Jabbour, Elias

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 Introduction: CMML is a clinically heterogeneous myeloid neoplasm hallmarked by the coexistence of dysplastic and proliferative patho-clinical features, which can include cytopenias, constitutional symptoms, splenomegaly, and leukocytosis. However, according to the FAB classification schema, CMML may be differentiated in dysplastic and proliferative subgroups only by the presence of leukocytosis in the latter (WBC ≥13 x 109/L). We hypothesize that incorporation of other clinically discriminating features may yield a more informative CMML stratification system. To address this, we propose three distinct CMML categories and explore their clinical relevance leveraging our existing international CMML database (Padron E et al. Blood Cancer J. 20151). Method: 1622 WHO-defined CMML cases diagnosed between 1973 and 2014 were collected from eight large cancer centres that include up to 80 discrete data elements as previously described1. Cases were placed into three clinically distinct groups and the Pearson Chi-Square test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied respectively to compare categorical and continuous characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to estimate median OS and the log rank test was used to compare survival curves.Cox models whereapplied to obtain univariate and adjusted hazard ratios. Identification of optimal cut-off values for continuous variable was supported by graphical inspection of martingale residuals from the null Cox model. Statistical analyses were done in SPSS v23 and R v.3.3.0. Results: We propose three categories to delineate clinically distinct CMML subtypes: (1) Myelodysplastic (MD)-CMML: WBC≤10 x 109/L, PB-immature myeloid cells (IMC) = 0%, no splenomegaly (2) MD/MP-CMML: WBC 10-20 x 109/L or WBC ≤10 x 109/L but PB-IMC>0% and/or splenomegaly (3) Myeloproliferative (MP)-CMML: WBC >20 x 109/L. A recursive partitioning approach was used to identify the WBC cut points, with splenomegaly and IMC added to more accurately depict the MPN aspect of CMML. Numbers of patients included in the MD-, MD/MP-, and MP-CMML subcategories were 319 (19.7%), 789 (48.6%) and 514 (31.7%), respectively (Table 1). According to the FAB criteria, the MD/MP group included 521 (66%) MD- (WBC ≤13 x 109/L) and 268 (34%) MP-CMML (WBC>13 x 109/L) patients suggesting that the proposed classification clinically reclassifies FAB-defined CMML. Within the MD/MP group, 344 patients (21.2%) had a WBC <10 x 109/L but with IMC>0% and/or splenomegaly. Comparison of overall survival (OS) among proposed groups demonstrated that this classification schema was capable of discriminating the CMML natural history (Figure 1). In comparison to MD/MP-CMML, the unadjusted OS Hazard Ratio (HR) was 0.60 (95% CI 0.49-0.73) for MD-CMML and 1.57 (95% CI 1.36-1.81) for MP-CMML (p<0.001 for both). This difference was retained after adjusting for BM-Blasts (< vs ≥5%), IPSS or CPSS cytogenetics (High-risk vsInterm/low-risk), and elevated levels of LDH (HR was 0.73 with 95% CI 0.57-0.93, p=0.011 for MD-CMML, and 1.33 with 95% CI 1.12-1.58, p=0.001 for MP-CMML, respectively). We next explored whether each proposed group may have distinct variables that uniquely govern its prognosis. Peripheral blood blasts >5%, RBC- and PLT-transfusion-dependence predicted poor OS only in the MD and MD/MP-subcategories (p<0.005), but had no impact in the MP-CMML. Male gender and elevated LDH were only significantly associated with prognosis in the MD/MP group (p<0.05 and p<0.005, respectively) while absolute lymphocyte count >2.5 x 109/L and absolute monocyte count >10 x109/L were uniquely predictive for shorter survival in the MP-CMML subcategory (p<0.005). Notably, we additionally identified gene mutations that uniquely predicted prognosis in each proposed group (Table 2). Conclusions: We demonstrate that our proposed 3-group clinical classification schema is capable of independently stratifying prognosis. Further, our analysis identified clinical and genetic variables that uniquely govern each group's prognosis, suggesting independent clinical behaviour. Further investigations are warranted to validate these groups. Disclosures Jabbour: ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 2926 Background: RAS proteins are encoded by 3 proto-oncogenes (K-RAS, N-RAS, and H-RAS) and regulate the growth and differentiation of many cellular types, including the myeloid compartment. Codons 12, 13, and 61 (in N-RAS and K-RAS) have been reported to be common targets of mutations. These mutations result in constitutive activation of the RAS pathway by increasing intracellular RAS GTP levels, which result in activation of the RAS/MEK and the RAS/PI3K pathways. Its prognostic significance in MDS is yet to be clarified. Because the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of RAS mutations in MDS, we decided to study the impact of RAS mutations in patients (pts) with MDS. Methods: Mutation analysis of KRAS and NRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 was performed by Pyrosequencing using biotinylated reverse primers. All pts referred to MD Anderson between 2000–2009 were reviewed. In addition to standard clinical characteristics, including karyotyping, mutational