Litzow, Mark R.

Abstract Introduction: Primary refractory and early relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML) continue to pose a therapeutic challenge. Salvage therapy treatment regimens for refractory and relapsed disease are not standardized but include the commonly-used mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC) and cladribine, cytarabine, filgrastim, and mitoxantrone (CLAG-M). Previous studies have suggested a potential benefit of CLAG-M, and therefore we performed an analysis of consecutive patients selected to receive either CLAG-M or MEC as salvage therapy for RR-AML. Methods: The study included 150 consecutive patients with RR-AML who received either CLAG-M or MEC between 09/01/2009 and 12/31/2017. Patients were identified through a pharmacy database based on use of mitoxantrone. Baseline disease and patient-related characteristics and clinical outcomes including allogeneic transplantation (ASCT) were obtained by systematic review of EMR. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated according to the Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test was used to compare outcomes between patients who received either of the two regimens. Results: There were 150 consecutive treated patients with RR-AML included in this analysis, 34 patients received CLAG-M and 116 patients received MEC. The median age was 57 years (18-76), and, and 52% were male. Forty-seven (31%) were treated for early relapsed disease (<6 months after successful induction), 17% (>6 months after induction), and the remainder had primary refractory disease (mean number of induction regimens was 1.8, range 1-6). AML risk was defined by cytogenetic criteria. There were a predominance of intermediate-risk subtypes at 47% (71/150) and followed by high-risk at 37% (55/150). Overall CR/CRi rates for CLAG-M and MEC were 74% (23/31) and 58% (63/108) in patients eligible for analysis (p=0.18). The median follow-up from relapse was 23.5 months (1-76). The median OS was 9.5 months for CLAG-M and 10.0 months for MEC (HR=0.88, 95%CI=0.54-1.41, p=0.59). In total, 76 patients (51%) were able to proceed to ASCT following salvage therapy with either CLAG-M or MEC. Among transplant recipients 56% (19/34) and 49% (57/116) were treated with CLAG-M and MEC, respectively. Median OS after ASCT was 13.0 months for CLAG-M and 31.0 months for MEC (HR=1.76, 95%CI=0.87-3.56, p=0.12). The median OS for refractory AML was 13.0 and 66.0 months for CLAG-M and MEC recipients, respectively (HR=0.92, 95%CI=0.46-1.84, p=0.24). Median OS for those with early relapse was 12.0 months for CLAG-M and 10.0 months for MEC (HR=0.69, 95%CI=0.22-2.11, p=0.51). Lastly, among those who had late relapse, median OS was 9.0 and 48.0 months for CLAG-M and MEC, respectively (HR=17.6, 95%CI=1.57-198, p<0.001). A univariate analysis was performed to investigate the impact of factors associated with OS, including treatment, age, gender, whether they proceeded to ASCT, cytogenetic risk type, and donor source. ASCT was associated with significant improvement in both PFS (HR=0.24, 95%CI=0.16- 0.37, p<0.001) and OS (HR=0.26, 95%CI=0.17-0.40, p<0.001) in this cohort. Age greater than 65 was associated with worse PFS (HR=1.02, 95%CI=1.00-1.03, p=0.04) but not OS (HR=1.01, 95%CI=1.00-1.03, p=0.06) after controlling for other variables including the impact of ASCT. Discussion: Despite a lower 30-day induction mortality we did not identify significant differences in outcomes among patients selected to receive CLAG-M vs. MEC. There was a statistically significant improvement in survival in patients who had late relapses and were treated with MEC, and a trend towards improvement in OS of those treated with MEC who proceeded to ASCT. As expected, ASCT was associated with significant improvement in OS in this cohort, and our results strongly support the use of ASCT as consolidation of remission after relapse for AML. Our data suggests that MEC may be a superior regimen, in particular including those with late relapse. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Studying gene expression and clinical outcome data from 136 clinical trials for patients with cancer (~21,000 patients with 26 cancer types), we found CD25 as one of the strongest predictors of poor clinical outcome in patients with B-cell malignancies, but not in other cancer types. This was unexpected because CD25 is known as one of three chains of the IL2 receptor on T-cells and NK-cells. Interleukin-2 (IL2) functions as essential T-cell growth factor. IL2 signals through β- and γ-, but not α-chains (CD25) of its heterotrimeric receptor. CD25-deficiency causes lymphoproliferation and autoimmunity, however, its mechanistic role is unclear. Our experiments based on genetic mouse models and engineered patient-derived B-cell leukemia and lymphoma xenografts revealed that CD25 expressed on B-cells is not an IL2 receptor chain, but in fact binds the B-cell receptor (BCR) to regulate its activity. Suggesting IL2-independent functions, defects in CD25-/-B-cells were not replicated in IL2-deficient mice. CD25 bound the BCR but not IL2Rβ- and IL2Rγ-chains. IL2Rβ- and IL2Rγ-chains can pair with other chains to form receptors for different cytokine-ligands. However, CD25 represents the first example of a cytokine receptor chain that binds to the BCR for negative feedback regulation. Likewise, in T-cells, CD25 had a bifunctional role and either functioned as IL2 receptor chain or as negative feedback regulator of T-cell receptor signaling. CD25-function was regulated by cell-membrane translocation, which required phosphorylation of its cytoplasmic tail at S268 (see schematic, left). In a family with monogenic autoimmunity, a mutation immediately preceding S268 compromised CD25-surface translocation, which was restored by homology-directed repair of the S268 motif. CD25-interactome analyses identified PKCd as critical effector molecule downstream of CD25 to mediate B-cell selection during normal B-cell development and calibrate oncogenic BCR signaling in B-cell tumors. In B-cell malignancies, BCR-dependent survival and proliferation signals are often substituted by oncogenic BCR-mimics (e.g. BCR-ABL1, JAK2, BRAFV600E, LMP2A, CD79B mutations; see schematic, right). Accordingly, we identified CD25 surface-expression as biomarker of oncogenic BCR-signaling and predictor of poor clinical outcomes. CD25-/-B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. Owing to imbalances of oncogenic BCR-signaling and p53-checkpoint activation, CD25-/- B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. In patient-derived xenograft models of drug-resistant B-cell malignancies, treatment with a CD25-specific antibody drug-conjugate (ADCT-301) extended survival of transplant recipients or eradicated disease. These findings identified CD25 as previously unrecognized feedback regulator of oncogenic BCR-signaling and provide a rationale for therapeutic targeting of CD25 in refractory B-cell malignancies. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Forman: Mustang Therapeutics: Other: Licensing Agreement, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Weinstock:Genentech/Roche, Monsanto: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Aileron, Surface Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis, Dragonfly, Travera, DxTerity, Travera: Consultancy; Travera: Equity Ownership; Astra Zeneca, JAX, Samumed, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Prescient: Patents & Royalties. Uzel:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with active, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) who have failed standard induction therapies most often receive salvage therapy with a wide variety of agents, but very few achieve remission. These patients do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to lack of efficacy using a standard HCT approach. The SIERRA trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3, open-label, ongoing multicenter trial designed to address this significant unmet need in R/R AML. This trial compares Iomab-B, an 131I-radiolabeled anti-CD45 antibody as targeted conditioning prior to HCT against standard conventional care therapies with an accrual goal of 150 patients. We have performed a preliminary safety analysis, validating the initial feasibility of this multi-center trial. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years of age with active, R/R AML, adequate organ function, and related/unrelated matched donor. Patients are randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive dosimetry directed Iomab-B followed 12 days later by HCT with fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3 days and 2 Gy of total body irradiation as transplant conditioning, or to a Conventional Care (CC) arm. Patients randomized to CC, may receive investigator's choice of salvage induction chemotherapy including approved targeted agents as well as Venetoclax (in combination with a hypomethylating agent) and proceed to standard HCT if they achieve complete remission (CR). If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows optional cross-over to the Iomab-B arm, evaluated between days 28-42 after CC therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint for the study is durable complete remission (dCR) of 6 months. The secondary efficacy objective is to evaluate overall survival at 1 year. Results: Forty patients have been enrolled to date and data are available for 38 patients (19 = Iomab-B, 19 = CC) as of July 5th, 2018. The median age was 63 years (range: 55-76). All patients had active disease at the time of enrollment with median bone marrow (BM) blasts of 30% in the Iomab-B arm and 47% in the crossover arm prior to receiving Iomab-B (Table 1). Of the patients in the CC arm, 88% did not achieve a CR and 65% of those crossed-over to receive Iomab-B. The most common reason preventing crossover was declining performance status. Time to HCT was not increased in the crossover patients receiving Iomab-B compared to those that underwent a standard of care transplant after achieving CR (median 65 vs 75 days), while the Iomab-B arm patients were transplanted at a median of 27 days after randomization. Iomab-B therapy was well-tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 infusion-related reactions reported. The median activity of Iomab-B was 626 mCi (range: 397-1027). All patients randomized to Iomab-B (N=13) engrafted, with median days to engraftment of ANC at 13 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 17 (range: 13-26). All patients who received Iomab-B after crossover (N=9) also engrafted with time to engraftment similar to patients initially randomized to the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Donor chimerism (≥95%), within 100 days after HCT, was found in 9 of 10 patients in the Iomab-B arm and 8 of 9 patients in those that crossed over to receive Iomab-B, with two patient exceptions having mixed donor chimerism at day 28. A preliminary safety analysis for all randomized patients on either study arm showed the most frequent non-hematologic adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurring in >10% patients were febrile neutropenia (34.2%), stomatitis (15.8%), malnutrition (13.2%), epistaxis, sepsis, hypotension, hypobilirubinemia and fatigue (all 10.5%). There were no Iomab-B-related deaths. Interpretation: Preliminary safety analysis demonstrates the feasibility of delivering targeted conditioning with Iomab- B for HCT in R/R AML patients who have active disease and a high BM blast burden (median: ≥ 30%) prior to transplantation. All patients who received Iomab-B, including those crossed over after failing to achieve CR on CC salvage therapy, engrafted ANC within 13 days, despite active disease prior to transplant. In addition, the time to HCT from randomization was not increased in patients receiving Iomab-B after cross-over compared to those who underwent standard of care HCT after achieving CR on the CC arm. This study is currently enrolling and for full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Tomlinson: Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Foran:Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding. Chen:Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is widely accepted and has been validated in multiple studies. Patients with adverse cytogenetics do poorly and that is reflected in this scoring system by having the highest score for cytogenetics; 2 for intermediate, 3 for poor and 4 for very poor. Little is known about the effect of marrow blasts in adverse cytogenetic in the high-grade MDS defined by IPSS-R intermediate (>3), high (>4.5) and very high (>5). The goal is to examine the effect of marrow blast percentage on outcome in patients with adverse cytogenetics that is present in the high-grade MDS. Methods: We performed data collection from the Mayo clinic records for patients with confirmed MDS after obtaining appropriate IRB approval. Patients were divided based on their total IPSS-R score and we extracted high-grade MDS cases with intermediate, high and very-high IPSS-R only. Cytogenetics and baseline CBC were available for analysis. We calculated the survival difference in patients with blasts <5% and patient with blasts of 5% to 19% for every group. Survival estimates were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank testing using JMP v.13. Results: Our database had 1300 patients with confirmed MDS, 41% (N=536) are high-grade MDS. From those, the median age was 70 and 70% were males. Median bone marrow blast was 6% (0-19). Baseline hemoglobin is 9.2 g/dL, WBC 2.7, ANC 1.05, and platelets 69. Their cytogenetics were 1% very good, 31% good, 23% intermediate, 16% poor and 29% very poor. The total IPSS-R groups were 39%,31%, and 30% for the intermediate, high, and very-high groups respectively. The overall survival (OS) for the high-grade MDS with marrow blast <5% was 12.3 months and for patients with marrow blasts ≥5% 11.4 months (P=.4). At each high-grade MDS; intermediate, high and very high, there were no statistically significant differences for patients with marrow blasts below or above 5%. In term of risk of progression to AML, patients with blasts ≥5% were at higher risk of progression compared with <5% (25% vs 10% , P<.001), with no statistically significant difference in term of time-to-AML progression. Conclusion: The percentages of bone marrow blasts had no impact on overall survival among patients with high grade MDS. However, patients with ≥5% marrow blasts are at a higher risk for progression to AML. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive blood cancer with a wide range of response and relapse rates using standard chemotherapy combining anthracycline plus cytarabine (7+3). The stem cell receptor tyrosine kinase KIT is expressed on more than 10% of blasts in 95% of relapsed AML cases and mediates leukemic proliferation and has anti-apoptotic effects (Domen and Weissman 2000). AML with high KIT expression is associated with poorer outcome (Del Poeta, Venditti et al 2003). Goals: To study the efficacy and safety of combination 7+3 and nilotinib in patients (pts) with AML and KIT expression. Primary goal is to determine the complete response (CR) rate; while secondary goals include 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in addition to safety. Methods: A single arm, Phase II study, enrolled pts at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ). Appropriate IRB was obtained and study was registered (NCT 01806571). Pts were enrolled if they were newly diagnosed with AML with KIT (CD117) expression of ≥ 20% on myeloblasts by flow cytometry. KIT mutations were allowed. Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily was given on days 4-14 of induction and consolidation; and continuous daily maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. Cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day continuous IV x7 days plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV daily x3 days were used for induction, while consolidation used standard cytarabine 3 gm/m2 twice daily days 1, 3, 5 for a total of 4 cycles. This is a Simon 1-stage design with a safety analysis after enrolling 12 pts, and an interim analysis after enrolling 18 out of 43 pts (Al-Kali, ASH 2015) recommended to continue study accrual. Results: i)- Demographics: Thirty four pts were enrolled from July 2013 to June 2017. Median age was 59 years (range 24-69) with 71% being male. Median laboratory findings include hemoglobin of 8.8 gm/dL, platelets of 56 x109/L, white blood count of 3.3 x109/L (0.4-125), and peripheral blood blasts 17 %(0-94%). Cytogenetics were normal in 43% of the pts and favorable cytogenetics were seen in 6%(inv 16). FLT3 gene testing was done on 26 pts and was positive in 13%. KIT gene sequencing (exon 8, 9, 10, 11, 17) revealed pathogenic mutation in 1/28 cases (4%). ii)- Clinical outcome Out of all 34 pts enrolled on the study, 18 (53%) achieved CR (or CR with incomplete platelet recovery) with a median CR duration of 21.8 months. Of 26 evaluable pts, the overall CR rate was 69%. 4 of the 18 pts (22%) who achieved remission needed a second induction. One pt died due to liver failure (had only one dose of nilotinib and toxicity was attributed to daunorubicin). 13 (38%) pts proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant (HSCT), 12 of whom are alive and none were able to initiate nilotinib maintenance. Only 6 (1 had HSCT) out of 34 (18%) pts relapsed after achieving CR. Median DFS was 45.8 months, while median OS was 42.4 months. 2-year DFS and OS were 58% and 72%, respectively. iii)- Safety Thirty four pts were evaluated for adverse events (AE). Fourteen pts had G4 non-hematological AEs, including fourteen G4 AEs related to infection, 2 with electrolyte imbalances, 1 heart failure, 1 elevated bilirubin, 1 elevated lipase, and 1 jejunal hemorrhage. One patient had G5 liver failure. Most common (>20%) G3 non-hematological AEs were febrile neutropenia (56%), hypophosphatemia (21%), elevated ALT (21%) and hypertension (21%). Conclusion: Combination daunorubicin and cytarabine with nilotinib (DATA) appears to be safe and effective. Final results show an acceptable safety profile with most common AE being infection. Thirty day mortality was low (3%). DATA regimen has comparable CR rates of 53% (intent to treat) and 69% in evaluable pts. Relapse rates were very low at 18% with durable responses and encouraging survival rates. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Tibes:Novartis: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Palliative care specialists provide supportive care for patients with hematologic diseases. However, the degree of engagement by palliative care physicians may be limited by the views of both palliative care physicians and hematologists. Prior studies have surveyed hematologists to identify barriers to delivery of palliative care, however palliative care physician views are unclear. This study aimed to examine views of palliative care physicians toward hematology. Methods: A survey was mailed to a random sample of the AAHPM physician contact list in 2017. Items focused on perceptions of their understanding of hematologic diseases, comfort providing care, opinions regarding palliative care and hospice involvement, and beliefs about hematologists. Anonymized responses were assessed on a Likert scale. Statistical testing was based on logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for correlated data within respondents. Results: 538 of 1000 surveys were completed. 51.9% of respondents were male. Community (37.2%), academic (36.7%) and hospice (26.2%) physicians were represented. Respondents were likelier to believe they understand the trajectories of lymphoma and myeloma than leukemia or patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (p < 0.001). They were more comfortable discussing prognosis (p =< 0.001) and managing symptoms (p < 0.001) in lymphoma and myeloma than leukemia and HSCT. They were likelier to believe that hematologists' perceptions of palliative care physicians limit collaboration rather than their own views of hematologists (p < 0.001). 80.2% agreed that hospice referrals are not made early enough. Conclusions: Palliative care physicians' understanding of trajectories and comfort caring for patients varies by hematologic disease. They perceive that hematologists' perceptions are a larger barrier than their own and hospice referrals are delayed. These results provide insights into opportunities for better collaboration with hematologists. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background While unfavorable karyotype at referral is associated with significantly inferior overall and leukemia-free survival in myelofibrosis (MF) patients (Blood. 2011 Oct 27;118(17):4595), the incidence of clonal evolution during JAK inhibitor (JAKi) treatment and its clinical significance are not currently known. We conducted a sponsor-independent, single-center retrospective analysis examining the phenotypic correlates and prognostic impact of clonal evolution during JAKi treatment. Methods Clinical, cytogenetic and molecular data were collected on MF patients treated with one or more JAKi on a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Baseline data pertained to the onset of treatment with first JAKi. Karyotype risk categories were as previously defined (Blood. 2011 Oct 27;118(17):4595). Serial bone marrow biopsies were obtained at varying frequencies based on individual JAKi protocol requirements. Mutation screening was performed as previously described (Leukemia. 2013 Apr 26. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.119). Information on survival and leukemic transformation was updated in July 2013. Results A total of 157 MF patients were studied (60% male; median age 65 years, range 34-89 years). The DIPSS-plus distribution was: Low/Int-1 20 (13%), Int-2 66 (42%), and High 71 (45%). The first JAKi was momelotinib (CYT387) in 79 patients (50%), ruxolitinib in 51 (33%) and fedratinib (SAR302503) in 27 (17%). Median follow up from first JAKi treatment was 30 months (range 1-67 months); during this period, 72 deaths (46%) and 14 (9%) leukemic transformations were documented. Eighty nine patients (57%) had a median total 3 (range 2-8) bone marrow biopsies with karyotype analysis during JAKi treatment. Of these, 21 patients (24%) showed clonal evolution (ie, acquisition or loss of one or more chromosome abnormalities when comparing last observed karyotype during JAKi treatment to baseline). Overall, 13 patients (15%) had upstaging of karyotype risk category (eg, normal to unfavorable), 9 (10%) had downstaging (eg, favorable to normal) and 67 (75%) had no change. Acquisition of worse-than-baseline karyotype was significantly higher in DIPSS-plus high-risk patients (26%) versus non-high risk patients (6%) (p=0.03). There was no association between acquisition of a worse karyotype category and baseline karyotype risk category or ASXL1 or SRSF2 mutation status. There was borderline association with RBC transfusion-dependence and constitutional symptoms at baseline (p=0.06). There was no relationship between clonal evolution and achievement of spleen or anemia response during JAKi treatment (p>0.05). The median overall survival of the entire cohort was 41 months. On univariate analysis, overall survival was significantly worse in patients who acquired a worse-than-baseline karyotype risk category during JAKi treatment (n=13, 77% deaths, median survival=31 months) versus those who did not (n=76, 43% deaths, median survival=52 months) (p=0.01) (Figure). On multivariate analysis, the prognostic significance of acquiring a worse karyotype risk category was maintained against all individual DIPSS-plus prognostic variables, including baseline karyotype risk category, except age >65 years. On univariate analysis, leukemia-free survival was significantly worse in patients who acquired a worse-than-baseline karyotype risk category during JAKi treatment (n=13, 31% leukemic transformation, median leukemia-free survival=32 months) versus those who did not (n=76, 8% leukemic transformation, median leukemia-free survival not reached) (p=0.0006) (Figure). On multivariate analysis against known predictors of leukemic risk in PMF patients (ie, baseline unfavorable karyotype, SRSF1 mutated status and platelet count <100 x 109/L), only acquisition of a worse-than-baseline karyotype risk category maintained its prognostic value (HR 5.3, p=0.03) Conclusions This is the first study to examine