Platzbecker, Uwe

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

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

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

Background:There are limited treatment options for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependent (TD) LR (IPSS Low/Int‐1) MDS patients who are relapsed/refractory to ESAs. Imetelstat is a first‐in‐class telomerase inhibitor that targets cells with short telomeres and active telomerase, characteristics observed in some MDS patients across all disease stages. Preliminary results show that imetelstat is effective treatment in LR‐MDS patients inducing durable TI (Steensma et al ASH 2018 Abstr463).Aims:We report updated efficacy data with a median follow‐up of 12.1 months in 38 LR non‐del(5q) MDS patients, R/R to ESA and LEN/HMA naive from the open‐label, single‐arm Part 1 of IMerge, an ongoing phase 2/3 study (NCT02598661).Methods:Part 1 of the IMerge study included patients with LR MDS, who were heavily transfused (≥4U/8wks), were R/R to ESA or had sEPO >500 mU/mL. Imetelstat 7.5 mg/kg was administered IV every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was 8‐week TI rate; key secondary endpoints included 24‐week TI rate, safety, duration of TI, and hematologic improvement (HI) rate. Among the initially enrolled patients, higher 8‐week TI rate was observed in the non‐del5q, LEN/HMA naive patients. Therefore, the study was amended to subsequently enroll only these patients. From a total of 57 patients enrolled in Part 1, 38 were non‐del(5q), LEN/HMA naïve patients (13 in the initial and 25 in the expansion cohort). Here we report long‐term efficacy, safety and biomarker data from these 38 patients.Results:Median baseline RBC transfusion burden was 8U/8weeks (range 4–14), 37% of the patients had IPSS Int‐1; 71% had WHO 2001 RARS or RCMD‐RS subtype and 32% with evaluable sEPO levels had baseline level >500 mU/mL.As of 23 January 2019, median follow‐up was 12.1 months for the 38 patients, representing 30.4 and 11.6 months for the initial 13 and additional 25 patients, respectively. The 8‐week TI rate was 45% (17/38) and median TI duration was 8.5 months (range 1.8–32.4). Of the 17 responding patients, 10 (59%) remained transfusion free for over 24 weeks. The 8‐week TI rate did not differ based on the presence of ring sideroblasts or baseline sEPO levels. The 24‐week TI rate was 26% (10/38). Erythroid HI, defined as transfusion reduction by at least 4 units /8 weeks (IWG2006), was achieved in 68% (26/38) of the patients. The most frequently reported adverse events were manageable and reversible grade ≥3 cytopenias. 6/38 patients had IPSS‐R intermediate/poor cytogenetic risk. All 6 patents achieved 8‐week TI; 2/6 patients achieved partial cytogenetic response. Post treatment decrease in telomerase hTERT RNA level was observed in 25/34 (73.5%) patients with available sample. Among 7 patients with pre‐ and post‐treatment mutation analyses, six had SF3B1 mutations at baseline, and a decrease in the mutation VAF was observed in 2 patients that had longest TI duration on study.Summary/Conclusion:In high RBC transfusion burden patients with non‐del(5q) LR‐MDS R/R to ESA and naive to LEN/HMA, single‐agent imetelstat yielded 8‐week TI rate of 45%, with a median duration of 8.5 months (range 1.8–32.4). The 24‐week TI rate was 26%. HI‐E rate was 68%. All patients with IPSS‐R intermediate and poor cytogenetic risk responded. Biomarker analyses of telomerase activity and mutation allele burden indicate an effect on the malignant mutant clone. These data support Part 2 of IMerge, Phase 3 placebo‐controlled, randomized portion of the study, expected to open mid‐2019.