status of Flt3, c-Kit and JAK2 was also analyzed. Overall survival was calculated based on Kaplan-Meier. Results: Of the 1067 pts with MDS of age above 17 evaluated for RAS mutation, 43 pts (4%) were positive. Seventy nine percent of RAS mutations were of N-RAS type (codon12 (55%), codon 13 (12%), codon 61(12%)) with K-RAS 12 comprising the rest (21%). Median age was 68 years (range, 18–94) with 66% being males (703 pts). Their median white blood cell (WBC) was 3.3×109/L (range, 0.3–72.2), hemoglobin 9.8 (range, 3–17.5), and platelets 73×109/liter (range, 1–1040). Median bone marrow blast was 5% and 77 pts (7%) had leukemic transformation. More than half of the pts had RAEB or RAEB-t (44% and 9 % respectively) which translated into fewer patients in the low IPSS category (19%). The median age was 66 years (range 26–84) in the RAS mutated (muRAS) group compared to 68 in the wild type (wtRAS). WBC was higher in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (6.8 ×109/L vs. 3.2 ×109/L, p<0.001 by Mann-Whitney median test (M-W-T)). Percent of bone marrow blasts was higher (9%) in muRAS group compared to 5% in wtRAS (p<0.001 by M-W-T). High (Int-2 and high) risk by IPSS was more frequent in muRAS 51% compared to 40% in wtRAS group (p=0.11). Leukemic transformation was 9% and 7% (p=0.61) in both muRAS and wtRAS groups respectively. RAS mutation was detected more frequently in the CMML subgroup (12/80 (15%) pts). There were no differences in terms of response to DNA methylating inhibitors (CR in 41% in muRAS versus 40% in wtRAS). ARA-C-based regimens resulted in better CR in wtRAS than muRAS (59% vs 25%); however, the size of muRAS group was too small (1 out 4 pts).There was a trend towards shorter overall survival (OS) in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (395 vs. 500 days, p value=0.057). MuRAS RAEB (325 vs. 450 days, p= 0.13) and RAEB-t (125 vs. 375 days, p= 0.27) subgroups showed a trend towards worse OS compared to wtRAS group. There was a significant OS decrease in RCMD (150 vs. 700 day, p= 0.015). Surprisingly, muRAS CMML group showed a trend towards better OS compared to wtRAS (728 vs. 687 days, p=0.44). Additionally we analyzed patients for presence of Flt3 mutation. These were present in only 18 of the pts (4%) but none of them had also a RAS mutation. There was no c-Kit mutations found in this cohort of pts, compared to 9/37 (24%) pts tested positive for JAK2V617F. Conclusion: MuRAS occurs in 4% of pts with MDS. In the muRAS group, pts tended to have higher risk disease and risk of transformation to acute leukemia compared with wtRAS. OS tended to be worse in some subgroups in muRAS. Although the prognostic impact of RAS mutations in MDS appears to be limited, mutations could be used to develop targeted therapeutic interventions. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background SGI-110 is a second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine. The compound is delivered as a small volume, pharmaceutically stable subcutaneous (SQ) injection which allows longer half-life and more extended DAC exposure than DAC intravenous infusion. This pharmacokinetic profile offers the potential for improved biological and clinical activity and safety over currently available HMAs (Kantarjian et al. ASH, 2012). Methods A randomized Phase 1-2 first-in-human PK/PD-guided, dose-escalation study was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory intermediate or high-risk MDS or AML. Patients were initially randomized to one of two SQ regimens - Dailyx5 or Weeklyx3, for 28-day courses. Subsequently, a Twice Weeklyx3 regimen (Monday, Thursday) was added for evaluation based on emerging LINE-1 demethylation data from the Weeklyx3 regimen. Results 93 patients (74 AML, 19 MDS) were treated in the dose escalation phase: 44, 34, and 15 patients were treated in the Dailyx5, Weeklyx3, and the Twice Weeklyx3 regimens, respectively. Across the three regimens, median age was 70 years (range, 29–86), 68% male, and 87% had ECOG PS of 0-1. The median number of prior regimens was 3 (range, 1–9) and 68% of patients had prior HMA treatment (59% AML, and 100% MDS). Of the 74 AML patients treated, 31 (42%) had secondary AML including antecedent MDS. Patients received a median of 2 courses of SGI-110 (range, 1-20). LINE-1 demethylation data at the 2 highest dose levels which were well tolerated and evaluated for all 3 regimens (60 and 90 mg/m2) are shown in the figure below. The Dailyx5 regimen demonstrated the most potent average LINE-1 demethylation, while the Twice Weeklyx3 achieved the most prolonged LINE-1 demethylation. The least potent demethylation was seen with the Weeklyx3 regimen. There was no additional demethylation at the 90 mg/m2 dose compared to 60 mg/m2in all 3 regimens. Responses were reported according to the IWG Criteria 2006 (MDS)/2003 (AML). Complete remissions were observed in 5 AML patients (2CRs, 1CRp, and 2CRi). Clinical responses (2 mCR and 3 HI-E, 1 HI-N, 1 HI-P) were observed in 6 MDS patients, all of whom had been previously treated with HMA. All AML responses and both mCR in MDS patients achieved ≥10% LINE-1 demethylation. Safety is reported based on Adverse Events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Across regimens, the Twice Weeklyx3 demonstrated an increased