Larson, Richard A.

10520 Background: Outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are superior with pediatric-inspired therapy. CALGB 10403, the first US adult cooperative group prospective trial using a pediatric-inspired augmented BFM (ABFM)-based regimen, demonstrated feasibility and improved survival. We examined differences in drug delivery and targeted toxicities in AYAs who received the same therapy on C10403 vs the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) study AALL1131. Methods: The proportion of AYAs receiving full dose (within 10% of protocol- specified) vincristine (VCR) and pegaspargase (PEG) during induction (IND), consolidation (CON), and delayed intensification (DI); the likelihood of selected grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs); and the impact of patient characteristics were compared in AYAs 16-30 years. Targeted AEs with analogous reporting requirements in both studies included hyperbilirubinemia, pancreatitis, sensory neuropathy, and GI/intracranial hemorrhage. Thrombosis, transaminitis and hyperglycemia were not comparably captured. Fisher’s Exact test and logistic regression models were used for analyses. Results: After excluding AYAs removed from study after induction, 87 AALL1131 AYAs (accrued 2012-2016) and 188 C10403 AYAs (accrued 2007-2012) were analyzed with median ages of 17 (16-26) vs 22 (17-30) years, p < 0.001. There was no difference in the intensity of VCR delivery during IND, but in CON and DI, AALL1131 AYAs were more likely to receive all specified VCR (93.1% vs 81.9%, p = 0.02; 92.7% vs 72.1%, p = 0.01). Women were less likely to receive all specified VCR (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.03), and overweight/obese AYAs were somewhat less likely to receive all VCR compared to those considered normal weight (OR 0.88 and 0.59, p = 0.09). More C10403 AYAs were obese/overweight compared to AALL1131 AYAs (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in dosing of PEG during IND/CON, but in DI AALL1131 AYAs were more likely to receive both doses (75.6% vs 57.1%, p = 0.03). No patient variables impacted delivery of PEG. There was no significant difference in grade ≥3 toxicities captured similarly on both studies. Conclusions: AYAs enrolled on AALL1131 were more likely to receive all protocol-specified VCR and PEG compared to those on C10403. Selected AE rates were comparable, suggesting that older AYAs do not tolerate doses of VCR and PEG for reasons other than toxicity, with body habitus as one potential variable. Further analyses to compare dose density, toxicities, and outcomes experienced by younger AYAs versus older are ongoing.

e20004 Background: IB is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that showed superior progression-free survival compared with BR in CLL patients (pts) 65 years or older in a randomized phase 3 trial (Woyach et al, NEJM 2018). Pts receiving IB had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) and hypertension (HTN); BR pts had higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Differences in treatment duration for BR (6 cycles) and IB (until progression) complicated adverse event (AE) comparisons. Here we use an exploratory approach to compare toxicity burden between arms and provide assessment of AFIB, HTN and infections (INF). Methods: AEs were reported for each of cycles 1-6 and then every 3 cycles until progression or nonprotocol CLL therapy. Only grade (gr) 3-4 AEs were reported thereafter until death. A simple global AE score was calculated for each pt by summing grades of all gr 1-4 AEs and dividing by the number of cycles over which AEs were submitted. Results: 537 pts began therapy (176 BR, 361 IB). 68% on BR completed all 6 cycles. At a median follow-up of 38 months, 64% remained on IB. Treatment discontinuation for AE occurred in 10% and 14% of BR and IB pts. Overall, median AE score was 1.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-3.3) and 3.8 (IQR 2.3-5.9) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). For cycles 1-6, median AE score was 6.2 (IQR 3.8-9.0) and 4.8 (IQR 3.0-7.2) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). In the IB arm, median AE score post 6 cycles decreased significantly to 3.4 (IQR 1.9-5.6) (p < 0.01). Gr 3 or higher cumulative rates of AFIB, HTN, and INF over time appear in the table. 100 pts (26/176 BR, 74/361 IB) had 137 severe INF (39% respiratory: 16 BR, 37 IB; 25% skin: 3 BR, 31 IB; 12% GU: 3 BR, 13 IB; 25% other: 12 BR, 22 IB). There were 7 gr 5 INF (3 BR, 4 IB), none confirmed fungal. Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates for AE. Overall toxicity burden was significantly higher for IB, although IB toxicity burden decreased after 6 cycles. Toxicity burden was significantly higher in cycles 1-6 for pts receiving BR. Risk of severe AFIB, HTN, and INF is highest in the first year of IB. A simple AE score provides valuable information, especially when evaluating regimens of varying length. Clinical trial information: NCT01886872 . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01886872. [Table: see text]

