Sun, Zhuoxin

PURPOSE Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).

TPS9077 Background: ALCHEMIST (Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial) is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that offers biomarker analysis for high-risk resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to support randomized trials of novel adjuvant therapies within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). EA5142, a trial of adjuvant nivolumab for patients (pts) without EGFR / ALK alterations, has completed enrollment. Given the survival benefit seen with 1st-line chemo-immunotherapy (chemo-IO) for advanced NSCLC without EGFR / ALK alterations, there was compelling rationale for the launch of a trial offering concurrent immunotherapy with adjuvant chemo. Here we report updated enrollment to ALCHEMIST as of Jan 14, 2020. Methods: ALCHEMIST includes a screening trial (A151216, 5362 registered) that enrolls pts with completely resected clinical stage IB (≥4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC 7) NSCLC. Tissue and blood are collected, biomarker testing includes EGFR sequencing, ALK FISH and PD-L1 IHC. 733 active sites are enrolling across the NCTN. Pts with EGFR mutations may enroll to adjuvant erlotinib vs observation (A081105, 352 randomized); those with ALK fusions may enroll to adjuvant crizotinib vs observation (E4512, 99 randomized). A trial offering adjuvant nivolumab vs observation regardless of PD-L1 status (EA5142, 935 randomized) recently completed enrollment. To support ongoing investigation of adjuvant immunotherapy, ALCHEMIST is adding A081801 (opens spring 2020). Pts will be randomized to one of 3 arms: chemo-IO with pembrolizumab during and after chemo vs sequential chemo followed by pembrolizumab vs chemo alone. Pts with pathological N2 nodes are eligible and can undergo postoperative radiotherapy after completing chemo. Pts are eligible if enrolled to A151216, negative for EGFR and ALK alterations, and with PD-L1 testing completed (required for stratification). Local testing for EGFR, ALK and PD-L1 will be accepted for enrollment; central testing will not delay randomization. Pts may not have received any therapy except surgery for the lung cancer and must be age >18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, have no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment within 2 years, must not be pregnant or nursing, have no active second malignancy within 3 years and meet standard organ function values. By building off the ongoing ALCHEMIST platform, we hope to facilitate rapid enrollment to A081801 across participating NCTN sites. Clinical trial information: NCT02194738.

Abstract Over the past decade several prospective studies of post-remission therapy in AML have compared allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), autologous HSCT and chemotherapy. The data are appropriately presented by intention-to-treat analyses. However, such analyses do not provide information to the clinician or patient as to outcome from the initiation of post-remission therapy, be it HSCT or chemotherapy. Furthermore, such analyses are impossible to interpret when a significant percentage of patients do not receive their intended therapies (for example, only 54% of patients randomized to autologous HSCT; Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). Finally, such studies present survival data that may not be relevant to current practice where the mortality from autologous HSCT has decreased sharply (for example, 14% non-relapse mortality from autologous HSCT; Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). In the current analysis, results from 4 consecutive ECOG studies that included autologous HSCT were analyzed and the data collated. In PC486 patients received standard induction followed by allogeneic HSCT if they had a compatible sibling; otherwise they were to undergo an autologous HSCT without any prior consolidation (Cassileth, JCO, 1993). E4995 studied standard induction with added high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC) intensification on D 8–10, followed by 2 courses of HiDAC consolidation. All patients were to undergo an autologous HSCT after induction and consolidation (Cassileth, Leuk Lymph, 2005). E3489 was a US Intergroup study in which patients received standard induction (3 + 7). If in CR, all patients received an attenuated course of induction (2 + 5). Patients who had a histocompatible sibling were assigned to allogeneic HSCT; those without a donor were randomized to an autologous HSCT or chemotherapy (Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). E1900 is an ongoing phase III study in which patients receive standard induction followed by allogeneic HSCT or two courses of HiDAC followed by autologous HSCT. The latter study is ongoing; therefore, only data describing transplant-related mortality (TRM) are presented. The relapse rate from start of each post-remission regimen in these studies, based on therapy actually received and not on intention-to-treat analysis, is presented in table 1 and the TRM is presented in table 2. Table 1. Relapse Rate from Start of Post-Remission Therapy Cytogenetics Allogeneic HSCT (n=85) Autologous HSCT (n=113) Chemotherapy (n=109) Favorable 11.8% (2/17) 10.5% (2/19) 60% (12/20) Intermediate 20.5% (8/39) 32.3% (10/31) 53.7% (22/41) Unfavorable 16.7% (2/12) 41.7% (5/12) 83.3% (15/18) Unknown 23.5% (4/17) 33.3% (17/51) 56.7% (17/30) Table 2. Treatment-Related Mortality after Post-Remission Therapy Allogeneic HSCT Autologous HSCT – Marrow Autologous HSCT – Blood Chemotherapy Study E3489, E4995, E1900 E3489, PC 486 E4995, E1900 E3489 Treatment-related mortality 15.3% (18/117) 11% (16/85) 1.5% (2/135) 2.7% (3/109) In conclusion: The TRM after autologous HSCT using mobilized peripheral blood has decreased substantially in recent years. As shown in table 2, in PC486 and E3489 where bone marrow was harvested and treated with perfosfamide (4-HC) prior to cryo-preservation, the TRM was significantly greater than in the later studies, E4995 and E1900, where peripheral blood was harvested after priming with chemotherapy and/or cytokines. The lower relapse rate post autologous transplant, together with the lower procedural mortality with current practice, may confer a survival advantage in future prospective studies of autologous HSCT versus chemotherapy. While absolute comparisons cannot be made, as the timing of each therapy may not be identical, these data provide crucial information for informed and patient/physician discussions prior to initiation of postremission therapy.

Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin <9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD (>2 units/month) with serum Epo >500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a >2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients (<4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of >Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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; Delta Fly Pharma: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

Background: Relapse remains the most common cause of treatment failure after intensive induction and consolidation (CONS) therapy in older adults with AML. We therefore performed a prospective randomized phase II study to determine the safety and impact on DFS (relapse or death) and OS of DAC maintenance using an abbreviated 3-day schedule administered every 4 weeks for 1 year (per Lubbert et al, Haematologica 97:393, 2012) vs. Observation (OBS) after intensive AML therapy, conducted in the large multi-center E-A E2906 Phase III trial in patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs. Methods: The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior OS following 'Standard' 7&3 (Daunorubicin 60mg/m2) induction and intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation (CONS) vs. single agent Clofarabine (CLO, provided by SANOFI), despite similar CR/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery) and induction mortality rates. All CR/CRi pts after induction (n=311) were assigned to 2 cycles CONS with either Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age >/=70 yrs), or single agent CLO, based on induction randomization. Ongoing CR/CRi after recovery from CONS was confirmed with restaging BM biopsy, and eligible pts offered participation in the 'Step 3' maintenance study, a 1:1 randomization (stratified by induction therapy, cytogenetic risk group, age <70 yrs) to either OBS vs. DAC (20mg/m2IV Days 1-3, q4 wks) for 1 year. DAC could be held for up to 4 weeks for delayed hematologic recovery, but dose reductions were not permitted per protocol, and DAC was not continued beyond 12 months. Patients in both arms were evaluated with CBC q4 weeks for 1 year, and surveillance BM biopsy every 3 months (or at the time of suspected clinical relapse) for 2 years. 'Step 3' was designed as a phase II pilot randomized study, with target accrual n=172, allowing 90% power to detect 36% reduction in DFS Hazard Ratio (HR) with DAC maintenance for 1 year (using protocol-specified 1-sided log-rank test significance level of 0.1), assuming 140 events & 2 years of follow-up from randomization. However, further accrual to E2906 was suspended in 2/2015 by independent DSMC due to superior OS observed with standard Arm, so that 'Step 3' completed only 70% of target accrual. P-values reported are two-sided by convention unless specified otherwise. Results: 'Step 3' total accrual was n=120 (of 172 planned) (DAC 61, OBS 59), with median age 69 yrs (range 60-85), and groups were very well balanced for baseline clinical characteristics; most pts had Intermediate risk cytogenetics (74.2%) and ECOG performance status (PS)=0/1 (96%). The median number of DAC cycles received was 6 (range 0-13), and analysis was 'intention-to-treat'. The median follow-up is 49.8 months. There were 90 DFS events (47 OBS, 43 DAC), with 82 deaths (46 OBS, 36 DAC). Univariate DFS and OS are shown in Figure, with associated two-sided p-values; using protocol-prespecified one-sided significance level of 0.1, OS was significant (one-sided p=0.06) for DAC v. OBS, and there was a statistical trend favoring DFS (one-sided p=0.11), particularly for CLO pts (Table). We also performed multivariate Cox model (after adjustment for ECOG PS, sex, secondary AML, and baseline hematologic parameters) which confirmed superior HR for DFS (one-sided p=0.10) & OS (one-sided p=0.07), per statistical design. FLT3-ITD status is available for n=96 pts, and 84 were FLT3-ITD-negative (46 OBS, 38 DAC). Importantly, we observed a significant association of DAC maintenance with superior OS in the large FLT3-ITD-neg subgroup (p=0.039) (Figure). DAC was generally well tolerated apart from grade 3 febrile neutropenia (9%) and reversible grade 4 cytopenias, with no grade 5 events. Conclusions: In this randomized phase II study, DAC maintenance for 1 year after intensive AML therapy was associated with improved HR for OS and a trend for DFS, using protocol-specified statistical design. Furthermore there was a significant impact on OS for the FLT3-ITD-negative population. We acknowledge limitations based on incomplete accrual due to early termination of the parent E2906 study, and inherent to the phase 2 design of this E2906 endpoint, but results suggest an important impact of DAC maintenance on survival. These data strongly support a definitive phase III randomized study of DAC maintenance, particularly focused on the large intermediate risk FLT3-ITD-negative subgroup. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Claxton:Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celegene Corporation, Medimmune, Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Altman:Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Zheng:Pfizer: Research Funding. Pratz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Powell:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: 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; Rigel: 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; Biosight: Research Funding; KAHR: 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; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Cellerant: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: 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; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Disclosure: Use of maintenance Decitabine in AML