number of related AEs compared to the other regimens. The most commonly reported related AEs ≥ 10% in the Dailyx5 regimen (injection site pain, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, fatigue), Weeklyx3 regimen (injection site pain and diarrhea), and Twice Weeklyx3 regimen (injection site pain, injection site reaction, fatigue, dizziness, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia). Conclusions SQ SGI-110 is a potent HMA using all 3 regimens evaluated. The most potent hypomethylation was achieved with Dailyx5 dosing and the most prolonged hypomethylation was achieved using the Twice Weeklyx3 regimen. All 3 regimens were well tolerated. Clinical responses were observed in heavily pretreated patients, including those with prior HMA exposure. These results support the ongoing Phase 2 expansion study investigating the Dailyx5 dosing schedule in patients with MDS and AML who are either HMA treatment naïve or previously treated with HMAs. Disclosures: Roboz: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ritchie:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Larson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jabbour:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Cortes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Schimmer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Mesa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Blum:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation HMA administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here a comparative efficacy and safety analysis of the 5-day and 10-day regimens. Methods: TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy based on age (≥ 65 y), poor performance status (PS 2), comorbidities, or poor risk cytogenetics were enrolled in 2 separate treatment cohorts in the Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were treated with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimes with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit with no unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc): Complete Response (CR) + CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: There was no difference in efficacy or safety between 60 and 90 mg/m2/d on the 5-day regimen (Yee et al, European Hematology Association meeting 2014, S647), so data are reported here for the two doses combined on the 5-day cohort. There were 51 patients treated in the 5-day regimen cohort and 52 treated with the 10-day regimen. There was no statistically significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 regimens; median age 77.9 vs. 77.3 years ; male 59% vs. 65%; PS 2 or higher 35% vs. 40%; median BM blasts 40.0% vs. 49.5%; poor risk cytogenetics 46% vs. 43% for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. Follow up of the 10-day cohort patients was shorter as it started after completion of enrolment of the 5-day cohort. The median follow up was 25.7 and 12.4 months and median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-26) and 3 (range 1-13) for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint, CRc, between the 2 regimens (p=0.43). CRc was achieved in 29/51 patients (57%) on the 5-day regimen (19 CR, 3 CRp, and 7 CRi) and in 25/52 patients (48%) on the 10-day regimen (16 CR, 5 CRp, and 4 CRi). Median OS was 10.5 and 8.7 months for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively (p=0.89). The 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significant between the two cohorts: 5.9%, 15.7%, and 21.6% on the 5-day regimen and 1.9%, 17.3%, and 28.8% on the 10-day regimen. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to guadecitabine were: febrile neutropenia 59% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 47% vs. 38%, neutropenia 39% vs. 33%, anemia 27% vs. 19%, pneumonia 24% vs. 27%; and sepsis 12% vs. 19%, for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts respectively, none of which was statistically significant. Fifteen patients remain on treatment (5 from the 5-day cohort and 10 from the 10-day cohort). Conclusions: Guadecitabine is clinically active with a good safety profile in TN-AML patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Unlike in relapsed/refractory AML, where the 10-day regimen of guadecitabine showed a trend toward improved efficacy (Roboz et al, Annals of Oncology 25 Supplement 4, 2014), there was no significant difference in either efficacy or safety between the 5-day and 10-day regimens in newly diagnosed AML patients. Guadecitabine 60 mg/m2/d SC Days 1-5 is currently being investigated in an 800-patient multicenter randomized phase 3 study in TN-AML patients unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (ASTRAL-1 Phase 3 clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT02348489). Disclosures Kropf: Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. O'Connell:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Astex: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Teva: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Wilson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Lowder:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Janssen: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: CMML is a heterogeneous malignancy characterized by peripheral monocytosis