Little, Richard F.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Background: Standard first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the R-CHOP regimen. Despite numerous efforts to improve on this regimen, in all comers and specifically in those with activated B-cell (ABC)-type DLBCL, results from large randomized studies have failed to show a significant clinical advantage above this standard. Recently, 2 large clinical trials in previously untreated DLBCL evaluated the combination of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs standard R-CHOP and demonstrated discordant results. We analyzed data from these trials to identify differences that may have impacted the disparate trial outcomes while identifying patient characteristics associated with benefit from the addition of lenalidomide across the trials. Methods: The 2 trials included in this evaluation are ROBUST, an international, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study of R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, and the Intergroup ECOG-ACRIN 1412 (E1412) trial, a US-only, randomized, open-label, phase II study of R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Additional key study design differences included dosing, and subtype timing and inclusion (both studies used gene expression profiling [GEP] by NanoString). R-CHOP dosing differed only for prednisone, which was a flat 100 mg dose, d1-5 in ROBUST and 100 mg/m2, d1-5 in E1412. The lenalidomide dose and schedule varied between studies: 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 for ROBUST (210 mg/cycle) and 25 mg/d, d1-10/21 (250 mg/cycle) for E1412. ROBUST enrolled only patients prospectively identified with the ABC subtype, whereas E1412 enrolled all otherwise eligible patients and retrospectively evaluated for ABC-type with prespecified ABC-type accrual and power parameters. Both studies enrolled patients with IPI status ≥ 2, ECOG PS 0-2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV (E1412 stage II with mass > 10 cm). The primary endpoint in both was progression-free survival (PFS; central review for ROBUST and investigator-assessed for E1412). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS; key for ROBUST), overall and complete response rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: ROBUST enrolled 570 ABC patients and E1412 enrolled 280 GCB, ABC, and unclassified DLBCL patients. Patient profiles in both studies (ROBUST [ABC]/E1412 [all COO]) were similar in terms of median ages (65 y/66 y), male sex (58%/61%), and ECOG PS 1-2 (55%/63%). Patients in E1412 were more high risk: IPI 2 (42% ROBUST/34% E1412), IPI ≥ 3 (58%/66%), and Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (87%/97%). Importantly, there was a notable difference in the time from patient diagnosis to treatment: median 31 days for ROBUST and 21 days (22% > 31 d) for E1412. Only 6% of patients in ROBUST were treated within 2 weeks of diagnosis vs 30% in E1412. At a median follow-up of ~2.5 y for both studies, E1412 met its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS with 34% reduction in the risk of PD/death (2-y PFS: 76% vs 70%) for all patients, but did not reach statistical significance in ABC-DLBCL patients for 2-y PFS (71% vs 61%) or 2-y OS (88% vs 76%). ROBUST showed no significant improvement in the primary PFS endpoint (2-y PFS: 67% vs 64%) or 2-y OS (79% vs 80%) in ABC patients. Subgroup analyses of PFS comparing R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP control within each study suggested that certain baseline factors favor the R2-CHOP arm, including: female sex, high IPI score (≥ 3), non-bulky disease (< 7 cm), and high Ann Arbor stage IV disease. Conclusion: While the ROBUST study design integrated state-of-the-art, real-time GEP to prospectively identify ABC-DLBCL patients with rapid lab turnaround time, cases of logistical delays in tissue submission for central analysis and staging procedures may have resulted in accrual of patients with lower-risk DLBCL and prolonged time from diagnosis to treatment. In contrast, E1412 retrospectively stratified patients by COO through GEP and was able to accrue higher-risk patients irrespective of COO within a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, which among other differences (eg, smaller population size, study phase), could contribute to the improvement over R-CHOP control. Our comparative findings have significant implications for the design of future biomarker-driven trials and provide momentum for studies of novel combinations with R-CHOP in DLBCL. Further investigation into other factors, including dose intensity and their correlation with outcomes, will be presented. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chiappella:Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hong:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Employment; Merck: Consultancy. Scott:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Amengual:Appia Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Leonard:BeiGene: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Jurczak:Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yamamoto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hudak:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wade:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes, these trials discuss off-label clinical trial investigation of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore the need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 that has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. While other studies have been designed with the goal of discontinuation of ibrutinib through combinations with venetoclax, no other study has been presented using a response-dependent discontinuation strategy. Study Design and Methods A041702 is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). CLL patients age 70 years or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy are eligible. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab is allowed. Patients must have intermediate- or high-risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm3 unless due to marrow involvement, and platelets ≥ 30,000/mm3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness that is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially preregistered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), and are stratified by Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, patients in both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue for 3 years beginning January 2019, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, U24CA196171; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737981 Disclosures Woyach: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy. Byrd:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background: Less-fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplasia (MDS) age 60 years and older constitute the majority of patients with AML/MDS but are not well represented in clinical trials. DNA-methyltransferase inhibitor (HMA) monotherapy (e.g. azacitidine or decitabine) is usual. Overall response rates (ORR) are low; improvement in overall survival relative to supportive care alone is modest, highlighting the critical need for efficient identification of effective novel therapies. Blocking programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) signaling with nivolumab may increase the sensitivity of AML cells to azacitidine and improve outcomes and is the focus of one arm of the S1612 trial. Signaling through PD-1 contributes to tumor immune evasion and growth in AML [Chen, Cancer Biol Ther 2008]. Increased expression of PD-1 (~40% of AML), is associated with poor HMA response [Ørskov, Oncotarget 2015]. A single center azacitidine/nivolumab non-randomized phase II study in relapsed/refractory AML reported ORR of 33% (23/70), including 22% complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery [Daver, Cancer Discovery 2018]. About 25% of the patients developed grade 2-4 immune toxicities; nivolumab immune-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in nearly 1 in 7 patients. Study Design and Methods:The S1612 trial [NCT03092674] is a platform randomized phase II/III clinical trial with a common azacitidine control arm (CA) and two currently active experimental arms (EA). Therapy is intended for community setting: azacitidine/nivolumab; and azacitidine/midostaurin. The innovative design utilizes a phase II go/no-go decision comparing each EA with the CA independently when there are 100 pts/arm and 104 deaths on the EA and CA combined. EAs will proceed to phase III if the null hypothesis (HR=1) is rejected in favor of the EA (15% one-sided alpha). When the two currently active EAs complete phase II accrual, a third EA (decitabine/cytarabine) will open. The CA stays open the entire length of the trial and only concurrently randomized patients will be compared across arms. If an EA proceeds to phase III, 200 additional patients (300 total patients) will be accrued. Phase III analysis occurs 1.5 years after accrual or at 414 deaths (in the respective EA and CA), whichever comes first. The phase III tests the null hypothesis with 4.5% two-sided alpha and 83% power for each EA to detect an improvement in median OS from 10.4 to 15.6 months. Eligible pts are age ≥60 years, newly diagnosed AML with ≥ 20% blasts or myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS-EB-2); deemed by the treating physician unfit for standard cytotoxic chemotherapy; and no prior HMA permitted. Trial in Progress Issues:Between December 2017 and October 2018, 113 patients were screened and 78 randomized to study treatment (median/range age: 75/61-86 years; median/range performance status 1/0-3). Two concerns challenged this trial: 1) required administration of 7-day azacitidine at the enrolling sites created a burden for this population and 2) an early excess grade 5 toxicity signal in the azacitidine/nivolumab arm compared with the control arm. Without a control comparison, this safety signal likely would have been missed. Strategies to address these concerns were developed by the study team. Discussion with the sponsor and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focused on allowance of standard-of-care protocol-directed azacitidine administration in the patient's primary care doctor's office rather than at the oncology center. Because of the toxicity concern, the trial was placed on partial clinical hold for further evaluation and possible nivolumab-arm eligibility changes, along with new surveillance and pre-emptive action including prompt steroid initiation for suspected immune-related toxicities. The S1612 trial highlights special concerns when enrolling vulnerable populations onto leukemia clinical trials, and the importance of collaborative strategies including with the FDA to preserve clinical trial integrity for patient benefit. It also demonstrates the efficiency this novel platform design has for therapeutic investigation and, importantly, very early identification of serious toxicity. Updates on accrual and resolution and of these issues will be presented. Disclosures Hay: Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Assouline:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walter:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Radich:TwinStrand Biosciences: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: RNA Sequencing. Othus:Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Glycomimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Erba:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off label experimental combination therapies in newly diagnosed AML/MDS will be discussed, including nivolumab and azacitidine.

