Garcia‐Manero, Guillermo

Abstract Abstract 2926 Background: RAS proteins are encoded by 3 proto-oncogenes (K-RAS, N-RAS, and H-RAS) and regulate the growth and differentiation of many cellular types, including the myeloid compartment. Codons 12, 13, and 61 (in N-RAS and K-RAS) have been reported to be common targets of mutations. These mutations result in constitutive activation of the RAS pathway by increasing intracellular RAS GTP levels, which result in activation of the RAS/MEK and the RAS/PI3K pathways. Its prognostic significance in MDS is yet to be clarified. Because the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of RAS mutations in MDS, we decided to study the impact of RAS mutations in patients (pts) with MDS. Methods: Mutation analysis of KRAS and NRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 was performed by Pyrosequencing using biotinylated reverse primers. All pts referred to MD Anderson between 2000–2009 were reviewed. In addition to standard clinical characteristics, including karyotyping, mutational status of Flt3, c-Kit and JAK2 was also analyzed. Overall survival was calculated based on Kaplan-Meier. Results: Of the 1067 pts with MDS of age above 17 evaluated for RAS mutation, 43 pts (4%) were positive. Seventy nine percent of RAS mutations were of N-RAS type (codon12 (55%), codon 13 (12%), codon 61(12%)) with K-RAS 12 comprising the rest (21%). Median age was 68 years (range, 18–94) with 66% being males (703 pts). Their median white blood cell (WBC) was 3.3×109/L (range, 0.3–72.2), hemoglobin 9.8 (range, 3–17.5), and platelets 73×109/liter (range, 1–1040). Median bone marrow blast was 5% and 77 pts (7%) had leukemic transformation. More than half of the pts had RAEB or RAEB-t (44% and 9 % respectively) which translated into fewer patients in the low IPSS category (19%). The median age was 66 years (range 26–84) in the RAS mutated (muRAS) group compared to 68 in the wild type (wtRAS). WBC was higher in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (6.8 ×109/L vs. 3.2 ×109/L, p<0.001 by Mann-Whitney median test (M-W-T)). Percent of bone marrow blasts was higher (9%) in muRAS group compared to 5% in wtRAS (p<0.001 by M-W-T). High (Int-2 and high) risk by IPSS was more frequent in muRAS 51% compared to 40% in wtRAS group (p=0.11). Leukemic transformation was 9% and 7% (p=0.61) in both muRAS and wtRAS groups respectively. RAS mutation was detected more frequently in the CMML subgroup (12/80 (15%) pts). There were no differences in terms of response to DNA methylating inhibitors (CR in 41% in muRAS versus 40% in wtRAS). ARA-C-based regimens resulted in better CR in wtRAS than muRAS (59% vs 25%); however, the size of muRAS group was too small (1 out 4 pts).There was a trend towards shorter overall survival (OS) in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (395 vs. 500 days, p value=0.057). MuRAS RAEB (325 vs. 450 days, p= 0.13) and RAEB-t (125 vs. 375 days, p= 0.27) subgroups showed a trend towards worse OS compared to wtRAS group. There was a significant OS decrease in RCMD (150 vs. 700 day, p= 0.015). Surprisingly, muRAS CMML group showed a trend towards better OS compared to wtRAS (728 vs. 687 days, p=0.44). Additionally we analyzed patients for presence of Flt3 mutation. These were present in only 18 of the pts (4%) but none of them had also a RAS mutation. There was no c-Kit mutations found in this cohort of pts, compared to 9/37 (24%) pts tested positive for JAK2V617F. Conclusion: MuRAS occurs in 4% of pts with MDS. In the muRAS group, pts tended to have higher risk disease and risk of transformation to acute leukemia compared with wtRAS. OS tended to be worse in some subgroups in muRAS. Although the prognostic impact of RAS mutations in MDS appears to be limited, mutations could be used to develop targeted therapeutic interventions. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background SGI-110 is a second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine. The compound is delivered as a small volume, pharmaceutically stable subcutaneous (SQ) injection which allows longer half-life and more extended DAC exposure than DAC intravenous infusion. This pharmacokinetic profile offers the potential for improved biological and clinical activity and safety over currently available HMAs (Kantarjian et al. ASH, 2012). Methods A randomized Phase 1-2 first-in-human PK/PD-guided, dose-escalation study was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory intermediate or high-risk MDS or AML. Patients were initially randomized to one of two SQ regimens - Dailyx5 or Weeklyx3, for 28-day courses. Subsequently, a Twice Weeklyx3 regimen (Monday, Thursday) was added for evaluation based on emerging LINE-1 demethylation data from the Weeklyx3 regimen. Results 93 patients (74 AML, 19 MDS) were treated in the dose escalation