Alonzo, Todd A.

10009 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients, age 1-21 years, with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm C evaluated the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients whose tumors harbored EZH2 hotspot mutations or SMARCB1 or SMARCA4 loss by immunohistochemistry. Methods: Tazemetostat 1200 mg/m2/dose PO BID was administered to the first 13 patients; after study amendment due to second malignancy noted in the pediatric phase 1 trial, the dose for patients with non-CNS tumors was reduced to 520 mg/m2/dose PO BID. Patients were treated for 28-day cycles until PD or intolerable toxicity (max 26 cycles); response assessments occurred every 2-3 cycles. Primary and secondary endpoints were ORR and PFS, respectively. Results: Twenty eligible and evaluable patients (median age 5 years; range 1-21) were enrolled between Nov 2017 and Sept 2020. SMARCB1 loss was detected in 16/20 (80%) tumors: atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT, n = 8), malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT, n = 4), epithelioid sarcoma (ES, n = 2), renal medullary carcinoma (RMC, n = 1) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, n = 1). EZH2 mutations were identified in 3/20 (15%) tumors: Ewing sarcoma (n = 2), ependymoma (n = 1). One patient with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) had SMARCA4 loss. Centrally reviewed, one objective response (PR) was observed (LCH [SMARCA4], 26 cycles at 1200 mg/m2/dose BID). Five other patients had a best response of stable disease (ES [SMARCB1], 26 cycles, 520 mg/m2/dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 13 cycles,1200 mg/m2/dose BID; RMC [SMARCB1], 12 cycles, 520 mg/m2/dose BID; ES [SMARCB1], 9 cycles,1200 mg/m2/dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 6 cycles, 1200 mg/m2/dose BID). No other patients received > 2 cycles. Six-month PFS was 35% (95% CI 15.7%, 55.2%); OS was 45% (95% CI 23.1%, 64.7%). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with AEs previously reported with tazemetostat, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, elevated LFTs, abdominal pain, dyspnea, infection, and intracranial hemorrhage. Three patients had bromide elevations. Conclusions: In this cohort of children with relapsed tumors harboring EZH2 mutations or loss of SMARCB1 or SMARCA4, tazemetostat did not produce significant objective responses (ORR: 5%, 90% CI 1%, 20%). However, we observed prolonged stable disease of > 6 months (range: 6-26 cycles) in 33% of patients across different histologic diagnoses, including two patients who received the full two years of study therapysuggesting a potential effect of tazemetostat on disease stabilization. Future studies will incorporate tazemetostat in combination with chemotherapy or immunologic agents for patients with these aggressive and difficult to treat tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT03213665.

3009 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients age 1 to 21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms of molecularly-targeted therapies based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm J evaluated the ERK1/2 inhibitor ulixertinib (BVD-523FB) in patients whose tumors harbored activating alterations in the MAPK pathway ( ARAF, BRAF, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, MAPK1, MAP2K1, GNA11, GNAQ hotspot mutations; NF1inactivating mutations; BRAF fusions). Methods: As there were no prior pediatric data, ulixertinib was initially tested in a dose escalation cohort using a rolling 6 design to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) before proceeding with enrollment to the phase 2 cohort. Ulixertinib was administered at 260 mg/m2/dose PO BID (dose level 1, DL1, n = 15) or 350 mg/m2/dose PO BID (dose level 2, DL2, n = 5). Patients were treated on continuous 28-day cycles for up to 2 years, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity; response assessment occurred every 2-3 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate; secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Twenty patients (median age 12 years; range 5-20) were enrolled between November 2018 and March 2021. All patients were evaluable for response. High-grade glioma (HGG, n = 7) was most common, with CNS tumors comprising 55% (11/20) of diagnoses; all CNS tumors except one (HGG with KRAS and NF1 mutations) harbored BRAF fusions or V600 mutations. Rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5) was the most frequent non-CNS diagnosis, with NRAS mutations detected in 4 tumors. DL1 was declared the RP2D after first-cycle dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in 1/6 DLT-evaluable patients at DL1 and 2/5 patients at DL2 in the dose escalation cohort. Any-cycle DLTs in 8 patients in the dose escalation and primary cohorts included fatigue, anorexia, rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, increased creatinine, hypoalbuminemia, hypernatremia, and hip fracture. No objective responses were observed. Six-month PFS was 37% (95% CI: 17%, 58%). Three patients with CNS tumors achieved stable disease > 6 months (HGG with BRAF fusion, 15 cycles; glioneuronal tumor with BRAF V600E, 9 cycles; low-grade glioma with BRAF fusion, 7 cycles). Analyses of correlative studies, including pharmacokinetics and circulating tumor DNA, are ongoing. Conclusions: The pediatric RP2D of ulixertinib was established as 260 mg/m2/dose PO BID. There were no objective responses in this cohort of children and young adults with treatment-refractory tumors with activating MAPK alterations. Clinical benefit of prolonged disease control was observed in 3 patients with BRAF-altered gliomas and glioneuronal tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT03698994.