6521 Background: Genomic features including lack of IgVH mutations, del(11q), del(17p), and p53 mutations have been reported to predict clinical course and overall survival in CLL patients (pts). Bcl-2 family proteins and ZAP-70 have also been explored as predictors in CLL. Methods: We prospectively evaluated the prognostic significance of clinical features and laboratory variables on response and progression-free survival (PFS) following treatment with fludarabine (F, n=132) or fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC, n=137) as part of the US Intergroup Trial E2997 for previously untreated CLL. Results: FC therapy had higher complete response (CR) (23.4% versus 4.6%), overall response (OR) (74.3% versus 59%), and median PFS (31.6 mos versus 19.2 mos) compared to F. CR and OR were not significantly different based on interphase cytogenetics, IgVH status, or p53 mutation. IgVH status or levels of ZAP-70, Bcl-2, Bax, Mcl-1, XIAP, Caspase-3, and Traf-1 proteins were not associated with clinical response or PFS. IgVH status and ZAP-70 levels were associated with time from diagnosis to treatment. Using a model including treatment arm, pts with del(17p) or (11q) had significantly shorter PFS (hazard ratios 3.54 and 2.05 respectively). In pts with a p53 mutation without del(17p) there was no enhancement of the model predicting poorer outcome, nor did IgVH status enter the model for predicting PFS. Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy is associated with a higher CR, OR, and PFS. Also, initiation of therapy for pts with Rai stages 0/1 resulted in a higher response rate. Del(17p) and del(11q) are highly predictive of shortened PFS with fludarabine-based chemotherapy. IgVH and p53 mutational status, as well as expression of ZAP-70, Bcl-2 family proteins, and CD38, did not predict response or PFS. ZAP-70 expression is associated with cytogenetic subsets predicted to have a worse overall prognosis, but did not identify pts who will do poorly with therapy. A combination of clinical staging and cytogenetics provide support for future risk-stratified treatment of CLL. Pts with a projected short response duration can be identified for future investigational strategies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Optimal post-remission therapy for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 16-39 years) with Ph-negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remission (CR1) is not well established. We hypothesized that post-remission therapy with a pediatric-inspired regimen would yield superior outcomes to myeloablative allogeneic HCT for AYA patients with Ph- ALL in CR1. We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) for patients receiving post-remission therapy on CALGB 10403 to a contemporary matched AYA cohort undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT in CR1 reported to the CIBMTR (Table). The allogeneic HCT cohort consisted of patients 16-39 years of age with Ph- ALL in CR1 undergoing myeloablative transplant from a matched sibling/relative or unrelated donor using peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells between 11/2002 and 8/2012 in the United States. Patients receiving post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy had superior OS (P&lt;0.0001), DFS (P=0.0011), and NRM (P&lt;0.001) compared to allogeneic HCT. Patterns of relapse were time-dependent and examined in the Cox model. In multivariate analysis of Cox model, receiving allogeneic HCT was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.5-2.65, P &lt;0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.94, P 0.002), and increased NRM (HR 3.93, 95% CI 2.53-6.10, P &lt;0.001; Figure). In the early post-remission period (≤15 months after CR1), relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.59, p=0.04) whereas beyond 15 months after CR1 relapse was more likely in the chemotherapy arm (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, P &lt;0.001; Figure). Obesity (BMI ≥30) was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69-2.91, P&lt;0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P &lt;0.001), increased relapse (1.90, 95% CI 1.37-2.64, P &lt;0.001), and increased NRM (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.33-2.97, P &lt;0.001). Extramedullary disease at diagnosis was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79, P=0.05). We conclude from this large retrospective study that post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as given on CALGB 10403 was superior to allogeneic HCT in CR1 for OS, DFS, and NRM in AYAs with newly-diagnosed Ph-negative B- and T-cell ALL. Late relapse was more likely with chemotherapy whereas early relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT. Future study should aim to elucidate the impact of measurable residual disease at CR1 and high-risk genetics, including Ph-like ALL, on the superiority of post-remission pediatric-inspired chemotherapy over allogeneic HCT. Figure. Allogeneic HCT (HCT) vs. CALGB 10403 pediatric-inspired chemotherapy (chemo) after CR1: Adjusted (left-truncated) overall survival, disease-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, and cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality. Disclosures Wieduwilt: Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership. Stock:Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Advani:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria. Larson:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Contracts for clinical trials; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy.

