Isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone and bortezomib in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: the randomized phase 3 BENEFIT trial.

CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10-5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10-5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10-5 and 10-6, and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10-5, the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 .

Heterogeneity in long-term outcomes for patients with Revised International Staging System stage II, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

In the era of personalized treatment in multiple myeloma, high-risk patients must be accurately identified. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends using the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) to pick out high-risk patients. The main purpose of our work was to explore the heterogeneity of outcome among R-ISS stage II patients assessing the impact of International Staging System (ISS) stage, chromosomal abnormalities and lactate dehydrogenase level in this subgroup. Data were collected from 1,343 patients up to 65 years old with newly diagnosed myeloma, enrolled in three clinical trials implemented by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. All patients were eligible for intensive treatment. Patients in R-ISS stage II but ISS stage I had 1.6 times higher risk of death than patients in R-ISS stage I (adjusted hazard ratio=1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.2; P=0.01) and patients in R-ISS stage II but with ISS stage III had a better overall survival than patients in R-ISS stage III (adjusted hazard ratio=0.7; 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.9, P=0.02). However, among patients classified in R-ISS II, ISS stage and chromosomal abnormalities (del[17p] and t[4;14]) were still relevant prognostic factors for death. Dividing R-ISS stage II into three subgroups: ISS I with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities, ISS II or III with standard-risk chromosomal abnormalities and patients with high-risk chromosomal abnormalities, median overall survival times were, respectively, not reached, 112 months and 71 months (P<0.001). In conclusion, stratification of patients in the R-ISS stage II group can be improved by taking into account chromosomal abnormalities and ISS. However, this does not improve predictive performance of survival models.

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

High-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221.

del(17p) without TP53 mutation confers a poor prognosis in intensively treated newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma.

Despite tremendous improvements in the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma in the past decade, high-risk patients have not benefited from the approval of novel drugs. The most important prognostic factor is the loss of parts of the short arm of chromosome 17, known as deletion 17p (del(17p)). A recent publication (on a small number of patients) suggested that these patients are at very high-risk only if del(17p) is associated with TP53 mutations, the so-called "double-hit" population. To validate this finding, we designed a much larger study on 121 patients presenting del(17p) in > 55% of their plasma cells, and homogeneously treated by an intensive approach. For these 121 patients, we performed deep next generation sequencing targeted on TP53. The outcome was then compared with a large control population (2505 patients lacking del(17p)). Our results confirmed that the "double hit" situation is the worst (median survival = 36 months), but that del(17p) alone also confers a poor outcome compared with the control cohort (median survival = 52.8 months vs 152.2 months, respectively). In conclusion, our study clearly confirms the extremely poor outcome of patients displaying "double hit," but also that del(17p) alone is still a very high-risk feature, confirming its value as a prognostic indicator for poor outcome.

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): health-related quality of life outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In part 1 of the two-part CASSIOPEIA study, treatment before and after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) significantly improved rates of stringent complete response and progression-free survival versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is an ongoing randomised, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 111 academic and community practice centres in Europe. Transplantation-eligible adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned (1:1) to D-VTd or VTd. Treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of induction therapy before autologous HSCT and two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy after. In this prespecified secondary analysis, patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at baseline, after induction (cycle 4, day 28), and after consolidation (day 100 after autologous HSCT). The analysis was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population with a baseline and at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02541383). FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542). Questionnaire completion rates were high at baseline (511 [94%] of 543 in the D-VTd group vs 510 [94%] of 542 in the VTd group). Compliance rates (calculated from the number of completed surveys as a proportion of the predicted number of participants still on study treatment) were high at post-induction (431 [84%] of 513 vs 405 [80%] of 509) and post-consolidation (414 [90%] of 460 vs 386 [88%] of 438) assessments and were similar between treatment groups. Mean changes in global health status scores from baseline to post-induction were not different between the D-VTd group (3·8 [95% CI 1·6 to 6·0]) and VTd group (2·9 [0·7 to 5·1]; p=0·43), or from baseline to post-consolidation between the two groups (D-VTd group, 9·7 (95% CI 7·4 to 11·9) vs VTd group, 8·7 (6·5 to 11·0; p=0·45). Improvements from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale scores were observed in post-consolidation scores in both groups. Post-consolidation scores showed significantly greater mean decreases in pain (-23·3 [95% CI -26·6 to -20·0] in the D-VTd group vs -19·7 [-23·0 to -16·3] in the VTd group; p=0·042), significantly smaller reductions in cognitive functioning (-5·0 [-7·6 to -2·4] vs -7·9 [-10·6 to -5·3]; p=0·036), and significantly greater improvements in emotional functioning (13·0 [10·4 to 15·5] vs 9·5 [6·9 to 12·1]; p=0·013) and in constipation (-3·2 [-7·3 to 0·9] vs 1·8 [-2·4 to 6·0]; p=0·025) with D-VTd versus VTd. Between-group differences in change from baseline for all other scales were not significant. INTERPRETATION: D-VTd and VTd were associated with on-treatment health-related quality of life improvements from baseline in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The significantly greater reductions in pain, less deterioration of cognitive functioning, and greater emotional functioning improvements complement the clinical benefits observed with D-VTd versus VTd, and support the addition of daratumumab to standard regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, The Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research and Development.

