Godwin, John E.

Abstract Background We performed a prospective study evaluating a baseline GA battery and clinical outcomes in fit older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML and normal cardiac and renal function in the recent E-A NCTN E2906 phase 3 study. A patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of Depression, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Cognitive Function, Social Support (SS) domains, and comorbidity was performed at study registration to evaluate the prevalence of vulnerabilities and their impact on overall survival (OS) and 30-day induction mortality rates (IM) in this cohort selected for fitness to receive IC. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, age ≥60 years, randomized 1:1 to ‘standard 7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent clofarabine (CLO, Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2)]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or IM (8.5%), and CLO was inferior for OS. A baseline GA was a key secondary protocol objective, offered to all patients, and n=532 (73%) participated. We assessed Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS, none vs. any depressive symptoms, n=524); cognitive screen using Mini-Mental Exam Section (MMES, score 8/8 vs. <8, n=516); ADL & Instrumental ADL (iADL), (need for assistances vs. not n=526); a Medical Outcomes Study SS Survey (MOS-SS, measured as per unit increase, n=527); a Comorbidity survey ( ≤4 vs. ≥5 patient-reported comorbidities, n=530), patient-reported prescription medications use (PM, 0-3 vs. ≥4, n=519); and a survey of Sexual Desire (n=491) and Sexual Activity (n=477) within 4 weeks of AML diagnosis. Association of GA domains with OS, IM, and achievement of CCR was evaluated using the Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Survival analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for treatment arm. All p-values are 2-sided. Results The median age among those participating in GA battery was 67 yrs (range 60-85), including 38% age ≥70. There were 42% females, and ECOG performance status was 0 (28%), 1 (54%), 2 (16%), or 3 (2%). Central Cytogenetic review was classified (ELN2017) as Favorable (3%), Intermediate (66%), and Adverse (31%) risk. There was a notable rate of GA scores outside ‘normal’ clinical cutoff, including Depression (GDS 31%), cognitive and functional impairment [MMSE (37%), ADL (25%) and iADL (32%)], ≥5 Comorbidities (23%), and ≥4 PM's (44%). 81% & 76%, respectively, reported no sexual activity and low/none sexual desire. MOS-SS tended to be high in this cohort [mean (SD) score 87 (17)]. We observed a significant association of GA domains with OS & IM. For OS, absence of depressive symptoms [GDS, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence Intervals (CI) 0.64-0.97, p=0.025)], MMES 8/8 (HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.64-0.96, p=0.016), requiring no assistance with ADLs (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.52-0.82, p<0.001) and iADLs (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.85, p<0.001), and ≤4 Comorbidities (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.54-0.84, p=0.001) were significant for superior OS; use of ≥4 PM's was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.09-1.61, p=0.005). There was no association of sexual activity/desire, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, or MOS-SS with OS. IM was significantly higher among those with any depression symptoms (GDS, p=0.005), any ADL (p=0.010) or iADL (p=0.013) impairment, ≥5 comorbidities (p=0.037) and ≥4 PM's (p=0.001); there was no association with MOS-SS or MMES. There was no significant association of GA scores with cytogenetic risk group or with CCR rates. Only ADL independence (p=0.048), and possibly Comorbidity ≤4 (p=0.071), were associated with proceeding to Step 2. Conclusions In this large prospective cohort of fit older adults with AML selected to receive IC, we observed high rates of PRO-assessed GA vulnerability, which was significantly associated with inferior OS and higher IM rates, and (for ADL impairment) lower rates of proceeding to consolidation therapy. This suggests that functional and cognitive impairments are prevalent and can significantly impact outcome even in fit older adults. Despite potential long-term OS advantages of IC previously observed in E2906, efforts to systematically recognize those at higher risk based on GA PROs are needed to help identify patients who may be more appropriate for study of lower intensity treatment options to mitigate impact on IM and OS. SImilarly we plan to evaluate the potential benefit of GA-driven supportive care to improve patients' outcomes.

