Tibes, Raoul

AbstractBackgroundMyeloid neoplasms (myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], myelofibrosis, and chronic myelomonocytic [CMML]) are aggressive hematological malignancies for which, despite recent approvals, novel therapies are needed to improve clinical outcomes. The hedgehog (HH) pathway is one of the main pathways for cancer stem cells survival and several HH inhibitors (HHi) are approved in clinical practice.MethodsSonidegib (SON), an oral HHi, was tested in this phase 1/1b trial in combination with azacitidine (AZA, 75 mg/m2 days ×7) in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic MN or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).ResultsSixty‐two patients (28 [45%] newly diagnosed) were treated in this study, including 10 patients in the dose‐finding component and 52 patients in phase 1b. SON 200 mg oral daily on days 1–28 each cycle was deemed the recommended dose for phase 1b. Out of 21 rrAML patients, two achieved response (one complete response/one morphologic leukemia‐free state) with no responses seen in seven r/r MDS/CMML patients. In newly diagnosed AML/MDS, response was seen in six (three had complete remission, two had morphological leukemia‐free status) of 27 patients. Median overall survival was 26.4 and 4.7 months for newly diagnosed MDS and AML, respectively. Safety was satisfactory with common (>20%) side effects including fatigue, constipation, nausea, cough, insomnia, and diarrhea. Only 7% of patients died in the study, and none of the deaths were deemed related to treatment.ConclusionsOur study shows that AZA + SON are a safe combination in a patient with MN. Similar to other hedgehog inhibitors, this combination yielded limited response rate in patients with myeloid neoplasms.

Therapeutic progress in aggressive myeloid malignancies such as acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and advanced myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPNs) has been slow. This is partially due to the heterogeneity of the diseases and the lack of molecular understanding, which delays effective drug development. There will be potentially three rather effective avenues to arrive at novel molecular vulnerabilities that can be therapeutically exploited. First, is identifying disease-specific mutations or other genomic aberrations (i.e. translocations, aberrant methylation) that will result in targeting affected and closely associated genes. Second, is tracing disease evolution over time, clonal evolution by various approaches, many of which will include current genomic tools and assays. Third, a more unbiased, broad discovery approach either with small molecule screens or, in our opinion, by identification of specific molecular vulnerabilities by RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi is a mechanistically rather agnostic high-throughput approach to find essential targets, alone or in combination with commonly used anti-cancer agents. In this paper we will briefly summarise some ideas and early results of RNAi screens, with a focus on hypomethylating agents and how RNAi can identify rational combination therapies with 5-azacytidine that can be rapidly translated into the clinical setting.

AbstractAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a challenging cancer in terms of achieving and maintaining long‐duration remissions. Many novel therapies have been added to the standard regimen (combining cytarabine and anthracycline “7 + 3”) to achieve such goals. Nilotinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that is active against KIT tyrosine kinase, an important stem cell target. In this trial, we combined nilotinib with 7 + 3 induction (daunorubicin 60 mg/m2), high‐dose cytarabine consolidation, and subsequently, if the patient was a candidate, for 2 years' maintenance therapy in patients with AML and KIT (CD117) expression. Patients were allowed to proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) if deemed necessary. Our primary goal was increased complete remission rate with this combination. Thirty‐four patients (with a median age 58.5 years) were enrolled on a single‐arm phase II bi‐institutional study; 21 (62%) patients achieved remission. The complete remission rate was 78% in evaluable patients. Thirteen of 34 (38%) patients had allogeneic HCT, all thirteen of which are still alive (100%). Common (>20%) grade 3 non‐hematological toxicities included febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, elevated liver enzymes, and hypertension. Only one patient (3%) died in induction due to liver failure, which was thought secondary to daunorubicin. Our current study reveals good outcomes in patients who received HCT and may warrant a larger study to confirm our findings in that specific population.