Abstract Background: Novel therapies are required to improve the outcome of patients with AML. New agents are asked to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit before qualifying for FDA approval. The long duration of clinical trials required in order to achieve this endpoint hampers quick evaluation of candidate therapies, including novel agents. Identification of reliable surrogate endpoints for OS in AML is needed. Here we compare the results of therapy for patients with untreated AML ages 16-60 years on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1900 trial (E1900) of induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation and autologous transplant in order to evaluate the validity of an event free survival (EFS) endpoint as a surrogate for OS. Methods:OS was measured from randomization for induction therapy to death from any cause (censored at last contact). EFS was measured from randomization to induction treatment failure, relapse after compete response (CR), or death in remission (censored at last contact). Hazard ratios (HR) were computed using Cox proportional hazards models. The association between EFS and OS was evaluated using the Kendall tau-a rank correlation for censored data. Results:There were657 patients enrolled of which 426 patients relapsed or had induction treatment failure before death or date of last contact. Median EFS and OS were 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 9.7 months) and 23.6 months (95% CI, 16.9 to 23.6 months), respectively. With a median follow-up of 80.1 months, there is a statistically significant correlation between EFS and OS (Kendall tau-a = 0.467, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.425, 0.510), p<0.001). This correlation was similarly significant at a median follow-up of 25.2 months (Kendall tau-a = 0.361, 95% CI (0.323, 0.400), p <0.001) when the E1900 trial was originally reported (Fernandez et al. NEJM 2009). Key findings reported based on the original OS endpoint are similar when analyzed with an EFS endpoint (Table 1). High-dose daunorubicin (90 mg/m2) (DNR 90) confers both an EFS and OS benefit in patients aged < 50 years and patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk, and does not confer an EFS or OS benefit in older patients and patients with unfavorable cytogenetic risk, on univariate analysis. Divergent results are only seen in the small subset of favorable cytogenetic risk patients, where DNR 90 conferred an OS benefit (p=0.027) without an EFS benefit (p=0.32). Both EFS and OS endpoints consistently reflect the impact of mutation status on survival. The presence of a FLT3-ITD or DNMT3A mutation has a negative impact on both EFS and OS while an IDH2 mutation has a favorable impact on EFS and OS. The presence of a NPM1 mutation confers a favorable impact on EFS and OS in patients who received DNR 90 and did not impact EFS or OS in patients receiving standard-dose daunorubicin (45 mg/m2) (DNR 45). The presence of an IDH1 mutation does not impact EFS or OS. Conclusions:The results of E1900 demonstrating superiority of DNR 90 in AML induction in patients up to age 60 are concordant when using an EFS or OS endpoint. This is true for the group as a whole as well as for subgroups for which targeted agents are in development (FLT3/IDH2 inhibitors). Further investigation of whether EFS is a reliable surrogate for OS is warranted in AML. If confirmed, its use as a primary endpoint could be adopted by regulatory agencies in order to allow more rapid completion of clinical trials in AML and bring new therapies to AML patients in a timely fashion. Table 1. Results of E1900 based on an EFS endpoint versus an OS endpoint. Subgroup N OS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P DNR 45 DNR 90 Age < 50 yrs ³ 50 yrs 188 142 172 155 0.66 (0.50, 0.85) 0.81 (0.62, 1.06) 0.002 0.118 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) 0.86 (0.67, 1.10) 0.0004 0.23 Cytogenetic Favorable Intermediate Unfavorable 38 141 59 51 127 63 0.51 (0.28, 0.93) 0.68 (0.50, 0.92) 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) 0.027 0.012 0.225 0.76 (0.44, 1.31) 0.63 (0.47, 0.83) 0.72 (0.49, 1.05) 0.32 0.001 0.09 Subgroup N OS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P FLT3-ITD WT MUT 456 147 1.62 (1.31, 2.01) <.0001 1.48 (1.21, 1.82) 0.0002 DNMT3A WT MUT 371 119 1.30 (1.03, 1.65) 0.03 1.23 (0.98, 1.54) 0.07 IDH1 WT MUT 465 36 0.88 (0.59, 1.33) 0.55 0.91 (0.62, 1.34) 0.64 IDH2 WT MUT 451 50 0.63 (0.43, 0.93) 0.02 0.68 (0.48, 