NPM1 mutations (NPM1+) are found in about 30% of adult AML. While NPM1+ are generally associated with favorable risk, prior studies have shown that NPM1+ older patients, defined as ≥ 65 years, have significantly worse outcomes. The updated European Leukemia Net 2022 (ELN22) now classifies NPM1+ AML patients with FLT3-ITD (ITD+) and MDS-associated mutations (MDSm+) as adverse-risk, while NPM1+/ITD-/MDSm+ patients remain favorable-risk unless they have an adverse-risk karyotype. A recent report (Chan et al., Blood Adv 2024) found MDSm+ conferred worse OS only in patients ≥ 60 years; however another report (Othman et al., Blood 2024) did not find MDSm+ were significantly associated with adverse outcomes in a larger cohort of NPM1+ patients. To further assess this question, we examined the mutational landscape in a large cohort of pre-treatment, diagnostic specimens from 456 patients enrolled in SWOG clinical trials (SWOG-9031, SWOG-9333, S0106, and S0112) and 126 patients from the UW/FHCC Hematopoietic Repository (Total N=582). Patients were treated with curative intent as per standard practice or clinical trials. Out of the 582 patients, 191 were NPM1+ (33%), of which 148 patients had cytogenetic and long-term outcome data. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence estimates were estimated. C-statistics and AUC for Cox, cause-specific and logistic regression models for overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), time to relapse (TTR, calculated in n=106 who achieved complete remission [CR], death in remission analyzed as a competing risk) and CR were calculated for age, ELN17, and ELN22, as well as ELN17 and ELN22 adjusting for age. ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as adverse-risk (N=5 of 108) demonstrated significantly shorter EFS (HR=2.50, p=0.05) and CR rate (OR=0.20, p=0.024), although with similar OS (HR 1.30, p=0.66) and TTR (HR=1.20, p=0.86). ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as ELN22 intermediate-risk (N=23 of 108) did not show a significant difference in OS (HR 1.47, p=0.20), EFS (HR 1.35, p=0.12), CR rate (OR 0.75, p=0.46), or TTR (HR=1.64, p=0.11) compared to ELN22 favorable-risk. For ELN17 intermediate-risk (N=40), 5 patients were reclassified as ELN22 adverse-risk (12.5%) and had significantly shorter EFS (HR 2.89, p=0.037) compared to ELN22 intermediate risk, although there was not a significant difference in CR rate (OR 0.31, p=0.23) or OS (HR 0.81, p=0.67). We next compared the prognostic significance of age relative to ELN risk classification. Age was associated with higher C-statistics (OS=0.65, TTR=0.57 and EFS=0.60) and AUC (CR=0.64) compared to both ELN17 (OS=0.56, TTR=0.54, EFS=0.54, CR=0.54) or ELN22 (OS=0.57, TTR=0.57, EFS=0.57, CR=0.58). The combination of age and ELN22 resulted in the highest C-statistics for OS, TTR, and EFS (OS=0.68, TTR=0.60, EFS=0.64). To further assess the impact of MDSm on risk-stratification of NPM1+ AML, we performed multivariable analyses adjusting for FLT3-ITD, MDSm, and age in patients without adverse-risk disease. These analyses showed MDSm did not have a significant association with OS when controlling for age or FLT3-ITD. We also compared ELN22 favorable-risk patients with and without MDSm (MDSm+ N=18; MDSm- N=61). Compared with the MDSm-, there was a trend toward an inferior OS (HR 1.85, p=0.054) for MDSm+ patients but not EFS (HR 1.38, p=0.3) or TTR (HR 1.2, p=0.64). When stratified by age (<65, N=53 vs. ≥65, N=26), MDSm+ in younger patients did not show a difference for OS (HR 0.96, p=0.96), EFS (HR 0.63, p=0.53) or TTR (HR 0.4, p=0.37). Older ELN22 favorable-risk patients (≥65) had similarly poor OS (MDSm- HR 3.33 and MDSm+ 3.27, respectively, p=0.001 for both) and EFS (MDSm- HR 3.11 and MDSm+ 2.39, p=0.001 and 0.01) compared to younger MDSm- patients. In our study, the ELN22 guidelines incrementally improve risk stratification for EFS in NPM1+ patients. However, age remains the most prognostic factor, and patients ≥ 65 years have similar adverse clinical outcomes, whether classified as favorable risk by ELN17, ELN22, or incorporating MDSm. Moreover, MDSm do not confer a worse prognosis in NPM1+ patients when accounting for age or FLT3-ITD status. These findings differ from a recent report by Chan et al. and are in keeping with the report by Othman et al. Therefore, further understanding of the underlying biology of age and its effect on NPM1+ AML is needed to improve outcomes for older patients.

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is the most effective post remission anti-leukemia strategy. However, the associated toxicity is a barrier for its routine adoption as standard of care in older adults. Studies of AML patients who underwent alloSCT are mainly retrospective as randomized controlled trials comparing transplantation to non-transplantation are very difficult to conduct. We herein present prospective data from a randomized controlled phase III study, E2906, designed to compare two intensive chemotherapy arms. Patients who achieved remission and had a donor were to proceed to alloSCT after induction or first consolidation, at investigator discretion. Non-transplanted patients received 2 cycles of consolidation and then underwent a second randomization between observation and decitabine maintenance. Herein are reported all patients who received alloSCT either on protocol during first remission (CR1) or at other post induction time-points. Patients and Methods: Enrolled to E2906 study were 727 AML patients age 60 years and over. AlloSCT was performed in 166 patients, of whom 71 received alloSCT as part of the study and 95 received alloSCT off protocol. 105 patients (66/71 on protocol, 39/95 off protocol) received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 (CR: 92, CRi: 9 LFS: 4). Patients were followed for a median of 33.6 months from diagnosis and 29.1 months from transplant. No patients received decitabine maintenance prior to alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) is defined as the time from allo transplant to death from any cause, with follow-up censored at the date of last contact. Disease free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from alloSCT transplant to relapse or death of any cause. The censored follow-up time for patients without relapse or death information is the date of last contact. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate OS and DFS. DFS and OS were compared between subgroups using log rank tests. A cumulative incidence analysis, with death without prior relapse as competing events, was performed to evaluate the subgroup effect on time to relapse after transplant. Results: Patient characteristics of those who received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are similar to the general distribution of AML patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. Median age was 66 years, 52% were male and 88% with ECOG PS of 0-1. Cytogenetic data were available for 85 patients of whom 26% presented with unfavorable cytogenetics. Minimal residual disease (MRD) status prior to alloSCT was available for 44 patients of whom 19 (43%) achieved a MRD negative state. Long-term OS and DFS rates for all 105 patients who underwent alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are encouraging (Figure 1). OS and DFS at two years were 56.4% and 53.6% and 49.4%, 45.6% and 42.9%, 39% at 3 and 4 years, respectively. Age above or below 65 years, gender, induction regimen (3+7 or clofarabine) and MRD status prior to transplantation had no impact on outcome. Survival curves by intermediate or adverse cytogenetic risk are not significantly different. The numbers of patients with CRi1 or LFS1 are too small to compare with patients in CR1. Nevertheless, 36/38 patients that were alive and remain in first remission at the time of data cutoff, are patients who achieved CR1 and only 2/38 are patients transplanted at CRi1 or LFS1. Notably, the non-relapse mortality (NRM) was not significantly different for patients less or over 65 years. NRM at 6 months and 2 years for patients over and under 65 years of age were 4.4%, 8.4% and 15.6%, 24.0% respectively. Relapse during the first year post alloSCT is the main barrier for longer survival, particularly in patients with adverse cytogenetics and MRD positivity prior to transplantation (Figure 2). Conclusions: Fit older patients, including those over age 65, who undergo an alloSCT in CR1, can expect a 4-year survival of 43% with an acceptable NRM rate. The NRM was, surprisingly, not higher than for a typically younger cohort of AML. Relapse within one year after transplant is the major limitation to prolonged survival and this finding reflects the biology of the leukemia in these patients. In this patient population, novel post remission strategies should either be complimentary to alloSCT or competitive with updated outcome of alloSCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ofran: Medison Israel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Tallman: Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Melnick: Constellation: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; KDAC Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levine: Prelude: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ajax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Zentalis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mission Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; QIAGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Imago: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Auron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee.

Background: Relapse remains the most common cause of treatment failure after intensive induction and consolidation (CONS) therapy in older adults with AML. We therefore performed a prospective randomized phase II study to determine the safety and impact on DFS (relapse or death) and OS of DAC maintenance using an abbreviated 3-day schedule administered every 4 weeks for 1 year (per Lubbert et al, Haematologica 97:393, 2012) vs. Observation (OBS) after intensive AML therapy, conducted in the large multi-center E-A E2906 Phase III trial in patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs. Methods: The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior OS following 'Standard' 7&3 (Daunorubicin 60mg/m2) induction and intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation (CONS) vs. single agent Clofarabine (CLO, provided by SANOFI), despite similar CR/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery) and induction mortality rates. All CR/CRi pts after induction (n=311) were assigned to 2 cycles CONS with either Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age >/=70 yrs), or single agent CLO, based on induction randomization. Ongoing CR/CRi after recovery from CONS was confirmed with restaging BM biopsy, and eligible pts offered participation in the 'Step 3' maintenance study, a 1:1 randomization (stratified by induction therapy, cytogenetic risk group, age <70 yrs) to either OBS vs. DAC (20mg/m2IV Days 1-3, q4 wks) for 1 year. DAC could be held for up to 4 weeks for delayed hematologic recovery, but dose reductions were not permitted per protocol, and DAC was not continued beyond 12 months. Patients in both arms were evaluated with CBC q4 weeks for 1 year, and surveillance BM biopsy every 3 months (or at the time of suspected clinical relapse) for 2 years. 'Step 3' was designed as a phase II pilot randomized study, with target accrual n=172, allowing 90% power to detect 36% reduction in DFS Hazard Ratio (HR) with DAC maintenance for 1 year (using protocol-specified 1-sided log-rank test significance level of 0.1), assuming 140 events & 2 years of follow-up from randomization. However, further accrual to E2906 was suspended in 2/2015 by independent DSMC due to superior OS observed with standard Arm, so that 'Step 3' completed only 70% of target accrual. P-values reported are two-sided by convention unless specified otherwise. Results: 'Step 3' total accrual was n=120 (of 172 planned) (DAC 61, OBS 59), with median age 69 yrs (range 60-85), and groups were very well balanced for baseline clinical characteristics; most pts had Intermediate risk cytogenetics (74.2%) and ECOG performance status (PS)=0/1 (96%). The median number of DAC cycles received was 6 (range 0-13), and analysis was 'intention-to-treat'. The median follow-up is 49.8 months. There were 90 DFS events (47 OBS, 43 DAC), with 82 deaths (46 OBS, 36 DAC). Univariate DFS and OS are shown in Figure, with associated two-sided p-values; using protocol-prespecified one-sided significance level of 0.1, OS was significant (one-sided p=0.06) for DAC v. OBS, and there was a statistical trend favoring DFS (one-sided p=0.11), particularly for CLO pts (Table). We also performed multivariate Cox model (after adjustment for ECOG PS, sex, secondary AML, and baseline hematologic parameters) which confirmed superior HR for DFS (one-sided p=0.10) & OS (one-sided p=0.07), per statistical design. FLT3-ITD status is available for n=96 pts, and 84 were FLT3-ITD-negative (46 OBS, 38 DAC). Importantly, we observed a significant association of DAC maintenance with superior OS in the large FLT3-ITD-neg subgroup (p=0.039) (Figure). DAC was generally well tolerated apart from grade 3 febrile neutropenia (9%) and reversible grade 4 cytopenias, with no grade 5 events. Conclusions: In this randomized phase II study, DAC maintenance for 1 year after intensive AML therapy was associated with improved HR for OS and a trend for DFS, using protocol-specified statistical design. Furthermore there was a significant impact on OS for the FLT3-ITD-negative population. We acknowledge limitations based on incomplete accrual due to early termination of the parent E2906 study, and inherent to the phase 2 design of this E2906 endpoint, but results suggest an important impact of DAC maintenance on survival. These data strongly support a definitive phase III randomized study of DAC maintenance, particularly focused on the large intermediate risk FLT3-ITD-negative subgroup. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Claxton:Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celegene Corporation, Medimmune, Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Altman:Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Zheng:Pfizer: Research Funding. Pratz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Powell:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Cellerant: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Disclosure: Use of maintenance Decitabine in AML

Abstract Background: The persistence of detectable MRD in complete remission (CR/CRi - CR with incomplete CBC recovery) has been reported to contribute to inferior outcome in younger AML patients (pts) in retrospective studies, however MRD has not been studied prospectively in older adults (age ≥60 yrs) receiving intensive therapy with curative intent. We performed a planned prospective study of MRD status after AML induction therapy in older adults, integrated into the large multicenter ECOG-ACRIN (E-A) E2906 Phase III trial. Methods Eligible patients age ≥60 yrs with AML were randomized 1:1 to receive either 'Standard' 7&3 (Dauno 60mg/m2) induction, with 2 cycles of intermediate dose Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age ≥70) consolidation (Arm A); or single agent clofarabine (CLO) induction and consolidation (2 cycles) (Arm B). The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior overall survival (OS) with standard therapy despite similar CR/CRi rates using stringent criteria, and similar 30-day induction mortality rates. Submission of diagnostic & remission bone marrow or peripheral blood samples was protocol mandated for prospective MRD assessment, and analysis was performed in the central E-A Leukemia Translational Research Lab (LTL) using 6-color multiparameter flow cytometry. MRD-positive (MRD+) was defined as ≥0.1%. LTL flow cytometric analysis was done blinded to treatment arm and outcome of patients. Only pt samples collected within +/-6 days of CR/CRi confirmation were included in this analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using X2 (categories) and Wilcoxon rank sum (continuous) tests to compare baseline patient and disease characteristics. Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox models stratified by treatment arm and adjusted for patient and disease variable (including WBC, cytogenetics, sex, performance status, secondary AML) were used to examine the MRD effect on OS and disease-free survival (DFS, relapse or death). Results The median follow-up is 47.8 months, and 297 of 685 evaluable patients (43.4%) achieved CR/CRi (Standard 44.6%; CLO 42.0%, p=ns). Remission MRD samples were only available for 147 CR/CRi patients (49.5%), owing to variability in sample viability and AML involvement, collection practices and timing of sample collection at individual sites, and patient/physician decision. 58/147 evaluable CR/CRi patients achieved MRD-negative (MRD-) status (Standard 40.7%, CLO 47.9%, p=0.74). Women (56.9% vs. men 43.1%, p=0.003) were more likely to be MRD-, but there was no other significant difference in MRD status stratified by clinical or disease features. MRD+ status at CR/CRi was associated with significantly inferior OS (p=0.031, Figure 1) and also inferior overall DFS (p=0.02); this was most pronounced for DFS after CLO (Arm B, Figure 2) (p=0.005), but not Standard (Arm A) therapy (p=0.41). The impact of MRD+ was confirmed on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting, for OS: OS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.00-2.68) (p=0.05); OS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.51-2.21) (p=0.87); and OS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.05-5.06) (p=0.04). There was a similar