Prébet, Thomas

AbstractDespite advances in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment, significant unmet medical needs remain. Surrogate end points for overall survival can accelerate the approval of novel therapies. Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a promising surrogate end point candidate, providing a sensitive and quantitative assessment of disease burden. Numerous studies have demonstrated that negative MRD status—across diverse methodologies, assessment timepoints and thresholds, patient subgroups, and clinical settings—independently predicts improved survival. Although MRD can inform therapeutic decisions at the patient level, its formal integration as a primary surrogate end point in regulatory frameworks for clinical trials requires rigorous validation. MRD Partnership and Alliance in AML Clinical Treatment (MPAACT) is a research consortium among industry and academic leaders. MPAACT actively engages with regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies, technology vendors, and patient groups to establish a pathway for validating MRD as a surrogate end point in AML clinical trials. For the current article, the authors reviewed the status of MRD assessment, its use in recent clinical trials, current MRD assessment methodologies, standardization, regulatory guidance, statistical approaches, and patient access considerations necessary for MRD to become a surrogate clinical trial end point. The extensive collaboration between MPAACT, global industry, and academic partners—including data sharing and resource integration—underscores the collective commitment to advancing AML therapies. Establishing MRD as a surrogate end point could accelerate the development and approval of innovative treatments, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Abstract Background: Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is defined as persistent unexplained cytopenia with evidence of clonality [myeloid-associated somatic mutations (MTs) or cytogenetic [CG] abnormalities] but without definitive evidence of myeloid neoplasms (MN). The outcomes in CCUS patients (pts) are not well understood. Methods: The CCUS International Study database includes pts from 17 institutions who meet the criteria of CCUS and do not have other causes of cytopenia. Pts with MDS defining CG abnormalities were excluded. We collected baseline clinical data, laboratory parameters, CGs, molecular genetics, treatment, and disease course. Diverse gene panels from different institutions were collated to include a total of 70 myeloid-related somatic genes (30 genes in common). 2018 IWG MDS response criteria were used to determine response rate (RR). Disease progression (DP) is defined by progression to MN. The relationship between independent variables and DP and death was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS. Results: A total of 258 pts were captured by July 2021. The median age was 71 (IQR 63-77) years, and 66% were male. Among 73 (28%) pts with known malignancy history, 27 (37%) pts received previous chemo- or radiation therapy. 27 (10%) pts had non-malignant hematology comorbidities. 91 (35%) had cardiovascular disease, and 33 (13%) had inflammatory disease. (Table 1) The red blood cell and platelet transfusion-dependent rates were 7.3% and 2.3%, respectively. The median number of MTs was 2 (IQR 1-3), with 221 (86%) pts had ≥1 MT, of which 116 (53%) had ≥ 2 MTs. The most common 5 MTs were TET2 (n=78, 30%), SRSF2 (n=50, 19%), DNMT3A (n=47, 18%), ASXL1 (n=40, 16%), and U2AF1 (n=22, 9%) (Figure 1). The median VAF (mVAF) was 28% (IQR: 9.2%, 43%) with VAF < 10% in 47 (18%) and VAF ≥40% in 78 (30.2%) of the MTs. mVAF of the all genes are shown in Figure 2. Among pts with CG abnormalities (n=62, 24%), trisomy 8 and -Y are the most common karyotypes (n=15 for each, 24%) (Table 2). Eighty one (31%) patients received various treatments for CCUS with modest RR, including growth factors (n=47, 18.2%, RR: 25.5%), supportive care (n=23, 9%, RR: 26%), immunoglobulin/immunosuppressive therapy (n=15, 6%, RR: 40%), and DNMTi (n=8, 3%, RR=13%). The median length of follow-up was 15.6 (IQR 6.9-30.6) months. 24 pts progressed to MN, 14 (58.3%) of which were MDS, 8 (33.3%) CMML, and 2 (8.3%) AML. The 2-year PFS was 86.1% (95% CI: 80-93%) with a median PFS of 16.3 (IQR: 3.7, 21) months. In the multivariable model, positive MT of KRAS (HR: 8.4, 95% CI: 1.9-36.9, p=0.005) and CBL (HR: 16.5, 95% CI: 3.7-73.8, p=0.003) were significantly associated with DP. In the functional pathway analysis, having at least 1 splicing factor MT was significantly associated with DP (HR: 2.6, 95% CI:1.2-5.9, p=0.02). TP53 was not significantly associated with DP (HR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.2-8.7, p=0.88). Having >1 MT (HR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.19-10.7, p=0.02) compared to a single MT was significantly associated with DP (Figure 3). Over the follow-up period, 35 pts died. The 2-year OS was 81% (95% CI: 74.9-87.9%). In the multivariable model, MT of KRAS (HR: 6.1, 95% CI: 1.8-20, p=0.003), CBL (HR: 7.3, 95% CI: 1.7-31, p=0.007), and FLT3 (HR: 19.9, 95% CI: 2.5-155, p=0.004) were significantly associated with inferior survival. In the functional pathway analysis, MTs in activated signaling pathway were significantly associated with death (HR: 4.1, 95% CI: 1.8-9, p<0.001). None of the pts with TP53 MT died. Having >1 MT was not statistically significantly associated with higher risk of death (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.7-3.0, p=0.28) (Figure 4). After adjustment for co-MT status and comorbidities, baseline Hb<10 g/dL (HR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.8-7.9, p<0.001) was significantly associated with greater mortality. Conclusion: This large retrospective study summarizes the CCUS pts' characteristics, with different MT patterns and VAF. We confirmed the impact of having >1 MT on DP, but not OS. Genes involved in activated signaling had a significant impact on both DP and OS. TP53 MT was not associated with worse outcome. Findings may be due to limited cases in the particular genes and different gene panels from multiple institutions. A longer follow-up is planned to further describe the predictors for outcome in this ongoing study. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Komrokji: Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMSCelgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Consultancy; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Taiho Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy. Zeidan: BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Ionis: Consultancy; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding. Madanat: Blue Print Pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Stem line pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Onc Live: Honoraria; Geron Pharmaceutical: Consultancy. Coombs: LOXO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria. Griffiths: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lai: Astellas: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: 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; Genentech: 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; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Macrogenics: 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. Foran: trillium: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Desai: Astex: Research Funding; Janssen R&D: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Ades: ABBVIE: Honoraria; CELGENE/BMS: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; TAKEDA: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; CELGENE: Research Funding. Brunner: Novartis, Celgene, Takeda, AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz: Other: Advisory Board. Carraway: Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Independent review committee; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Independent review committee; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Other: Independent review committee; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Prebet: BMS: Research Funding; BMS, Curios, Daichi: Consultancy. Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona: Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: 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; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ALX Oncology: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution.

Abstract Background Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (tMN) includes t-myelodysplasia (tMDS) and t-acute myeloid leukemia (tAML) and are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer. Prognosis of tMN is poor, related to the increased frequency of adverse cytogenetics and other clinical features which predict poor response to conventional treatment. Over the last years, azacitidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk MDS (Silverman, JCO 2002; Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009) and has shown efficacy in AML. AZA represents an interesting option for patients with tMN considering its safety profile and its efficacy in poor prognosis subgroups of apparently de novo MDS patients including those with monosomy 7. Most prospective trials of AZA have excluded patients with tMN. Most tMN data are retrospective or registry studies (Bally, Leuk Res 2013). This abstract presents the results of 47 t-MN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. Methods E1905 study is a randomized phase 2 study from the North American Leukemia Intergroup (NCT00313586, Prebet , ASH 2010) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs. 10 days of AZA + the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). 6 cycles of treatment were planned; responding patients could receive up to 24 cycles. MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. Patients with tMN were subsequently accrued as a separate cohort after amendment of the protocol. Response was assessed using IWG 2000 criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2000); the primary endpoint of the overall trial was achievement of a normal hemogram in 25% of treated patients in either treatment arm. Results A total of 47 patients were included. Median age was 70 years (39y-83y), 45% male, and 94% of patients had ECOG PS 0-1. 29 patients could be subclassified as t-MDS and 18 as t-AML. At inclusion, median peripheral blood counts were: neutrophils 1.0 G/l, Platelets 35 G/L, Hemoglobin 9.2 g/l, peripheral blood blasts 0%, marrow blasts 14.0%. 68% of patients were RBC transfusion dependent and 40% platelet transfusion dependent. As expected, the cytogenetic evaluation showed a high frequency of unfavorable risk cytogenetics (74%) as compared to normal or intermediate risk cytogenetics (26%). Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 arms. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4 and was significantly higher in patients treated with AZA monotherapy (6 cycles vs.3 cycles, p=0.008). 