PURPOSE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia with high-risk cytogenetics in first complete remission (CR1) achieve better outcomes if they undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy alone. However, only approximately 40% of such patients typically proceed to HCT. METHODS: We used a prospective organized approach to rapidly identify donors to improve the allogeneic HCT rate in adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in CR1. Newly diagnosed patients had cytogenetics obtained at enrollment, and those with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA typing and were encouraged to be referred for consultation with a transplantation team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. RESULTS: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60 years of age), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics and 107 of these patients (67%) achieved CR1. Seventy (65%) of the high-risk patients underwent transplantation in CR1 ( P < .001 compared with the historical rate of 40%). Median time to HCT from CR1 was 77 days (range, 20-356 days). In landmark analysis, overall survival (OS) among patients who underwent transplantation was significantly better compared with that of patients who did not undergo transplantation (2-year OS, 48% v 35%, respectively [ P = .031]). Median relapse-free survival after transplantation in the high-risk cohort who underwent transplantation in CR1 (n = 70) was 11.5 months (range, 4-47 months), and median OS after transplantation was 14 months (range, 4-44 months). CONCLUSION: Early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donor led to a CR1 transplantation rate of 65% in the high-risk group, which, in turn, led to an improvement in OS when compared with the OS of patients who did not undergo transplantation.

Abstract Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring FLT3 internal tandem duplications (ITDs) have poor outcomes, in particular AML with a high (≥0.5) mutant/wild-type allelic ratio (AR). The 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations defined 4 distinct FLT3-ITD genotypes based on the ITD AR and the NPM1 mutational status. In this retrospective exploratory study, we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of the NPM1/FLT3-ITD genotypes categorized according to the 2017 ELN risk groups in patients randomized within the RATIFY trial, which evaluated the addition of midostaurin to standard chemotherapy. The 4 NPM1/FLT3-ITD genotypes differed significantly with regard to clinical and concurrent genetic features. Complete ELN risk categorization could be done in 318 of 549 trial patients with FLT3-ITD AML. Significant factors for response after 1 or 2 induction cycles were ELN risk group and white blood cell (WBC) counts; treatment with midostaurin had no influence. Overall survival (OS) differed significantly among ELN risk groups, with estimated 5-year OS probabilities of 0.63, 0.43, and 0.33 for favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk groups, respectively (P &lt; .001). A multivariate Cox model for OS using allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in first complete remission as a time-dependent variable revealed treatment with midostaurin, allogeneic HCT, ELN favorable-risk group, and lower WBC counts as significant favorable factors. In this model, there was a consistent beneficial effect of midostaurin across ELN risk groups.

Abstract Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p<0.001 compared to historical rate of 40%). Twenty-five (37%) had a matched related donor, 31 (45%) had a matched unrelated donor, 3 (4%) had a mismatched related donor, 8 (12%) had a mismatched unrelated donor, and 1 (1%) received an umbilical cord blood transplant. Sixty-six high-risk patients transplanted in CR/CRi have detailed data. Median time to HCT from CR1 was 76 days (range, 20-365). Fifty-seven patients (86%) received a myeloablative regimen and 9 (14%) reduced-intensity conditioning. Reasons for 39 high-risk CR1 patients not receiving a transplant in CR1 were: co-morbidities (n=1), death (n=6), no insurance (n=1), no donor (n=1), physician decision (n=3), patient decision (n=3), relapse (n=6), other (n=10), or unknown (n=8). The 2-year RFS estimate in the entire high-risk cohort is 32%, significantly higher than the 22% historical rate (p=0.05). Median RFS in the high-risk CR1 cohort (n=107) was 10 months [range, 1-32* (censored) months]. RFS and OS were similar among HCT patients using matched related [1 year estimates: 40% (95% CI 27%, 74%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] and matched unrelated [1 year estimates: 52% (37%, 75%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] donors in CR1. The HR (reference = unrelated) for RFS was 0.67 (0.32, 1.37) and for OS was 0.88 (0.41, 1.90). Median overall survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort (n=159) was 12 months [range, 1-33* (censored) months] and was 18 months [range 3-33* (censored) months] for those transplanted in CR1 (Fig. 1). Conclusions: In newly diagnosed adults with AML age 18-60, early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donorled to a CR1 transplant rate of 64% in the high-risk group, which in turn led to a significant improvement in RFS over historical controls. Better outcomes in poor prognosis AML patients may be achieved simply by rapidly finding unrelated donors and performing allogeneic HCT in CR1 as soon as possible. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233; Support: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI #021039 Figure 1 Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Figure 1. Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:AbbVie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations localized in the tyrosine kinase domain activation loop of FLT3 (FLT3-TKD), representing point mutations in codon D835/I836 and rarely deletions of codon I836, induce constitutive tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase similarly to FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations. However, the prognostic role of FLT3-TKD in AML, particularly in the presence of NPM1 mutations, is not well established. The phase 3 RATIFY trial [NCT00651261; Stone et al. N Engl J Med. 2017] showed that in combination with standard chemotherapy, midostaurin (PKC412) improved survival outcomes across all 3 FLT3 stratification subgroups (ITD high allelic ratio [≥ 0.7], ITD low allelic ratio [< 0.7], and TKD) vs placebo in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Here, we evaluated the prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD and NPM1 mutations in a post hoc analysis from the RATIFY trial. Methods: In RATIFY, newly diagnosed patients with AML 18-60 years old were randomly assigned to receive midostaurin or placebo together with standard induction and consolidation therapy followed by 12 28-day cycles of maintenance therapy with midostaurin or placebo. FLT3-TKD mutation was detected by PCR and capillary electrophoresis at 9 reference laboratories. Patients were categorized as NPM1 mutated (mut) or NPM1 wild-type (WT) using PCR. Efficacy outcomes included complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). EFS and DFS analyses were performed considering CR within a 60-day window. P values presented have not been adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Of the total randomized 162 FLT3-TKD patients, 134 with available NPM1 data had consented for exploratory analysis and thus were included in this study (see Table for subgroup distribution). Overall, 47.8% of patients were male, and the median age was 49 years (95% CI, 45.5-51.1 years). The median white blood cell (WBC) count was higher in patients with NPM1-mut than in patients with NPM1-WT (34.1 vs 15.5 × 109/L, P = .0011). CR rates (during the first 60 days) were higher in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT (66% vs 53%); however, this was driven by the higher rate of CR in the midostaurin arm (76% NPM1-mut vs 44% NPM1-WT) rather than the placebo arm (53% NPM1-mut vs 60% NPM1-WT). The overall CR rate (regardless of NPM1 genotype) was 64% for midostaurin and 56% for placebo in FLT3-TKD patients. The prognostic effect of the NPM1 mutation concurrent with FLT3-TKD was seen for all endpoints consistently with hazard ratios (HRs) around 0.50 or lower (Figures 1 and 2 and Table). Overall (regardless of treatment) OS, EFS, and DFS estimates at 3 years were 73% vs 52%, 48% vs 25%, and 74% vs 47%, respectively, in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT. Whereas the HRs for midostaurin vs placebo were 0.73 for both OS and EFS, the impact of treatment on outcomes varied between the individual NPM1/TKD subgroups and was not consistently observed when endpoints were censored at stem cell transplant (SCT) (Table). It should be noted that the number of patients in each subgroup was small and therefore the HRs with 95% CIs should be interpreted with caution. Multivariate analyses in these FLT3-TKD patients revealed that NPM1 genotype was an independent prognostic factor for OS, EFS and DFS (2-sided P < .05), whereas study drug, age, sex, WBC at baseline and SCT (no/yes) did not reach this level of significance in the Cox model. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the FLT3-TKD patient subset in the RATIFY trial showed the high prognostic value of NPM1 mutational status. Whereas midostaurin showed an overall benefit in the FLT3-TKD patients for OS, EFS, CR and DFS, the impact of treatment on outcome varied between the individual NPM1 subgroups within these FLT3-TKD patients and was not consistently observed.Further analyses using additional endpoints and additional multivariate analyses are planned. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180791, U10CA180888, U10CA180863, (CCSRI) #704970, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00651261 Disclosures Voso: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Heuser:Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; StemLine Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; BergenBio: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Bayer Pharma AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tetralogic: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Wei:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding. Brandwein:Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding. de Witte:Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Medeiros:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Employment. Tallman:Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board. Schlenk:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheng:Novartis: Employment. Gathmann:Novartis: Employment. Tiecke:Novartis: Employment. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.