Collins, Robert H.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Recurrent somatic mutations in the metabolic enzymes isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH1/2) confer gain-of-function activity in cancer cells, resulting in accumulation of the oncometabolite, D-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). High levels of 2-HG result in epigenetic changes and impaired cellular differentiation. IDH mutations have been identified in multiple solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Approximately 6-10% and 9-13% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) carry mutations in IDH1 (mIDH1) or IDH2 (mIDH2), respectively. AG-120 is a first-in-class, oral, potent, reversible, selective inhibitor of the IDH1 mutant enzyme under evaluation in multiple ongoing single agent and combination clinical trials [NCT02074839, NCT02073994, NCT02632708, NCT02677922]. This is the first report of IDH1 mutation clearance assessed by variant allele frequency (VAF) analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in patients treated on the dose escalation portion of the first-in-human phase 1 study [NCT02074839]. METHODS Patients with advanced mIDH1-positive hematologic malignancies received AG-120 as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) continuously in 28-day cycles. Primary objectives were determination of safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and selection of a dose schedule for expansion cohorts and future studies. Secondary objectives included clinical activity assessed by investigators using modified 2003 International Working Group Criteria in AML. Determination of mIDH1 VAF was performed using the FoundationOne® Heme test on mononuclear cells from the bone marrow or peripheral blood at screening and subsequent time points on study. This NGS assay reports IDH1 mutations for samples with VAF ≥1%, with median coverage 500X. Patients with IDH1 mutational clearance (IDH1-MC) were defined as having mIDH1 at baseline and at least one on-study sample with no reported mIDH1. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients were treated in the dose escalation portion, which is now closed to enrollment. As of the data cut-off of May 12, 2016, the median duration on treatment was 3.2 months and 9 (11.5%) patients remain on treatment, with an additional 8 (10.3%) patients transitioned to stem cell transplant. Doses ranged from 300-1200 mg QD with 1 cohort at 100 mg BID. Though the MTD was not reached, the recommended phase 2 dose was determined to be 500 mg QD. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 and 2, the most common (≥30%) being diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea; the most common grade ≥3 AEs (≥15%) were febrile neutropenia, anemia, leukocytosis and pneumonia. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (16.7%) and pneumonia (12.8%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 38.5% (n=30), with 17.9% (n=14) achieving a complete remission (CR). Longitudinal mIDH1 VAF data were available for 51 patients; of these, 22% (n=11) achieved a CR. IDH1-MC was observed in 27.3% (3/11) patients who achieved CR (Figure 1). In contrast, only 1/40 patients who did not achieve CR experienced IDH1-MC. This occurred in a patient with an initially low mIDH1 VAF who had clinical progression despite IDH1-MC (Figure 1, bottom right). In all 3 patients with CR who achieved IDH1-MC, an initial increase in mIDH1 VAF, or early peak, was observed prior to IDH1-MC, suggesting that early clonal expansion might have occurred as part of the mechanism of action of AG-120. CONCLUSION This is the first demonstration that treatment with single agent AG-120 can result in mIDH1 clearance as determined by NGS. Further analysis of the mutational profiles is planned. AG-120, a potent, selective, oral inhibitor of mIDH1 continues to demonstrate a well-tolerated safety profile in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies, and induced objective single-agent durable responses. The data continue to support the efficacy and safety of single agent AG-120 and provide evidence that the underlying biology of the disease is altered by treatment. Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120 Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120. / Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Disclosures DiNardo: Daiichi Sankyo: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. de Botton:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Other: advisory board; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Other: advisory board. 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. Pollyea:Alexion: Other: advisory board; Pfizer: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Ariad: Other: advisory board; Glycomimetics: Other: DSMB member; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. Fathi:Bexalata: Other: Advisory Board participation; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board participation; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board participation, Research Funding; Merck: Other: Advisory Board participation; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Altman:Syros: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Foran:novartis: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; karyopharm: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kantarjian:ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Liu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacolick:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yen:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hurov:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Choe:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

7056 Background: No therapies are approved for MDS after HMA failure. 04-24 was a single-arm study to evaluate best BMBL response as a potential surrogate for OS in higher-risk (HR) MDS pts who progressed on or after an HMA. Rigo is a Ras-mimetic that inhibits the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway, which is frequently activated in HR MDS (Athuluri-Divakar Cell 2016; Gil-Bazo Cancer Biol Ther 2016). Methods: Eligible MDS pts had 5-30% BMBL confirmed within 6 wks pre-study and progression per International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria on or after HMAs within 2 yrs. Rigo 1800 mg/24 hrs was continuously infused over 72 hrs q 2 wks × 8 cycles, then q 4 wks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was relationship of best BMBL IWG response to OS by Kaplan Meier method. Results: 64 pts were treated (median 5 cycles, range 1-32+), with 61% male, median age 73 (range 47-87), median prior HMA duration 10.8 mos (range 1.2-70.2). Revised International Prognostic Scoring System scores were low 2%, intermediate 11%, high 27%, very high 53%, and unknown 8%. ≥Grade 3 adverse events in ≥10% of pts were anemia 19%, thrombocytopenia 19%, and febrile neutropenia 16%. At the analysis time 40 pts (63%) had died. Best BMBL IWG response was marrow complete response (mCR) 14 pts (22%), stable disease (SD) 30 (47%), progressive disease (PD) 15 (23%), and failure (early death/withdrawal) 5 (8%); 2 mCR pts had transplant. Median OS was 7.0 mos (95% confidence interval 4.8-10.8). Landmark median OS (from day of best BMBL response) was mCR not reached; SD 6.3 mos; PD 3.3 mos. Median OS of mCR+SD was 8.5 mos, with log-rank p = 0.011 (mCR+SD OS to PD OS). Conclusions: BMBL response is a predictor of survival for MDS pts receiving Rigo after HMA failure, confirming findings in earlier Phase 1/2 studies (Silverman ASCO 2015 Abstr 7017). Based on earlier results identifying an MDS subset benefitting from Rigo (Garcia-Manero Lancet Oncol 2016; ASCO 2016 Abstr 165681), a randomized Phase 3 trial of Rigo vs physician’s choice (INSPIRE) is ongoing to determine if Rigo improves survival after HMA failure within 9 cycles. Clinical trial information: NCTO 1928537.