impact for DFS on multivariate analysis using Cox Model Fitting: DFS for All MRD+ pts, HR 1.86 (95% CI 1.16-2.98) (p=0.01); DFS for Standard (Arm A) MRD+ pts, HR 1.15 (95% CI 0.60-2.19) (p=0.67); and DFS for CLO (Arm B) MRD+ pts, HR 3.45 (95% CI 1.47-8.09) (p=0.004). Post-remission therapy was not stratified by MRD in E2906, and 33% of MRD-evaluable pts underwent allogeneic transplantation (no difference in transplant rate for MRD+ vs. MRD-). Conclusions MRD+ ≥0.1% is common (60.5%) after induction therapy in older adults & is significantly associated with inferior OS and DFS in 1st CR/CRi. However we observed excellent outcomes for MRD- pts in first CR/CRi regardless of induction regimen or post-remission therapy used. MRD+ pts in CR/CRi who went on to receive CLO consolidation had significantly poorer outcomes than those who went on to receive intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation. This observation differs strikingly from younger AML, and suggests that intensified Ara-C may abrogate the adverse impact of MRD in older pts in CR. These results strongly support incorporation of centralized MRD at the time of remission into future studies to guide optimal post-remission strategies in older pts with AML. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Altman:Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding. Pratz:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy. Powell:Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Activating mutations in FLT3 - and in particular FLT3-ITD (internal tandem duplication) - are common in younger patients with AML, and are associated with relapse and with inferior overall survival (OS), however their prevalence and impact in older adults remains uncertain. We performed an analysis of FLT3-ITD mutations in patients age ≥60 yrs in the large prospective multicenter ECOG-ACRIN (E-A) E2906 Phase III trial. Methods Eligible patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs (n=727) were randomized to 'Standard' therapy with 7&3 (Dauno 60mg/m2) induction, and 2 cycles of intermediate dose Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age ≥70yrs) consolidation (Arm A); or single agent clofarabine (CLO) induction and consolidation (2 cycles) (Arm B). As previously reported (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), there was superior overall survival (OS) with standard therapy. AML diagnostic samples collected prospectively in the central E-A Leukemia Translational Research Lab (LTL) were used to detect mutations in the FLT3 gene by PCR using cDNA from total RNA. LTL investigators were blinded to treatment assignment. Patients with no RNA available or blast count <10% (threshold of sensitivity for the PCR assay) on the submitted sample were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using X2 (categories) and Wilcoxon rank sum (continuous) tests to compare baseline patient and disease characteristics. Log-rank tests and multivariate Cox models stratified by treatment arm and adjusted for patient and disease variable (including WBC, cytogenetics, sex, performance status, secondary AML) were used to examine FLT3-ITD effect on OS and disease-free survival [DFS; relapse or death after complete remission (CR)/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery)]. Results In the first 231 pts tested, FLT3-ITD mutations were identified in 43 (18.6%) pts, and the remainder were FLT3-ITD-negative (i.e. non-ITD). The proportion with FLT3-ITD was the same for patients age 60-69 yrs (18.8%) vs. ≥70 yrs (18.3%). In comparison to non-ITD, FLT3-ITD+ pts had significantly higher WBC (median 18.1 vs. 6.3, p=0.002) and BM blasts (80% vs. 51.5%, p=0.0004) at AML diagnosis, and were more likely to have intermediate risk (79.1% vs. 59%) vs. unfavorable risk (7.0 % vs. 31.4%) cytogenetics (p=0.002). There was no difference in CR/CRi rate overall (p=0.40), however standard (Arm A) pts with FLT3-ITD had a significantly higher CR/CRi rate (78.9% vs. non-ITD 51.5%, p=0.04). With median follow-up 53.5 months, FLT3-ITD patients tended to have worse OS (HR 1.24, 95%CI 0.85-1.81) but this was