Citations

Abstract Background: The selective AURKA inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) exhibits disease modifying activity in murine models of myelofibrosis by eradicating atypical megakaryocytes resulting in reduction of marrow fibrosis (Nat Med 2015). Here, we present long term follow-up results from the investigator initiated pilot study of alisertib in patients with myelofibrosis (clinical trials.gov Identifier NCT 02530619). Methods: 24 patients with DIPSS intermediate 1, intermediate-2, or high risk myelofibrosis who were in need of therapy, refractory/intolerant or unlikely to respond to JAK inhibitors with neutrophil count ≥ 1 x109/L, and platelet count ≥ 50 x109/L, received alisertib (provided by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc) at a dose of 50 mg twice daily for one week every 21 days. Toxicity assessment was performed by the standard common terminology criteria (Version 4.0). Response was assessed by the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment (IWGMRT) criteria. Correlative studies included assessments of JAK2V617F, CALR, and MPL mutant allele burden, degree of fibrosis and GATA1 expression in bone marrow samples obtained pre and post therapy. Results: We enrolled 17 patients with primary myelofibrosis, 4 with post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis and 3 with post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis. Median age was 72 years with 66% males. 79% of patients were DIPSS intermediate risk, and the remainder were high risk with 15 patients (62.5%) having received prior JAK inhibitor therapy. Driver mutational status was as follows; 58% JAK2V617F, 29% CALR, and 13% MPL mutated. At study entry, 54% of patients demonstrated palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm below the left costal margin, 54% were transfusion dependent with all patients experiencing constitutional symptoms. At the time of data cut-off, patients received a median of 7.5 cycles (range; 1-29 cycles) of therapy. The 7 patients presently on study have received a median of 23 cycles (range; 8-29 cycles). Reasons for treatment discontinuation included progressive disease/lack of response in 11 (65%) patients, toxicity in 4 (24%) patients and refusal of further therapy in 2 (11%) patients.Safety and Efficacy assessments The most common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (29%) and anemia (21%), with 4% each experiencing neutropenic fever, diarrhea, vertigo, elevated creatinine and elevated alanine aminotransferase. 22 patients were considered for response evaluation with 4 of 14 patients (29%) with palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm achieving a spleen response, 1 of 13 patients (8%) becoming transfusion independent, and 5 of 22 patients (23%) experiencing symptom response with ≥ 50% reduction in the MPN-SAF total symptom score. However, when response assessment was restricted to 13 patients who had received a minimum of 5 cycles of therapy, spleen responses were observed in 4 of 7 (57%) patients, 1 of 5 (20%) achieved transfusion independence and 5 of 13 (38%) achieved symptom response. All patients presenting with leukocytosis (n=4) and thrombocytosis (n=2) had resolution with therapy. Of the 7 patients presently on study, four patients continue to demonstrate symptom response, two patients with both spleen and symptom response, and another patient with sustained anemia response. Correlative assessments We compared the intensity of staining of GATA1, a factor that is required for maturation, in sequential bone marrow biopsies from six patients at baseline and after a minimum of five cycles and observed a striking increase in the numbers of GATA1-positive megakaryocytes in five of six cases (Figure 1a). In addition, we observed a one grade reduction in marrow fibrosis in 4 of 6 paired samples (Figure 1b). This reduction in fibrosis was accompanied by sustained responses to the drug. Finally, we compared JAK2, MPL or CALR mutant allele burden in eight paired baseline and cycle 5 or 6 samples and observed decreases in 4 of 8 patients (Figure 1c). Conclusions: Alisertib is safe and well tolerated in patients with myelofibrosis with prolonged administration up to 1.7 years. In addition to providing clinical benefit, alisertib restored normal morphology and GATA1 expression in atypical megakaryocytes and reduced marrow fibrosis and mutant allele burdens. These findings demonstrate that AURKA inhibition should be further explored as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Swords: AbbVie: Employment. Watts:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Frankfurt:Celgene, Jazz, Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Rampal:Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giles:Actuate Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Crispino:Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Scholar Rock: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations localized in the tyrosine kinase domain activation loop of FLT3 (FLT3-TKD), representing point mutations in codon D835/I836 and rarely deletions of codon I836, induce constitutive tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase similarly to FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations. However, the prognostic role of FLT3-TKD in AML, particularly in the presence of NPM1 mutations, is not well established. The phase 3 RATIFY trial [NCT00651261; Stone et al. N Engl J Med. 2017] showed that in combination with standard chemotherapy, midostaurin (PKC412) improved survival outcomes across all 3 FLT3 stratification subgroups (ITD high allelic ratio [≥ 0.7], ITD low allelic ratio [< 0.7], and TKD) vs placebo in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Here, we evaluated the prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD and NPM1 mutations in a post hoc analysis from the RATIFY trial. Methods: In RATIFY, newly diagnosed patients with AML 18-60 years old were randomly assigned to receive midostaurin or placebo together with standard induction and consolidation therapy followed by 12 28-day cycles of maintenance therapy with midostaurin or placebo. FLT3-TKD mutation was detected by PCR and capillary electrophoresis at 9 reference laboratories. Patients were categorized as NPM1 mutated (mut) or NPM1 wild-type (WT) using PCR. Efficacy outcomes included complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). EFS and DFS analyses were performed considering CR within a 60-day window. P values presented have