8 patients in the combination arm and 1 patient in the AZA monotherapy arm died of infection or hemorrhage before cycle 3. In an intent to treat analysis, overall response rates (CR, PR, or trilineage Hematologic improvement) were 11/24 (46%) in AZA monotherapy (95% CI 26 – 67%) and 4/23 (17%) in the combination arm (95% CI 5 – 39%, p=0.06 comparing the two arms). Median overall survival in the two arms were 12.8 months and 5.7 months (p=0.008). Conclusions In this group of very high risk patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms, the use of the novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine monotherapy appears effective, with response rates comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol (74 pts, 40% with unfavorable cytogenetics, ORR=32%, median OS=18 months). Because there are no prospective data examining the approved dose schedule of AZA (75 mg/m2/day * 7 days), it is not clear if this surprisingly high response rate derives from the current extended schedule of lower dose AZA, or would be true with standard dose AZA as well. This high response may enable many of these patients to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Entinostat combined with azacitidine at the dose and schedule applied in E1905 does not appear to be effective and tolerable as compared to azacitidine alone. Disclosures: Prebet: CELGENE: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia. Gore:CELGENE: Equity Ownership, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 4013 Background: In recent years, azacytidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk myelodysplasia (MDS). The approved schedule of AZA uses a 75mg/m2/d s.c. regimen for 7 days based on the CALGB-9221 (Silverman, JCO 2002) and the AZA-001 studies (Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009). The clinical response rates after AZA have been extensively presented but there is only limited data on the rates of cytogenetic response (CyR). Based on the review of the literature, there are no specific cytogenetic data published on prospective trials. Methods: We based our analysis on a randomized phase 2 study from the US Leukemia Intergroup (E1905 study, NCT00313586) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs 10 days of AZA+ the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. This analysis includes all patients with cytogenetic abnormalities (at baseline or acquired following treatment) with available cytogenetic follow-up (cycle 6). Of 150 patients, 70 demonstrated baseline cytogenetic abnormalities. To date, forty patients (27 MDS and 13 AML) were evaluable for both time points. Karyotypes were performed at local laboratories, and reviewed centrally (RPK and GH). Cytogenetic response was assessed using IWG 2000 (Cheson et al, Blood 2000) criteria. Results: The clinical response rate (CR+PR+ trilineage HI) according to IPSS cytogenetic risk stratification were of 20%, 33%, and 35% for favorable, intermediate and poor cytogenetic risk groups respectively (p=NS). Patients with Chr 7 abnormalities (i.e. -7 or -7q, n=18) had a response rate of 28% including 17% CR. Of patients with complete cytogenetic data, the rate of overall CyR was 52% (n=21): 22% (n=9) complete CyR, 30% (n=12) partial CyR. This represents a complete CyR of 13% and a partial CyR of 23% as a proportion of all treated patients with initial cytogenetic abnormalities (including those who did not receive six cycles of therapy). To date, confirmatory FISH analyses were available for 4 patients with CyR (2 CCyR and 2 PCyR). All four had complete clearance of their cytogenetic clone. Among the cytogenetic responders, 15 had MDS and 6 had AML (p=NS). CyR did not differ between the two treatment arms. CyR and clinical response were highly correlated (p<0.001): all patients with complete CyR and 7/10 partial CyR had a clinical CR. Only 3 patients (1 CCyR and 2 PCyR) had a CyR without associated clinical response. Among 8 patients with cytogenetic progression, 3 pts showed increased frequency of a known aberration and 5 showed new or additional aberration including 2 cases involving Chr7. 65 AZA-treated patients from AZA001 had comparable cytogenetic results available. Only 3 patients experienced complete CyR 4.6% with 33.8% partial CyR (n=22). In contrast, the reported rate of clinical response was similar in the two studies. Complete CyR were more frequent in the E1905 10 days AZA schedule compared to the 7 days AZA schedule (p=0.007). There was no difference in overall CyR between the two studies. Conclusions: Both the standard AZA schedule and the 10 day schedule administered on E1905 lead to high rates of cytogenetic response. The novel schedule explored in E1905 demonstrated a particularly high rate of complete CyR (22%) with complete clearance of abnormal clone by FISH in 4 tested patients. Further prospective comparison of different AZA schedules will be needed to confirm this higher rate of complete CyR and determine its clinical significance. Disclosures: Beach: Celgene: Employment. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, stock options; Syndax: Consultancy.

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 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.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. Recent advances have resulted in an expansion of treatment options for AML, especially concerning targeted therapies and low-intensity regimens. This portion of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for AML focuses on the management of AML and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.

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.