and a propensity for AML transformation. Given the low incidence of CMML and its broad range complexity, a large disease-specific data set is necessary to discern independent co-variates predictive of disease behavior. Several prognostic models derived from smaller data sets have been developed to stratify CMML patients into distinct groups that are predictive for OS. However, the validity of these models in a large international data set has never been investigated. Here, we present the largest International CMML data base established to date and report key baseline characteristics predictive for disease outcome. We externally validate and perform a detailed statistical comparison between the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), Revised (R)-IPSS, Global MD Anderson Scoring System (MDASC), MD Anderson Prognostic Score (MDAPS), Dusseldorf Score (DS), Mayo, and Spanish Scoring Systems (CPSS). Methods: Data were abstracted by each contributing institution and deposited for central data review at the Moffitt Cancer Center. Manual review of cases was performed to ensure data quality prior to analysis. Only WHO defined CMML was included. The primary objective of this study was to establish an international CMML data set and validate the above models calculated at the time of presentation to each center. All prognostic models were calculated as previously described. The Kaplan–Meier (KM) method was used to estimate median OS and the log rank test was used to compare KM survival estimates with SPSS version 21.0. Random Forest Survival (RSF) and ROC analysis was done with R. Results: Between July 1981 and June 2014, 1832 CMML patients were captured in the International CMML database. Median age at diagnosis was 70 (16-93) years with a male (67%) predominance. By the WHO classification, the majority of patients had CMML-1 (79.9% vs. 20.1%) and most patients were evenly subcategorized as MPN-CMML (49.8%) versus MDS-CMML (50.2%) by FAB criteria. Splenomegaly was demonstrable in 25%. Most patients had favorable cytogenetics by both IPSS (70%) and CPSS (67.6%) classification schemas. Mean BM blast % was 5.6 and mean monocyte count was 4.85x103/dL. Median OS of the entire data set was 31.6 months. All tested prognostic models were valid and able to predict OS (p<0.0001). To compare relative model performance, 1013 complete cases with sufficient data to calculate all risk models were compared using time dependent receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and their area under the curves (AUC). ROC curves were calculated for OS at 36 months. The R-IPSS model had the highest AUC (0.694) while the DS model had the lowest (0.635). The difference in AUC between the R-IPSS and DS models was statistically significant (p = 0.003) whereas there was no significant difference from other models tested. To determine which models were most vulnerable to reclassification from low-risk to higher risk, we calculated a vulnerability score defined by the number of models able to up-stage low-risk disease in more than 15% of cases. Using this metric, the Mayo and MDASC scores were least vulnerable to up-staging by other models. Lastly, we used an orthogonal method for determination of variable importance (RSF for OS at 36 months). RSF is an ensemble method of classification and regression tree methodology. Ranking of variables by their weighted importance determined by this procedure identified the top five variables were hemoglobin, circulating blasts, platelet count, number of cytopenias, and karyotype. A new risk model was developed using the results of the RSF with an AUC of 0.720, which was comparable but not significantly different than other modern scoring systems. Conclusions: This represents the largest international CMML-specific data set derived from eight unique centers of excellence. All modern prognostic models were valid and performed comparably. Despite novel strategies for variable importance discovery, an improved model could not be constructed. This data suggest that the power of clinical variables has reached an asymptote and highlights the need for incorporation of molecular and other novel biological features. This data set is currently being populated with molecular data and is being leveraged to test published CMML molecular prognostic models which will be disclosed at the time of presentation. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Epizyme, Inc: Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssenm, Novartis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 677 Background: Activating mutations of NRAS and KRAS (‘RAS’) are found in 10–30% of myeloid malignancies. Evidence of constitutive activation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway, however, is more ubiquitous. Trametinib is a potent, selective, allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/2 that inhibits proliferation of myeloid cell lines in vitro. A Phase I/II study of single, daily, oral dosing of trametinib in myeloid malignancies is ongoing. Here we report the results from Phase I/II patients receiving the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of 2 mg. Methods: Patient eligibility was limited to patients with relapsed/refractory myeloid malignancies and adequate hepatic, renal and