Petrone, Michael E.

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.

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.