Fenaux, Pierre

PURPOSE Patients with lower-risk (LR) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) who are RBC transfusion dependent and have experienced relapse after or are refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) have limited treatment options. High telomerase activity and human telomerase reverse-transcription expression in clonal hematopoietic cells have been reported in patients with MDS. Imetelstat, a first-in-class competitive inhibitor of telomerase enzymatic activity, targets cells with active telomerase. We report efficacy, safety, and biomarker data for patients with LR MDS who are RBC transfusion dependent and who were relapsed/refractory to ESAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this two-part phase II/III study (MDS3001), the primary end point was 8-week RBC transfusion independence (TI) rate, with key secondary end points of 24-week RBC TI rate, TI duration, and hematologic improvement-erythroid. RESULTS Data from the phase II part of the study are reported. Of 57 patients enrolled and treated (overall population), 38 were non-del(5q) and hypomethylating agent and lenalidomide naïve (subset population). The 8- and 24-week RBC TI rates in the overall population were 37% and 23%, respectively, with a median TI duration of 65 weeks. In the subset population, 8- and 24-week RBC TI rates were 42% and 29%, respectively, with a median TI duration of 86 weeks. Eight-week TI rate was observed across all subgroups evaluated. Cytogenetic and mutational data revealed a reduction of the malignant clones, suggesting disease modification activity. The most common adverse events were cytopenias, typically reversible within 4 weeks. CONCLUSION Imetelstat treatment results in a meaningful, durable TI rate across a broad range of heavily transfused patients with LR MDS who are ineligible for or relapsed/refractory to ESAs. Biomarker analyses indicated effects on the mutant malignant clone.

Background: Current treatment options for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) patients with lower risk (LR) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) relapsed after or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have limited efficacy and durability; new approaches are needed. Imetelstat is a 13-mer lipid-conjugated oligonucleotide that targets the RNA template of human telomerase and is a competitive inhibitor of telomerase enzymatic activity (Asai et al, Cancer Res 2003; Herbert et al, Oncogene 2005). Preclinical, in vivo xenograft models (Dikmen et al, Cancer Res 2005; Hochreiter et al, Clin Cancer Res 2006) and preliminary clinical data from a pilot study conducted at Mayo Clinic (Tefferi et al, Blood Cancer Journal 2016) supported initiation of a study in TD LR MDS patients. A Phase 2 study of imetelstat, IMerge, demonstrated an 8-week RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) rate of 42%, 24-week RBC-TI rate of 29%, and 68% erythroid hematologic improvement (HI-E) rate in 38 heavily TD patients (median prior RBC transfusion burden 8 units / 8 weeks over the 16 weeks pre-study period) with LR MDS. Responses were durable with median duration of 8-week RBC-TI of 85.9 weeks by Kaplan Meier estimates (range 8.0-140.9) (Steensma ASH 2018, Fenaux EHA 2019). These Phase 2 results provided further evidence of potential clinical benefit of imetelstat treatment in TD LR MDS, and supported initiation of a Phase 3 trial. Methods: IMerge is two-part, Phase 2/3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02598661). The Phase 2 portion of the study described above is closed for enrollment. The Phase 3 portion of the study is open for enrollment of adult patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low or intermediate-1 risk, non-del(5q) MDS, who are TD, are relapsed after or refractory to ESAs, and have not received treatment with lenalidomide or hypomethylating agents. The study is a randomized (2:1) double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare efficacy of imetelstat vs. placebo that will enroll approximately 170 patients and will be conducted at approximately 90 centers in North America, Europe, Asia and Middle East. Imetelstat will be administered as 2-hour IV infusion every 4 weeks at 7.5 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the rate of RBC-TI lasting ≥8 weeks. Secondary endpoints include safety, rate of RBC-TI ≥24 weeks, time to RBC-TI start, RBC-TI duration, rate of HI-E, the amount and relative change in RBC transfusions, rate of CR or PR, overall survival, progression of MDS, pharmacokinetics and effect of treatment on quality of life. Biomarkers relevant to the mechanism of action of imetelstat will be assessed to demonstrate target inhibition and their association with clinical responses. Cytogenetics and mutation analyses will be performed to evaluate the impact of imetelstat on reduction/depletion of malignant clones leading to disease modification. Disclosures Platzbecker: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Steensma:Astex: Consultancy; Arrowhead: Equity Ownership; Summer Road: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Aprea: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy; H3 Biosciences: Other: Research funding to institution, not investigator.. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Germing:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Font:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sherman:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dougherty:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Feller:Geron Corporation: Employment. Sun:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wan:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rizo:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) in adult populations include several rare hematologic malignancies with similar clinicopathologic features that have a significant impact on patient QOL and lead to increased risk of infection, hemorrhage, anemia and transformation to AML (e.g. CMML, aCML, MDS/MPN-RST, and MDS/MPN-U). The only approved therapies for any of the MDS/MPNs are DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTis) for patients (pts) with CMML. Due to both the rarity and the heterogeneity of MDS/MPNs, it has been challenging to study in dedicated, prospective studies and thus refining treatment strategies has been difficult and optimal salvage treatments in pts who fail DNMTis have also not been rigorously studied. ABNL-MARRO (A Basket study of Novel therapy for untreated MDS/MPN and Relapsed/Refractory Overlap Syndromes) is an international cooperation providing the framework for clinical trials for MDS/MPN, and explore clinical-pathologic biomarkers. Study Design and Methods: The first study within ABNL-MARRO, ABNL MARRO 001 (AM-001), is an open label, randomized phase 1-2 study that will test 3 novel oral treatment combinations in MDS/MPNs, with each of 3 treatment arms including a novel targeted agent and ASTX727, a fixed dose combination of the DNMTi decitabine and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine to improve decitabine oral bioavailability. The novel agents combined with ASTX727 are: a selective JAK1 inhibitor itacitinib, pan PIM inhibitor INCB053914 and LSD1 inhibitor, INCB059872. Each combination will be tested first in a safety run-in (Phase 1b) to determine the RP2D and schedule of each combination therapy using a 3+3 de-escalation design, and a maximum of four dose decrements will be allowed. After the RP2D and schedule has been determined for a given novel drug combination, efficacy of that combination therapy in MDS/MPN pts will then be evaluated in phase 2 using a Simon's Two-Stage design to allow early discontinuation of any futile treatment regimen and to pursue potentially beneficial combinations in larger cohorts of pts. While each of the targeted agents either has undergone or is currently undergoing safety testing in combination with the DNMTi in myeloid diseases, clear rates of expected responses in MDS/MPN are not known. Retrospective studies of DAC or AZA reveal overall response rates (ORR) from 10-56% in CMML (Helbig et al, 2019; Duchman et al, 2018; Coston et al, 2019). The ORR from the ASTX727 single agent phase I study was 30%, but this included only 14% CMML (remainder MDS pts) and 45% of pts with previous treatment with AZA or DAC (Savona et al, 2019). Finally, and importantly, there are insufficient clinical trial data available for pts non-CMML MDS/MPN syndromes. Thus, the criteria for the Simon's Two-Stage design for each arm are based on best estimation from results of above studies. Accordingly, the null hypothesis that the ORR, as per the MDS/MPN Proposed Response Criteria (Savona et al, 2015; combined CR+MR+PR+Clinical benefit - CB), is 35%, will be tested against a one-sided alternative. In the first stage, 14 DNMTI-treatment naïve (TN) pts will be accrued in each AM-001 Arm and will receive treatment at the RP2D and schedule of the novel targeted agent and of ASTX727, as determined in the phase 1. If there are 5 or fewer responses in these 14 pts before the 7th cycle of therapy, the Arm will be stopped for futility. Otherwise, 30 additional pts (including both TN subjects and subjects relapsed after/refractory to other DNMTI-containing therapies) will be accrued for a total of 44. The null hypothesis will be rejected if 21 or more responses are observed in 44 pts before the 7th cycle of therapy. This design yields a type I error rate of 0.05 and power of 80% when the true response rate is 55%. The probability of early termination and expected sample size of any arm is 64% and 25 pts, respectively, assuming low (35% RR) efficacy Beyond the primary objectives of the study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel treatment combinations in MDS/MPN, the study will establish the ABNL MARRO infrastructure that