cardiac function. There were no hematologic eligibility criteria. Patients were prospectively screened for KRAS mutations at amino acids 12, 13 and for NRAS mutations at amino acids 12, 13 and 61. Clinical response was assessed using International Working Group (2003 and 2006) criteria for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), respectively. Pharmacodynamic marker (pERK) analysis was conducted in phase II patients with patient paired (pre/during treatment) blood and bone marrow samples. Results: Eighty-seven (9 in Phase I and 78 in Phase II) patients received 2 mg of trametinib daily: AML (n=66), MDS (n=11), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) (n=7) or other (n=3) (RAS mutations, n=57; RAS wild type, n=15 and RAS unknown, n=15). Median age was 68 years (range 21–87) and for close to half of the patients, trametinib was 3 3rd line of therapy. Trametinib exhibited a long effective half-life with small peak/trough ratios, and the exposure profile maintained time above preclinical target threshold for the 24-hour dosing period. Results of the pharmacodynamic analysis indicated an on-target effect of trametinib. Responses by RAS mutation status for Phase I/II subjects are summarized in Table 1. Responding patients have continued therapy for median of 16.9 weeks (range, 10.9 – 36.7). Drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were encountered in 31/87 (36%) of the Phase I/II patients and there was one grade 5 drug-related AE,cerebrovascular accident. Hepatic toxicities (9%), gastrointestinal disorders (7%) and rash (5%) were the most frequent grade 3/4 AEs. AEs possibly related to inhibition of MEK signaling were blurred vision (total,13%; grade 3, 1%) and decreased cardiac ejection fraction (total, 9%; grade 3, 6%); events were generally reversible. Conclusion: At the RP2D of trametinib (2 mg orally daily), trametinib has shown promising clinical activity and responses (CR/CRp/Marrow CR/MLFS/PR) were almost exclusively seen in patients with refractory myeloid malignancies characterized by somatic RAS mutations. Expansion of the CMML cohort for RAS positive subjects is ongoing. Disclosures: Borthakur: GlaxoSmithKline, Sigma-Tau, Eisai, XBiotech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Trametinib, to report outcome of clinicla trial to audience at ASH meeting. Foran:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Platzbecker:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Giagounidis:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria. Ottmann:GlaxoSmithKline: Clinical trial participation Other. Kadia:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Bauman:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Liu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Schramek:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Zhu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Wissel:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership.

e18521 Background: The FDA-approved drug trabectedin is a DNA minor groove binder (MGB) with activity against translocation-associated sarcomas. Lurbinectedin is a next-generation MGB, with activity against myeloid leukemia cells. A phase I clinical trial was initiated to determine recommended doses in MDS/AML. Further assessment of its safety, tolerability, and pharmacogenetics were studied. Methods: In total, 42 patients with relapsed/refractory MDS/AML received lurbinectedin, using a 3+3 study design. It was administered as a 1-hour IV infusion first at 3.5, 5, 6, and 7mg per dose on days 1 and 8. Subsequently, it was administered on days 1, 2, and 3, using 1, 1.5, 2, or 3mg per dose per patient. Results: Three patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), which were rhabdomyolysis (up to gr 4), hyperbilirubinemia (gr 3), and oral herpes (gr 3). All DLTs occurred in the 6 and 7mg cohorts. Adverse events included febrile neutropenia/infections (n = 3), GI (n = 6) and pulmonary (n = 2) toxicity, hyperhidrosis (n = 1), and QT prolongation (n = 1). Overall, 33 of 42 patients (79%) had reduction of blasts in peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) at nadir, including 23 (55%) with > 50% reduction in PB blasts alone (n = 18) or both BM and PB blasts (n = 5). One patient had PR, 2 patients had morphologic leukemia-free survival, and most (n = 30) were discontinued for progressive disease. Early deaths occurred from disease-related causes, not attributable to lurbinectedin. Thirty-two patients treated at MD Anderson were analyzed for clinical characteristics and responses. Notably, among patients with follow-up bone marrow biopsy, those with a cytogenetic abnormality at chromosome 11q21-23 had significantly greater bone marrow blast reduction than those without such abnormality (change in percentage blasts: -31±14% [n = 4] vs. 8±8% [n = 16], respectively; P= 0.04). Conclusions: Lurbinectedin is generally safe and tolerated at dose levels tested. While no sustained remissions > 3 cycles were observed in these highest-risk patients, single-agent lurbinectedin was transiently leukemia suppressive for some patients, including some with abnormal chr11q or TP53 mutation. Rational combinations and situational uses of lurbinectedin are under consideration. Clinical trial information: NCT01314599.