not statistically significant (Figure 1, p=0.26), and results were similar for both Arms A/B. DFS similarly tended to be worse overall for FLT3-ITD (HR 1.44, 95%CI 0.65-2.43) (p=0.17), and DFS was significantly worse for FLT3-ITD+ Arm A/Standard pts (Figure 2, p=0.033), while Arm B/CLO pts had a worse DFS regardless of FLT3 mutation status (Arm B, FLT3-ITD vs. non-ITD, p=0.93). More patients with FLT3-ITD underwent allogeneic transplantation (25.6% vs. non-ITD 19.7%), although this was not significant (p=0.41). Conclusions FLT3-ITD mutations are prevalent in older and elderly (age ≥70 yrs) patients with AML, and while they occur at somewhat lower rates than reported for younger adults, FLT3-ITD+ AML in this population has a leukemia phenotype similar to that reported in younger patients. Despite significantly higher CR/CRi rates with Standard therapy, older pts with FLT3-ITD also have significantly worse DFS following intensified Ara-C consolidation therapy than non-ITD pts. These results support routine assessment of FLT3-ITD status in older AML patients, and the incorporation of novel post-remission treatment strategies to improve outcome in FLT3-ITD+ pts ≥60 yrs. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Tallman:BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Induction therapy with daunorubicin (Dauno) & cytarabine (Ara-C) [DA] has been the standard of care for eligible older adults (age ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for over 2 decades. Single agent Clofarabine (CLO) induction & consolidation (Consol.) therapy has demonstrated important clinical activity in this age group in large phase II studies. Lower induction mortality (IM) & similar reported complete remission rate (CR) & overall survival (OS), as well as notable activity in those with higher risk disease features [including unfavorable cytogenetics, therapy-related AML (t-AML) & prior antecedent hematologic disorder (AHD)] raises the possibility that a non-Ara-C-based regimen could achieve similar or superior OS with lower toxicity. Methods: We performed a randomized United States Intergroup Phase III trial of single agent CLO [30mg/m2 x 5 days induction; 20 mg/m2 re-induction (if indicated) & 2 cycles Consol.] vs. standard DA therapy [Dauno 60mg/m2 D1-3 & Ara-C 100mg/m2 D1-7 induction x 1-2 cycles; 2 cycles Consol. with Ara-C (1.5g/m2 Q12hrs D1-6 age 60-69; once daily if age 70+)] in patients (pts) age ≥ 60 yrs with newly diagnosed AML. Patients with serum creatinine >1.0 (or GFR <60 mL/min) and those with AML-M3 and ECOG performance status >3 (PS>2 if age 70+ yrs) were excluded. Randomization was stratified by age (60-69 vs. 70+), t-AML, & AHD. Pts with HLA-matched donor were eligible for allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) after induction, and those completing Consol. were eligible for randomization #2 (R#2) to maintenance decitabine [20mg/m2 x 3D, monthly x 1 year] versus observation. With a target accrual of 747, E2906 was powered to determine non-inferiority [and possible superiority] of CLO vs. standard DA, and primary endpoint was OS. A weighted statistical analysis was performed to account for confounding impact of R#2. AlloHCT patients were censored at transplant in this analysis. Responses & cytogenetics were confirmed centrally and OS & CR rates were monitored by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) at pre-specified time points. Results: As of Feb 23, 2015, 727 pts were randomized. Median age was 68 years (range 60-86); 57% were male, and 38% were age ≥70 yrs. Treatment arms are well balanced for all baselineclinical & AML characteristics, & 30% had unfavorable cytogenetics. Of 659 with complete treatment information reported, 30.4% on DA vs. 40.1% on CLO received 2 cycles of induction (p=0.006). Median follow-up of surviving patients is 7.6 months. Table 1. shows early treatment results (CR, toxicity) for the 686 pts randomized as of Dec 23, 2014 (2 months prior to study end, & excluding 90 with ongoing response evaluation). DA CLO p-value CR/CRi 43.8% 42.8% p=0.87 30-day mortality 8.5% 7.9% p=0.89 60-day mortality 14.9% 13.1% p=0.58 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Induction 27% 19% p=0.02 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Consol. 