the incidence of clonal evolution during JAKi treatment in MF patients. Approximately 25% of patients exhibited clonal evolution; acquisition of a worse-than-baseline karyotype risk category had a strong and independent association with inferior leukemia-free survival. A similar association was also observed for inferior overall survival, albeit not independent of older age. In contrast, there was no association with spleen or anemia response during JAKi treatment. Disclosures: Pardanani: Bristol Myers Squibb: Clinical trial support Other; Sanofi: Clinical trial support. Publication support service., Clinical trial support. Publication support service. Other; PharmaMar: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other; JW Pharmaceutical Corp.: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other.

Abstract Background Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (tMN) includes t-myelodysplasia (tMDS) and t-acute myeloid leukemia (tAML) and are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer. Prognosis of tMN is poor, related to the increased frequency of adverse cytogenetics and other clinical features which predict poor response to conventional treatment. Over the last years, azacitidine (AZA) has become the standard of treatment for high risk MDS (Silverman, JCO 2002; Fenaux, Lancet Oncol 2009) and has shown efficacy in AML. AZA represents an interesting option for patients with tMN considering its safety profile and its efficacy in poor prognosis subgroups of apparently de novo MDS patients including those with monosomy 7. Most prospective trials of AZA have excluded patients with tMN. Most tMN data are retrospective or registry studies (Bally, Leuk Res 2013). This abstract presents the results of 47 t-MN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. Methods E1905 study is a randomized phase 2 study from the North American Leukemia Intergroup (NCT00313586, Prebet , ASH 2010) testing 10 days of AZA (50mg/m2/d s.c.) vs. 10 days of AZA + the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO days 3 and day 10). 6 cycles of treatment were planned; responding patients could receive up to 24 cycles. MDS, CMML, and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes were included. Patients with tMN were subsequently accrued as a separate cohort after amendment of the protocol. Response was assessed using IWG 2000 criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2000); the primary endpoint of the overall trial was achievement of a normal hemogram in 25% of treated patients in either treatment arm. Results A total of 47 patients were included. Median age was 70 years (39y-83y), 45% male, and 94% of patients had ECOG PS 0-1. 29 patients could be subclassified as t-MDS and 18 as t-AML. At inclusion, median peripheral blood counts were: neutrophils 1.0 G/l, Platelets 35 G/L, Hemoglobin 9.2 g/l, peripheral blood blasts 0%, marrow blasts 14.0%. 68% of patients were RBC transfusion dependent and 40% platelet transfusion dependent. As expected, the cytogenetic evaluation showed a high frequency of unfavorable risk cytogenetics (74%) as compared to normal or intermediate risk cytogenetics (26%). Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 arms. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4 and was significantly higher in patients treated with AZA monotherapy (6 cycles vs.3 cycles, p=0.008). 8 patients in the combination arm and 1 patient in the AZA monotherapy arm died of infection or hemorrhage before cycle 3. In an intent to treat analysis, overall response rates (CR, PR, or trilineage Hematologic improvement) were 11/24 (46%) in AZA monotherapy (95% CI 26 – 67%) and 4/23 (17%) in the combination arm (95% CI 5 – 39%, p=0.06 comparing the two arms). Median overall survival in the two arms were 12.8 months and 5.7 months (p=0.008). Conclusions In this group of very high risk patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms, the use of the novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine monotherapy appears effective, with response rates comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol (74 pts, 40% with unfavorable cytogenetics, ORR=32%, median OS=18 months). Because there are no prospective data examining the approved dose schedule of AZA (75 mg/m2/day * 7 days), it is not clear if this surprisingly high response rate derives from the current extended schedule of lower dose AZA, or would be true with standard dose AZA as well. This high response may enable many of these patients to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Entinostat combined with azacitidine at the dose and schedule applied in E1905 does not appear to be effective and tolerable as compared to azacitidine alone. Disclosures: Prebet: CELGENE: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Use of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia. Gore:CELGENE: Equity Ownership, Research Funding.