% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR in comparison to HR with low AREG (OR 0.18, p&lt;0.01). High AREG was associated with worse OS and NRM in both Minnesota SR (hazard ratios 2-year OS 2.3, p&lt;0.01 and 6 month NRM 2.95, p=0.01, respectively) and HR patients (hazard ratios 2-year OS 3.35, p&lt;0.01 and 6-month NRM 9.38, p&lt;0.01 respectively, figure). Finally, in independent samples from the Chronic GVHD Consortium/MAGIC we confirmed that high AREG was associated with worse day 28 CR/PR (55.2% vs. 79.4%, p=0.02) and significantly worse 6-month survival after the onset of aGVHD (57.1% vs. 82.5%, p=0.01). Conclusion: AREG is elevated in patients with poor aGVHD outcomes and adds to the accuracy of risk stratification when combined with the refined Minnesota Risk Score. AREG ≥33 pg/mL at aGVHD onset is associated with lower day 28 CR/PR and higher mortality in samples from 4 multicenter cohorts. The mechanism of elevated circulating AREG in severe aGVHD is not yet known, although we hypothesize the degree of AREG elevation reflects the intensity of immune-mediated tissue injury resulting in AREG release. With accumulating evidence of altered EGFR ligands in aGVHD, further investigation into epithelial repair pathways involving AREG may lead to new adjunctive therapies to overcome poor steroid response in high-risk aGVHD. Disclosures Holtan: Incyte: Other: One-time advisory board member. Khera: Novartis: Consultancy. Lee: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Amgen: Other: One-time advisory board member; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Other: One-time advisory board member; Kadmon: Other: One-time advisory board member. Chen: Immudex: Research Funding. Arora: Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Flowers: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cutler: Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Jagasia: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy. Hexner: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levine: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacMillan: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Multiple myeloma is a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells that accumulate in bone marrow, leading to bone destruction and marrow failure. This manuscript discusses the management of patients with solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering multiple myeloma, and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) represents an important therapeutic advance for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Nonetheless, patients with lenalidomide (Len) and bortezomib (double) refractory disease have a median progression-free survival of only 3.7 months with the combination, thus highlighting the need for further progress. Ixazomib, a novel, oral proteasome inhibitor, has pharmacodynamic properties that may allow for improved proteasome inhibition at the tumoral level and has synergistic activity in combination with IMiDs in preclinical MM models. Clinical studies have demonstrated activity as a single agent in relapsed/refractory MM and in combination with Len-Dex in newly diagnosed patients. We therefore evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of Pom, ixazomib and Dex in patients with Len and proteasome inhibitor (PI) refractory MM in the phase I portion of Alliance study A061202. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included: relapsed or relapsed/refractory disease; ≥2 prior lines of therapy; double refractory disease (progression on or ≤60 days from the last dose of a Len- and PI-based therapy); ECOG performance status (PS) ≤2; absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109/L, platelets ≥50 x 109/L, creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min; and ≤grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. Patients were treated with escalating doses of Pom and ixazomib utilizing a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with standard dose Dex (Table 1). Patients received 2 - 4 mg of Pom on days 1 - 21; ixazomib 3 - 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15; and Dex 40 mg (20 mg for those >75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Out of 17 evaluable patients, the median age was 64 (range 47 - 77) and the median time from diagnosis 5.5 years (range 3.3 - 8.3). Sixty-five percent, 24% and 12% had ISS stage 1, 2 and 3 disease at the start of treatment, respectively, and 65% had high-risk cytogenetics (gain of 1q, del[17p] and/or high-risk IgH translocation). All patients had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 (59% and 41%, respectively). Of 14 patients with complete prior treatment data available, 100% had received prior Len, bortezomib and Dex, 71% alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide or low dose melphalan), 71% autologous stem cell transplant and 29% carfilzomib. Eighty-two percent were refractory to sequential Len- and bortezomib regimens, whereas 6% were refractory to a prior Len/proteasome inhibitor combination (12% not reported). Two dose limiting toxicities have occurred to date, 1 each at dose levels 3 and 4 (Table 1). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia attributable to protocol therapy have been seen in 29%/6%, 12%/6% and 29%/0% of patients, respectively. Twelve percent of patients have experienced grade 3 infection, regardless of attribution, but none have experienced ≥grade 4 infection. The incidence of therapy-related peripheral neuropathy was 24%, none of which was ≥grade 3 in severity. Other common, therapy-related adverse events have included fatigue (53%), nausea (24%), constipation (18%), diarrhea (29%), rash (18%), tremor (24%), anxiety (18%), insomnia (29%) and edema (24%), all of which were ≤grade 2 in severity. Fifty-three percent of patients had at least 1 of the 3 medications dose reduced, and 35% experienced dose delays. To date, 1 patient has discontinued therapy due to adverse events and 1 due to refusal of further therapy. Of 13 patients receiving >1 cycle of therapy, the best overall response rate was 62% (7 partial responses, 1 very good partial response). CONCLUSIONS: The Pom, ixazomib and Dex combination has demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile thus far with encouraging preliminary efficacy. Updated results of the phase I portion of the study will be presented at the meeting, including the maximum tolerated dose that will be used in the randomized, phase II portion of the study, in which the 3-drug combination will be compared with Pom-Dex in double refractory MM patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004275. Supported by U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Table 1. Dose Level Pomalidomide Dose (mg) Ixazomib Dose (mg) DLT Evaluable DLTs 1 2 3 3 None 2 3 3 3 None 3 4 3 6 1 febrile neutropenia 4‡ 4 4 4 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting 8 days ‡enrollment into dose level 4 is complete. Disclosures Voorhees: Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: We will discuss the use of Ixazomib, an agent that is not FDA approved, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma.. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

The NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma provide recommendations for diagnosis, workup, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care for patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance, solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight some of the important updates and changes in the 1.2020 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma.