Claxton, David F.

Abstract Background: Retrospective analyses have demonstrated significantly improved survival for AYA ALL patients (pts) aged 16-21 years (yrs) when treated on pediatric versus adult U.S. NCI Cooperative group regimens where 2-yr event-free survivals (EFS) have been only 35-40%. The purpose of C10403, a large prospective US intergroup trial, was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness [with EFS as a primary endpoint), of treating AYA ALL pts (ages 16-39 yrs) using the standard arm of the successful Children's Oncology Group regimen (COG AALL0232) . Methods: Newly diagnosed AYA patients with B-precursor (B-ALL) or T-precursor (T-ALL) ALL were eligible to enroll on C10403. Burkitt type and Ph+ ALL were excluded. The regimen was identical to the Capizzi methotrexate arm of COG AALL0232 (Larsen E. JCO 2011; 29 suppl:3) and consisted of four intensive courses: remission induction, remission consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and prolonged maintenance therapy. Pts with M2 marrow response (>5% but < 25% lymphoblasts) after remission induction received an extended remission induction course of therapy. Events were defined as induction failure (M3 [³25% blasts] day 29 of induction or M2 day 43 of extended induction), death, relapse, or second malignancy. Key correlative science studies in a subset of the total accrued population included assessment of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) using quantitative real-time PCR of clonal IgH or TCR gene rearrangements as well as Low Density Microarray (LDA) assays designed to detect a previously validated gene expression profile (Harvey, R; ASH 2013, abstract 826) which can prospectively identify ALL pts with Ph-like (BCR-ABL1-like) ALL. Results: 318 pts were enrolled on C10403 from 11/2007 to 8/2012; 22 withdrew prior to therapy. Of 296 evaluable pts, the median age at diagnosis was 24 yrs (range: 17 to 39): 25% were 17-20 yrs, 53% were 21-29 yrs, and 22% were 30-39 yrs. The majority had B-ALL (76%) and were male ( 61%). Approximately 25% were non-Caucasian and 15% were Hispanic or Latino. 32% of pts were obese (BMI³30). There were 5 (2%) treatment-related deaths during protocol therapy: liver failure (n=2, both during induction), infection (1 in induction, 1 in consolidation), and ventricular arrhythmia (1 in induction). Overall, treatment toxicities were similar to those reported in the standard arm of COG AALL0232, with an increased thrombosis and early hyperbilirubinemia for C10403 pts, as reported previously (Advani A, ASH 2013, abstract 303). To date, 70 deaths have been reported and 87 pts remain on protocol therapy. With a median follow-up of 28 months for surviving pts, 105 events have been observed. The median EFS overall is 59.4 months (95% CI: 38.4 to NR) and the 2-yr EFS rate overall is 66% (95% CI: 60 – 72%) [Fig 1a] with similar 2-yr EFS rates for B and T- ALL pts (65%, and 68%). The 2-yr OS rate is 78% (95% CI: 72 – 83%)[Fig 1b], which is similar for B (78%, 95% CI: 72 – 84%) and T-ALL, (80%, 95% CI: 70 – 91%). These results allow rejection of the null hypothesis of this Phase II trial that the true median EFS is, at most, 32 months. In multivariable analysis of presenting clinical features, age > 20 years and initial WBC count ³ 30k/microliter were significantly associated with worse EFS and OS. Presence of MRD at day 28 following initiation of induction therapy and presence of a Ph-like gene expression signature were significantly associated with both worse EFS and OS. Notably, absence of detectable MRD noted in 22/58 [38%] evaluable pts at day 28 of induction was associated with 100% EFS (p=0.0006). The Ph-like like signature was detected in 28% of pts tested on C10403 and the 2 yr EFS for these patients was only 52%, compared to 81% for those without Ph-like disease (p = 0.04). Conclusions: This large prospective US adult intergroup trial (C10403) for pts 16-39 years old employing an intensive pediatric regimen demonstrates a significant improvement (compared to historical controls) in AYA EFS and OS and validates this approach for treatment of AYA with ALL by adult hematologists. The improved clinical outcomes and the predictive value of the correlative studies in this trial lay the foundation for the design of future trials, where incorporation of novel agents to eradicate MRD, and/or use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to target the frequently detected Ph-like ALL in AYA pts may further improve survival for young adults with ALL. Figure 1a Figure 1a. Figure 1b Figure 1b. Disclosures Stock: Sigma-Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Sigma Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: A majority of younger pts with AML receive initial therapy with a 7+3 scheme. Escalated doses of daunorubicin (dauno) in combination with standard doses of ara-C may lead to improved outcomes (Fernandez; NEJM 2009). A phase II trial of idarubicin and high-dose ara-C (IA) in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (IA+V) resulted in historically high response rates compared to IA or 7+3 (Garcia-Manero; JCO 2011). SWOG 1203 tested whether a high-dose ara-C induction with or without vorinostat could result in improved outcomes for younger AML pts compared to 7+3. Methods: The primary endpoints were comparison of event-free survival (EFS) of 7+3 vs IA vs IA+V and evaluating the frequency of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, remission rate, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) according to treatment arm, and by cytogenetic and molecular subgroups. Because of the historical trend of cured pts in S0106, EFS was modeled with an exponential cure model, and it was assumed IA or IA+vorinostat increased the proportion of pts cured from 35% to 45% and increased median EFS among those not cured from 4.7 months to 7.1 months. Main inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of previously untreated non-APL AML by WHO criteria, age 15 to 60 years, and preserved cardiac function but no severe comorbidities. Pts with known CBF rearranged or FLT3 mutant leukemias were eligible if no other alternative clinical trials existed. Treatment was as follows: Induction: 7+3 arm: dauno 90 mg/m2 IV QD x 3 on days 1-3 with ara-C CI 100 mg/m2 QD x 7 days on days 1 to 7. IA arm: ida 12 mg/m2 QD x 3 on days 1 to 3 with 24 hours CI ara-C 1.5 gm/m2 QD for 4 days on days 1 to 4. IA+vorinostat was as IA but with vorinostat 500 mg orally TID for 3 days on days 1 to 3. Consolidation: 7+3 arm: standard high-dose ara-c at 3 gm/m2 over 3 hrs q12 hours x 6 doses for 1 to 4 cycles depending on transplant availability. IA arm: idarubicin 8 mg/m2 IV QD x 2 days on days 1 to 2 with ara-C 0.75 gm/m2 CI for 3 days on days 1 to 3 for 4 cycles. The number of consolidation cycles depended on transplant indication; a secondary aim of the study was to transplant all cytogenetically-determined high risk pts (presented in a different abstract). Results: Of 754 pts randomized, 738 were eligible (261 to 7+3, 261 to IA, and 216 to IA+V). Baseline characteristics were well balanced among all three groups. Most (75%) pts were between 40 and 60 years, 51% were male, median (range) WBC and platelets were 10.8 (0.3-800) and 49 (3-3900), respectively; marrow blast percentage was 60% (0%-100%); cytogenetics were favorable in 13% of pts, intermediate in 63%, and high-risk in 22%; FLT-3 was mutated in 21% and unknown in 31%; NPM1 was mutated in 20% and was unknown in 37%. Complete remission (CR) rates were 75% for 7+3, 79% for IA, and 77% for IA+V (p=0.58). Significantly more pts received reinduction with 7+3 (24%) versus 11% with IA and 9% with IA+V (p=0.001). 48% of intermediate and unfavorable risk pts received transplant in CR1, with no significant differences among arms (p=0.44). There were no significant differences in EFS, RFS or OS among all three arms (Figure 1, all p>0.5). By cytogenetic or molecular group, there were no differences in outcome for any standard risk subset (FLT-3, NPM1, or CEBPα or cytogenetic subset), although pts with favorable cytogenetics had significantly better EFS, RFS and OS with 7+3 therapy compared to IA or IA+V (Figure 2, all p≤0.015). 30% of pts received 1 consolidation cycle, 18% 2, 16% 3, and 37% 4 cycles. Grade 5 induction toxicity rates were 4% (7+3), 8% (IA), and 9% (IA+V) by arm (p=0.07), and for toxicities related to therapy, 2%, 7%, 8%, respectively (p=0.01). Grade 4 induction toxicity rates were similar across arms (p=0.38). Conclusion: Treatment with IA is not more effective than 7+3 in younger pts with AML. Outcomes with IA or IA plus vorinostat are similar. In pts with favorable cytogenetics, outcomes were inferior with IA or IA+V when compared to 7+3, perhaps related to use of lower doses of ara-C during consolidation. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233 Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI grant #021039 Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Ariad: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Background: As a single agent, rituximab produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 20-50% in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Acquired resistance occurs, however, partially due to defective host immune effector mechanisms. Efforts to augment immune function have included combining rituximab with immune modulators such as IL-2, IL-12, interferonand lenalidomide. These efforts have resulted in improved efficacy of rituximab. Ipilimumab is a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4, CD152) expressed on activated T cells. CTLA-4 is a negative regulator of T-cell responses. Ipilimumab augments the immune response by disrupting the interaction of CTLA-4 with its ligands, B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86). We therefore hypothesize that ipilimumab will augment the efficacy of rituximab. This phase I with an expansion cohort was designed to assess the safety of this combined therapy. Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old with r/r CD20+ NHL, measurable disease, KPS ≥ 70%, neutrophils ≥ 1000, platelets ≥ 50,000 and adequate kidney and liver function were eligible. In this phase I with an expansion cohort, after establishing the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), study patients would be randomized to differing treatment schedules of rituximab and ipilimumab. For induction in phase I, rituximab was given every week for four weeks and ipilimumab was administered every 3 weeks for 4 doses. Primary endpoints included toxicity and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D during the first 7 weeks of induction of ipilimumab (2 doses) when given in combination with rituximab (4 doses, 375mg/m2 per dose). Secondary end points included immune response, ORR and progression free survival (PFS). In the phase I component, a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the MTD/RP2D. After the RP2D was established, 20 more patients would be randomized to one of two schedules: Arm A - ipilimumab on Day 1 together with the first dose of rituximab, or Arm B - ipilimumab on Day 15 together with the third rituximab dose. After induction in both the Phase I and the expansion cohorts, ipilimumab and rituximab were given every 12 weeks (+/- 1 week) on the same day for 1 year. Results: As of August 1 2015, 21 patients have been enrolled (1SLL, 9FL, 6DLCL, 1MCL, 4 indeterminate): 15 are evaluable for toxicity assessment at 7 weeks. The median age was 62 (32-71) and the median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-6). The RP2D of ipilimumab when given with rituximab (375 mg/m2) was 3 mg/kg, which was the highest dose tested. The most common grade 1-2 AEs (>20%) were:anemia (33%); diarrhea (20%); constipation (27%); nausea/vomiting (33%); fatigue (40%); anorexia (33%); low albumin (53%); hypocalcemia (33%); hyponatremia (27%). The most common grade 3-4 AEs (≥ 5%) were: anemia (20%); diarrhea (13%); leukopenia (13%); and hyponatremia (27%). There were no study related deaths. Twelve patients remain on treatment, 6 came off due to progression, 2 due to toxicity, and there was one death (unrelated). Conclusion: The RP2D of ipilimumab when given in combination with rituximab is 3 mg/kg. This dose is safe and moderately well tolerated. Enrollment continues in the expansion cohort to assess efficacy and the ability of ipilimumab to augment the rituximab-mediated immune response. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ipilimumab to augment rituxan in treating lymphoma. Chen:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Gilteritinib (ASP2215) is a novel, highly selective, potent oral FLT3/AXL inhibitor with preclinical activity against FLT3-ITD activating and FLT3-D835 resistance mutations. The objectives of this phase 1/2 study were to assess gilteritinib safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles after single- and multiple-day dosing, and antileukemic effects in patients with R/R AML. Methods: This open-label study (NCT02014558) enrolled patients (≥18 yr) into 1 of 7 dose-escalation cohorts (20-450 mg once daily [QD]) or concomitant dose-expansion cohorts. While confirmed FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, each expanded dose level enrolled ≥10 patients with FLT3 mutations (FLT3mut+); 120 and 200 mg dose levels were further expanded with ≥40 FLT3mut+ patients. The choice to expand these dose cohorts was based upon FLT3 inhibition in correlative assays and clinical activity seen during dose escalation. Safety and tolerability were primary endpoints; blood samples were drawn from patients in the dose-escalation cohorts to evaluate gilteritinib PK parameters and PD effects. Antileukemic response rates (eg, complete remission [CR], CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp], CR with incomplete hematological recovery [CRi], overall response rate [ORR]) were secondary endpoints. Results: Patients (N=252; 129M:123F, median age 62 yr [range: 21-90]) enrolled between October 2013 and August 2015 received ≥1 dose of gilteritinib. The study population was heavily pretreated: 70% (n=177) had ≥2 prior AML therapies, 29% (n=73) had a prior stem cell transplant, and 25% (n=63) had prior TKI treatment with sorafenib most commonly used. Across the study, 194 patients had a locally confirmed FLT3 mutation (ITD, n=159; D835, n=13; ITD-D835, n=16; other, n=6). For all enrolled patients, progressive disease (n=75), lack of efficacy (n=44), adverse events (n=34), and death (n=29) were the most common reasons for treatment discontinuation. Seven deaths were considered possibly/probably related to treatment: pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, hemoptysis, intracranial bleed, ventricular fibrillation, septic shock, and neutropenia (all n=1). Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 300 mg when 2 of 3 patients in the 450 mg cohort experienced diarrhea and/or hepatic transaminase elevation as dose-limiting toxicities. Diarrhea (16%) and fatigue (15%) were the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events of any grade. Less than 5% of patients (11/252) had a maximum post-baseline QTcF interval >500 msec. Gilteritinib concentrations were generally dose proportional and showed both a long-elimination half-life (45-159 h) and substantial accumulation (3.2-10 fold) by day 15. An exposure-related increase in the inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation with increasing doses of gilteritinib was also observed. Gilteritinib showed strong antileukemic activity in FLT3mut+ patients (ORR=49%); response was observed less frequently in patients with wild-type FLT3 (ORR=12%). While CR, CRi, and CRp occurred at all doses, responses were enriched among FLT3mut+ patients with gilteritinib steady-state trough concentrations ≥100 ng/mL, which correlated with potent FLT3 inhibition in PD assays and corresponded to doses ≥80 mg. The ORR in 169 FLT3mut+ patients receiving ≥80 mg was 52% (Table); median overall survival in this patient population was ~31 wk (range: 1.7-61; Figure) and median duration of response was 20 wk (range: 1.1-55). Clinical responses occurred in FLT3mut+ patients with -ITD, -D835, and both mutations (ORR: 55%, 17%, and 62%, respectively) as well as in FLT3mut+ patients with or without prior TKI treatment (ORR: 42% vs 56%, respectively). Conclusions: This PD-driven, first-in-human study shows that gilteritinib was well tolerated and generated frequent, prolonged, clinically important responses in FLT3mut+ patients with R/R AML. Antileukemic responses were enriched in FLT3mut+ patients treated at doses that consistently and potently inhibited FLT3 phosphorylation. The survival of these patients appears better than expected for this patient population when treated with standard therapy. Our data suggest that FLT3 inhibition may improve survival in patients with FLT3mut+R/R AML; as such, phase 3 testing of oral gilteritinib 120 mg QD in patients with FLT3mut+R/R AML after first-line therapy is underway (NCT02421939). Disclosures Perl: Astellas US Pharma Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Asana Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Janssen: Other: advisory board; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Other: advisory board; Ariad: Other: advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: advisory board; Syros: Other: advisory board. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Smith:Astellas: Research Funding. Erba:Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Gill:Astellas: Employment. Goldberg:Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; COTA Inc: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Neostem: Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding. Larson:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Liu:Astellas: Employment. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Strickland:Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Research Funding. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Martinelli:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bahceci:Astellas: Employment. Levis:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: ASP2215 is a highly selective inhibitor of AXL and FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) receptors. ASP2215 is active against both FLT3 internal tandem duplication [ITD] and D835 mutations. Prior analyses of an open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study in subjects with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) show ASP2215 was well tolerated from 20-300 mg and associated with antileukemic activity in FLT3 mutation-positive (FLT3+) patients at ≥80 mg with minimal activity observed in wild-type FLT3 subjects. Here we describe the tolerability and potent activity of ASP2215 in a large cohort of FLT3+ patients. Methods: Patients (≥18 years) with R/R AML were assigned to treatment in dose-escalation cohorts or were randomized to an open dose level in the dose-expansion cohorts. Although FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, each expanded dose level enrolled ≥10 FLT3+ subjects; 120 mg and 200 mg dose levels were further expanded with ≥40 FLT3+ subjects. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event (AE) monitoring. Response assessment was based on modified Cheson criteria and duration of response and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: As of June 19, 2015,215 patients with a median age of 61 yr (range: 21-90) had received ≥1 dose of ASP2215 (safety population). Across the safety population, 65% of subjects received ≥2 prior lines of AML therapy, 29% had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant prior to ASP2215 treatment, and 23% had prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Approximately 73% of patients were FLT3+, of which 137 had FLT3-ITD mutation, 7 were FLT3-D835+, and 9 had both FLT3-ITD and D835. Treatment-related AEs of all Grades, reported in ≥10% of the safety population were diarrhea (16%), fatigue (13%), and increased AST (11%); <2% of subjects reported a Grade ≥3 QTc prolongation. Activity was assessed in the 133 FLT3+ patients treated with ASP2215 ≥80 mg. Overall response rate (ORR; composite complete [CRc] plus partial remission [PR]) for all FLT3+ subjects was 55% (Table). Median overall survival for FLT3+ patients receiving ASP2215 ≥80 mg was ~29 weeks (95% CI: 22-32) and was similar for patients who achieved CRc or PR (Figure). Treatment with ≥80 mg ASP2215 was associated with an ORR of 60% in FLT3-ITD subjects; ORR for the other FLT3 populations was 29% (Table). No difference was observed in median ORR of ASP2215 (≥80 mg) in TKI-naïve patients (55%) and patients with prior TKI treatment (55%). Conclusions: ASP2215, a novel AXL/FLT3 TKI, was well tolerated in subjects with R/R AML and demonstrated a strong antileukemic activity in FLT3+ subjects. Importantly, the ASP2215 response rate in these FLT3+ patients was independent of prior TKI treatment. Even in this heavily pretreated population, the survival of R/R FLT3+ AML patients who received ≥80 mg ASP2215 was longer than prior reports of cytotoxic chemotherapy or other FLT3 inhibitors. Table. ASP2215 Response Assessment 80 mg 120 mg 200 mg 300 mg 450 mg Total All FLT3+ Subjects Population, n 12 52 57 10 2 133 CRc, n (%) 5 (42) 25 (48) 28 (49) 3 (30) 0 61 (46) PR, n (%) 3 (25) 3 (6) 3 (5) 3 (30) 0 12 (9) ORR, n (%) 8 (67) 28 (54) 31 (54) 6 (60) 0 73 (55) Subjects with FLT3-ITD Only Population, n 10 46 50 8 0 114 CRc, n (%) 4 (40) 23 (50) 26 (52) 3 (38) 0 56 (49) PR, n (%) 3 (30) 3 (7) 3 (6) 3 (38) 0 12 (11) ORR, n (%) 7 (70) 26 (57) 29 (58) 6 (75) 0 68 (60) Subjects with FLT3-D835 and Subjects with FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 Population, n 2 5 5 1 1 14 CRc, n (%) 1 (50) 1 (20) 2 (40) 0 0 4 (29) PR, n (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORR, n (%) 1 (50) 1 (20) 2 (40) 0 0 4 (29) CRc, composite complete remission (complete remission + complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery + complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery); ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response. NR, no response. Subjects with non-evaluable data (N=8) were not included in this curve. Figure 1. Overall Survival by Best Overall Response Achieved with ASP2215 ≥80 mg Across All FLT3+ Subjects Figure 1. Overall Survival by Best Overall Response Achieved with ASP2215 ≥80 mg Across All FLT3+ Subjects Disclosures Altman: BMS: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Spectrum: Other: Advisory board; Ariad: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Other: Participation in an advisory board December 2013. Off Label Use: ASP2215 is currently under investigation for the treatment of AML and is not yet approved.. Perl:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Asana Biosciences: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit/Daichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas US Pharma Inc.: Consultancy. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy. Levis:Arog: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Smith:Plexxikon: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Claxton:NCI: Research Funding; Medimmune, Inc: Research Funding; Ambit Biosciences Corp: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Gill:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Goldberg:Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celetor: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Jurcic:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Larson:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lui:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Ritchie:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Sargent:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Schiller:Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Steering Committee and Advisory Board Participation; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Other: Advisory Board Particpation. Wang:Immunogen: Research Funding. Stuart:Sunesis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma, Inc: Research Funding. Baldus:Novartis: Research Funding. Martinelli:MSD: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy. Bahceci:Astellas Pharma Global Development: Employment.

Abstract Retrospective studies have suggested that older adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have better survival rates when treated using a pediatric ALL regimen administered by pediatric treatment teams. To address the feasibility and efficacy of using a pediatric treatment regimen for AYA patients with newly diagnosed ALL administered by adult treatment teams, we performed a prospective study, CALGB 10403, with doses and schedule identical to those in the Children's Oncology Group study AALL0232. From 2007 to 2012, 318 patients were enrolled; 295 were eligible and evaluable for response. Median age was 24 years (range, 17-39 years). Use of the pediatric regimen was safe; overall treatment-related mortality was 3%, and there were only 2 postremission deaths. Median event-free survival (EFS) was 78.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.8 to not reached), more than double the historical control of 30 months (95% CI, 22-38 months); 3-year EFS was 59% (95% CI, 54%-65%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Estimated 3-year OS was 73% (95% CI, 68%-78%). Pretreatment risk factors associated with worse treatment outcomes included obesity and presence of the Philadelphia-like gene expression signature. Use of a pediatric regimen for AYAs with ALL up to age 40 years was feasible and effective, resulting in improved survival rates compared with historical controls. CALGB 10403 can be considered a new treatment standard upon which to build for improving survival for AYAs with ALL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00558519.