Atallah, Ehab

Abstract Background: Pracinostat, a potent oral Class I, II, IV histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, exhibited modest single-agent activity in relapsed AML. Inhibition of histone deacetylation and DNA hypermethylation induces re-expression of silenced genes in myeloid malignancies in a synergistic fashion. A pilot study of pracinostat with azacitidine (AZA) in myelodysplastic syndromes showed the combination to be active and well tolerated (Blood2012;120:3821). We conducted a Phase 2 study to evaluate pracinostat + AZA in patients ≥65 years with AML not eligible for induction chemotherapy. Minimum 1-year survival data were reported previously (Blood 2015;126:453). Here we report long-term survival and response analyses. Methods: Main eligibility: Age ≥65, untreated de novo or secondary AML, ≥20% bone marrow (BM) blasts, not candidate for intensive therapy due to co-morbidities and/or AML features, intermediate or high-risk cytogenetics, and no prior treatment with HDAC inhibitors or hypomethylating agents. Treatment consisted of pracinostat 60 mg orally 3 days/week on alternate days for 3 weeks and AZA 75 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously daily for 7 days, with cycles repeated every 28 days until disease progression, lack of response or poor tolerability. The primary endpoint was a composite complete response rate (cCR) of CR + CRi+ MLFS by IWG criteria. Response was assessed at the end of Cycles 2, 4, 6 and then every 3 cycles or when clinically indicated. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (cCR + PR), duration of response and overall survival (OS). Study registered under NCT01912274. Results: Between December 2013 and December 2014, 50 patients were enrolled at 15 U.S. sites. Baseline characteristics: Median age 75 years (range 66-84 years); 33 de novo and 17 secondary AML; 27 intermediate-risk and 21 high-risk cytogenetics and 2 not known; median BM blasts 40% (range 20%-89%), ECOG performance status 0-1 in 84% and 2 in 16%. The median number of treatment cycles was 6.5 (range 1-24+). A CR was achieved in 21 patients (42%), CRi in 2 (4%), and MLFS in 3 (6%) for a cCR rate of 52%. Median time to BM blasts <5% was 57 days (range 25-243 days) and exceeded 168 days (6 cycles) in 3 patients (12%). Median duration of cCR is 13.2 months (95% CI 10.9-21.5 months), with 6 of 26 patients (23%) continuing on therapy for a periods ranging from 20.5 to 29.5 months. With a median follow-up of 21 months, the median OS is 19.1 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached). One-year and 2-year OS are 62% and 45%. Non-protocol therapies (NPT) were administered in 23 patients (46%). There was no effect on OS after censoring survival duration at the start of NPT. Response and OS by population subsets are summarized in Table 1. Non hematologic adverse events Grade ≥3 reported in >5% of patients: Fatigue 34%; anorexia 10%, cellulitis, pneumonia, asthenia and sepsis in 8%; urinary tract infection, nausea, back pain, hypoxia, hyponatremia, and syncope in 6%. Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities in> 5% of patients: thrombocytopenia 46%; febrile neutropenia 44%; neutropenia 36%; anemia 30%; pancytopenia 6%. The 30-day and 60-day mortality rates were 2% and 10%. Conclusions: Pracinostat + AZA led to a high rate of responses in elderly patients with AML. Responses were durable and observed irrespective of age, cytogenetics risk, ECOG performance status, and de novo or secondary AML. Marrow remission was typically achieved early, but prolonged exposure was required in some patients to maximize response. The results compare favorably with historical single-agent AZA data in a similar AML population. A phase 3 study of AZA +/- pracinostat in untreated patients with AML unfit for standard induction chemotherapy is starting. Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Disclosures Atallah: Incyte: Consultancy; CTI biopharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Grant review; Takeda: Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Arellano:Cephalon: Research Funding. Odenike:Geron: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Suneisis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI/Baxter: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Algeta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghalie:MEI Pharma: Employment.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background: Outcomes of patients with AML have remained poor despite the availability of cytotoxic chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and targeted therapies. HMAs, such as azacitidine, in combination with Bcl-2 inhibitors like venetoclax have demonstrated response rates of 67% in newly diagnosed AML and 21% in relapsed/refractory (RR) AML (DiNardo et al. Blood 2019 and Am J Hematol 2018). While the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax is efficacious in AML, preclinical studies indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of MCL-1, an anti-apoptotic protein (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that has demonstrated activity against AML (Swords RT et al. Blood. 2010). Pevonedistat induces NOXA, a pro-apoptotic protein leading to neutralization of MCL-1 inducing apoptosis (Wang et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017). Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated synergistic effect (Knoor KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we hypothesize that the addition of pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax would enhance the therapeutic efficacy by overcoming resistance to apoptosis. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-initiated phase Ib study evaluating the safety of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented AML (de novo, secondary or therapy-related), ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function are eligible for the study. Major exclusion criteria are patients with isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, acute promyelocytic leukemia, liver cirrhosis and severe liver impairment. While the dose escalation phase is available only for patients with RR-AML, the dose expansion phase can also include newly diagnosed AML patients who are ineligible for intensive induction. The study is planned to be conducted at Medical College of Wisconsin, Mayo Clinic and University of Pennsylvania. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. The study will follow 3+3 design with dose escalation (Arms A and B), de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (arms Z and Y) and dose expansion phase (figure 1). Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with dose level 0. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 1 cycle. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experiences a DLT. A minimum of 9 and a maximum of 24 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase and 6 patients for the dose expansion phase. Response rate, duration of response and exploratory endpoints will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier method will be used to determine survival. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Michaelis:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Abedin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn Healthcare: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Runaas:Agios: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicine: Honoraria. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Older patients (pts) with AML unfit for intense induction chemotherapy have a poor prognosis with a 5 year survival of <10%. 225Ac-lintuzumab is composed of 225Ac linked to a humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Data were previously presented on the initial 13 pts who received 2.0 µCi/kg/dose on Days 1 and 8 (ASH, 2017, Abstract 616). Although that dose resulted in a high response rate of 69%, there were 6 pts with Grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting >6 weeks and 5 CRi patients did not reach an ANC of ≥ 500/µL. Therefore, the activity level was reduced to 1.5 µCi/kg/dose for further evaluation. Methods: This study enrolled older pts with untreated AML who were considered to be unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. Pts aged 60 to 74 years were required to have significant co-morbidities, while all pts ≥ 75 years were eligible. Other eligibility criteria included ECOG PS 0-2, CD33 expression on > 25% of blasts, and a peripheral blast count <200/µL within 10 days of the first dose to optimize targeting of bone marrow (BM) blasts. Hydroxyurea was used to lower peripheral blast counts. 1.5 µCi/kg of 225Ac-lin were administered IV on Days 1 and 8. G-CSF was given starting 10 days after the 2nd dose and spironolactone was given for up to 1 year to minimize the risk of radiation-induced nephrotoxicity. Pts were evaluated for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419. Results: 18 pts were included in this prespecified Interim Analysis. An additional 9 pts were treated at this dose and will be included in an updated analysis at the ASH meeting. The median age of the 18 pts was 73.5 years (range 60-87) and median ECOG Performance Status was 1 (0 in 3 pts, 1 in 9 pts, & 6 in 2 pts). 11 pts had prior AHDs (6 MDS, 2 CMML, 2 NHL, 1 myelofibrosis), and 9 had prior treatment for AHDs. Of the pts with known cytogenetic and molecular genetic results, 1 had favorable-risk, 3 had intermediate-risk, and 5 had adverse-risk AML using NCCN guidelines. The median baseline BM blast % was 40.5% (range, 22-66%) with a median CD33 expression of 62% (range, 26-100%) of AML cells. Objective responses were seen in 4 pts (22%): 3 complete remissions with incomplete platelet count recovery (CRp) and 1 complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi). Among the responders with known cytogenetics, 1 pt had adverse genetics and 1 had Intermediate-risk genetics.Of the pts with remission, 3 had CT genotype for the CD33 splicing polymorphism SNP rs12459419 (including 2 CRp) and 1 had CC genotype. 3 of the responders are in follow up at Days 59, 169 and 266 without further treatment. Myelosuppression was seen in all pts including Grade 4 thrombocytopenia with marrow aplasia for > 6 weeks after the first dose in 4 pts. 1 pt with prior MDS had pancytopenia for > 4 months. The 3 pts with CRp achieved an ANC ≥ 1000/µL at Days 28, 38, and 40 from the first dose of 225Ac-lin. The pt with CRi did not reach an ANC of 500/µL. Non hematologic Grade ≥3 Treatment-Emergent adverse events (AEs) that were at least possibly related were 4 patients with febrile neutropenia, as well as 1 patient each with fungal pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, chest pain, sepsis, gastric hemorrhage, generalized muscle weakness, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response and typhilitis. No pts had an infusion-related reaction requiring dose interruption. Veno-occlusive disease did not occur. The 30-day mortality rate was 16.7% (1 cardiac arrest and 2 with multi organ failure). Conclusions: Preliminary data from this Interim Analysis of 225Ac-lin monotherapy in older AML pts unfit for intensive therapy indicate a lower rate of myelosuppression at 1.5 µCi/kg/dose but also a lower response rate than was seen at 2.0 µCi/kg/dose. Although the study met the prespecified response criteria for continuing enrollment, it will be closed to further accrual in recognition that targeted radiation, like other therapies, will likely have the best outcomes when used in combination with other therapies in pts with active AML. An extensive development program in AML, MDS, and multiple myeloma is planned. One study will utilize 225Ac-lin in combination with salvage chemotherapy and another with venetoclax. 