Development and Validation of a Cytogenetic Prognostic Index Predicting Survival in Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The wide heterogeneity in multiple myeloma (MM) outcome is driven mainly by cytogenetic abnormalities. The current definition of high-risk profile is restrictive and oversimplified. To adapt MM treatment to risk, we need to better define a cytogenetic risk classification. To address this issue, we simultaneously examined the prognostic impact of del(17p); t(4;14); del(1p32); 1q21 gain; and trisomies 3, 5, and 21 in a cohort of newly diagnosed patients with MM. METHODS: Data were obtained from 1,635 patients enrolled in four trials implemented by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. The oldest collection of data were used for model development and internal validation. For external validation, one of the two independent data sets was used to assess the performance of the model in patients treated with more current regimens. Six cytogenetic abnormalities were identified as clinically relevant, and a prognostic index (PI) that was based on the parameter estimates of the multivariable Cox model was computed for all patients. RESULTS: In all data sets, a higher PI was consistently associated with a poor survival outcome. Dependent on the validation cohorts used, hazard ratios for patients in the high-risk category for death were between six and 15 times higher than those of patients in the low-risk category. Among patients with t(4;14) or del(17p), we observed a worse survival in those classified in the high-risk category than in those in the intermediate-risk category. The PI showed good performance for discriminating between patients who died and those who survived (Harrell's concordance index greater than 70%). CONCLUSION: The cytogenetic PI improves the classification of newly diagnosed patients with MM in the high-risk group compared with current classifications. These findings may facilitate the development of risk-adapted treatment strategies.

Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma.

The introduction of novel agents has led to major improvements in clinical outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma. To shorten evaluation times for new treatments, health agencies are currently examining minimal residual disease (MRD) as a surrogate end point in clinical trials. We assessed the prognostic value of MRD, measured during maintenance therapy by next-generation sequencing (NGS). MRD negativity was defined as the absence of tumor plasma cell within 1 000 000 bone marrow cells (<10-6). Data were analyzed from a recent clinical trial that evaluated the role of transplantation in newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD). MRD negativity was achieved at least once during maintenance in 127 patients (25%). At the start of maintenance therapy, MRD was a strong prognostic factor for both progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.34; P < .001) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.54; P = .001). Patients who were MRD negative had a higher probability of prolonged progression-free survival than patients with detectable residual disease, regardless of treatment group (RVD vs transplant), cytogenetic risk profile, or International Staging System disease stage at diagnosis. These results were similar after completion of maintenance therapy. Our findings confirm the value of MRD status, as determined by NGS, as a prognostic biomarker in multiple myeloma, and suggest that this approach could be used to adapt treatment strategies in future clinical trials.

Salvage therapy post pomalidomide-based regimen in relapsed/refractory myeloma.

The combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) has proved effective and safe in patients with end-stage relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), otherwise characterized by a very poor outcome. MM remains an incurable disease with unavoidable relapses, and the outcome after pomalidomide is still dismal. However, some patients demonstrate prolonged survival even beyond pomalidomide therapy.We sought to analyze the treatment of RRMM patients following Pom-Dex therapy and the response and survival after this next treatment line.We studied 134 patients treated with Pom-Dex until progression across two IFM studies. Seventy percent of these patients received further therapy after Pom-Dex. Among the treated patients, one third responded and one third maintained stable disease. The median OS for treated patients was 12 months (6.5;17), with 22 and 12.5% of patients surviving beyond 2 and 3 years, respectively. The factors associated with a better outcome were exposure to a triplet-based regimen containing a novel agent, response to therapy, absence of adverse cytogenetic, and a longer time from diagnosis to post pomalidomide therapy.This study suggests that patients relapsing after Pom-Dex therapy can still benefit from a further line of treatment. A subset of these treated patients even displayed a prolonged OS, while the prognosis remained very poor without treatment. An active approach could therefore be recommended even in this adverse situation, however guided by the patients' prognosis factors.