20% 7% p=0.001 374 pts have died (174, DA; 200, CLO) & significantly inferior OS was observed for CLO vs. DA [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.12-1.78)] (Fig. 1). Planned subgroup analyses were performed (Table 2) demonstrating significant differences in OS after CLO for patients age 60-69 yrs, without AHD, & with intermediate risk cytogenetics; but not for those with Unfav. Cytogen. (Fig. 2) or t-AML. Based on the primary weighted analysis, DSMC recommended suspension of new accrual to E2906 on Feb 23, 2015 & all active patients on CLO were transitioned to DA Arm. Table 2.NHR CLO/Standard (95% CI)*Weighted OS7271.41 (1.12-1.78)Unweighted OS7271.23 (1.00-1.50)Age 60-694491.48 (1.10-1.99)Age 70+2781.34 (0.93-1.93)Intermed. Risk Cytogen.3781.77 (1.27-2.47)Unfav. Risk Cytogen.2160.96 (0.65-1.43)No AHD6041.46 (1.13-1.89)AHD1231.22 (0.74-2.00)De novo AML6271.52 (1.18-1.96)Therapy-related AML1000.94 (0.54-1.61) Conclusions: Despite similar CR & IM, OS after single agent CLO is inferior to standard DA therapy for pts age ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML who are fit for intensive therapy, and DA remains the standard of care. However no difference in OS was observed after CLO in some pre-specified high risk AML subgroups. R#2 & AlloHCT arms continue in E2906 for pts already enrolled. Embedded prospective minimal residual disease study at CR is being performed to identify pts at higher risk after CLO & DA. Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Disclosures Off Label Use: Use of clofarabine in AML, and maintenance therapy with decitabine in AML. Claxton:Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Altman:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

7503 Background: Prior to use of novel targeted agents for CLL, debate existed regarding the best chemoimmunotherapy regimen to build upon in patients (pts) with non-del(11q) disease. The role of lenalidomide (L) was also not defined. CALGB 10404 was a randomized phase 2 study addressing these questions. Methods: Pts with untreated CLL requiring therapy were randomized to treatment with fludarabine + rituximab (FR), FR + 6 monthly consolidative treatments of L (5 mg days 1-21/28 x 1 then 10 mg days 1-21/28 x 5) (FR+L), or FR + cyclophosphamide (FCR). Based on pretreatment central interphase cytogenetic screening, pts with del(11q22.3) in at least 20% of cells were excluded from the primary analysis, testing whether 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was improved in non-del(11q) pts within each arm. A target accrual of 103 non-del(11q) pts per arm provided at least 84% power to detect an increase in 2-year PFS rate from 60% to 73%; the critical value was 69% using a single stage design and type I error rate of 4%. Results: A total of 342 non-del(11q) CLL pts were randomized to treatment with FR (n = 123), FR+L (n = 109), or FCR (n = 110). Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Two-year PFS rates with exact 90% CIs were 64% (57-71%) (FR), 71% (63-78%) (FR+L), and 74% (66-80%) (FCR). Median PFS was significantly shorter with FR compared to FR+L (p = 0.03) and FCR (p < 0.01): 43 (95% CI: 33-50), 66 (95% CI: 45-not reached), and 78 (95% CI: 58-not reached) months respectively. Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached for any arm. OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar across arms, although there was a plateau in OS with no events beyond 41 months in the FR+L arm, different from FR/FCR where events continued to occur. The most common adverse events were cytopenias and infections. Conclusions: FR+L and FCR met the protocol defined primary endpoint. FR+L extended PFS relative to FR and a plateau in survival differentiated this arm from the FR/FCR arms. Future studies comparing FR+L to FCR or incorporating L into other novel treatment regimens are justified. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, Celgene. Clinical trial information: NCT00602459.