Fruchtman, Steven

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) are well established standard of care for patients (pts) with higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). However, approximately half of the pts do not respond to HMA therapy and most of the responders eventually lose response (HMA failure). There is no standard of care for pts after HMA failure and median overall survival (OS) post HMA failure is around 6 months (Jabbour et al. 2015). While the mutational landscapes and their role in prognosis are increasingly becoming apparent in pts with HR-MDS at diagnosis, mutational profiles at the time of HMA failure and their impact on clinical outcomes are not well understood. Here, using samples collected from a global Phase 3 trial randomizing HR-MDS pts post HMA failure to I.V. rigosertib (RGS) or physician's choice (PC) (INSPIRE: NCT02562443), we analyzed the landscape of driver mutations in HR-MDS after HMA failure and investigated the association with the clinical outcomes. Since RGS is a non-ATP-competitive small molecule RAS mimetic (Athuluri-Divakar 2016), the study also offered an opportunity to test the hypothesis whether HR-MDS pts with oncogenic RAS pathway mutations benefit from RGS. Methods: HR-MDS pts after HMA failure were randomized 2:1 to RGS or PC. All pts failed to respond to or progressed on prior HMA therapy. Bone marrow samples or peripheral blood samples were collected at the time of trial screening. Genomic DNA was sequenced by the targeted capture deep sequencing of 295 genes (median 500x). Results: 372 pts were enrolled in INSPIRE trial (248 to RGS and 124 to PC). The median age of the trial participants was 73 (range: 40-85). All pts were previously treated and with an HMA with the median duration of prior HMA therapy of 6.7 months. 64% and 28% of the pts were classified as IPSS-R very high risk or high risk, respectively, at the time of randomization. Among the 372 participants, DNA sequencing of pre-treatment samples was performed in 188 pts (51% of the participants, N = 122 in RGS arm, N = 66 in PC arm). The most frequently identified driver mutations involved ASXL1 (36%) followed by RUNX1 (24%), TET2 (23%), STAG2 (22%) and TP53 (21%). Mutations in splicing pathway genes were found in 36% of the pts. Oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were detected in 15% of the pts (NRAS = 3 %, KRAS = 2%, CBL = 4%, NF1 = 5%, PTPN11 = 3%, and 1% had multi-hit mutations). Compared to the previously untreated MDS pts (N = 446, Papaemmanuil et al. Blood 2013), mutations in ASXL1 (36% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), BCOR (9% vs. 3%, P = 0.002), CEBPA (4% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.001), NF1 (5% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.003), RUNX1 (25% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001), STAG2 (22% vs. 5%, P < 0.0001), TP53 (21% vs. 6%, P < 0.0001), and IDH1/2 (13% vs. 7%, P =0.016) were significantly more enriched in pts with HMA failure, whereas mutations in SF3B1 (7% vs. 37%, P < 0.0001), TET2 (23% vs. 35%, P = 0.006), and splicing pathway genes (36% vs. 68%, P < 0.0001) were significantly less frequent in HMA failure pts. These results are consistent with the high-risk profiles of HMA failure pts. Frequency of oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were similar between HMA failure and previously untreated MDS pts (15% vs. 13%, P = 0.612). Correlation analysis between the types of HMA failure and gene mutations showed that TP53 mutations were significantly enriched in pts who relapsed after initial response to HMA (P = 0.001), whereas oncogenic RAS pathway mutations were significantly enriched in pts who progressed during the HMA therapy (P = 0.03). Overall, RGS did not significantly improve the overall survival (OS) of HMA failure pts compared to PC. Survival difference between RGS arm and PC arm was not observed in any subgroups stratified by the gene mutations. The only subgroup that showed improved OS with RGS compared to PC was pts with RAEB-t (median OS 7.5 vs. 3.9 months, P = 0.049). Of note, among pts with oncogenic RAS pathway mutations, no survival difference was observed between RGS and PC arms. Conclusion: High-risk gene mutations, such as TP53, ASXL1, RUNX1, and STAG2 (Ogawa. Blood 2019). were significantly enriched in MDS pts with HMA failure, suggesting their role in HMA resistance and disease progression. Identifying the mutations present de novo and with HMA failure offers the opportunity to determine prognosis based on these mutations as well as potential strategies to target these mutations with new medical entities. Disclosures Takahashi: GSK: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Symbio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, 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. Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Diez-Campelo: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Rigosertib for MDS patients after HMA failure

Background: More than 45 mutations have been identified in association with HR-MDS. In the majority of patients with MDS (80%) co-mutations are present and the prognostic contribution of each individual mutation remains elusive, especially after adjusting for clinical variables such as IPSS-R score. N-RAS and K-RAS mutations as well as regulators of the Ras pathway (e.g. PTPN11, NF1) are frequently observed (15-20%) in HR-MDS, however their clinical impact is unclear, especially in de novo MDS. Rigosertib (RGS) is a non-ATP-competitive small molecule RAS mimetic that has the potential to block RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK and PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathways (Athuluri-Divakar 2016). Rigosertib has the potential to also inhibit wildtype upregulation of RAS. We report here genomic profiling at the time of study entry in the ongoing phase 3 randomized global study (known as INSPIRE) in patients with HR-MDS after failure of HMA therapy. Methods: INSPIRE (NCT02562443) is a global randomized Ph3 trial in pts with HR-MDS after HMA failure with an overall target enrollment of 360 pts with currently 298 pts randomized. Pts are randomized 2:1 to rigosertib or physician's choice of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). All pts failed to respond or progressed on HMA therapy. Key inclusion criteria includes: age < 82 years, RAEB-1, RAEB-2 or RAEB-t; intermediate risk (IR), high risk (HR) and very high risk (VHR) per IPSS-R; ≥ 1 cytopenia; duration of prior HMA ≤ 9 cycles within 12 months; last dose of HMA ≤ 6 months before enrollment; baseline blast counts between 5-29% and one of the following: progression any time after initiation of HMA treatment, intolerance to HMA, failure to achieve complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), or hematologic improvement (HI) after six 4-week cycles of AZA or either four 4-week or four 6-week cycles of DAC, or relapse after initial CR, PR or HI. Bone marrow samples were collected at study baseline and throughout the study for mutational analysis as an exploratory endpoint. Baseline blast counts are described as % reported in bone marrow aspirate at screening. Genomic DNA was extracted from diagnostic bone marrow or peripheral blood samples and targeted capture deep sequencing of 295 genes were performed (median sequencing depth 500x) using Agilent's SureSelect custom panel. Modified Mutect and Pindel were used to identify high-confidence somatic mutations. Results: All data is presented as blinded aggregate results for both arms of the study. Baseline mutations are presented for 114 pts; 92 pts were randomized and 22 pts were screen failures. Median age is 72 years (59-81). The IPSS-R scores for the pts randomized were: Intermediate 5(5%), High 30 (32%) and VHR 56 (60%). In total 48 different mutations were identified at baseline prior to pts receiving study treatment. The most common mutations identified in pts were ASXL1 40%, STAG2 26%, TP53 24%, RUNX1 22%, SRSF2 and TET2 each 18%. Average number of mutations per pt was 3.06. At baseline, 4 pts (4%) had no mutations, 17 pts (18%) had only 1 mutation while 17 pts (18%) had between 6-8 mutations. N-RAS and K-RAS mutations occurred in 4 pts each (7% of pts) and all in the presence of other mutations. Mutations involving regulators of the Ras pathway (N-RAS, K-RAS, PTPN11, NF1) occurred in 12 (13%) of patients. Of note, 23 pts (25%) had IDH1 (6 pts) or IDH2 (17 pts) and the majority of these pts (68%) were High/VHR with an average blast count of 15% (range 5-27%) at study entry. The high proportion of IDH1/2 mutations observed is most likely due to inclusion of patients with RAEB-t. These results will be updated at the meeting with blinded baseline mutational analyses for all pts randomized into the study. Conclusion: The baseline mutational analyses from the INSPIRE study provides important initial insights into the genomic profile of pts with HMA failure, especially for the subset with VHR. Following analysis of the primary endpoint, it is anticipated that correlation of overall survival and clinical response with mutational status will be possible, including changes in mutations following therapy. Given the number of mutations involving the Ras pathway the efficacy of rigosertib in patients with this group of mutations will also be examined. Figure Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Luger:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jedrzejczak:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Celgene: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) . Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Cavanaugh:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Woodman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Fruchtman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Takahashi:Symbio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

7056 Background: No therapies are approved for MDS after HMA failure. 04-24 was a single-arm study to evaluate best BMBL response as a potential surrogate for OS in higher-risk (HR) MDS pts who progressed on or after an HMA. Rigo is a Ras-mimetic that inhibits the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway, which is frequently activated in HR MDS (Athuluri-Divakar Cell 2016; Gil-Bazo Cancer Biol Ther 2016). Methods: Eligible MDS pts had 5-30% BMBL confirmed within 6 wks pre-study and progression per International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria on or after HMAs within 2 yrs. Rigo 1800 mg/24 hrs was continuously infused over 72 hrs q 2 wks × 8 cycles, then q 4 wks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was relationship of best BMBL IWG response to OS by Kaplan Meier method. Results: 64 pts were treated (median 5 cycles, range 1-32+), with 61% male, median age 73 (range 47-87), median prior HMA duration 10.8 mos (range 1.2-70.2). Revised International Prognostic Scoring System scores were low 2%, intermediate 11%, high 27%, very high 53%, and unknown 8%. ≥Grade 3 adverse events in ≥10% of pts were anemia 19%, thrombocytopenia 19%, and febrile neutropenia 16%. At the analysis time 40 pts (63%) had died. Best BMBL IWG response was marrow complete response (mCR) 14 pts (22%), stable disease (SD) 30 (47%), progressive disease (PD) 15 (23%), and failure (early death/withdrawal) 5 (8%); 2 mCR pts had transplant. Median OS was 7.0 mos (95% confidence interval 4.8-10.8). Landmark median OS (from day of best BMBL response) was mCR not reached; SD 6.3 mos; PD 3.3 mos. Median OS of mCR+SD was 8.5 mos, with log-rank p = 0.011 (mCR+SD OS to PD OS). Conclusions: BMBL response is a predictor of survival for MDS pts receiving Rigo after HMA failure, confirming findings in earlier Phase 1/2 studies (Silverman ASCO 2015 Abstr 7017). Based on earlier results identifying an MDS subset benefitting from Rigo (Garcia-Manero Lancet Oncol 2016; ASCO 2016 Abstr 165681), a randomized Phase 3 trial of Rigo vs physician’s choice (INSPIRE) is ongoing to determine if Rigo improves survival after HMA failure within 9 cycles. Clinical trial information: NCTO 1928537.