Hiwase, Devendra

AbstractTherapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (t‐MN) are aggressive malignancies in need of effective therapies. The BCL‐2 inhibitor venetoclax represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. However, the effectiveness of venetoclax has not been studied in a large cohort of t‐MN. We retrospectively analyzed 378 t‐MN patients, of which 96 (25.4%, 47 therapy‐related acute myeloid leukemia, 1 therapy‐related chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, 48 therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndrome) received venetoclax. Median interval from t‐MN to venetoclax initiation was 2.9 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.7–12) months, and patients received a median of 3 (IQR 1–4) cycles. The composite complete remission (CRc) rate, median progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were 39.1%, 4.9 months, and 7 months, respectively. The upfront use of venetoclax and achieving CRc were associated with improved survival, whereas the presence of Chromosome 7 abnormalities was associated with an inferior survival. Neither the TP53‐status nor the percent bone marrow blast predicted the likelihood of CRc or survival. Paired genetic analysis performed at venetoclax initiation and failure did not show the evidence of the selection of the TP53‐mutated clone. In a propensity‐matched analysis, the use of venetoclax‐based regimen as the first‐line therapy was associated with a superior survival compared to hypomethylating agent (HMA)‐based first‐line therapy (9.4 vs. 6.1 months, p = .01). We conclude that the upfront use of venetoclax with HMA improved survival, though PFS and OS remain poor. As the phenotype at diagnosis or the percent blasts did not predict outcomes, venetoclax should be studied in all t‐MN phenotypes.

Abstract Introduction: Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN) includes acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) that occur as a complication of DNA-damaging therapies. The World Health Organization recommends considering t-MN as a single entity. Whether t-MDS and t-AML have distinct characteristics and outcomes is not known. The aim of this study was to compare clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of t-MDS and t-AML. Methods: All patients diagnosed with t-MN based on the World Health Organization criteria were identified. Bone marrow biopsies, cytogenetic, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were obtained at the treating physician's discretion. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) were called based on the standard criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of t-MN diagnosis until the last follow up using Kaplan-Meier analysis using Wilcoxon test. For survival analysis comparing chemotherapy to best supportive care (BSC) only, patients were censored at the time of allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT). Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard method and corrected using false discovery rate (FDR). Statistical analysis was performed using JMP (v14.1, SAS Institute) and significance was defined as P<0.05. Results: We identified 554 patients, of which 180 (32.4%), 365 (65.8%), and 9 (1.6%) presented as t-AML, t-MDS, and t-MDS/MPN respectively. t-MDS/MPN patients were excluded from further analysis due to a small number. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of the t-AML and t-MDS cohorts is shown in Table 1. t-AML patients were significantly more anemic and thrombocytopenic at presentation. As expected, t-AML had a higher peripheral blood and BM blast count. There was no difference in proportion of patients with chromosomal abnormalities, though a statistically significantly higher proportion of t-MDS patients had chromosome 5 abnormality, 5q deletion, monosomy 5, chromosome 7 abnormality, monosomy 7 compared to t-AML patients. On other hand, 11q23 (mixed lineage leukemia, MLL) rearrangement was more common in t-AML compared to t-MDS (9.3% vs. 2.8%, P=0.005). A higher proportion of t-MDS patients had PV detected by NGS compared to t-AML (92.9% vs. 85.6%, P=0.038). A higher proportion of t-MDS patients had PV in TP53 (37.6% vs. 21.4%, P=0.004) and ASXL1 (23% vs. 11.7%, P=0.016) genes; whereas a higher proportion of t-AML patients had PV in RAS (18.9% vs. 9.1%, P=0.013) and WT1 (8.1% vs. 2.9%, P=0.05) genes. One hundred twenty-eight (35%) of 365 t-MDS patients progressed to t-AML. The presence of any chromosomal abnormality at t-MDS diagnosis predicted a higher risk of transformation to t-AML (χ 2 3.9, P=0.03). t-AML patients had a significantly shorter OS compared to t-MDS (9.2 vs. 19.7 months, P<0.0001, Figure A). This difference persisted when stratified by no disease modifying therapies (BSC only) 2 vs. 17 months (P<0.0001, Figure B), as well as among those who received at least one line of chemotherapy (14 vs. 24.6 months, P<0.001). Finally, a higher proportion of patients with t-AML underwent SCT and there was a trend towards improved survival for t-AML patients (vs. t-MDS 52.9 vs. 20.7 months, P=0.07) from the time of transplant. Multivariate analysis for OS performed to control for all the variables that were different at presentation (except for blast count), showed that t-MDS (as opposed to t-AML) phenotype at diagnosis, and undergoing SCT were independent predictors of improved survival (Table 2). Conclusion: t-MDS and t-AML have distinct clinical, cytogenetic, and genetic features at presentation. In the absence of disease modifying therapies, t-AML is a more aggressive phenotype, consistently associated with a shorter survival. Even after controlling adverse risk features, t-AML phenotype had a shorter survival compared to t-MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Hiwase: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Therapy related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN) is a rare but devastating complication of cytotoxic therapy used for management of unrelated malignancy or autoimmune diseases. Therapeutic options for t-MN are limited and although hypomethylating agents (HMA) are frequently used, the benefit of it in t-MN is unclear. There are no prospective trials of HMA in t-MN and published experience is based on retrospective analysis of small number of cases (n=42 to 54). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of HMA therapy in t-MN patients and evaluate predictors for it. Methods: t-MN patients managed with first line HMA therapy were analyzed. This study was approved by the participating institutional review board. Criteria for inclusion were a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of t-MN based on WHO 2016 criteria, age >18 years, and ≥1 cycle of decitabine or azacitidine. Patient characteristics were summarized by frequency (percentage). Overall survival was calculated from the time of starting azacitidine to last follow up or death date using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model. Statistical analysis was performed using R program and significance was defined as P<0.05. Results: Of the 554 t-MN patients analyzed, 184 (33%) patients were treated with HMA as the first line therapy and were included in the study. Median age at t-MN diagnosis was 70 (IQR 64-75) years and 112 (60%) patients were male. At the time of diagnosis, 84% (n=154) and 16% (n=30) patients were classified as t-MDS and t-AML and 47% (87/184) and 46% (49/107) of the evaluable patients had complex karyotype and TP53 somatic mutations (TP53 Mut) respectively. Azacitidine (n=145, 79%) was most frequently used HMA followed by decitabine (n=39, 21%). Median survival of the whole cohort since t-MN diagnosis was 13.2 months. At the time of analysis further treatment details were available for 78 patients and outcome of these patients were compared with primary MDS (p-MDS) and oligoblastic AML managed at the same institute. Completion of six-cycles of HMA (50% vs. 62%; P=0.07) and overall response rate (47 vs. 50%, P=0.22) was not significantly different between t-MN and p-MDS. However, median OS of t-MN was significantly poor compared to p-MDS (10 vs. 20 months, P=0.0004; Figure 1A). In t-MN patients treated with HMA as the first-line agent, median OS was significantly shorter in t-AML compared to t-MDS (7 vs.10 months, P=0.04; Figure 1B). Median OS was significantly shorter in patients with TP53 Mut and complex karyotype (Figure 1C-D). In Cox proportional hazard analysis, t-AML and complex karyotype were independently associated with poor outcome. Conclusion: This study demonstrates significantly poor outcome of t-MN patients treated with HMA therapy as first line. The outcome is particularly poor in t-AML and patients with complex karyotype and TP53 Mut. Hence there is urgent need for clinical trials of novel therapies for t-MN. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sharplin: Kite Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Other: Travel Support. Ross: Keros Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hiwase: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN) is defined as the development of a myeloid neoplasm in the context of prior DNA damaging therapies. t-MN is an aggressive disease with no effective therapies. BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) represents a novel treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients including those with high-risk features. Available VEN studies included only a small portion of t-AML patients, and its efficacy in t-MDS is not known. Our aim was to study the efficacy and outcomes of VEN in t-MN. Methods: Patients diagnosed with t-MN based on the WHO criteria who received VEN were identified. Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment was performed in a subset of patients by multiparametric flow cytometry or molecular marker as available. Best response to VEN was divided into 3 categories: 1) MRD(-) complete remission (CR); 2) other CR [including complete morphological remission, MRD(+) CR, and CR with incomplete count recovery]; and 3) partial response/progressive disease/stable disease (PR/PD/SD). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the time of initiation of VEN therapy using Kaplan-Meier analysis using Wilcoxon test. Logistic regression analysis was performed using Cox Proportional Hazard method. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP (v14.1, SAS Institute) and significance was defined as P<0.05. Results: Of 332 t-MN patients identified (248 at Mayo Clinic, 84 at the Central Adelaide Health Network), 65 (19.6%) received VEN. Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients that received VEN and did not receive VEN (non-VEN) were matched except: a higher proportion of VEN patients had t-AML (49.2% vs. 32.6%, P=0.004), higher peripheral (2% vs. 0%, P=0.02), and bone marrow blasts (18% vs. 8%, P=0.02). VEN patients had a higher proportion of abnormality of chromosome 17, complex karyotype, and monosomal karyotype compared to non-VEN patients. The proportion of patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV) in TP53 or RAS genes was not different. The proportion of patients receiving stem cell transplant for t-MN was not different (Table 1). The indication for VEN was treatment naïve t-MN, relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease, and maintenance in 31 (47.7%), 32 (49.2%), and 2 (3.1%) patients respectively. Prior to VEN, patients received a median of 1 (range 0-4) lines of therapy. The median duration of VEN exposure was 3 cycles (IQR 1-4). VEN was administered with azacitidine, decitabine, low dose cytarabine, intensive chemotherapy, single agent, and >1 agents in 37.9%, 40.9%, 12.1%, 4.5%, 4.5%, and 2.9% respectively. The best and the final responses to VEN are shown in Table 2. Median PFS and OS from initiation of VEN was 5 months (IQR 2-9.5, Fig. A) and 6.5 months (2-14.5, Fig. B) respectively. Female sex (vs. male, χ 2 9.6, P=0.03), VEN as the 1 st line of therapy (vs. other line of therapy, χ 2 8.3, P=0.02), and hypomethylating agent (HMA)-backbone (vs. other, χ 2 12.1, P=0.02) were associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving CR. Abnormality of chromosome 7 was associated with a shorter PFS (3.5 vs. 6 months, P=0.03) and OS (4.7 vs. 10.5 months, P=0.02). Using VEN as the 1 st line therapy was associated with an improved PFS (5.5 vs. 2.7 months, P<0.01) and a trend towards improved OS (9.3 vs. 5.1 months, P=0.06). Using HMA (n=51), Ara-C based (n=8), and single agent VEN (n=3) was associated with median PFS of 5.5, 4.2, and 1.5 months (P<0.01) and OS of 9.1, 4, and 1.5 months (P<0.01, Fig. C) respectively. Achieving MRD(-) CR (n=7), other CR (n=17), and PR/PD/SD (n=36) was associated with a median PFS of 7.7, 9.5, and 2 months (P<0.001) and median OS not reached, 12.9, and 2.9 months respectively (P<0.01, Fig. D). Finally, best response rate, PFS, and OS did not differ based on morphological diagnosis [t-MDS vs. t-AML] at diagnosis or bone marrow blast percent [<20% vs. ≥20%] at the start of VEN therapy. On multivariate analysis, only the best response remained an independent predictor of PFS and OS. Conclusion: VEN induced remission, including MRD(-) remission, in a subset of patients. However, progression was noted in 83% patients with continued use, and PFS and OS were overall short. The morphological diagnosis of t-MDS/t-AML or blast percentage at the start of VEN therapy did not impact outcome. Earlier use of VEN, using HMA-based therapies, and achieving deeper responses were associated with improved outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Other: Research support to institution. Patnaik: StemLine: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding. Wei: Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Tiong: Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hiwase: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: venetoclax is not approved in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome.