phase: 44, 34, and 15 patients were treated in the Dailyx5, Weeklyx3, and the Twice Weeklyx3 regimens, respectively. Across the three regimens, median age was 70 years (range, 29–86), 68% male, and 87% had ECOG PS of 0-1. The median number of prior regimens was 3 (range, 1–9) and 68% of patients had prior HMA treatment (59% AML, and 100% MDS). Of the 74 AML patients treated, 31 (42%) had secondary AML including antecedent MDS. Patients received a median of 2 courses of SGI-110 (range, 1-20). LINE-1 demethylation data at the 2 highest dose levels which were well tolerated and evaluated for all 3 regimens (60 and 90 mg/m2) are shown in the figure below. The Dailyx5 regimen demonstrated the most potent average LINE-1 demethylation, while the Twice Weeklyx3 achieved the most prolonged LINE-1 demethylation. The least potent demethylation was seen with the Weeklyx3 regimen. There was no additional demethylation at the 90 mg/m2 dose compared to 60 mg/m2in all 3 regimens. Responses were reported according to the IWG Criteria 2006 (MDS)/2003 (AML). Complete remissions were observed in 5 AML patients (2CRs, 1CRp, and 2CRi). Clinical responses (2 mCR and 3 HI-E, 1 HI-N, 1 HI-P) were observed in 6 MDS patients, all of whom had been previously treated with HMA. All AML responses and both mCR in MDS patients achieved ≥10% LINE-1 demethylation. Safety is reported based on Adverse Events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Across regimens, the Twice Weeklyx3 demonstrated an increased number of related AEs compared to the other regimens. The most commonly reported related AEs ≥ 10% in the Dailyx5 regimen (injection site pain, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, fatigue), Weeklyx3 regimen (injection site pain and diarrhea), and Twice Weeklyx3 regimen (injection site pain, injection site reaction, fatigue, dizziness, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia). Conclusions SQ SGI-110 is a potent HMA using all 3 regimens evaluated. The most potent hypomethylation was achieved with Dailyx5 dosing and the most prolonged hypomethylation was achieved using the Twice Weeklyx3 regimen. All 3 regimens were well tolerated. Clinical responses were observed in heavily pretreated patients, including those with prior HMA exposure. These results support the ongoing Phase 2 expansion study investigating the Dailyx5 dosing schedule in patients with MDS and AML who are either HMA treatment naïve or previously treated with HMAs. Disclosures: Roboz: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ritchie:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Larson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jabbour:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Cortes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Schimmer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Mesa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Blum:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 460 Background: SF3B1 mutations were recently reported to occur in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), especially in the presence of ring sideroblasts (RS) (Papaemmanuil et al. Leukemia Research 2011, Volume 35, Supplement 1, page S18). We sought to accurately define the interaction between SF3B1 mutations, bone marrow morphology, karyotype and prognosis in MDS with ≥15% RS (MDS-RS). Methods: Mayo Clinic databases and cell banks were queried to identify patients with MDS and ≥15% RS (MDS-RS). All study patients were required to have undergone bone marrow examination and cytogenetic evaluation at diagnosis. Pathology slides, including iron stains, were centrally re-reviewed to accurately quantify bone marrow RS percentage and confirm World Health Organization (WHO) morphologic categories. Detailed analysis of clinical and cytogenetic parameters was performed to risk stratify patients according to the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) (Greenberg et al. Leukemia Research 2011, Volume 35, Supplement 1, page S6). All patients were annotated for their mutational status involving JAK2, MPL and IDH. PCR sequencing was used to identify SF3B1 mutations. Results I: Baseline patient information: The study is currently ongoing; to date, results are availab1e in 88 patients (median age 72 years, 69% males) including 36 (41%) patients with refractory anemia with RS (RARS), 36 (41%) with refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and ≥15% RS (RCMD-RS), 11 (12%) with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB)-1 and ≥15% RS (RAEB1-RS) and 5 (6%) with RAEB2-RS. Median (range) values were 9.1 g/dL (5.8–15.7) for hemoglobin, 4.1 × 109/L (1.2–35.2) for leukocytes and 164 × 109/L (6–585) for platelets. IPSS-R risk categories were 20% very good, 49% good, 11% intermediate, 3% poor and 16% very poor. Karyotype was normal