Erba, Harry Paul

Abstract Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p<0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p<0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p<0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p<0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: 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; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: The ECOG-ACRIN randomized phase 3 clinical trial E1912 established ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) as the standard of care for CLL patients <= 70 years in the frontline setting by improving the progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to previous standard chemo-immunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt et al. NEJM 2019). Quality of life (QOL) was an important secondary endpoint on this trial comparing continuous (IR) vs time-limited (FCR) therapy due to the differing profile of treatment-related toxicities over the short and long-term. E1912 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) results are presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled on E1912 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Leukemia subscale at randomization (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomization, and every 6 months for 2 years regardless of disease status. The primary outcome was the 31-item FACT-Leukemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Leu TOI), calculated by summing items from the FACT-G physical wellbeing (PWB), functional well-being (FWB), and leukemia subscales (score range: 0-124). The primary endpoint was defined as the difference in FACT-Leu TOI change scores from randomization to 12 months (at response evaluation) between patients treated with continuous therapy Arm A (IR) vs time-limited therapy Arm B (FCR). Mean change scores from baseline to each time point were calculated using all cases with data at baseline and the corresponding time point. Comparisons between treatment arms were performed using two-sample t tests. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the trajectories of PRO scores. Results: PRO data was extracted on 3/8/2021. PRO data was provided at baseline and 12 months for 233/354 (65.8%) patients on the IR arm and 118/175 (67.4%) patients on the FCR arm. At enrollment, there were no significant differences in the baseline FACT-Leu TOI scores (mean ± SE) between the two arms: IR (93.27 ± 1.03) vs FCR (92.68 ± 1.38; p=0.73). The FACT-Leu TOI score improved from baseline to 12 months in both arms (Table 1 and Figure 1). The change scores from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome, were not significantly different between IR (7.59 ± 1.09) vs FCR (8.22 ± 1.44; p=0.73). Change in FACT-Leu TOI from baseline to 3 months was 5.77 ± 0.77 and 4.06 ± 1.18 (p=0.22); and from baseline to 6 months was 6.87 ± 0.87 and 8.01 ± 1.44 (p=0.50) in the IR and FCR arms, respectively. After the first 6 months of treatment, the improvement in FACT-Leu TOI scores was maintained in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in total FACT-Leu TOI score in the continuous therapy (IR) vs time-limited therapy (FCR) arms over the first 36 months post registration. Analysis of FACT subscales showed PWB improved in the IR arm (0.37 ± 0.22) and declined in the FCR arm (-0.92 ± 0.39) from baseline to 3 months (p=0.004 for difference in PWB change between arms) but there was no significant difference between the two arms for change in PWB scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two arms for change in FWB and FACT-Leu subscales from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: QOL improves in CLL patients age 70 and younger when treated in the frontline setting with IR or FCR. The improvement in QOL is maintained during continuous therapy with ibrutinib and there is no significant decline in QOL over time. Given the improvement in PFS and OS with IR over FCR seen in E1912, the results of this QOL analysis support the use of frontline ibrutinib in previously untreated younger CLL patients. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J. O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers: U10CA180794, U10CA180820, UG1CA189863, UG1CA190140, UG1CA232760, UG1CA233180, UG1CA233230, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233277, UG1CA233290, UG1CA233339, UG1CA189859, UG1CA233332. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding. Barr: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mato: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Litzow: Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Wagner: Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson: Other: Spouse, previously held individual stocks;; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Athenex Inc: Consultancy.