Abstract Background: It has been known for approximately 19 years that germline mutations in RUNX1, lead to familial platelet disorder with predisposition to myeloid malignancy (FPD-MM, OMIM 601399). Since that time researchers have identified a broad range of different RUNX1 mutations, in over 100 families. In large families, the diagnosis of malignancy shows variable penetrance among family members with the same mutation; some carriers of RUNX1 mutations do not develop malignancy. The causes of this heterogeneity are currently not known, complicating counselling and risk analysis for individual carriers. Recent advances in genetic sequencing technology applied by many FPD-MM research groups around the world have highlighted their value in understanding the somatic genetic changes that are associated with development of malignancies in germline RUNX1 mutation carriers. Collectively this information could lead to powerful insights essential for more precise risk assessment, monitoring, and therapeutic intervention. Specifically, a growing catalogue of somatic mutations associated with germline RUNX1 malignancy offers the opportunity for informed monitoring of asymptomatic RUNX1 carriers for additional high-risk somatic mutations, in turn providing the possibility for early therapeutic intervention to arrest the leukemic process. The challenge in advancing these goals for FPD-MM is the relative rarity of the disorder in individual populations. Global data sharing in a highly interactive FPD-MM research community offers a solution to this problem that benefits all patients world-wide. Aims: To create a global RUNX1 network through identifying and contacting researchers and clinicians with known and novel germline RUNX1 families, seeking their collaboration to share genomics data. To create a RUNX1.db portal to collectively house and analyse genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers, with associated phenotype and clinical information, such that researchers have an ongoing means by which to combine their data with those generated by other groups around the world. Methods: RUNX1 network : Through existing collaborative networks, a systematic review of the literature, and referrals from initial contacts, we have identified a global network of researchers managing FPD-MM cases and families. RUNX1.db: We have adapted a custom-built variant analysis platform, VariantGrid, that is a visual web application and database designed to help scientists manage and analyse DNA variants that can be used to aggregate and analyse multiple datasets. Results: Preliminary analysis of aggregated data from the literature suggests there are features of germline RUNX1 syndrome that can be ascertained. These include frequent somatic mutation of RUNX1 in malignancy development, as well as mutations in genes associated with clonal hematopoiesis that may precede development of overt leukemia. This analysis also suggests that different types of germline RUNX1 mutations may be associated with different combinations of somatic mutations in the tumour. To further this analysis, we have identified over 70 groups internationally that either manage RUNX1 families or have identified potential germline carriers through genomics initiatives. This represents a large and growing resource for both scientific studies and clinical programs to benefit individuals with FPD-MM. Many of these groups have generated NGS data sets from patient samples which will be available for analysis through this portal. Further details and activities of the network, and results from the genomics aggregation database will be presented. Conclusion: We have created a global RUNX1 network, aggregated their data, and generated a RUNX1.db genomics portal for the continuous curation of genomics data from germline RUNX1 carriers. A preliminary analysis has already identified specific features of germline RUNX1 mutated malignancies that have clinical importance. Ongoing scientific and clinical studies through the RUNX1 network will enhance the power of aggregated data analysis, with RUNX1.db providing a central link, driving new insights that benefit patients. Disclosures Natsoulis: Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Guzman:Cellectis: Research Funding. DiNardo:Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Medimmune: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Wei:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dokal:MRC, Bloodwise, Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; The Gary Woodward Dyskeratosis Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Action Medical Research, European School of Haematology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London,: Employment, Research Funding; Telomerase Activator Sciences: Research Funding; Barts and The London, Queen Mary University of London: Employment; Gary Woodward Dyskeratois Congenita