225Ac-lin will be used as a single agent for AML postremission therapy. In addition, 225Ac-lin will be used as targeted conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant in pts with MDS with a complex karyotype and as a conditioning agent prior to autologous transplant in MM. Table. Table. Disclosures Atallah: Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Craig:Novartis: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Finn:Ochsner Clinic Foundation: Employment. Perl:NewLink Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Park:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy. Tse:Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville School of Medicine: Employment; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Mawad:Swedish Cancer Institute: Employment. Rizzieri:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Arog: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

Abstract Abstract 1733 Background: Patients with myelofibrosis (MF) suffer from cytopenias, debilitating symptoms, and splenomegaly, all of which may contribute to shortened life expectancy. Cachexia is a common manifestation of MF. Its causes are multifactorial and include elevated inflammatory cytokines and mechanical effects of splenomegaly. It is a predictor of poor survival in patients with MF. Cachexia manifests as weight loss with low body-mass index (BMI; <20–21 kg/m2) (Strasser F. Sixth Research Congress of the European Association of Palliative Care; Wagner PD. Eur Respir J. 2008;31:492–501) and with metabolic indicators of poor nutritional status including hypocholesterolemia (total cholesterol <150 mg/dL or <3.89 mmol/L), which has been linked to poor prognosis in MF (Mesa et al. Blood 2007;110:abstract 2548). In the phase III, placebo-controlled, COMFORT-I study, ruxolitinib treatment significantly reduced spleen volume, improved MF-related symptoms, and exhibited a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with MF. In this post hoc analysis, we investigated the effects of ruxolitinib treatment on weight and total cholesterol and the association of these changes with survival in COMFORT-I. Methods: Eligible patients in COMFORT-I were randomized to receive placebo (n=154) or ruxolitinib (n=155) at starting doses of 15 and 20 mg PO BID depending on baseline platelet count. Body weight was measured at baseline, and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Total serum cholesterol was measured at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, and then every 24 weeks thereafter. All patients receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary data analysis (when all patients completed 24 weeks and when half the patients remaining on study completed 36 weeks of treatment); thus, data for these patients were available for up to week 36 for weight and week 24 for total cholesterol. Kaplan-Meier analyses of overall survival were conducted in patients randomized to ruxolitinib stratified into 2 groups based on the median values separately for maximum weight gain and for maximum increase in total cholesterol during randomized treatment. Results: At baseline, mean body weight was similar between the treatment groups (72 kg, both) and mean total cholesterol was low (<150 mg/dL) in both treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 118 mg/dL; placebo: 115 mg/dL). The proportion of patients with BMI <22 were similar between the treatment groups (ruxolitinib: 23%; placebo: 28%) as was the proportion with total cholesterol <150 mg/dL (82%, both). Patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced a gradual increase in body weight that stabilized by week 36 of treatment whereas patients receiving placebo experienced decreases in body weight over time (Figure 1). Similarly, total cholesterol increased in patients randomized to ruxolitinib and decreased in patients receiving placebo (Figure 2). Although total cholesterol increased over time in ruxolitinib-treated patients, increases did not exceed the upper limit of normal (199 mg/dL or 5.15 mmol/L). Nearly all patients randomized to ruxolitinib experienced weight gain (96% of patients) or an increase in total cholesterol (97% of patients). In patients randomized to ruxolitinib, weight gain above the median was associated with prolonged survival relative to lesser degrees of weight gain (HR=0.40; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.90; P=0.022; Figure 3). Similarly, increase in total cholesterol above the median was also associated with prolonged survival relative to a lesser degree of total cholesterol increase (HR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.01; P=0.048; Figure 4). Meaningful comparisons with the placebo group based on the same stratification criteria could not be conducted as the majority of such patients experienced weight loss and decreases in total cholesterol while on the study; however, overall survival favored both ruxolitinib groups relative to all patients randomized to placebo even for ruxolitinib-treated patients with lower than median levels of weight gain or increase in total cholesterol. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib therapy promotes weight gain and improves total cholesterol in MF patients. These results suggest that the survival advantage exhibited by ruxolitinib over placebo in MF patients may be partly explained by reversal of the catabolic state and cachexia. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi#x2610;#x0025; Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Clinical Trial Support, Clinical Trial Support Other. Atallah:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Support for travel to meeting for the study or other purposes from Incyte Other.