Serum free light chains, not urine specimens, should be used to evaluate response in light-chain multiple myeloma.

Guidelines for monitoring multiple myeloma (MM) patients expressing light chains only (light-chain MM [LCMM]) rely on measurements of monoclonal protein in urine. Alternatively, serum free light chain (sFLC) measurements have better sensitivity over urine methods, however, demonstration that improved sensitivity provides any clinical benefit is lacking. Here, we compared performance of serum and urine measurements in 113 (72κ, 41λ) newly diagnosed LCMM patients enrolled in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial. All diagnostic samples (100%) had an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio, and involved (monoclonal) FLC (iFLC) expressed at levels deemed measurable for monitoring (≥100 mg/L). By contrast, only 64% patients had measurable levels of monoclonal protein (≥200 mg per 24 hours) in urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP). After 1 and 3 treatment cycles, iFLC remained elevated in 71% and 46% of patients, respectively, whereas UPEP reported a positive result in 37% and 18%; all of the patients with positive UPEP at cycle 3 also had elevated iFLC levels. Importantly, elevated iFLC or an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio after 3 treatment cycles associated with poorer progression-free survival (P = .006 and P < .0001, respectively), whereas positive UPEP or urine immunofixation electrophoresis (uIFE) did not. In addition, patients with an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio had poorer overall survival (P = .022). Finally, early normalization of κ:λ sFLC ratio but not negative uIFE predicted achieving negative minimal residual disease, as determined by flow cytometry, after consolidation therapy (100% positive predictive value). We conclude that improved sensitivity and prognostic value of serum over urine measurements provide a strong basis for recommending the former for monitoring LCMM patients.

VTD is superior to VCD prior to intensive therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the prospective IFM2013-04 trial.

The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome conducted a randomized trial to compare bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (VCD) as induction before high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Overall, a total of 340 patients were centrally randomly assigned to receive VTD or VCD. After 4 cycles, on an intent-to-treat basis, 66.3% of the patients in the VTD arm achieved at least a very good partial response (primary end point) vs 56.2% in the VCD arm (P = .05). In addition, the overall response rate was significantly higher in the VTD arm (92.3% vs 83.4% in the VCD arm; P = .01). Hematologic toxicity was higher in the VCD arm, with significantly increased rates of grade 3 and 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. On the other hand, the rate of peripheral neuropathy (PN) was significantly higher in the VTD arm. With the exception of hematologic adverse events and PN, other grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rare, with no significant differences between the VTD and VCD arms. Our data support the preferential use of VTD rather than VCD in preparation for ASCT. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01564537 and at EudraCT as #2013-003174-27.

Impact of renal impairment on outcomes with lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in the FIRST trial, a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.

Renal impairment is associated with poor prognosis in myeloma. This analysis of the pivotal phase 3 FIRST trial examined the impact of renally adapted dosing of lenalidomide and dexamethasone on outcomes of patients with different degrees of renal impairment. Transplant-ineligible patients not requiring dialysis were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone until disease progression (n=535) or for 18 cycles (72 weeks; n=541), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide for 12 cycles (72 weeks; n=547). Follow-up is ongoing. Patients were grouped by baseline creatinine clearance into no (≥ 80 mL/min [n=389]), mild (≥ 50 to < 80 mL/min [n=715]), moderate (≥ 30 to < 50 mL/min [n=372]), and severe impairment (< 30 mL/min [n=147]) subgroups. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy reduced the risk of progression or death in no, mild, and moderate renal impairment subgroups vs. melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide therapy (HR = 0.67, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively). Overall survival benefits were observed with continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment vs. melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide treatment in no or mild renal impairment subgroups. Renal function improved from baseline in 52.6% of lenalidomide and dexamethasone-treated patients. The safety profile of continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone was consistent across renal subgroups, except for grade 3/4 anemia and rash, which increased with increasing severity of renal impairment. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment, with renally adapted lenalidomide dosing, was effective for most transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma and renal impairment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00689936); EudraCT (2007-004823-39). Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and the Celgene Corporation.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in multiple myeloma with deletion 17p and/or translocation (4;14): IFM 2010-02 trial results.

The combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) can be safely administered to patients with end-stage relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, we observed a shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in these patients when characterized with adverse cytogenetics (deletion 17p and translocation [4;14]) in the Intergroupe Francophone Myélome (IFM) 2009-02 trial. We then sought to determine whether MM with adverse cytogenetics would benefit more from Pom-Dex if exposed earlier in the multicenter IFM 2010-02 trial. The intention-to-treat population included 50 patients, with a median age of 63 years (38% were ≥65 years). Interestingly, there was a striking difference in time to progression (TTP), duration of response, and overall response rate (ORR) according to the presence of del(17p) compared with t(4;14) (TTP, 7.3 vs 2.8 months; duration of response, 8.3 vs 2.4 months; and ORR, 32% vs 15%). OS was prolonged after Pom-Dex, particularly in t(4;14), given the short TTP, suggesting that patients were rescued at relapse with further lines of therapy. Pom-Dex, a doublet immunomodulatory drug-based regimen, is active and well tolerated in adverse cytogenetic patients with early RRMM, particularly in those with del(17p), who are characterized by a high and rapid development of a refractoriness state and known for their poor prognosis. Future studies will determine the underlying mechanisms of Pom-Dex activity in del(17p). This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01745640.

Age is a prognostic factor even among patients with multiple myeloma younger than 66 years treated with high-dose melphalan: the IFM experience on 2316 patients.

Age is a strong prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. The overall survival is shorter in patients older than 66 years, and even shorter in those older than 75 years. Whether age is also a prognostic parameter in patients younger than 66 years treated homogeneously with intensive approaches is unknown. To address this issue, we retrospectively analyzed a series of 2316 patients treated homogeneously with 3-4 cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by a high-dose melphalan course, without any consolidation or maintenance. We show that patients older than 60 years have a statistically significant shorter overall survival. The analysis of prognostic parameters did not show a higher incidence of high-risk cytogenetics, but a higher incidence of International Staging System (ISS) stages 2 and 3, mainly due to higher ß2-microglobulin levels. This study is the first to demonstrate the impact of age in the outcome of 'young' patients with multiple myeloma, and suggests that this parameter should be included in the stratification factors for future prospective clinical trials.

The translocation t(4;14) can be present only in minor subclones in multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: Although the translocation t(4;14) is supposed to be a primary event in multiple myeloma, we have been surprised to observe that in large relapse series of patients, the t(4;14) can be observed only in subpopulations of plasma cells, in contrast to what is seen at diagnosis. This observation raised the question of possible subclones harboring the translocation that would be observable only at the time of relapse. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To address this issue, we analyzed by FISH a cohort of 306 patients for whom we had at least two samples obtained at different disease phases. RESULTS: We observed a "gain" of the t(4;14) in 14 patients, and conversely, a "loss" of the translocation in 11 patients. Two hypotheses were raised: either an acquisition of the translocation during evolution or the existence of small t(4;14)-positive subclones at the time of diagnosis. To address this question, we had the opportunity to analyze two patients at the time of diagnosis by RT-PCR (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) to look for the chimeric Eµ-MMSET transcript, and one patient positive at diagnosis, but negative at relapse. The samples were positive, supporting the second hypothesis. Furthermore, the IGH sequences of two patients who "lose" the t(4;14) were identical at diagnosis and relapse, confirming the existence of a common ancestral clone. CONCLUSION: Thus, the conclusion of this study is that the t(4;14) is not a primary event in multiple myeloma and that it can be present in silent subclones at diagnosis, but also at relapse.

Chromosomal abnormalities are major prognostic factors in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: the intergroupe francophone du myélome experience.

PURPOSE: Chromosomal abnormalities, especially t(4;14) and del(17p), are major prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, this has been especially demonstrated in patients age < 66 years treated with intensive approaches. The goal of this study was to address this issue in elderly patients treated with conventional-dose chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To answer this important question, we retrospectively analyzed a series of 1,890 patients (median age, 72 years; range, 66 to 94 years), including 1,095 with updated data on treatment modalities and survival. RESULTS: This large study first showed that the incidence of t(4;14) was not uniform over age, with a marked decrease in the oldest patients. Second, it showed that both t(4;14) and del(17p) retained their prognostic value in elderly patients treated with melphalan and prednisone-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: t(4;14) and del(17p) are major prognostic factors in elderly patients with MM, both for progression-free and overall survival, indicating that these two abnormalities should be investigated at diagnosis of MM, regardless of age.