6587 Background: Increasing numbers of clinical trials include optional or mandatory pharmaco-dynamic and -kinetic assays. Since little is known about patients’ (pts) perceived willingness to undergo specific tests and the number of tests pts would tolerate on a single trial, this study was conducted. Secondary purposes included correlating test number and type with demographics, prior test experience, coverage, and inconvenience. Methods: Exploratory correlative study using a multi-item self-report questionnaire to measure pts willingness (0–10 scale, 0 = not willing, 10 = very willing) to undergo imaging (e.g., MRI, ECHO), invasive (e.g., tumor, skin biopsies [bx]) and less invasive tests (e.g., blood, urine). 61 pts (22 female, 39 male) with advanced malignancies participating in phase I or II trials at one institution were enrolled from June 2008-December 2008. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics were used. Results: Statistically significant (p < 0.01) inverse relationships were found between the number of imaging studies (e.g., CT, ECHO), tests required (e.g., tumor, skin bx, blood draws) and pts reported willingness to undergo these tests. Pts were least willing to undergo tumor bx (median 5.5, interquartile range [IQR] 3.5–10), skin bx (6.8, 3.1–10), and unexpectedly MRIs (8, 4–10) (all p < 0.01). Surprisingly, inconvenience and prior negative experiences for the more invasive tests (e.g., skin bx) did not negatively affect willingness to undergo these tests in the future as opposed to most imaging studies. College-educated were more willing to undergo tests than non-college educated. Few pts were unwilling to undergo tests/procedures at all, if mandatory for enrollment. Conclusions: Results provide improved understanding of pts willingness to undergo trial requirements and suggest that adequate explanation (e.g., MRI) and test rationale may affect willingness to undergo tests. Findings can be used to improve study design and consent procedures to minimize patient discomfort and inconvenience. The overall willingness of advanced stage cancer pts to undergo study specific tests/procedures is high. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Introduction: Approximately 75% of myelofibrosis (MF) patients develop anemia during evolution of the disease process predicting decreased survival. Previous studies exploring the effect of danazol in the treatment of anemia in MF demonstrate responses in anemia of 30-55%. Ruxolitinib has demonstrated improvement in MF related splenomegaly, symptom burden, and even survival yet improvements in cytopenias are uncommon. We designed a phase II multicenter pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with ruxolitinib and danazol in MF patients with anemia. Methods: This is a pre-planned interim analysis of a Simon optimum two-stage phase II trial designed to include a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 27 patients. Participants received ruxolitinib 10mg (plat >75 x10x9) BID or 5mg (plat <75 x10 x9) BID with danazol 200mg orally TID. Dose escalation was allowed after completion of 28 days for lack of response or for disease progression. Patients without progression were continued for 6 cycles at 56 days each. Treatment modifications were based on adverse events including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and elevation in creatinine and transaminases. Treatment responses were evaluated by the IWG-MRT response criteria (Blood 2013). Patient reported outcome questionnaires (MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30) were administered at baseline, prior to treatment cycles, and at study discontinuation. Results: Patients: Ten of the 12 evaluable patients enrolled (median age 70.5, range 57-78, M:F ratio 4:1) are included in this analysis. Eight patients had primary MF (PMF), 1 had post essential thrombocytosis (ET) MF, and 1 had post polycythemia vera (PV) MF. Jak2 V617F mutation was positive in 30%. At the time of enrollment 40% had received an erythrocyte transfusion in the last month and all were DIPSS Int-2 or higher. Median baseline hemoglobin was 9.0 g/dL (range 8.3 - 12.4). Median baseline platelet level was 172 x10 (9)/L (range 56 - 346). Most (90%) had received prior therapy and many were refractory to multiple lines of therapy prior to enrollment. Three (30%) patients had previously participated in a JAK inhibitor clinical trial. Tolerability: Among 6 patients who have completed treatment, median duration of treatment was 39 days (range 24-287) with treatment discontinuation due to progression of disease in 2 patients, allogeneic stem cell transplant in 1, alternative treatment in 1, unrelated adverse event (hyponatremia) in 1, and unrelated death (leukemic transformation with intracranial hemorrhage) in 1. Hematologic Grade 3 or > adverse events included anemia (60%), neutropenia (20%), and leukopenia (10%). Non-hematologic Grade 3 or > adverse events included electrolyte abnormalities (20%), edema (10%), infection (10%), and intracranial hemorrhage (10%). Efficacy: Treatment