Podoltsev, Nikolai

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: 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; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: 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; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

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.

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 SGI-110 is second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine delivered as a small volume, pharmaceutically stable SQ injection allowing longer half-life and more extended decitabine exposure than DAC IV infusion. SGI-110 differentiated pharmacokinetic profile resulted in potent hypomethylation and clinical responses in previously treated MDS and AML patients in the phase 1 trial (Kantarjian et al. 2012). Methods In a randomized Phase 2 study, relapsed/refractory AML, or elderly treatment naïve AML patients who were not suitable for induction chemotherapy (poor major organ function; poor cytogenetics; or secondary AML) were randomized to one of two SQ doses – the biologically effective dose (BED) of 60 mg/m2 QDx5 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study is the overall remission rate (CR, CRi, and CRp) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2003. Safety findings based on adverse events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria and pharmacodynamic data on Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element (LINE-1) DNA methylation (an index of global DNA methylation) activity were also assessed and reported. Results As of June 30, 2013, sixty-seven patients (50 relapsed/refractory AML, 17 treatment naïve elderly AML) were treated and had a minimum follow up of 3 months. Patients were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 dose (32 patients) or 90 mg/m2 dose (35 patients). The median age was 66 years (range, 22–84), 69% were male, and ECOG PS of 0/1/2 was reported in 11/47/9 patients respectively. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (range, 0–10). Patients’ characteristics were well balanced between the 2 dose groups. The primary endpoint of overall remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) was observed in 17/67 patients (25% with 95% CI, 16–37%). There were 8 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 50 patients with relapsed/refractory AML (16% with 95% CI, 7-29%); and 9 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 17 treatment-naïve elderly AML patients (53% with 95% CI, 28-77%). Five patients (4 relapsed/refractory, and one treatment-naïve elderly AML) subsequently received a stem cell transplant. There was no difference in the complete remission rate between 60 and 90 mg/m2 doses (8 remissions in 32 patients at 60 mg/m2, and 9 remissions in 35 patients at 90 mg/m2). LINE-1 DNA methylation data before and after treatment was available in 50 (75%) patients enrolled. LINE-1 demethylation ≥ 10% post treatment was observed in 83% and 78% in the 60 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively. The median maximum LINE-1 demethylation for responders is 25% as compared to 19% for non-responders. The most common adverse events (AEs) regardless of relationship to SGI-110 ≥ Grade 3 include febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and pneumonia. The 90 mg/m2 dose showed a greater frequency of Grade 3/4 related AEs ≥ 10% (anemia, febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) compared to the 60 mg/m2 dose. Conclusions SQ SGI-110 is a new HMA which is well tolerated and clinically active in the treatment of AML. Complete remissions and potent demethylation of ≥10% were equally observed at the 2 dose groups of 60 and 90 mg/m2. These data support further phase 3 investigation of this agent in the treatment of AML. Preliminary overall remission rate of 53% in treatment-naïve elderly AML seems to compare favorably with previous results reported for HMA treatment but this needs to be confirmed in a larger number of patients and randomized studies. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jabbour:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Kropf:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Savona:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ervin:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Daver:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Borthakur:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Wierda:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Cortes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Brandwein:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Odenike:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Dimitrov:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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

Abstract On behalf of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 2-12% of patients with acute leukemia (AL) despite disease and therapy-associated thrombocytopenia, and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to limited high-quality studies, there are no evidence-based guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. Based on our experience and the lack of consensus guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be a wide range in provider practice regarding methods of VTE prevention in patients with AL. To determine the current individual practices in North America, we devised a web-based survey of VTE prophylaxis practice among clinicians caring for patients with AL. Methods: An anonymous 19 question web-based survey, approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board, was distributed by email to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group on 10/22/14. Four reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the survey closing on 12/8/14. Results: Of the total 215 respondents, 64 were excluded for the following reasons: 52 did not directly manage medical care of AL patients, 3 referred AL patients to other centers, 5 left blank responses to all questions regarding VTE prophylaxis, 1 was a duplicate entry, and 3 described their position as support or office staff. One hundred fifty-one responses were eligible for analysis, with a response rate of 20.9% among physicians who treated leukemias. One hundred forty-seven were from the United States and 4 from Canada, representing 88 different institutions and 37 states or provinces. Overall, 47% and 45% of providers reported using pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during induction and consolidation phases, respectively. Among the providers using pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% designated 50,000/μL as the platelet count threshold below which they would hold prophylaxis and 26% used a platelet count of 30,000/μL. Fewer providers chose a platelet count of 20,000/μL (4%), 75,000/μL (4%), and 100,000/μL (2%). Lastly, 2% held prophylactic anticoagulation only in the setting of an active bleed and 2% reported variable thresholds. Approximately 15% of providers did not utilize any VTE prophylaxis while 36% used mechanical methods and ambulation. Among providers who did not recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, the most commonly cited reasons were the perceived high risk of bleeding (51%), absence of data supporting use (38%), and perceived low risk of VTE (11%). Conclusions: These results demonstrate wide variation in clinician practice regarding VTE prevention in hospitalized AL patients during induction and consolidation therapy. Our findings emphasize the need to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines in this at-risk population. VTE: venous thromboembolism, AL: acute leukemia, SC: subcutaneous, TED: thromboembolic deterrant stockings, SCD: sequential compression device Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Disclosures Barbarotta: Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.