PURPOSE The NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial assigns patients age 1-21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase II studies of molecularly targeted therapies on the basis of detection of predefined genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring mutations or fusions driving activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway were treated with the MEK inhibitor selumetinib. METHODS Patients received selumetinib twice daily for 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points included progression-free survival and tolerability of selumetinib. RESULTS Twenty patients (median age: 14 years) were treated. All were evaluable for response and toxicities. The most frequent diagnoses were high-grade glioma (HGG; n = 7) and rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 7). Twenty-one actionable mutations were detected: hotspot mutations in KRAS (n = 8), NRAS (n = 3), and HRAS (n = 1), inactivating mutations in NF1 (n = 7), and BRAF V600E (n = 2). No objective responses were observed. Three patients had a best response of stable disease including two patients with HGG ( NF1 mutation, six cycles; KRAS mutation, 12 cycles). Six-month progression-free survival was 15% (95% CI, 4 to 34). Five patients (25%) experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event that was possibly or probably attributable to study drug. CONCLUSION A national histology-agnostic molecular screening strategy was effective at identifying children and young adults eligible for treatment with selumetinib in the first Pediatric MATCH treatment arm to be completed. MEK inhibitors have demonstrated promising responses in some pediatric tumors (eg, low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma). However, selumetinib in this cohort with treatment-refractory tumors harboring MAPK alterations demonstrated limited efficacy, indicating that pathway mutation status alone is insufficient to predict response to selumetinib monotherapy for pediatric cancers.

10008 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients age 1 to 21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms of molecularly-targeted therapies based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm E evaluated the MEK inhibitor selumetinib (ARRY-142886) in patients whose tumors harbored activating alterations in the MAPK pathway ( ARAF, BRAF, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, MAP2K1, GNA11, GNAQ hotspot mutations; NF1 inactivating mutations; BRAF fusions). Methods: Patients received selumetinib 25 mg/m2/dose (max 75 mg/dose) PO BID for 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity with response assessments obtained every 2-3 cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with low grade glioma were excluded. Results: A total of 21 patients (median age 14 years; range 5-21) were enrolled between 10/2017 and 8/2019, with 20 patients evaluable for response. Diagnoses were high grade glioma (HGG; n = 8), rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 7), adenocarcinoma (n = 2), and one each of MPNST, endodermal sinus/yolk sac tumor, plexiform neurofibroma (PN), and neuroblastoma. MAPK pathway alterations detected consisted of inactivating NF1 mutations (n = 8), hotspot mutations in KRAS (n = 8), NRAS (n = 3), and HRAS (n = 1), and BRAF V600E (n = 2). No objective responses were observed. Three patients had a best response of stable disease (HGG with NF1 mutation, 6 cycles; HGG with KRAS mutation, 12 cycles; PN with NF1 mutation, 13 cycles prior to removal for dose-limiting toxicity). Six-month PFS was 15% (95% CI: 4%, 34%). Adverse events that were deemed possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to study drug included one case each of grade 3 uveitis, lymphopenia, and thromboembolic event; one grade 4 CPK elevation; and one grade 5 thromboembolic event. Conclusions: Selumetinib did not result in tumor regression in this cohort of children and young adults with treatment-refractory tumors with activating MAPK pathway alterations. Of note, two patients with HGG initially had stable disease, but ultimately progressed after 6 and 12 cycles, respectively. Selumetinib has previously demonstrated activity in low grade glioma and PN and is now FDA-approved for PN. The results of our study indicate that MAPK pathway mutation status alone is insufficient to predict response to selumetinib monotherapy. It is likely that selumetinib and other MEK inhibitors will require combination with targeted or cytotoxic agents for optimal efficacy in children with persistent or progressive cancers after front-line chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03213691. Clinical trial information: NCT03155620.