in 60%, other very good/good risk 16%, intermediate-risk 2%, and poor/very poor in 22%; 14% had monosomal karyotype (MK). Six (7%), four (5%) and zero (0%) patients displayed IDH, JAK2 or MPL mutations. Red cell transfusion need was documented in 27 (31%) patients. Results II: Prevalence and distribution of SF3B1 mutations and clinical correlates: SF3B1 mutations (all heterozygous) were detected in 40 (∼46%) of all 88 study patients: 25 (63%) K700E, 6 (15%) K666N/Q/R, 3 (8%) E622D, 2 (5%) H662D/Q, 2 (5%) Y623C, 1 (3%) R625C, and 1 (3%) T663I. One patient each displayed both SF3B1K700E and IDH2R140Q or SF3B1K700E and JAK2V617F. SF3B1 mutational frequencies were 69% for RARS, 36% for RCMD-RS, 18% for RAEB1-RS and 0% for RAEB2-RS (p=0.0007). SF3B1 mutations clustered with normal (59%) and other very good/good risk (57%) karyotype and were infrequent in poor/very poor karyotype (5%; p=0.0004). Additional significant correlations were noted between SF3B1 mutations and lower IPSS-R risk category (p=0.0004), advanced age (p=0.006), higher platelet count (p=0.0003). Results II: SF3B1 mutations and prognostic relevance in MDS-RS: To date, 68 (∼77%) deaths and 10 (∼11%) leukemic transformations have been documented. Median follow-up for living patients was 82 months. Univariate survival analysis considering all 88 study patients identified the following as strongly significant risk factors: IPSS-R (p<0.0001), WHO morphologic categories (p<0.0001), cytogenetic risk categories (p<0.0001), and transfusion need (p=0.0003). In multivariable analysis, only IPSS-R and transfusion need remained significant. In univariate analysis, the presence of SF3B1 mutations was significantly associated with better overall (p=0.04) and leukemia-free (p=0.03) survival; however, in both instances, significance was completely accounted for by WHO morphologic risk categorization and the morphology-adjusted p values were 0.6 and 0.2, respectively. In other words, when RARS and RCMD were analyzed separately, there was no additional prognostic value from the presence or absence of SF3B1 mutations (Figures 1 and 2; p=0.67 and 0.44, respectively). Conclusions: SF3B1 mutations are prevalent in RARS and RCMD-RS but do not provide additional, WHO morphology-independent or IPSS-R-independent, prognostic information. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background. Transfusion of blood products is an integral component of the management of patients with acute leukemias. However, high-quality evidence and clinical trial data to support specific practices of blood product transfusion in this population are limited. We hypothesized that there is wide variation in blood product transfusion practices among providers in North America who manage patients with acute leukemia. Methods. A 30-question web-based survey about transfusion practices was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 7/6/2015 with 4 subsequent weekly reminders. The distribution list included 9,859 recipients, of whom at least 741 were providers who treated patients with acute leukemia. Responses were anonymous, and the survey distribution was approved by the respective cooperative group chairs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results. Of 254 responses received, 113 were excluded as they were returned by recipients not directly treating patients with acute leukemia. Another 30 responses were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 111 responses (43.7%) eligible for the primary analysis. Of those, 109 responders were from North America representing 83 institutions in 33 states and the province of Ontario. Eighty-four of the included responders (75.7%) were physicians, and 44 (39.6%) were females. Median age of responders was 44 years (range, 26-76). A hemoglobin (Hb) level of ≤7 g/dL was the most commonly used threshold (44%) for red blood cell (RBCs) transfusions to asymptomatic stable hospitalized patients, followed closely by 8 g/dL (38%) (Figure 1). In the outpatient setting, the most commonly reported threshold was 8 gm/dL (49%) (Figure 1). Most providers reported that they "always" use leukocyte-reduced (93%) and irradiated (79%) RBCs. A platelet level of 10,000/µL was the threshold for platelet transfusions in the stable non-bleeding hospitalized patients cited by the majority of responders (76%) (Figure 2). This platelet level remained the most common threshold for platelet transfusions for non-bleeding patients in the outpatient setting (49%), although 31% of responders reported a higher threshold of 20,000/µL. A preference for single-donor apheresis platelets was reported by 81% respondents, and 57% use these products exclusively. Most providers (70%) reported always using irradiated platelets. With respect to cryoprecipitate and plasma infusions, nearly half of the respondents reported a