Abstract E1912 was a randomized phase 3 trial comparing indefinite ibrutinib plus 6 cycles of rituximab (IR) to 6 cycles of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in untreated younger patients with CLL. We describe measurable residual disease (MRD) levels in E1912 over time and correlate them with clinical outcome. Undetectable MRD rates (<1 CLL cell per 104 leukocytes) were 29.1%, 30.3%, 23.4%, and 8.6% at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months for FCR, and significantly lower at 7.9%, 4.2%, and 3.7% at 12, 24, and 36 months for IR, respectively. Undetectable MRD at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the FCR arm, with hazard ratios (MRD detectable/MRD undetectable) of 4.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89-9.71), 3.91 (95% CI, 1.39-11.03), 14.12 (95% CI, 1.78-111.73), and not estimable (no events among those with undetectable MRD), respectively. In the IR arm, patients with detectable MRD did not have significantly worse PFS compared with those in whom MRD was undetectable; however, PFS was longer in those with MRD levels <10−1 than in those with MRD levels above this threshold. Our observations provide additional support for the use of MRD as a surrogate end point for PFS in patients receiving FCR. In patients on indefinite ibrutinib-based therapy, PFS did not differ significantly by undetectable MRD status, whereas those with MRD <10−1 tended to have longer PFS, although continuation of ibrutinib would very likely be necessary to maintain treatment efficacy.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 mutations are observed in 6-10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (AG-120), a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) protein, is a promising therapeutic candidate for the treatment of patients with mIDH1 AML. Through inhibition of mIDH1, ivosidenib suppresses the abnormal production of the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells. AIM: To report safety and efficacy data from the first-in-human phase 1 study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies including relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML (NCT02074839). This is the first report of data from the 4 expansion cohorts, with a total of 258 patients treated on study. METHODS: The ongoing phase 1 study assesses the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of ivosidenib in mIDH1 hematologic malignancies. Enrollment was completed on May 8, 2017. During dose escalation, patients received ivosidenib as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in 28-day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the recommended dose to be tested in 4 expansion cohorts: R/R AML (Arms 1 and 4, where Arm 1 patients are those with relapse after transplantation, second or later relapse, resistance to initial induction or reinduction treatment, or relapse within 1 year of initial treatment, and Arm 4 patients have R/R AML but are not eligible for Arm 1); untreated AML (Arm 2); and other advanced hematologic malignancies including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Arm 3). Updated safety data will be presented for all patients. Efficacy outcomes will be presented for all R/R AML patients treated at 500 mg QD across the dose escalation and expansion cohorts who received their first dose of ivosidenib at least 6 months prior to the analysis cut-off date of May 12, 2017, as well as for the poorest prognosis Arm 1 subset. Efficacy data for all treated patients from the other expansion cohorts (untreated AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies including MDS) will also be presented. RESULTS: In all, 258 patients (78 in dose escalation, 180 in expansion) were treated with ivosidenib. As of May 12, 2017, 62 of 258 (24%) patients were continuing on treatment. The median duration of exposure to ivosidenib was 3.5 months (range 0.1-33.5). Twenty-two (8.5%) patients discontinued treatment to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Treatment was well tolerated; the most common adverse events (AEs) (n=258) of any grade irrespective of causality occurring in ≥20% of patients were diarrhea (33%), leukocytosis (30%), nausea (30%), fatigue (29%), febrile neutropenia (25%), dyspnea (24%), anemia (23%), QT prolongation (23%), peripheral edema (22%), pyrexia (21%), and decreased appetite (20%). The majority of these AEs were grades 1-2 and reported as unrelated to treatment. Differentiation syndrome (DS) was observed in 29 of 258 (11.2%) patients, including grade ≥3 DS in 14 (5.4%); study drug was held owing to DS in 11 patients (4.3%), and no instances of DS led to permanent treatment discontinuation or death. The primary efficacy endpoint for R/R AML is the CR+CRh rate, i.e., the rate of complete remission (CR according to modified IWG 2003 criteria plus CR with partial hematologic recovery, defined as CR except absolute neutrophil count >0.5 × 109/L [500/µL] and platelet count >50 × 109/L [50,000/µL]). Among 125 Arm 1 R/R AML patients receiving ivosidenib 500 mg QD across dose escalation and expansion who received their first dose at least 6 months prior to the analysis cutoff date, the CR+CRh rate was 30.4% (95% CI 22.5%, 39.3%), including CR in 27 (21.6%) and CRh in 11 (8.8%) patients. Median duration of CR+CRh was 8.2 months (95% CI 5.5, 12.0), and duration of CR was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6, 18.3). The overall response rate (CR+CRi/CRp+PR+MLFS) was 41.6% (95% CI 32.9%, 50.8%) (52/125 patients). CONCLUSION: Ivosidenib monotherapy is well tolerated in patients with mIDH1 AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies. In a high-risk, molecularly defined R/R AML patient population with unmet medical need, ivosidenib induced durable remissions and improved patient outcomes. These findings support the role of ivosidenib as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 AML. Disclosures DiNardo: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. De Botton: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stein: GSK: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Constellation Pharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz: AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Array Biopharma Inc., Astex, AstraZeneca, Celator, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CTI BioPharma, Genoptix, Immune Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Juno, MedImmune, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche Pharmace: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Mims: Novartis: Honoraria. Pollyea: Takeda, Ariad, Alexion, Celgene, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Jazz, Servier, Curis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios, Pfizer: Research Funding. Altman: Syros: Consultancy; NCCN: Other: Educational speaker; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ceplene: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ASH: Other: Educational speaker. Collins: Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Mannis: Curis: Honoraria; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Uy: GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Suppport; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Fathi: Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medimmune: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy. Erba: Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Scientific Steering Committee , Speakers Bureau; Incyte: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; MacroGen: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Agios: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Juno: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Astellas: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Celator: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Traer: ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Tolero: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Stuart: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ONO: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cantex: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yen: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kapsalis: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Goldwasser: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agresta: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Fuji Film: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy. Kantarjian: ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have improved outcomes when treated with pediatric-inspired regimens. CALGB 10403 was the largest prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of using a pediatric regimen in AYAs with acute lymphoblastic leukemia up to 40 years of age. This article presents the toxicity events observed in the CALGB 10403 study and compares these toxicities vs those observed among AYAs treated on the same arm of the companion Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0232 study. Toxicities in CALGB 10403 were similar to those observed in COG AALL0232. Some grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more often reported in CALGB 10403 compared with COG AALL0232 (hyperglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, transaminase elevation, and febrile neutropenia). Adverse events correlated with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 and some with increasing age. The mortality rate in CALGB 10403 was low (4%) and similar to that in the COG AALL0232 trial. A caveat to this analysis is that only 39% of CALGB 10403 patients completed all planned protocol treatment. In COG AALL0232, although 74% of patients aged <18 years completed treatment, only 57% of patients aged ≥18 years completed treatment. This scenario suggests that issues associated with age and treating physician may be a factor. Due to its improved survival rates compared with historical controls, the CALGB 10403 regimen is now a standard of care. The hope is that the rate of protocol completion will increase as more familiarity is gained with this regimen. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00558519 (CALGB 10403) and #NCT00075725 (COG AALL0232).