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).

Introduction. Myeloid leukemia in children with Down syndrome (ML-DS) is a unique subtype of acute myeloid leukemia, distinguished by an earlier age of onset (under 4 years of age); somatic mutations of GATA1; hypersensitivity of leukemic blasts to cytarabine and other chemotherapeutic agents; lack of CNS involvement; and superior event-free survival (EFS, 85-90% at 5 years). Due to these excellent outcomes, successive protocols by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) have aimed for a reduction of treatment intensity but continue to include a course containing high-dose cytarabine (HD-AraC) for all patients, which is associated with the bulk of infectious toxicity. COG AAML1531 is the first study to evaluate differential treatment for ML-DS patients based on risk-stratification. We report the outcomes for patients with Standard Risk (SR) ML-DS enrolled on AAML1531, who were treated without inclusion of HD-AraC (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02521493?term=AAML1531&rank=1). Methods. Patients older than 90 days and younger than 4 years of age with ML-DS were eligible, including those presenting with myelodysplastic syndrome (< 20% blasts in the bone marrow) and trisomy 21 mosaicism. Pathological and cytogenetic data were reviewed centrally. All patients received the same first course of induction therapy (cytarabine 200 mg/m2/24h IV as continuous infusion, day 1-4; daunorubicin 20 mg/m2IV, day 1-4; thioguanine 50 mg/m2/dose PO twice daily, day 1-4; and a single dose of age-based intrathecal cytarabine on day 1). After this first course, measureable residual disease (MRD) in the bone marrow by multi-dimensional flow cytometry in a reference laboratory was used for risk stratification. Patients with negative MRD (<0.05%) were assigned to Standard Risk (SR) therapy, which was modeled after the AAML0431 predecessor study, but with further reduction of treatment by omission of the course containing HD-AraC/E. coli asparaginase (Induction II of AAML0431). Courses #2 and #3 of SR therapy were identical to the first course except that no further intrathecal chemotherapy was administered. Courses #4 and #5 (cytarabine 100 mg/m2/24h IV as continuous infusion day 1-7; etoposide 125 mg/m2 IV, day 1-3) were identical to the corresponding courses of AAML0431. For patients younger than 36 months, chemotherapy doses were calculated based on weight. Use of dexrazoxane during anthracycline-containing courses was at the discretion of the treating center but was captured by the data collection of the study. Patients with positive MRD (>0.05%) after the first course were assigned to the High Risk (HR) Arm and received intensified therapy (equivalent to that used for non-DS AML). Accrual to the HR arm is ongoing. Results. Interim analysis of SR therapy was performed after 50% of expected EFS events had occurred as of June 30, 2018. The observed EFS was 89.3 +/- 6.1% at 2 years from study entry and significantly lower than expected for comparable MRD-negative patients whose treatment in predecessor study AAML0431 included a course of HD-AraC/E. coliasparaginase (p=0.0002). OS at 2 years was 88.7 +/- 6.8%. Among a total of 114 SR ML-DS patients, 11 developed a relapse, all within the first year from study entry (range 136-327 days). OS at 1 year from relapse was 9.1 +/- 17.3%. Based on the results of interim analysis, the SR arm of AAML1531 was closed to accrual due to lack of efficacy. Cytogenetic analysis showed that complex karyotypes (defined as >3 independent abnormalities including >1 structural one) were significantly more frequent in SR patients who relapsed (40%, n=10) compared to SR patients who did not (9%; n=100; p=0.017). The most common abnormalities were trisomies (61% of cases) of chromosomes 3 and 8, and a gain of a fourth copy of chromosome 21. Monosomy 7 was present in 20% of relapsed vs. 5% of patients without a relapse (p=0.122). Conclusions. MRD measured by multi-dimensional flow cytometry is insufficient to identify a subset of ML-DS patients for whom HD-AraC/E.coliasparaginase can be eliminated from treatment. Cytogenetic profiling may aid in further refining risk-based subsets of ML-DS patients. Additional approaches to risk stratification of ML-DS should be pursued, which take into account the emerging genetic events that co-operate with mutant GATA1 in the development of ML-DS. At this time, HD-AraC/E.coli asparaginase should be included in the treatment of ML-DS, regardless of MRD. Disclosures Druley: Washington University: Employment; ArcherDX Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Loken:Hematologics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Eidenschink Brodersen:Hematologics, Inc: Employment.