threshold fibrinogen level of 100 mg/dL as a trigger for administering a product to a stable non-bleeding patient (Figure 3). The most commonly reported platelet threshold for performing a bone marrow biopsy (BMB) was 10,000/μL (69% of responders), followed by 20,000 (21%), 50,000 (6%), and 30,000 (4%). Therapeutic anticoagulation was held by most responders (80%) before performing a BMB. Most responders (73%) reported a platelet level of 50,000/µL as the lowest level for performing a lumbar puncture (LP) without prophylactic platelet transfusion. Conclusions. This survey demonstrates wide variability in blood product transfusion patterns among providers who treat patients with acute leukemias. A platelet level of 10,000/µL is the most common trigger for platelet transfusions for stable non-bleeding patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This, along with a platelet threshold of 50,000/µL for performing an LP, appear to be most widely accepted practices. Our findings emphasize the need to obtain high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for transfusion practices in acute leukemia with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising patient outcomes. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Steensma:Onconova: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incite: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; AROG: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Erba:GlycoMimetics; Janssen: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring Committees; Sunesis; Pfizer; Daiichi Sankyo; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda; Celator; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis; Incyte; Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Barbarotta:Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Rigosertib (RIG) is a RAS-mimetic interacting with the RAS-binding domains of RAF kinases, preventing their binding to RAS and inhibiting the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway. Rigosertib also binds to the RAS-binding domains of Ral-GDS and PI3Ks (Athuluri-Divakar, et al, Cell 165:643, 2016). Mutations of RAS are involved in proliferative processes important in neoplastic transformation (Gil-Bazo, et.al, Cancer Biology and Therapy 17:719, 2016). As of May 2016, 557 patients with MDS or AML received IV (N=335) or oral (N=222) rigosertib. All IV rigosertib was administered as monotherapy. Oral rigosertib was administered as monotherapy (N=168) or in combination with injectable azacitidine (AZA; N=54). Safety results across this rigosertib development program have not been presented. Methods: We reviewed all treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with MDS/AML treated with rigosertib IV monotherapy, rigosertib oral monotherapy, or in combination therapy, overall and by grade of severity, and serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Due to the unexpected observation of urinary AEs, including occasional gross hematuria, we analyzed urinary AEs in greater detail. Results: Rigosertib IV monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were fatigue (33%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (27%), constipation (25%), anaemia (24%) and pyrexia (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (21%), febrile neutropenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and thrombocytopenia (11%). The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (10%), pneumonia (9%), and sepsis (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of IV rigosertib were sepsis and pneumonia (3% each) (Table 1). Rigosertib oral monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were pollakiuria (increased urinary frequency) (35-%), fatigue (32%), diarrhoea (26%), dysuria (29%) and haematuria (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (5%), haematuria (4%) and urinary tract infection (4%). The most common serious AE was pneumonia (6%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of patients receiving oral rigosertib as monotherapy were (dysuria [8%], urinary tract pain [7%], haematuria [5%] and urinary frequency [5%] (Table 2). Rigosertib oral in combination with azacitidine (AZA): The most common TEAEs were nausea (41%), fatigue (39%), diarrhea (37%), constipation (37%) and dysuria (28%). The most common serious AEs were pneumonia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation were AML (4%) and pneumonia (4%) (Table 3). In patients fully evaluable for gross hematuria the cause of bleeding was bladder inflammation. Urinary and plasma concentration of RIG were examined to assess dose relationship. According to the azacitidine package insert, the incidence of gross hematuria of any grade with single agent azacitidine is 6.3 % and Grade 3-4 of 2.3%. Evaluations performed of hematuria among 5 studies of