Introduction. Our previous flow cytometry-based comparison of HIV(+) and HIV(-) autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) recipient immunomes at 56, 180 and 365 days post-transplant to each other and to healthy controls (HCs) showed that both sets of auto-HSCT recipient immunomes approached HCs over time, but retained significant differences. HIV(+), but not HIV(-), auto-AHCT recipients retained pro-inflammatory features consistent with chronic HIV infection. Here, we report the results of a quantitative and functional analysis of immune reconstitution in HIV(+) patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), in comparison with HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients and HCs. Methods. Blood samples were collected for analysis at days 56, 180 and 365 post-transplant from HIV(+) transplant recipients and at 1 time point from HCs. Whole blood analysis was performed by five-color flow cytometry across 100 immune marker combinations. Comparisons were made between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (n=17, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0903/AMC-080 trial), HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (n=36, aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0803/AMC-071 trial) and 71 HCs. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) examined differences in immune cell proportions, identified by flow cytometry across 100 cell subsets at each time point. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared median absolute counts and median proportions of cell subsets. An independent feature importance score analysis (FIS) identified contributions of immune cell populations expressing specific immune marker combinations to the differences between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients, HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HCs. Functional responsiveness of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients' T cells to stimulation with CD3- and CD28-directed antibodies, NK cells to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 and monocytes to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in a preliminary mass cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated at the same time points (n=2) and compared to HCs (n=2). Results. PCA showed that immunomes of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients clustered together with each other, but away from HCs at all time points throughout the post-transplant year. FIS identified: 1) 13 cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs, and 2) 11 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs; in both of these comparisons, activated CD3+/HLA-DR+ T cells had the greatest impact on the difference between HIV(+) and HC immunomes. At 1 year, both HIV(+) transplant recipient cohorts had higher absolute numbers of activated T cells, effector T cells and CD8+ T cells than HCs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p<0.0031). HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients also had lower numbers of CD4+ T cells, naïve T cells and activated NK cells compared to HCs (p<0.0031). FIS also identified 20 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients immunomes at 1 year, with CD8+/CD27- effector T cell subset exerting the highest impact on the difference. Preliminary functional mass cytometry analysis of 2 HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and 2 HCs showed that: 1) IFNʏ production by CD8+ T cells was increased above that of HCs at all time points. 2) Expanded populations of CD4+/T-bet+ cytotoxic cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, persisted in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients at all time points, but not in HCs. 3) NK cells retained an ability to produce IFNʏ in response to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 in HIV(+) allo-SCT recipients. 4) Monocytes showed an enhanced production of TNFα in response to stimulation with LPS in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients compared to HCs at 1 year post-HSCT. Conclusion. Chronic HIV infection confers the pro-inflammatory immune features on the phenotypic and functional profiling of the T lymphocyte immunome of stem cell transplant recipients, irrespective of allogeneic or autologous stem cell donor source. Disclosures Devine: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Navarro:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Behbehani:Fluidigm corporation: Other: Travel funding. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3165 Background: Accrual to large oncology group studies in the United States is often slower than planned, especially in less common malignancies such as Multiple Myeloma (MM). To improve the treatment of patients with MM, it is essential that we address the barriers to accrual (BtA) to national clinical trials. The NCI Myeloma Steering Committee (MYSC) formed the Accrual Working Group (AWG), charged to analyze this problem. Methods: The members of the MYSC have developed a list of 10 potential BtA to NCI MM-CT under the leadership of the AWG at meetings conducted in person and by monthly telephone conference. This list was distributed via Survey Monkey among investigators and research staff of the SWOG, ECOG/ACRIN and Alliance research bases for the purpose of ranking the perceived importance of the 10 selected BtA. Responses based on a 0–5 Likert Scale were analyzed as continuous and categorical. For the latter, responses were grouped: Impedes Accrual – No (0,1), Yes (2–5); Significantly Impedes Accrual – No (0–3), Yes (4,5). Results: 246 survey responses were received. 50 participants who indicated that they had never attempted to or actually never enrolled a patient into a MM-CT were excluded. Of 196 responders, 61% had enrolled at least 5 patients, 43% practiced in academic centers (A) and 57% in community centers (C). 26% identified themselves as research staff, 74% as primarily physician investigators including Principal Investigators (12%). 