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Background: Combination studies with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors plus hypomethylating agents (HMA) have suggested beneficial clinical activity in higher risk MDS and AML, though exceptions have also been reported. Pracinostat is a potent oral HDAC inhibitor selective for class I, II and IV isoforms. A pilot phase Ib study of pracinostat in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in higher risk MDS demonstrated a complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) rate of 89% (Proc ASH:3821, 2012). Preliminary data on 33 patients from a multi-center, open-label, single-arm Phase II study of Pracinostat in combination with AZA in elderly AML also reported a high CR/CRi rate (ASH 2014). Herein we report the latest survival and response results for this study. Methods: Eligibility includes previously untreated AML (≥20% bone marrow blasts), age ≥65 years, unsuitable for intensive therapy due to co-morbidities and/or AML related features, and intermediate or high-risk cytogenetics. Study therapy includes pracinostat, 60 mg p.o. 3 alternate days/week for 3 weeks plus AZA, 75 mg/m2) days 1-7 or days 1-5 and 8-9 either s.c. or i.v. with cycles repeated every 28 days until progressive disease, lack of response or intolerance. The primary endpoint is CR+CRi+ morphologic leukemia free state (MLFS) per IWG criteria. Response assessments occur at the end of cycle 1 or 2 then every other cycle or when clinically indicated. A Simon 2-stage statistical design is utilized with the following assumptions: null=0.10, alternate=0.25, a=0.10, power=0.90. Stage 1 n=27 and total stage 2 n=40. Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR; CR+CRi+MLFS+partial response [PR]+PRi), duration of response and overall survival. Results: Between Dec 2013 and Dec 2014, 50 patients from 15 study sites were enrolled. At this time, 50 are evaluable for efficacy. Baseline disease characteristics for all patients include: median age 75 (range 66-84); 32 de novo AML, 13 evolved from AHD, 5 were treatment-related; 28 intermediate-risk and 20 high-risk cytogenetics and 2 unknown; baseline bone marrow blast counts ranged from 20% to 89% with a median of 40%. Thirty-one patients (62%) continue to be followed for survival (range: 8.5 to 18.5 months). Median overall survival has not been reached in the overall study population and neither in patients with high-risk cytogenics or those with AML secondary to MDS or prior anti-cancer therapy. The 1-year overall survival estimate is 60%. The primary endpoint of CR +CRi +MLFS has been observed in 27/50 evaluable patients (54%) to date, including 21/50 (42%) CR. The 60-day all-cause mortality rate is 10% (5/50). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) Grade ≥3 seen in >5% of patients: febrile neutropenia 30%; thrombocytopenia 22%; neutropenia 10%; cellulitis 10%; anemia 8%; fatigue 8%; sepsis 6%, and pancytopenia 6%. TEAE's leading to study therapy discontinuation: peripheral motor neuropathy (1), parainfluenza (1), atrial fibrillation/prolonged QTc (1), subdural hematoma after a fall (1), and sepsis (3). Conclusions: Pracinostat plus AZA produces a high rate of durable responses in this AML population. Median overall survival has not been reached; 1-year overall survival is estimated at 60%. Final response data and overall survival estimates will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Off Label Use: Azacitidine is not approved for use in acute myelogenous leukemia.. Khaled:Sequenom: Research Funding. Arellano:Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Butler:MEI Pharma, Inc.: Employment. Ashby:MEI Pharma, Inc.: Employment. Medeiros:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.