oral rigosertib (4 monotherapy and 1 in combination with AZA) in patients with MDS/AML (Table 4). Conclusions: Rigosertib IV or oral formulations were generally well tolerated in clinical trials in over 500 patients with MDS/AML. Gastrointestinal AEs were most frequently reported with IV rigosertib and genitourinary AEs were seen more often with oral than IV dosing. The greater rate of urinary AEs in the oral than in the IV studies indicates a need for close monitoring of these patients and proactive risk management, such as adequate hydration, timing of administration of the second dose, and bladder emptying prior to sleep. Studies are being designed to optimize dosing and schedule to maximize efficacy and minimize hematuria of single agent oral rigosertib. A randomized trial of oral rigosertib/azacitidine versus azacitidine will be required to optimize the clinical benefit and safety in the management of higher-risk patients with MDS. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Al-Kali:Celgene: Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Navada:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Onconova, Teva, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrone:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Brownstein:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Silverman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Patents & Royalties: Co-Patent holder for the combination of azacitidine and rigosertib, 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: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract 5-azacitidine (5-AZA) is standard of care in the first-line setting for higher-risk patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). However, 40-50% of patients are refractory to 5-AZA and most responders ultimately demonstrate disease progression within 2 years, often progressing to AML. For patients refractory to 5-AZA, 2-year survival probability is low (15%). Thus, there is a need for more effective initial and second-line therapies for patients with higher-risk MDS. The Inhibitors of Apoptosis (IAP) Proteins are a family of molecules that suppress apoptotic cell death. Expression of IAPs is dysregulated in MDS, suggesting a potential path for therapeutic intervention. SMAC (second mitochondrial activator of caspases) is an IAP antagonist, resulting in caspase activation, inhibition of NF-kB and increased apoptosis. Birinapant is a potent bivalent SMAC mimetic with improved tolerability and therapeutic index compared to other SMAC mimetics. This Phase Ib/2a study was designed primarily to determine the MTD and recommended Phase 2 dose and schedule of birinapant in combination with 5-AZA in patients with higher-risk MDS who are naïve or have relapsed or are refractory to 5-AZA. To date, 11 patients have been enrolled in the Phase 1b portion of the study, including 7 with IPSS classification high-risk MDS (5 male, 2 female; median age 75, range 64-82) and 4 with intermediate-risk MDS (2 male, 2 female; median age 72.5, range 65-84). All patients received standard 5-AZA, administered via either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) routes, at 75 mg/m2 for 7 days of a 28-day cycle in combination with birinapant. Birinapant was administered IV twice weekly (Days 1 and 4) for either 3 of 4 weeks or 4 of 4 weeks per 28-day cycle at a dose of 13 mg/m2. No cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities have been observed. Adverse events ≥ Grade 2 observed in two or more patients and judged to be related to treatment were rash/pruritis (Grade 2, 2 patients), thrombocytopenia (Grade 4, 2 patients) and neutropenia (Grade 4, 1 patient; Grade 3, 1 patient). Two SAEs, Grade 3 abdominal soft tissue necrosis with abdominal pain in the area of subcutaneous injections of 5-AZA, and Grade 3 cellulitis were judged to be related to treatment. These local injection site reactions/cellulitis were more severe than usually expected with SC 5-AZA, suggesting an on target pharmacodynamic (TNF mediated) localized synergistic effect in skin, but were not observed with IV administration. Both occurred after cycle 1 and were not considered DLTs. Data showing inhibition of NF-kB, a downstream pro-survival molecule activated by IAPs, in circulating blast cells from patients treated with birinapant at a dose of 13 mg/m2 twice weekly for 3 weeks out of 4, suggests that birinapant is pharmacologically active at this dosing schedule. Based on these and other pharmacodynamic data, despite not determining the formal MTD, the Phase 2 dosing regimen has been established as birinapant administered at 13 mg/m2 IV twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 28-day cycle in combination with 5-AZA at 75 mg/m2 by IV infusion for 7 days of a 28-day cycle. Although not a primary endpoint, evidence of clinical activity