response per IWG-MRT response criteria included stable disease (SD) in 8/10 (80%), clinical improvement in 1/10 (10%), and progressive disease (PD) in 1 (10%). The median change in hemoglobin and platelet count from baseline was -0.05 g/dL (range -0.5 - 1.8) and 28.5 x10(9)/L (range -143 – 118) respectively, however 4/10 (40%) and 7/10 (70%) had improvement at some point during treatment in level of anemia and/or thrombocytopenia. The median follow-up time was 2 months (range 0.9-9.4). Among 6 patients with a baseline and at least one post-baseline MPN-SAF TSS, 2/6 (30%) of patients had at least a 10-point (clinically meaningful) improvement, with 1 of the 2 achieving the stricter 50% improvement from baseline. Responses might have been confounded due to impact of prior therapies. Conclusions: On interim analysis, ruxolitinib and danazol combination therapy demonstrates modest additional clinical benefit, however in a group of exceedingly high risk MF patients with significant anemia and prior single agent JAK inhibitor failures. Preliminary data suggests improvement in anemia and/or thrombocytopenia in some treated patients however only one clinical improvement per IWG-MRT criteria was observed. Combination therapy was well tolerated with no major incremental toxicity attributable to the addition of danazol. Maturation of data is needed to fully evaluate efficacy of ruxolitinib and danazol combination therapy prior to continuation of accrual. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding. Tibes:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Ns Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Cti: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: 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; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: 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; Celltrion: 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; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: 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; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: 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; Celltrion: 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; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI 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; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) regulate many aspects of transcription and translation in a cell- and tissue-specific manner and are frequently dysregulated in malignancy. We systematically evaluated RBPs preferentially required in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) over other forms of cancer or normal hematopoietic precursors using a CRISPR/Cas9 domain-based, loss-of-function screen targeting 490 classical RBPs with 2,900 sgRNAs (Fig. A). This screen was performed in cells lines representing AML, T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and revealed multiple RBPs preferentially required for AML survival, but not for T-ALL or LUAD survival. We identified genes encoding 21 RBPs that were >3-fold depleted in AML cells and significantly overexpressed in AML patient samples versus normal adult CD34+ precursors (p-value < 0.05; Fig. B). Amongst RBPs required and upregulated in AML was RBM39, an RBP described to be involved in a number of cellular processes and to interact with key splicing proteins SF3B1 and U2AF2. Genetic ablation of Rbm39 in mouse MLL-AF9 leukemia cells dramatically delayed AML development and progression (Fig. C). In parallel, it has recently been described that a class of clinically-validated anti-cancer sulfonamide compounds (including indisulam and E7820) mediate RBM39 degradation as their dominant cellular mechanism of action. This occurs via novel interactions with the DCAF15 adapter protein of the CUL4/Ddb1 ubiquitin ligase complex with RBM39 as a neo-substrate. Treatment of MOLM-13 cells xenografted into mice with indisulam conferred significant anti-leukemic effects and improved overall survival (Fig. D). To explore the mechanism of RBM39 dependence in AML, we performed proteomic analyses of RBM39 interacting proteins in MOLM-13 cells as well as transcriptome-wide analysis of RBM39 RNA binding by enhanced UV cross-linking and immunoprecipitation (eCLIP) in the same cells. RBM39 physically interacted with an entire network of RBPs identified by our CRISPR screen as crucial for AML cell survival in addition to interacting with the core SF3b splicing complex. Further, anti-RBM39 eCLIP revealed RBM39 binding to exonic regions and most enriched at exon/intron borders at 5' and 3' splice sites of pre-mRNA (Fig. E), suggesting a prominent role of RBM39 in regulating splicing. Consistent with this, RNA-sequencing of AML cells following RBM39 deletion revealed significant effects of RBM39 loss on RNA splicing, most prominently causing increased cassette exon skipping (Fig. F). Recent studies suggest that myeloid leukemias with mutations in RNA splicing factors are sensitized to pharmacologic perturbation of RNA splicing. Analysis of the effects of RBM39 degrading