Walsh, Katherine

9022 Background: High quality education is crucial for hematology/oncology (H/O) training and lifelong learning. However, H/O has historically prioritized clinical and research careers over medical education careers. Consequently, few programs support H/O educators. A CoP is a group that shares “a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” We formed the ASCO Med Ed CoP in 2021 to provide a collaborative network and professional development venue for H/O educators. Methods: Following a published framework for developing a global health professions educator community (Establish-Grow-Sustain), we (ASCO Education Scholars Program graduates) developed CoP mission and vision statements and a leadership structure (Establish), formed committees and projects (Grow), and gathered at the ASCO Annual Meeting and via virtual Town Halls (Sustain). In 2023, we collected demographics and evaluated the CoP using a logic model focused on inputs, activities, outputs, and impact. Results: As of December 2023, the CoP includes 238 members from 143 institutions (38 [27%] non-U.S.): 207 (87%) ASCO members; 127 (53%) women, 106 (45%) men, 5 (2%) no response (NR); 111 (47%) White, 88 (37%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 27 (11%) Latinx/Hispanic, 12 (5%) Black/African-American, 8 (3%) Middle Eastern, 1 (0.4%) African, 16 (7%) NR; 146 (61%) hematologist/oncologists, 68 (29%) trainees, 6 (3%) radiation oncologists, 3 (1%) surgical oncologists, and 15 (6%) other professionals. The logic model is displayed (Table). Conclusions: The CoP has had an impact on its members, ASCO, and beyond and continues to grow and sustain itself by recruiting broadly, driving projects forward, and making structural adjustments for long-term sustainability. Upcoming projects include providing more educational resources and measuring outcomes such as changes in members’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Membership diversity continues to be a challenge and a priority. [Table: see text]

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. While the field of hematology/oncology has historically prioritized clinical care and biomedical research, medical education has received increasing attention within hematology/oncology in recent years. In 2018, ASCO launched the Education Scholars Program to train hematology/oncology clinicians in the science of teaching and learning. However, the number of hematology/oncology educators nationally and internationally far exceeds the capacity of the Education Scholars Program to train them. In addition, hematology/oncology educators often lack sufficient mentorship and guidance at their own institutions to pursue their chosen career path effectively. To ensure high-quality clinical care and research for generations to come, attention must be paid to improving support for hematology/oncology educators. Therefore, supported by ASCO, we developed an international medical education (Med Ed) CoP for hematology/oncology educators with the purpose of providing them with support, community, mentorship, resources, and scholarly opportunities in medical education. In this article, we describe the development of the Med Ed CoP using a three-stage framework (Establish-Grow-Sustain) including successes, challenges, and reflections. By supporting the needs of hematology/oncology educators, the Med Ed CoP will serve as a home for all who contribute to the field of hematology/oncology.

The practice of oncology continues to evolve over time. Educators find themselves in a position where they are no longer able to teach a topic in its entirety. Moreover, the rapid expansion of information available through research and discovery in the field of oncology makes it difficult for learners to process the constant barrage of new content. Lecturers continue to impart knowledge using didactic techniques, often trying to include as much material as possible in the time permitted. The question becomes: In the face of an impossibly large field, how can one assist learners in learning, and retaining, what is most important? The science of learning continues to develop, and we now recognize that there are ways to teach that optimally facilitate the retention and application of knowledge. By using these strategies, educators can make it easier for learners to absorb and retain key information. This article will touch upon several such techniques: cognitive load optimization, analogy, contrasting cases, elaboration, and just-in-time telling. By applying these methods to didactic presentations, educators can ensure that their lessons are heard, understood, and ultimately transformed into something unforgettable.

Eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes represent a heterogeneous group of neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions, characterized by more eosinophils in the peripheral blood, and may involve eosinophil-induced organ damage. In the WHO classification of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms, eosinophilic disorders characterized by dysregulated tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes are recognized as a new category termed, myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA , PDGFRB or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 . In addition to these aforementioned TK fusion genes, rearrangements involving FLT3 and ABL1 genes have also been described. These new NCCN Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of any one of the myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia (MLN-Eo) and a TK fusion gene included in the 2017 WHO Classification, as well as MLN-Eo and a FLT3 or ABL1 rearrangement.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: 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; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: 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; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: 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; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: 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; Actinium: 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. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: 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; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: 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; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: 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; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: 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; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: 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. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: 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; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Guadecitabine SC (SGI-110) is a dinucleotide next generation HMA resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase resulting in extended in vivo exposure to its active metabolite decitabine. A Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles (Issa et al, 2015, Lancet Oncology). Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in both untreated MDS patients, and patients previously treated with other HMAs. M ethods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory to other HMAs (r/r) were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5 every 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated by the clinical responses of CR, PR, marrow CR (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2006, as well as transfusion-independence, and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 r/r MDS, and 49 TN MDS. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 3.2 years (IQR 2.8-3.5 years). Median age was 72 and 71 years for r/r and TN MDS respectively. Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment dose groups except that more CMML patients were randomized to the 60 mg/m2 group (28%) vs. 14% in the 90 mg/m2 group, and more patients with baseline BM blasts >5% were in the 90 mg/m2 group (67%) vs. 38% in the 60 mg/m2 group. Most patients were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline (57%). In the r/r MDS cohort, most patients (58%) received their last HMA treatment <3 month before enrolment, and most of them received ≥6 months of prior HMA treatment (77%). Median number of treatment cycles was 5 for both r/r and TN MDS (range 1-37 in r/r MDS and 1-49 in TN MDS). In the TN MDS cohort CR was achieved in 11 (22%) of patients with no major difference between the 2 dose groups (19% in the 60 mg/m2 group vs 27% in the 90 mg/m2 group). Overall CR+mCR was achieved in 18 patients (37%) in TN MDS patients and median OS was 23.4 months. In the r/r MDS cohort, CR was achieved in 4% of patients in each of the 2 dose groups. Overall CR+mCR in the r/r MDS cohort was achieved in 17 patients (32%), with a median duration of response of 7.9 months, and median OS of 11.7 months. No significant difference in response or OS between the 2 dose groups was observed. In patients who were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline, transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was achieved in 42% of TN MDS, and 15% in r/r MDS patients. In the overall population of 102 TN and r/r MDS patients there were no major differences in OS based on DNMT3A or TET2 mutation status while patients with TP53 mutations had worse median OS (7.4 months) compared to those without TP53 mutations (22.6 months). Other baseline prognostic factors for worse OS were BM blasts >5%; RBC transfusion-dependence; IPSS High Risk; and ECOG Performance Status of >1. Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 83 vs. 96% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 dose groups respectively. There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (57 vs 41.5%); neutropenia (51 vs 39.6%); febrile neutropenia (43% vs 32%); and pneumonia (32.7 vs. 26.4%) for the 90 mg/m2 compared to 60 mg/m2 dose group. Early 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality was observed in 0, 3.7%, and 5.7% in the 60 mg/m2 dose group respectively; and in 2%, 4%, and 12% in the 90 mg/m2 dose group respectively. Conclusions: Guadecitabine at both dose groups is a well-tolerated novel HMA with clinical activity in the treatment of both TN and r/r Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients. In TN MDS patient CR rate of 22% and median OS of 23.4 months compare well with first generation HMA efficacy (Fenaux et al, 2009, Lancet Oncology). Activity in r/r MDS who previously failed prior HMAs is particularly promising (CR+mCR in 32% of patients with median duration of response and overall survival of almost 8 and 12 months respectively). A phase 3 trial (ASTRAL-3) of guadecitabine vs Physician Treatment Choice in r/r MDS and CMML patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine is actively enrolling (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02907359). Disclosures Ritchie: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kropf:Celegene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Griffiths:Alexion Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene, Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Daiichi Snakyo: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Berdeja:Genentech: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background SGI-110 is second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine delivered as a small volume, pharmaceutically stable SQ injection allowing longer half-life and more extended decitabine exposure than DAC IV infusion. SGI-110 differentiated pharmacokinetic profile resulted in potent hypomethylation and clinical responses in previously treated MDS and AML patients in the phase 1 trial (Kantarjian et al. 2012). Methods In a randomized Phase 2 study, relapsed/refractory AML, or elderly treatment naïve AML patients who were not suitable for induction chemotherapy (poor major organ function; poor cytogenetics; or secondary AML) were randomized to one of two SQ doses – the biologically effective dose (BED) of 60 mg/m2 QDx5 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study is the overall remission rate (CR, CRi, and CRp) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2003. Safety findings based on adverse events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria and pharmacodynamic data on Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element (LINE-1) DNA methylation (an index of global DNA methylation) activity were also assessed and reported. Results As of June 30, 2013, sixty-seven patients (50 relapsed/refractory AML, 17 treatment naïve elderly AML) were treated and had a minimum follow up of 3 months. Patients were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 dose (32 patients) or 90 mg/m2 dose (35 patients). The median age was 66 years (range, 22–84), 69% were male, and ECOG PS of 0/1/2 was reported in 11/47/9 patients respectively. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (range, 0–10). Patients’ characteristics were well balanced between the 2 dose groups. The primary endpoint of overall remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) was observed in 17/67 patients (25% with 95% CI, 16–37%). There were 8 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 50 patients with relapsed/refractory AML (16% with 95% CI, 7-29%); and 9 complete remissions (CR, CRp, or CRi) in 17 treatment-naïve elderly AML patients (53% with 95% CI, 28-77%). Five patients (4 relapsed/refractory, and one treatment-naïve elderly AML) subsequently received a stem cell transplant. There was no difference in the complete remission rate between 60 and 90 mg/m2 doses (8 remissions in 32 patients at 60 mg/m2, and 9 remissions in 35 patients at 90 mg/m2). LINE-1 DNA methylation data before and after treatment was available in 50 (75%) patients enrolled. LINE-1 demethylation ≥ 10% post treatment was observed in 83% and 78% in the 60 mg/m2 and 90 mg/m2, respectively. The median maximum LINE-1 demethylation for responders is 25% as compared to 19% for non-responders. The most common adverse events (AEs) regardless of relationship to SGI-110 ≥ Grade 3 include febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and pneumonia. The 90 mg/m2 dose showed a greater frequency of Grade 3/4 related AEs ≥ 10% (anemia, febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) compared to the 60 mg/m2 dose. Conclusions SQ SGI-110 is a new HMA which is well tolerated and clinically active in the treatment of AML. Complete remissions and potent demethylation of ≥10% were equally observed at the 2 dose groups of 60 and 90 mg/m2. These data support further phase 3 investigation of this agent in the treatment of AML. Preliminary overall remission rate of 53% in treatment-naïve elderly AML seems to compare favorably with previous results reported for HMA treatment but this needs to be confirmed in a larger number of patients and randomized studies. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jabbour:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Kropf:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Savona:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ervin:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Daver:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Borthakur:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Wierda:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Cortes:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Brandwein:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Odenike:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Employment. Dimitrov:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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