Gore, Steven D.

Abstract On behalf of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 2-12% of patients with acute leukemia (AL) despite disease and therapy-associated thrombocytopenia, and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to limited high-quality studies, there are no evidence-based guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. Based on our experience and the lack of consensus guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be a wide range in provider practice regarding methods of VTE prevention in patients with AL. To determine the current individual practices in North America, we devised a web-based survey of VTE prophylaxis practice among clinicians caring for patients with AL. Methods: An anonymous 19 question web-based survey, approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board, was distributed by email to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group on 10/22/14. Four reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the survey closing on 12/8/14. Results: Of the total 215 respondents, 64 were excluded for the following reasons: 52 did not directly manage medical care of AL patients, 3 referred AL patients to other centers, 5 left blank responses to all questions regarding VTE prophylaxis, 1 was a duplicate entry, and 3 described their position as support or office staff. One hundred fifty-one responses were eligible for analysis, with a response rate of 20.9% among physicians who treated leukemias. One hundred forty-seven were from the United States and 4 from Canada, representing 88 different institutions and 37 states or provinces. Overall, 47% and 45% of providers reported using pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during induction and consolidation phases, respectively. Among the providers using pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% designated 50,000/μL as the platelet count threshold below which they would hold prophylaxis and 26% used a platelet count of 30,000/μL. Fewer providers chose a platelet count of 20,000/μL (4%), 75,000/μL (4%), and 100,000/μL (2%). Lastly, 2% held prophylactic anticoagulation only in the setting of an active bleed and 2% reported variable thresholds. Approximately 15% of providers did not utilize any VTE prophylaxis while 36% used mechanical methods and ambulation. Among providers who did not recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, the most commonly cited reasons were the perceived high risk of bleeding (51%), absence of data supporting use (38%), and perceived low risk of VTE (11%). Conclusions: These results demonstrate wide variation in clinician practice regarding VTE prevention in hospitalized AL patients during induction and consolidation therapy. Our findings emphasize the need to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines in this at-risk population. VTE: venous thromboembolism, AL: acute leukemia, SC: subcutaneous, TED: thromboembolic deterrant stockings, SCD: sequential compression device Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Disclosures Barbarotta: Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 424 Background: Azacitidine for injection has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients (pts) with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) compared with conventional care regimens (CCR) (Lancet Oncol, 2009). An oral formulation of azacitidine (CC-486) is in development. Oral azacitidine may maximize convenience, eliminate injection-site reactions, and if administered in extended dosing schedules, may enhance and prolong the therapeutic effects of azacitidine. Oral azacitidine administered once-daily (QD) for 7 days (d) of repeated 28d cycles has been shown to be bioavailable, biologically and clinically active, and well-tolerated in pts with MDS and acute myeloid leukemia (Garcia-Manero, J Clin Oncol, 2011). Preliminary evidence suggests that extending oral azacitidine dosing to 14d or 21d of the 28d cycle may enhance pharmacodynamic and epigenetic activity (Laille, Leuk Res, 2011). Purpose: To evaluate hematologic response and safety associated with extended dosing regimens of oral azacitidine in pts with lower-risk MDS. Methods: This ongoing, multicenter, phase 1 study, enrolled pts with lower-risk (IPSS Low or INT-1) MDS who were RBC transfusion dependent (TD) and/or thrombocytopenic (average platelet count ≤50,000 within 56d prior to the first dose) at baseline. Pts were sequentially assigned to receive oral azacitidine 300mg QD for either 14d or 21d of repeated 28d cycles. Hematologic assessments were made every 2 weeks. Hematologic response was assessed using IWG 2006 criteria (Cheson, Blood, 2006). Adverse events (AEs) were graded using NCI-CTCAE version 3.0. Results: At data cut-off (May 18, 2012), 53 pts with lower-risk MDS had enrolled (300mg oral azacitidine QDx14d, n=26; QDx21d, n=27). Demographic and disease characteristics at baseline were similar in the 14d and 21d treatment cohorts (Table 1). Median (range) hematology counts at baseline were Hgb 8.7 g/L (6.0–13.0), ANC 1.6×109/L (0–30.3), and platelets 56.0×109/L (6.0–564.0). At study entry, 40% of pts had received no prior MDS treatment (except transfusions), 45% had received erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and 15% had received WBC growth factors. The number of oral azacitidine treatment cycles received ranged from 1 to 12 (median numbers of oral azacitidine cycles were 6 in the QDx14d and 4 in the QDx21d cohorts). Four pts in the 21d cohort and 1 pt in the 14d cohort received reduced oral azacitidine doses (200mg QD). Overall, 10 pts discontinued the study, including 6 pts (3 pts in each cohort) who discontinued due to AEs that may have been treatment-related (gastrointestinal [n=2] or intracranial [n=1] hemorrhage, febrile neutropenia [n=1], pneumonia [n=1], thrombocytopenia [n=1]). Overall response rates (ORR), which included complete (CR) and partial remission (PR), any hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI), ranged from 38.5% in the QDx14d cohort to 29.6% in the QDx21d cohort, and RBC TI was achieved by 47% and 33%, respectively, of pts who were RBC TD at baseline (Table 2). For pts who received at least 4 cycles of oral azacitidine (14d, n=19; 21d, n=14), ORR was 47.4% in the 14d and 50.0% in the 21d cohorts, and RBC TI rates in RBC TD pts (n=16) were 67% in the 14d and 57% in the 21d cohorts. The most frequent (≥5%) grade 3/4 hematologic AEs in the QDx14d cohort were anemia (11.5%), thrombocytopenia (11.5%), and neutropenia (7.7%); and in the QDx21d cohort were neutropenia (14.8%), anemia (7.4%), and febrile neutropenia (7.4%). Most frequent grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were gastrointestinal, including vomiting (7.7%) in the QDx14d cohort, and diarrhea (11.1%) and vomiting (7.4%) in the QDx21d cohort. Conclusions: Oral azacitidine 300mg QD administered in extended dosing schedules of 14d or 21d of repeated 28d cycles was effective and well-tolerated in these pts with lower-risk MDS. Beside hematologic AEs, the most frequently observed AEs with oral azacitidine were gastrointestinal and were manageable. Efficacy and safety outcomes with 300mg QD oral azacitidine were generally comparable between the 14d and 21d extended dosing regimens. Based on these data, oral azacitidine administered once-daily in extended dosing schedules is active and well-tolerated and warrants further investigation in randomized, controlled trials. Disclosures: Garcia-Manero: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gore:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Scott:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hetzer:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kumar:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.

BACKGROUNDTransfusion of blood products is a key component of the supportive management in patients with acute leukemia (AL). However high‐quality trial evidence and clinical outcome data to support specific transfusion goals for blood products for patients with AL remain limited leading to diverse transfusion practices. The primary objective of this study was to determine the spectrum of transfusion patterns in a variety of care settings among providers who treat AL patients.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA 31‐question survey queried providers caring for AL patients about the existence of institutional guidelines for transfusion of blood products, transfusion triggers for hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLTs), and fibrinogen in various settings including inpatient and outpatient and before procedures.RESULTSWe analyzed 130 responses and identified divergent transfusion Hb goals in hospitalized and ambulatory patients, fibrinogen goals for cryoprecipitate transfusions, and variation in practice for use of certain PLTs and red blood cell products. The least variable transfusion patterns were reported for PLT goals in thrombocytopenia and in the setting of invasive procedures such as bone marrow biopsy and lumbar punctures.CONCLUSIONSThis survey confirmed wide variations in blood product transfusion practices across several clinical scenarios in patients with AL. The findings emphasized the need for large prospective randomized trials to develop standardized evidence‐based guidelines for blood product transfusions in patients with AL with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising outcomes.

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor veliparib delays DNA repair and potentiates cytotoxicity of multiple classes of chemotherapy drugs, including topoisomerase I inhibitors and platinating agents. This study evaluated veliparib incorporation into leukemia induction therapy using a previously described topotecan/carboplatin backbone. Experimental Design: Employing a 3+3 trial design, we administered escalating doses of veliparib combined with topotecan + carboplatin in relapsed or refractory acute leukemias, aggressive myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Results: A total of 99 patients received veliparib 10–100 mg orally twice daily on days 1–8, 1–14, or 1–21 along with continuous infusion topotecan 1.0–1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 120–150 mg/m2/d on days 3–7. The MTD was veliparib 80 mg twice daily for up to 21 days with topotecan 1.2 mg/m2/d + carboplatin 150 mg/m2/d. Mucositis was dose limiting and correlated with high veliparib concentrations. The response rate was 33% overall (33/99: 14 CR, 11 CRi, 8 PR) but was 64% (14/22) for patients with antecedent or associated aggressive MPNs or CMML. Leukemias with baseline DNA repair defects, as evidenced by impaired DNA damage–induced FANCD2 monoubiquitination, had improved survival [HR = 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.92)]. A single 80-mg dose of veliparib, as well as veliparib in combination with topotecan + carboplatin, induced DNA damage as manifested by histone H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ leukemia cells, with greater phosphorylation in cells from responders. Conclusions: The veliparib/topotecan/carboplatin combination warrants further investigation, particularly in patients with aggressive MPNs, CMML, and MPN- or CMML-related acute leukemias. Clin Cancer Res; 23(4); 899–907. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: In preclinical studies, the PARP inhibitor veliparib enhanced the antileukemic action of temozolomide through potentiation of DNA damage. Accordingly, we conducted a phase 1 study of temozolomide with escalating doses of veliparib in patients with relapsed, refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from aggressive myeloid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients received veliparib [20–200 mg once a day on day 1 and twice daily on days 4–12 in cycle 1 (days 1–8 in cycle ≥2)] and temozolomide [150–200 mg/m2 daily on days 3–9 in cycle 1 (days 1–5 in cycle ≥2)] every 28 to 56 days. Veliparib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics [ability to inhibit poly(ADP-ribose) polymer (PAR) formation and induce H2AX phosphorylation] were assessed. Pretreatment levels of MGMT and PARP1 protein, methylation of the MGMT promoter, and integrity of the Fanconi anemia pathway were also examined. Results: Forty-eight patients were treated at seven dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were oral mucositis and esophagitis lasting &gt;7 days. The MTD was veliparib 150 mg twice daily with temozolomide 200 mg/m2 daily. The complete response (CR) rate was 17% (8/48 patients). Veliparib exposure as well as inhibition of PAR polymer formation increased dose proportionately. A veliparib-induced increase in H2AX phosphorylation in CD34+ cells was observed in responders. Three of 4 patients with MGMT promoter methylation achieved CR. Conclusions: Veliparib plus temozolomide is well tolerated, with activity in advanced AML. Further evaluation of this regimen and of treatment-induced phosphorylation of H2AX and MGMT methylation as potential response predictors appears warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(3); 697–706. ©2016 AACR.