compounds over a panel of 18 AML cells revealed that leukemia cells bearing splicing factor mutations or with high DCAF15 expression were the most sensitive to treatment (Fig. G). Genetic introduction of SF3B1, SRSF2, or U2AF1 hotspot mutations in K562 or NALM6 cells resulted in a 20-50% reduction in IC50 in response to sulfonamides. We next performed RNA sequencing of isogenic K562 cells with or without knockin of SF3B1K700E and SRSF2P95H mutations into the endogenous loci, and treated at the IC50 of E7820 or E7107, a small molecule that inhibits the SF3b core spliceosome complex. Treatment with either drug dramatically increased cassette exon skipping events and intron retention relative to DMSO control, with greater effects in splicing mutant cells. However, at equipotent doses, E7820 markedly increased mis-splicing compared with E7107. Furthermore, E7820 treatment resulted in mis-splicing of a number of RBP targets identified in our CRISPR screen as being required for AML survival, including SUPT6H, hnRNPH, and SRSF10, as well as RBM3 and U2AF2, consistent with previous observations (Fig. H). Here through systematic evaluation of RBPs across several cancers, we identify RBPs specifically required in AML. In so doing we identify a network of functionally and physically interacting RBPs upregulated in AML over normal precursors. Genetic or pharmacologic elimination one such RBP, RBM39, led to aberrant splicing of multiple members of this RBP network as well as of transcriptional regulators required for AML survival. These data suggest important clinical potential for anti-cancer sulfonamide treatment in splicing mutant myeloid leukemias. Disclosures Uehara: Eisai: Employment. Owa:Eisai: Employment.

Abstract Background: Guadecitabine SC (SGI-110) is a dinucleotide next generation HMA resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase resulting in extended in vivo exposure to its active metabolite decitabine. A Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles (Issa et al, 2015, Lancet Oncology). Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in both untreated MDS patients, and patients previously treated with other HMAs. M ethods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory to other HMAs (r/r) were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5 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, and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 r/r MDS, and 49 TN MDS. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 3.2 years (IQR 2.8-3.5 years). Median age was 72 and 71 years for r/r and TN MDS respectively. Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment dose groups except that more CMML patients were randomized to the 60 mg/m2 group (28%) vs. 14% in the 90 mg/m2 group, and more patients with baseline BM blasts >5% were in the 90 mg/m2 group (67%) vs. 38% in the 60 mg/m2 group. Most patients were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline (57%). In the r/r MDS cohort, most patients (58%) received their last HMA treatment <3 month before enrolment, and most of them received ≥6 months of prior HMA treatment (77%). Median number of treatment cycles was 5 for both r/r and TN MDS (range 1-37 in r/r MDS and 1-49 in TN MDS). In the TN MDS cohort CR was achieved in 11 (22%) of patients with no major difference between the 2 dose groups (19% in the 60 mg/m2 group vs 27% in the 90 mg/m2 group). Overall CR+mCR was achieved in 18 patients (37%) in TN MDS patients and median OS was 23.4 months. In the r/r MDS cohort, CR was achieved in 4% of patients in each of the 2 dose groups. Overall CR+mCR in the r/r MDS cohort was achieved in 17 patients (32%), with a median duration of response of 7.9 months, and median OS of 11.7 months. No significant difference in response or OS between the 2 dose groups was observed. In patients who were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline, transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was achieved in 42% of TN MDS, and 15% in r/r MDS patients. In the overall population of 102 TN and r/r MDS patients there were no major differences in OS based on DNMT3A or TET2 mutation status while patients with TP53 mutations had worse median OS (7.4 months) compared to those without TP53 mutations (22.6 months). Other baseline prognostic factors for worse OS were BM blasts >5%; RBC transfusion-dependence; IPSS High Risk; and ECOG Performance Status of >1. Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 83 vs. 96% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 dose groups respectively. There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (57 vs 41.5%); neutropenia (51 vs 39.6%); febrile neutropenia (43% vs 32%); and pneumonia (32.7 vs. 26.4%) for the 90 mg/m2 compared to 60 mg/m2 dose group. Early 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality was observed in 0, 3.7%, and 5.7% in the 60 mg/m2 dose group respectively; and in 2%, 4%, and 12% in the 90 mg/m2 dose group respectively. Conclusions: Guadecitabine at both dose groups is a well-tolerated novel HMA with clinical activity in the treatment of both TN and r/r Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients. In TN MDS patient CR rate of 22% and median OS of 23.4 months compare well with first generation HMA efficacy (Fenaux et al, 2009, Lancet Oncology). Activity in r/r MDS who previously failed prior HMAs is particularly promising (CR+mCR in 32% of patients with median duration of response and overall survival of almost 8 and 12 months respectively). A phase 3 trial (ASTRAL-3) of guadecitabine vs Physician Treatment Choice in r/r MDS and CMML patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine is actively enrolling (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02907359). Disclosures Ritchie: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kropf:Celegene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Griffiths:Alexion Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene, Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Daiichi Snakyo: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Berdeja:Genentech: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive blood cancer with a wide range of response and relapse rates using standard chemotherapy combining anthracycline plus cytarabine (7+3). The stem cell receptor tyrosine kinase KIT is expressed on more than 10% of blasts in 95% of relapsed AML cases and mediates leukemic proliferation and has anti-apoptotic effects (Domen and Weissman 2000). AML with high KIT expression is associated with poorer outcome (Del Poeta, Venditti et al 2003). Goals: To study the efficacy and safety of combination 7+3 and nilotinib in patients (pts) with AML and KIT expression. Primary goal is to determine the complete response (CR) rate; while secondary goals include 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in addition to safety. Methods: A single arm, Phase II study, enrolled pts at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ). Appropriate IRB was obtained and study was registered (NCT 01806571). Pts were enrolled if they were newly diagnosed with AML with KIT (CD117) expression of ≥ 20% on myeloblasts by flow cytometry. KIT mutations were allowed. Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily was given on days 4-14 of induction and consolidation; and continuous daily maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. Cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day continuous IV x7 days plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV daily x3 days were used for induction, while consolidation used standard cytarabine 3 gm/m2 twice daily days 1, 3, 5 for a total of 4 cycles. This is a Simon 1-stage design with a safety analysis after enrolling 12 pts, and an interim analysis after enrolling 18 out of 43 pts (Al-Kali, ASH 2015) recommended to continue study accrual. Results: i)- Demographics: Thirty four pts were enrolled from July 2013 to June 2017. Median age was 59 years (range 24-69) with 71% being male. Median laboratory findings include hemoglobin of 8.8 gm/dL, platelets of 56 x109/L, white blood count of 3.3 x109/L (0.4-125), and peripheral blood blasts 17 %(0-94%). Cytogenetics were normal in 43% of the pts and favorable cytogenetics were seen in 6%(inv 16). FLT3 gene testing was done on 26 pts and was positive in 13%. KIT gene sequencing (exon 8, 9, 10, 11, 17) revealed pathogenic mutation in 1/28 cases (4%). ii)- Clinical outcome Out of all 34 pts enrolled on the study, 18 (53%) achieved CR (or CR with incomplete platelet recovery) with a median CR duration of 21.8 months. Of 26 evaluable pts, the overall CR rate was 69%. 4 of the 18 pts (22%) who achieved remission needed a second induction. One pt died due to liver failure (had only one dose of nilotinib and toxicity was attributed to daunorubicin). 13 (38%) pts proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant (HSCT), 12 of whom are alive and none were able to initiate nilotinib maintenance. Only 6 (1 had HSCT) out of 34 (18%) pts relapsed after achieving CR. Median DFS was 45.8 months, while median OS was 42.4 months. 2-year DFS and OS were 58% and 72%, respectively. iii)- Safety Thirty four pts were evaluated for adverse events (AE). Fourteen pts had G4 non-hematological AEs, including fourteen G4 AEs related to infection, 2 with electrolyte imbalances, 1 heart failure, 1 elevated bilirubin, 1 elevated lipase, and 1 jejunal hemorrhage. One patient had G5 liver failure. Most common (>20%) G3 non-hematological AEs were febrile neutropenia (56%), hypophosphatemia (21%), elevated ALT (21%) and hypertension (21%). Conclusion: Combination daunorubicin and cytarabine with nilotinib (DATA) appears to be safe and effective. Final results show an acceptable safety profile with most common AE being infection. Thirty day mortality was low (3%). DATA regimen has comparable CR rates of 53% (intent to treat) and 69% in evaluable pts. Relapse rates were very low at 18% with durable responses and encouraging survival rates. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Tibes:Novartis: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.