0.97) 0.03 NPM1 DNR 45 DNR 90 245 257 0.84 (0.61, 1.16) 0.60 (0.41, 0.89) 0.30 0.01 0.90 (0.66, 1.22) 0.59 (0.41, 0.84) 0.49 0.004 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: The use of midostaurin in combination with standard induction chemotherapy has been shown to improve the outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutated (FLT3m) AML (Stone et al) and allogeneic transplant is often recommended in first remission. While likely to achieve remission with standard induction, the majority of these patients will relapse and die of their disease. Gilteritinib, a potent FLT3 inhibitor, has been approved for use in patients with relapsed or refractory FLT3 mutated AML. In Phase I/II studies, when used as part of induction therapy, gilteritinib has shown promising CR rates. We have designed a trial comparing the outcomes of induction therapy with gilteritinib to those with midostaurin. The hypothesis is that gilteritinib, when added to induction chemotherapy, will produce more FLT3m negative composite complete remission (CRc). The Ratify trial combined midostaurin with daunorubicin 60 mg/m2/d X 3 days and cytarabine X 7 days Daunorubicin 90 mg/m2/d has however been shown to be superior during induction in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3 ITD mutated AML (Luskin et al, Burnett et al) While improved survival is the ultimate goal of any leukemia regimen, it is known that AML patients who proceed to allogeneic transplant with measurable residual disease (MRD) positive disease fare worse than those with MRD negative disease. As such, our goal is to increase the likelihood of an MRD negative state after induction. Study Design This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study comparing gilteritinib to midostaurin in combination with cytarabine 100 mg/m2 and daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 in newly diagnosed FLT3 mutated AML patients ages 18-65. Central confirmation of FLT3 mutation and other pretreatment studies are required. In order to identify patients without delay, all patients with suspected AML will be able to be prescreened without enrollment to the randomized treatment trial. Patients will be stratified according to TKD vs. ITD FLT3 mutation. Patients with FLT3-ITD mutation will undergo further stratification with NPM1 mutation status (positive vs. negative) and FLT3 ITD to FLT3 wild type signal ratio (high [≥ 0.5] vs. low [<0.5]). Patients will be randomized to receive standard induction treatment (cytarabine and daunorubicin) with either gilteritinib or midostaurin. Mandatory bone marrow samples are required after Induction and Consolidation. Patients who achieve CR or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) will be assessed for MRD and be eligible at count recovery to go on to receive standard consolidation treatment of high-dose cytarabine with the study drug received during induction (gilteritinib or midostaurin). Patients may proceed to allogeneic transplant after induction or after 0-4 cycles of chemotherapy consolidation and may participate in BMT CTN 1506. Key Eligibility: Newly diagnosed FLT3m AML Primary Objective To evaluate the FLT3m negative (evaluated by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] and capillary electrophoresis) composite complete response (CRc) (includes CR or CRi)rate of patients with FLT3 mutated AML who receive gilteritinib compared to those who receive midostaurin in addition to standard therapy with cytarabine and daunorubicin during induction. Sample Size and Statistical design The accrual goal of this study will be 179 patients. Patients who achieve remission will be followed for survival and relapse. With an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the two arms, the study will have 80% power to detect an improvement of 20% in the FLT3 mutation negative CRc rate in the gilteritinib arm (i.e. from 40% to 60%) at the one-sided significance level of 0.05 based on Fisher's exact test. This study is conducted through PrECOG and is funded by Astellas Pharma. The study is slated to open in the summer of 2019 at 30 US sites. References: Stone R.M., Mandrekar S.J., Sanford B.L., et al. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:454-464 Luskin MR, Lee JW, Fernandez HF et al. Blood 2016 :blood-2015-07-657403; doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2015-07-657403 Burnett AK, Russell NH, Hills RK et al. Blood 2016; Blood 2016 128:449-452; doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-04-712091 Figure Disclosures Luger: Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria. Loghavi:MDACC: Employment; GLG Consultants: Consultancy; AlphaSights: Consultancy. Lazarus:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: 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; Biosight: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: 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; Daiichi-Sankyo: 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; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties. Pratz:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: In this study gilteritinib is being studies in newly diagnosed AML.