AbstractCCG-2961 incorporated 3 new agents, idarubicin, fludarabine and interleukin-2, into a phase 3 AML trial using intensive-timing remission induction/consolidation and related donor marrow transplantation or high-dose cytarabine intensifi-cation. Among 901 patients under age 21 years, 5-year survival was 52%, and event-free survival was 42%. Survival improved from 44% between 1996 and 1998 to 58% between 2000 and 2002 (P = .005), and treatment-related mortality declined from 19% to 12% (P = .025). Partial replacement of daunomycin with idarubicin in the 5-drug induction combination achieved a remission rate of 88%, similar to historical controls. Postremission survival was 56% in patients randomized to either 5-drug reinduction or fludarabine/cytarabine/idarubicin. For patients with or without a related donor, respective 5-year disease-free survival was 61% and 50% (P = .021); respective survival was 68% and 62% (P = .425). Donor availability conferred no benefit on those with inv(16) or t(8;21) cytogenetics. After cytarabine intensification, patients randomized to interleukin-2 or none experienced similar outcomes. Factors predictive of inferior survival were age more than 16 years, non-white ethnicity, absence of related donor, obesity, white blood cell count more than 100 000 × 109/L, −7/7q−, −5/5q−, and/or complex karyotype. No new agent improved outcomes; experience may have contributed to better results time.

Purpose Randomized comparisons of idarubicin (IDA) with daunorubicin (DNR) show that in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), IDA achieves higher remission rates and longer remission durations. In Children's Cancer Group Pilot Study CCG-2941, we assessed toxicity and feasibility of substituting 4 mg of DNR with 1 mg of IDA in intensive-timing daunorubicin-based induction therapy (DNR/DNR) used in CCG-2891. Patients and Methods On days 1 through 3 and 10 through 14, patients received two courses of dexamethasone, cytarabine, 6-thioguanine, etoposide, and IDA (IDA/IDA). After enrollment of 65 patients, toxicity prompted replacement of IDA with DNR (IDA/DNR) on days 10 through 14 for the remaining 28 patients. Outcomes were compared with those of intensive timing in CCG-2891. Results Treatment-related mortality after two courses of induction was not significantly different among the three regimens: 14% with IDA/IDA, 7% with IDA/DNR, and 9% with DNR/DNR. In course 1 of CCG-2941 IDA/IDA, 11% of patients withdrew compared with 1.5% in CCG-2891 (P < .001) and 5% in CCG-2941 IDA/DNR (P = not significant). Compared with CCG-2891 DNR/DRN, CCG-2941 IDA/IDA increased days in hospital (43 v 36 days; P = .007), mean duration of course 1 by a week (P = .002), and risk of grade 3 or 4 hyperbilirubinemia (18% v 5%; P = .02). Toxicity of IDA/DNR was not different from that of DNR/DNR in CCG-2891. The mean day 7 marrow blast percentage was 11.4% in CCG-2941 versus 21.1% in CCG-2891 (P = .004). Remission induction, survival, and event-free survival rates were not significantly different from those of CCG-2891. Conclusion In CCG-2941, excessive toxicity and withdrawals outweighed potential benefits of early response with IDA.