leverages the expertise of the MDS/MPN international working group (IWG) for future prospective studies; will forge innovative scientific research that will improve our understanding of pathogenetic etiologies; and will inform the clinical application of diagnosis, risk stratification tools, and response assessments in MDS/MPNs. Disclosures Savona: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties. Fenaux:Aprea: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Padron:Incyte: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Platzbecker:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sanz:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman - La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen - Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Santini:Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: ASTX727, LSD1 inh, PIM inh, JAK1 inh in MDS/MPN

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patients with TD lower-risk (LR)-MDS relapsed or refractory to ESA have limited treatment options. Imetelstat is a first-in-class telomerase inhibitor that targets cells with short telomere lengths and active telomerase, characteristics observed in some MDS patients. IMerge is an ongoing global study of imetelstat in RBC TD patients with LR-MDS (IPSS Low or Int-1). In the first 32 patients enrolled, 8-week TI rate was 34%, with 24-week TI of 16%, and HI-E of 59%. The most frequently reported adverse events were reversible grade ≥3 cytopenias (Fenaux et al EHA 2018 Abstr S1157). Higher response rates were observed in patients (n=13) who were LEN and HMA naïve without del(5q). We report here results in an additional 25 LEN and HMA naïve patients without del(5q), with longer term follow-up of the 13 initial patients meeting the same criteria. METHODS: IMerge is a phase 2/3 trial (NCT02598661) that includes LR-MDS patients with a high transfusion burden (≥4 units / 8 weeks) who are relapsed/refractory to ESA or have sEPO >500 mU/mL. The additional 25 were required to be LEN and HMA naïve and lack del(5q). Imetelstat 7.5 mg/kg was administered IV every 4 weeks. In addition to the key endpoints noted above, secondary endpoints include safety, time to and duration of TI. Biomarkers are also being explored, including telomerase activity, hTERT, telomere length, and genetic mutations. RESULTS: Overall, for the 38 LEN/HMA naïve and non-del(5q) patients, median age was 71.5 years and 66% were men. 63% of patients were IPSS Low and 37% Int-1. Median prior RBC transfusion burden was 8.0 (range 4-14) U, and 71% had WHO 2008 RARS or RCMD-RS. 9/37 (24%) patients with evaluable sEPO levels had baseline level >500 mU/mL. As of July 2018, with a median follow-up of 25.8 months for the initial 13 patients, and 5.2 months for the 25 recently included patients, the 8-week RBC-TI rate was 37% (14/38). Durability of 24-week TI responses was demonstrated, with a median duration of 10 months and the longest ongoing response now >2 years. Among the patients achieving durable TI, all showed a Hb rise of ≥3.0 g/dL compared to baseline during the transfusion-free interval. Response rates were similar in RARS/RCMD-RS (33% [9/27]) and other patients (27% [3/11]), and those with baseline EPO levels >500 mU/mL (33% [3/9]) and ≤500 mU/mL (32% [9/28]). Reversible grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were each reported in 58% of the patients. Liver function test (LFT) elevations were mostly grade 1/2. Reversible grade 3 LFTelevations were observed in 3 (8%) patients on study. An independent Hepatic Review Committee deemed the observed LFT elevations were not imetelstat-related hepatic toxicities. SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of 38 non-del(5q) LR-MDS patients with a high RBC transfusion burden who were ESA relapsed/refractory and naïve to LEN/HMA, single-agent imetelstat yielded a TI rate of 37%, with a median duration of 10 months and limited side effects. Durable responses were characterized by transfusion independence >24 weeks and accompanied by Hb rise. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Steensma: Takeda: Consultancy; Syros: Research Funding; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biosciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amphivena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acceleron: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Van Eygen:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Raza:Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Geoptix: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Syros: Research Funding. Santini:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Germing:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Font:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Samarina:Janssen: Research Funding. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bussolari:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sherman:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Varsos:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rose:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Roche: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, 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 Background: Rigosertib (RIG) is a RAS-mimetic interacting with the RAS-binding domains of RAF kinases, preventing their binding to RAS and inhibiting the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway. Rigosertib also binds to the RAS-binding domains of Ral-GDS and PI3Ks (Athuluri-Divakar, et al, Cell 165:643, 2016). Mutations of RAS are involved in proliferative processes important in neoplastic transformation (Gil-Bazo, et.al, Cancer Biology and Therapy 17:719, 2016). As of May 2016, 557 patients with MDS or AML received IV (N=335) or oral (N=222) rigosertib. All IV rigosertib was administered as monotherapy. Oral rigosertib was administered as monotherapy (N=168) or in combination with injectable azacitidine (AZA; N=54). Safety results across this rigosertib development program have not been presented. Methods: We reviewed all treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with MDS/AML treated with rigosertib IV monotherapy, rigosertib oral monotherapy, or in combination therapy, overall and by grade of severity, and serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Due to the unexpected observation of urinary AEs, including occasional gross hematuria, we analyzed urinary AEs in greater detail. Results: Rigosertib IV monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were fatigue (33%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (27%), constipation (25%), anaemia (24%) and pyrexia (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (21%), febrile neutropenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and thrombocytopenia (11%). The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (10%), pneumonia (9%), and sepsis (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of IV rigosertib were sepsis and pneumonia (3% each) (Table 1). Rigosertib oral monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were pollakiuria (increased urinary frequency) (35-%), fatigue (32%), diarrhoea (26%), dysuria (29%) and haematuria (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (5%), haematuria (4%) and urinary tract infection (4%). The most common serious AE was pneumonia (6%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of patients receiving oral rigosertib as monotherapy were (dysuria [8%], urinary tract pain [7%], haematuria [5%] and urinary frequency [5%] (Table 2). Rigosertib oral in combination with azacitidine (AZA): The most common TEAEs were nausea (41%), fatigue (39%), diarrhea (37%), constipation (37%) and dysuria (28%). The most common serious AEs were pneumonia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation were AML (4%) and pneumonia (4%) (Table 3). In patients fully evaluable for gross hematuria the cause of bleeding was bladder inflammation. Urinary and plasma concentration of RIG were examined to assess dose relationship. According to the azacitidine package insert, the incidence of gross hematuria of any grade with single agent azacitidine is 6.3 % and Grade 3-4 of 2.3%. Evaluations performed of hematuria among 5 studies of oral rigosertib (4 monotherapy and 1 in combination with AZA) in patients with MDS/AML (Table 4). Conclusions: Rigosertib IV or oral formulations were generally well tolerated in clinical trials in over 500 patients with MDS/AML. Gastrointestinal AEs were most frequently reported with IV rigosertib and genitourinary AEs were seen more often with oral than IV dosing. The greater rate of urinary AEs in the oral than in the IV studies indicates a need for close monitoring of these patients and proactive risk management, such as adequate hydration, timing of administration of the second dose, and bladder emptying prior to sleep. Studies are being designed to optimize dosing and schedule to maximize efficacy and minimize hematuria of single agent oral rigosertib. A randomized trial of oral rigosertib/azacitidine versus azacitidine will be required to optimize the clinical benefit and safety in the management of higher-risk patients with MDS. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Al-Kali:Celgene: Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Navada:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Onconova, Teva, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrone:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Brownstein:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Silverman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Patents & Royalties: Co-Patent holder for the combination of azacitidine and rigosertib, Research Funding.

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: 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 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.