Trust: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hiwase:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Branford:Cepheid: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Qiagen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kramer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Owen:Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fitzgibbon:Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Rienhoff:Imago BioSciences, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kurokawa:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma: Research Funding; Nippon Sinyaku: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eizai: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Chugai Pharmaceutical: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Rigosertib (RIG) is a RAS-mimetic interacting with the RAS-binding domains of RAF kinases, preventing their binding to RAS and inhibiting the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway. Rigosertib also binds to the RAS-binding domains of Ral-GDS and PI3Ks (Athuluri-Divakar, et al, Cell 165:643, 2016). Mutations of RAS are involved in proliferative processes important in neoplastic transformation (Gil-Bazo, et.al, Cancer Biology and Therapy 17:719, 2016). As of May 2016, 557 patients with MDS or AML received IV (N=335) or oral (N=222) rigosertib. All IV rigosertib was administered as monotherapy. Oral rigosertib was administered as monotherapy (N=168) or in combination with injectable azacitidine (AZA; N=54). Safety results across this rigosertib development program have not been presented. Methods: We reviewed all treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with MDS/AML treated with rigosertib IV monotherapy, rigosertib oral monotherapy, or in combination therapy, overall and by grade of severity, and serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Due to the unexpected observation of urinary AEs, including occasional gross hematuria, we analyzed urinary AEs in greater detail. Results: Rigosertib IV monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were fatigue (33%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (27%), constipation (25%), anaemia (24%) and pyrexia (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (21%), febrile neutropenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and thrombocytopenia (11%). The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (10%), pneumonia (9%), and sepsis (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of IV rigosertib were sepsis and pneumonia (3% each) (Table 1). Rigosertib oral monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were pollakiuria (increased urinary frequency) (35-%), fatigue (32%), diarrhoea (26%), dysuria (29%) and haematuria (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (5%), haematuria (4%) and urinary tract infection (4%). The most common serious AE was pneumonia (6%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of patients receiving oral rigosertib as monotherapy were (dysuria [8%], urinary tract pain [7%], haematuria [5%] and urinary frequency [5%] (Table 2). Rigosertib oral in combination with azacitidine (AZA): The most common TEAEs were nausea (41%), fatigue (39%), diarrhea (37%), constipation (37%) and dysuria (28%). The most common serious AEs were pneumonia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation were AML (4%) and pneumonia (4%) (Table 3). In patients fully evaluable for gross hematuria the cause of bleeding was bladder inflammation. Urinary and plasma concentration of RIG were examined to assess dose relationship. According to the azacitidine package insert, the incidence of gross hematuria of any grade with single agent azacitidine is 6.3 % and Grade 3-4 of 2.3%. Evaluations performed of hematuria among 5 studies of oral rigosertib (4 monotherapy and 1 in combination with AZA) in patients with MDS/AML (Table 4). Conclusions: Rigosertib IV or oral formulations were generally well tolerated in clinical trials in over 500 patients with MDS/AML. Gastrointestinal AEs were most frequently reported with IV rigosertib and genitourinary AEs were seen more often with oral than IV dosing. The greater rate of urinary AEs in the oral than in the IV studies indicates a need for close monitoring of these patients and proactive risk management, such as adequate hydration, timing of administration of the second dose, and bladder emptying prior to sleep. Studies are being designed to optimize dosing and schedule to maximize efficacy and minimize hematuria of single agent oral rigosertib. A randomized trial of oral rigosertib/azacitidine versus azacitidine will be required to optimize the clinical benefit and safety in the management of higher-risk patients with MDS. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Al-Kali:Celgene: Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Navada:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Onconova, Teva, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrone:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Brownstein:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Silverman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Patents & Royalties: Co-Patent holder for the combination of azacitidine and rigosertib, Research Funding.