Abstract Background: The persistence of detectable MRD in complete remission (CR/CRi - CR with incomplete CBC recovery) has been reported to contribute to inferior outcome in younger AML patients (pts) in retrospective studies, however MRD has not been studied prospectively in older adults (age ≥60 yrs) receiving intensive therapy with curative intent. We performed a planned prospective study of MRD status after AML induction therapy in older adults, integrated into the large multicenter ECOG-ACRIN (E-A) E2906 Phase III trial. Methods Eligible patients age ≥60 yrs with AML were randomized 1:1 to receive either 'Standard' 7&3 (Dauno 60mg/m2) induction, with 2 cycles of intermediate dose Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age ≥70) consolidation (Arm A); or single agent clofarabine (CLO) induction and consolidation (2 cycles) (Arm B). The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior overall survival (OS) with standard therapy despite similar CR/CRi rates using stringent criteria, and similar 30-day induction mortality rates. Submission of diagnostic & remission bone marrow or peripheral blood samples was protocol mandated for prospective MRD assessment, and analysis was performed in the central E-A Leukemia Translational Research Lab (LTL) using 6-color multiparameter flow cytometry. MRD-positive (MRD+) was defined as ≥0.1%. LTL flow cytometric analysis was done blinded to treatment arm and outcome of patients. Only pt samples collected within +/-6 days of CR/CRi confirmation were included in this analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using X2 (categories) and Wilcoxon rank sum (continuous) tests to compare baseline patient and disease characteristics. Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox models stratified by treatment arm and adjusted for patient and disease variable (including WBC, cytogenetics, sex, performance status, secondary AML) were used to examine the MRD effect on OS and disease-free survival (DFS, relapse or death). Results The median follow-up is 47.8 months, and 297 of 685 evaluable patients (43.4%) achieved CR/CRi (Standard 44.6%; CLO 42.0%, p=ns). Remission MRD samples were only available for 147 CR/CRi patients (49.5%), owing to variability in sample viability and AML involvement, collection practices and timing of sample collection at individual sites, and patient/physician decision. 58/147 evaluable CR/CRi patients achieved MRD-negative (MRD-) status (Standard 40.7%, CLO 47.9%, p=0.74). Women (56.9% vs. men 43.1%, p=0.003) were more likely to be MRD-, but there was no other significant difference in MRD status stratified by clinical or disease features. MRD+ status at CR/CRi was associated with significantly inferior OS (p=0.031, Figure 1) and also inferior overall DFS (p=0.02); this was most pronounced for DFS after CLO (Arm B, Figure 2) (p=0.005), but not Standard (Arm A) therapy (p=0.41). The impact of MRD+ was confirmed on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting, for OS: OS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.00-2.68) (p=0.05); OS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.51-2.21) (p=0.87); and OS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.05-5.06) (p=0.04). There was a similar impact for DFS on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting: DFS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.86 (95% CI 1.16-2.98) (p=0.01); DFS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60-2.19) (p=0.67); and DFS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 3.45 (95% CI 1.47-8.09) (p=0.004). Post-remission therapy was not stratified by MRD in E2906, and 33% of MRD-evaluable pts underwent allogeneic transplantation (no difference in transplant rate for MRD+ vs. MRD-). Conclusions MRD+ ≥0.1% is common (60.5%) after induction therapy in older adults & is significantly associated with inferior OS and DFS in 1st CR/CRi. However we observed excellent outcomes for MRD- pts in first CR/CRi regardless of induction regimen or post-remission therapy used. MRD+ pts in CR/CRi who went on to receive CLO consolidation had significantly poorer outcomes than those who went on to receive intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation. This observation differs strikingly from younger AML, and suggests that intensified Ara-C may abrogate the adverse impact of MRD in older pts in CR. These results strongly support incorporation of centralized MRD at the time of remission into future studies to guide optimal post-remission strategies in older pts with AML. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Altman:Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Pratz:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy. Powell:Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding.

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.