78% have current access to NCI MM-CT. 46% identified their research base affiliation with SWOG, 20% with ECOG/ACRIN, 17% with Alliance, 17% as CTSU, NRG and other. The majority of survey responders confirmed agreement in the perception that all 10 identified BtA impede accrual, ranging from 60–84% depending on the specific barrier identified, while significant impediment to accrual ascribed to these BtA ranged from 22–47%. The perceived barriers most often cited as impeding accrual were (1) spectrum of available treatment options, (2) level of reimbursement for clinical trial related expenses and (3) patient‘s need for prompt treatment intervention (84%, 80%, 76% respectively). The first two barriers along with the requirement that patients receive their treatment exclusively at the NCI designated treatment site were rated most often as significantly impeding accrual (37%, 47%, 34% respectively). The first two were also identified most often as perceived BtA independent of practice setting (A, C), type of research engagement (physician investigator, research staff) and level of experience with MM-CT. Interestingly, the perception that patients must receive their treatment at the NCI designated treatment site and competing industry sponsored clinical trials were substantially more often cited as impeding accrual in academic centers compared to community centers and by physician investigators compared to research staff. The complexity of required diagnostic work up and the complexity of the treatment protocol and follow up testing were substantially more often cited as BtA in the community setting and by research staff compared to their peers in the academic setting and by physician investigators. The NCI MYSC AWG has proposed specific solutions to potentially lower perceived BtA. These include guidelines to allow protocol specific administration of commercially available agents by the patient‘s local oncologist, a simplified diagnostic work up and treatment plan and eligibility inclusion of patients who have received up to one cycle of specified urgent therapy prior to enrollment in MM-CT. Conclusions: We have queried experienced clinical investigators and research staff on 10 potential MM-CT specific BtA and found substantial consensus among responding participants in this survey. There are apparent differences in perceived BtA between the respondents from academic and community centers as well as between research staff and physician investigators. These data suggest that a structured approach to identification of BtA to clinical trials is feasible and creates opportunities to overcome them. This may have application to clinical trials across other diseases and may also lead to improvements in accrual. Disclosures: Barlogie: Celgene, IMF, MMRF, Millennium, Genzyme: Consultancy; Celgene, IMF, Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene, Novartis, NCI, Millennium, Onyx, Icon: Research Funding; GEP: Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 47 Background In adults with newly diagnosed, poor-risk AML we previously demonstrated that induction therapy with Flavopiridol in combination with Ara-C and Mitoxantrone (FLAM,) in a timed-sequential manner, yields complete remission (CR) rates of 67% and median disease-free survival (DFS) of 13.6 months. These data suggest that FLAM might improve outcomes relative to standard “7+3” in newly diagnosed AML with poor-risk features. Thus, we are conducting a phase II randomized trial comparing the CR rates with FLAM vs. 7+3 induction for all newly diagnosed adult patients with AML with intermediate and poor-risk features. We also previously identified a population of CD34+CD38− cells with intermediate aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity that appears to represent a leukemic stem cell (LSC) population. We are examining the effects of FLAM vs. 7+3 in eradicating this LSC population and determining if persistence of LSC's predicts for relapse. Objectives The primary objective is to compare the rate of CR after 1 cycle of FLAM vs. 1 cycle of 7+3. The secondary objectives are to compare toxicities, survival rates, and presence or absence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after both induction regimens. Methods All newly diagnosed adult patients aged 18–70 without favorable risk features were randomized in a 2:1 fashion between FLAM and 7+3 at 90 mg/m2 of Daunorubicin. To achieve balanced randomization, patients were stratified by age, secondary AML and leukocyte count. CD34+ cell subsets were analyzed by flow cytometry for CD38 expression and ALDH activity by Aldefluor. The trial is ongoing. Results To date, 62 patients are evaluable for the primary end point. Demographics and results are depicted in table 1. Patient characteristics were similar in both arms, although there were more patients with poor risk features in the FLAM arm than 7+3. Overall grade > 3 toxicity was similar between both arms. However, there were 3 cases of grade > 3 tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) with FLAM, with 1 death, vs. 0 with 7+3. There were also 3 deaths with FLAM before day 60 vs. 0 with 7+3. CR rate with FLAM was 68% (28/41), with 1 cycle of 7+3 was 48% (10/21) (p = 0.17), and with 2 cycles (7+3 + 5+2) was 52% (11/21). CR rates based on specific risk factors are depicted in table 2. There was a trend toward improved CR rates in patients with adverse genetics with FLAM (p = 0.17). Putative AML LSC's were distinguished from normal hematopoietic stem cells based on ALDH activity. The persistence of putative LSC's in patients after therapy was highly predictive of subsequent clinical relapse. Conclusions Based on the current CR rate of 68%, FLAM holds promise as a therapeutic option for patients with newly diagnosed AML with intermediate and poor risk features. In this preliminary analysis, there is a suggestion that FLAM leads to higher CR rates in patients with adverse genetics than 7+3. Additionally, the detection of MRD consisting of a residual putative LSC population strongly portended subsequent relapse, even in patients without evidence of leukemia. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Flavopiridol (Alvocidib) is an anti-leukemia agent.