in 5-AZA resistant/refractory patients was observed in 2 of 11 patients to date, with an additional good clinical response in a 5-AZA naive high-risk MDS/CMML patient. One patient with prior 5-AZA-refractory MDS (cytogenetics: hypodiploid and +11q) showed bone marrow (BM) blast count reduction from 25% to 2% after 1 cycle of 5-AZA/birinapant treatment. Another patient with MDS (cytogenetics: +X; +19; +21) refractory to single-agent 5-AZA showed BM blast count reduction from 21% to 7% after 2 cycles. A third patient with treatment-naïve MDS/CMML-2 (cytogenetics: 46, XY, inv(6)(p11.2q15), t(6;21)(q21;q22) ) who had received prior hydroxyurea demonstrated BM blast count reduction from 17% to 2% after 3 cycles and underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Several patients remain on study and are in active follow-up. This Phase 1b trial provide data for an acceptable safety profile of the first combination of a SMAC mimetic (birinapant) administered with IV 5-AZA. Early signs of clinical activity including in 5-AZA naïve and refractory patients were observed. These results provide rationale for a randomized Phase 2 study comparing birinapant in combination with 5-AZA against 5-AZA alone in the first-line setting for patients with higher-risk MDS. Disclosures Borthakur: Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Foran:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Wang:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Rakkar:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hager:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Frey:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Andreeff:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Carter:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Minderman:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Russell:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Tibes:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation HMA administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here a comparative efficacy and safety analysis of the 5-day and 10-day regimens. Methods: TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy based on age (≥ 65 y), poor performance status (PS 2), comorbidities, or poor risk cytogenetics were enrolled in 2 separate treatment cohorts in the Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were treated with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimes with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit with no unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc): Complete Response (CR) + CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: There was no difference in efficacy or safety between 60 and 90 mg/m2/d on the 5-day regimen (Yee et al, European Hematology Association meeting 2014, S647), so data are reported here for the two doses combined on the 5-day cohort. There were 51 patients treated in the 5-day regimen cohort and 52 treated with the 10-day regimen. There was no statistically significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 regimens; median age 77.9 vs. 77.3 years ; male 59% vs. 65%; PS 2 or higher 35% vs. 40%; median BM blasts 40.0% vs. 49.5%; poor risk cytogenetics 46% vs. 43% for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. Follow up of the 10-day cohort patients was shorter as it started after completion of enrolment of the 5-day cohort. The median follow up was 25.7 and 12.4 months and median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-26) and 3 (range 1-13) for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint, CRc, between the 2 regimens (p=0.43). CRc was achieved in 29/51 patients (57%) on the 5-day regimen (19 CR, 3 CRp, and 7 CRi) and in 25/52 patients (48%) on the 10-day regimen (16 CR, 5 CRp, and 4 CRi). Median OS was 10.5 and 8.7 months for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively (p=0.89). The 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significant between the two cohorts: 5.9%, 15.7%, and 21.6% on the 5-day regimen and 1.9%, 17.3%, and 28.8% on the 10-day regimen. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to guadecitabine were: febrile neutropenia 59% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 47% vs. 38%, neutropenia 39% vs. 33%, anemia 27% vs. 19%, pneumonia 24% vs. 27%; and sepsis 12% vs. 19%, for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts respectively, none of which was statistically significant. Fifteen patients remain on treatment (5 from the 5-day cohort and 10 from the 10-day cohort). Conclusions: Guadecitabine is clinically active with a good safety profile in TN-AML patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Unlike in relapsed/refractory AML, where the 10-day regimen of guadecitabine showed a trend toward improved efficacy (Roboz et al, Annals of Oncology 25 