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).

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

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

Abstract High-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) remains a therapeutic challenge, with higher associated rates of early mortality and relapse than standard-risk APL. All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) plus arsenic trioxide (ATO) is a well-established treatment for patients with standard-risk APL, but it is not well defined for those with high-risk APL. In a prior study of patients with high-risk APL, the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to ATO plus ATRA suggested benefit. The SWOG Cancer Research Network conducted a phase 2 study to confirm the efficacy and safety of the combination of ATRA plus ATO plus GO in treating high-risk APL patients. The primary end points were 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and early (6-week) death rates associated with this combination. Seventy patients were treated. With a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the 3-year EFS and overall survival estimates were 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-86%) and 86% (95% CI, 75%-92%), respectively. Overall, 86% of patients achieved complete response. The 6-week mortality rate was 11%. The most common treatment-emergent toxicities during the induction phase included febrile neutropenia, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation, hyperglycemia, hypoxia, headache, and prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate. Retinoic acid syndrome occurred in 9% of patients. Approximately 37% of patients did not complete all planned courses of postremission therapy. The combination of ATRA plus ATO plus GO in high-risk APL patients was effective and generally well tolerated, suggesting an opportunity to offer a chemotherapy-free induction platform for patients with this disease. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00551460.

7104 Background: The use of MRD to predict outcome in AML is controversial. We sought to determine concordance between FC and BM biopsy morphology on day 14 (D14BM) and CR bone marrow (CRBM) specimens and whether MRD detected by FC predicted for inferior outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult AML patients treated between 2005 and 2010 with standard induction chemotherapy. Based upon BM morphology and FC, patients were designated as BM+FC+, BM+FC-, BM-FC+, or BM-FC-. Outcomes assessed included induction failure, RFS and OS. Results were adjusted for age at diagnosis, NCCN risk classification, and secondary AML status. Results: Of 287 evaluable patients, 74 had D14 BM and FC results and 98 had CR BM and FC results. Using BM morphology as the gold standard, discordance rates for the presence and absence of disease for the D14 BM by FC were 29% and 23% respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients categorized as BM-FC+ at D14 were more likely to experience induction failure (HR 8.62, CI 0.36-208) and had lower RFS and OS (HR 1.47, 1.95 CI 0.40-5.41, 0.52-7.36 respectively). Analysis of the CR BM samples showed similar results. Conclusions: In this retrospective study there was a high discordance rate between FC and BM morphology on D14 BM and CR BM. While there was a trend toward inferior patient outcomes when disease was detected by FC but not morphology, this was not statistically significant. Limitations of our study include the retrospective nature of the analysis, paucity of patient samples that had a FC evaluation, lack of data to see if positive FC at D14 or CR changed clinician therapy choices and interpretation bias by pathologists as a result of access to FC results during BM morphology interpretation. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether MRD detected by FC as early as D14 during AML therapy affects clinical outcomes.