Supplement 4, 2014), there was no significant difference in either efficacy or safety between the 5-day and 10-day regimens in newly diagnosed AML patients. Guadecitabine 60 mg/m2/d SC Days 1-5 is currently being investigated in an 800-patient multicenter randomized phase 3 study in TN-AML patients unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (ASTRAL-1 Phase 3 clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT02348489). Disclosures Kropf: Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. O'Connell:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Astex: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Teva: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Wilson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Lowder:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Janssen: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: SGI-110 is a second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine delivered as a small volume SC injection that yields longer half-life and more extended DAC exposure than DAC IV infusion. A phase 1 clinical trial of SGI-110 demonstrated a differentiated pharmacokinetic profile from DAC IV, potent hypomethylation, and clinical responses in previously treated patients with MDS and AML (Kantarjian et al. 2012). Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles. Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in MDS patients. Methods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve or previously treated were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2QDx5 every 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated by the clinical responses of CR, PR, marrow CR (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2006 as well as transfusion-independence. Adverse events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria and pharmacodynamic biological activity as measured by Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element LINE-1 (an index of global DNA methylation) were also assessed. Patients are being followed for overall survival. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 who were refractory or have relapsed on prior treatment, and 49 previously untreated. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 8.2 months (range 1-21). Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms with no significant differences in median age (71.7 vs. 72.5 y); male gender (70 vs. 61%); ECOG PS 2 (15 vs. 12%); HR MDS (28 vs. 37%); transfusion-dependence (57 vs. 55%), median baseline Hb (9.25 vs. 9.3 g/dL); platelets count (42.5 vs. 45 x109/L), and neutrophils count (1.19 vs. 1.16 x109/L) for the 60 and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 respectively. However, there were 15 CMML patients (28%) randomized to 60 mg/m2 vs. only 7 CMML patients (14%) randomized to 90 mg/m2(p=0.097). All but 2 patients in the previously treated group received one or more HMA. At the time of the data cutoff, 38 of 102 patients (37%) were still on treatment. Median number of treatment cycles was 4 for previously treated patients, and 5 for the treatment naïve group (range 1-22 cycles). CR+mCR were observed in 10/53 (19%), and 11/49 (22%) in the 60 and 90 mg/m2 arms respectively (p=0.8). CR was observed in 7/49 treatment naïve patients (14%) while CR+mCR were observed in 11/53 previously treated patients (21%) with no significant differences between 60 and 90 mg/m2 arms. Transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was reported in 32% and 24% for platelets and RBCs respectively with no difference between the 2 treatment arms. Treatment naïve patients benefited from higher rate of transfusion-independence (58% and 46% for platelets and RBCs respectively). Potent demethylation was achieved in both treatment arms with a mean LINE-1 DNA demethylation of 27.3 and 30.5% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 respectively (p=0.12). Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 81 vs. 88% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 treatment arms respectively (p=0.42).There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (51 vs 38%) and pneumonia (20 vs. 13%) for the 90 mg/m2 arm compared to 60 mg/m2. Early 8-week any-cause mortality occurred in 3/102 patients treated (3%), 2 at 60 and 1 at 90 mg/m2. Follow up for survival is still ongoing. Conclusions: SC SGI-110 is a well-tolerated novel HMA with biological and clinical activity in the treatment of Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients with particularly promising activity in patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine. Clinical responses, transfusion independence, DNA demethylation as assessed by LINE-1, and Safety did not significantly differ between the 2 treatment doses. Disclosures Tibes: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.