not been adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Of the total randomized 162 FLT3-TKD patients, 134 with available NPM1 data had consented for exploratory analysis and thus were included in this study (see Table for subgroup distribution). Overall, 47.8% of patients were male, and the median age was 49 years (95% CI, 45.5-51.1 years). The median white blood cell (WBC) count was higher in patients with NPM1-mut than in patients with NPM1-WT (34.1 vs 15.5 × 109/L, P = .0011). CR rates (during the first 60 days) were higher in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT (66% vs 53%); however, this was driven by the higher rate of CR in the midostaurin arm (76% NPM1-mut vs 44% NPM1-WT) rather than the placebo arm (53% NPM1-mut vs 60% NPM1-WT). The overall CR rate (regardless of NPM1 genotype) was 64% for midostaurin and 56% for placebo in FLT3-TKD patients. The prognostic effect of the NPM1 mutation concurrent with FLT3-TKD was seen for all endpoints consistently with hazard ratios (HRs) around 0.50 or lower (Figures 1 and 2 and Table). Overall (regardless of treatment) OS, EFS, and DFS estimates at 3 years were 73% vs 52%, 48% vs 25%, and 74% vs 47%, respectively, in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT. Whereas the HRs for midostaurin vs placebo were 0.73 for both OS and EFS, the impact of treatment on outcomes varied between the individual NPM1/TKD subgroups and was not consistently observed when endpoints were censored at stem cell transplant (SCT) (Table). It should be noted that the number of patients in each subgroup was small and therefore the HRs with 95% CIs should be interpreted with caution. Multivariate analyses in these FLT3-TKD patients revealed that NPM1 genotype was an independent prognostic factor for OS, EFS and DFS (2-sided P < .05), whereas study drug, age, sex, WBC at baseline and SCT (no/yes) did not reach this level of significance in the Cox model. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the FLT3-TKD patient subset in the RATIFY trial showed the high prognostic value of NPM1 mutational status. Whereas midostaurin showed an overall benefit in the FLT3-TKD patients for OS, EFS, CR and DFS, the impact of treatment on outcome varied between the individual NPM1 subgroups within these FLT3-TKD patients and was not consistently observed.Further analyses using additional endpoints and additional multivariate analyses are planned. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180791, U10CA180888, U10CA180863, (CCSRI) #704970, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00651261 Disclosures Voso: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Heuser:Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; StemLine Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; BergenBio: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Bayer Pharma AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tetralogic: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Wei:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding. Brandwein:Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding. de Witte:Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Medeiros:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Employment. Tallman:Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board. Schlenk:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheng:Novartis: Employment. Gathmann:Novartis: Employment. Tiecke:Novartis: Employment. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab monotherapy (DARA mono) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) has been shown in the single-arm phase I/II trial GEN501 and the single-arm phase II trial SIRIUS (1, 2). Since then, several indirect treatment comparisons of DARA mono versus comparator therapies have been published showing consistent results with an overall survival benefit for DARA mono (3, 4, 5, 6). This analysis compares efficacy and for the first time also safety of DARA mono data versus an international historic control group, adjusting for differences in patient populations based on individual patient level data (IPD). Methods. IPD from the SIRIUS trial and from the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-cohort (7), a retrospective, multicenter cohort, were compared using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, on the endpoints of efficacy (overall survival (OS)) and safety (discontinuation due to adverse events (DISCONAE)). The IMF-cohort included patients with rrMM who received at least three prior lines of therapy, were refractory to both an immunomodulator (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and were exposed to an alkylating agent. An inclusion criterion for the historic control group in this analysis was treatment with EU approved regimens. Baseline covariates adjusted for in the regression model included age, gender, prior lines of therapy, albumin, beta-2 microglobulin, prior exposure to pomalidomide and carfilzomib, and PI/IMiD refractory status. Several sensitivity analyses were run, including multiple imputation of missing values. Results. Data from 106 patients treated with DARA mono (16 mg/kg) were available from SIRIUS; 258 patients from the IMF chart review fulfilled the inclusion criteria; most frequent treatment regimens contained pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (PomDex) (n=172), bortezomib (n=31), carfilzomib (n=21), cyclophosphamide (n=14) and lenalidomide (n=9). The adjusted HR for OS was 0.41 [0.25, 0.69], p<0.001, and 0.23 [0.05, 1.00], p=0.050 for DISCONAE, in favor of daratumumab. Results were consistent across a range of sensitivity analyses and were similar when restricting the comparison to DARA vs. PomDex, with HR=0.35 [0.19, 0.64], p<0.001 for OS and 0.20 [0.03, 1.54], p=0.123 for DISCONAE. Conclusions. This comparison using real-world data of rrMM patients suggests improved efficacy and safety for DARA mono compared to approved therapy regimens used in clinical practice, including PomDex. References. Lokhorst, H. M., Plesner, T., Laubach, J. P., Nahi, H., Gimsing, P., Hansson, M., et al. Targeting CD38 With Daratumumab Monotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015. Lonial S, Weiss BM, Usmani SZ, Singhal S, Chari A, Bahlis NJ, et al. Daratumumab Monotherapy in Patients with Treatment-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (SIRIUS): An Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial. The Lancet. 2016. Usmani S, Ahmadi T, Ng Y, Lam A, Desai A, Potluri R, Mehra M. Analysis of Real-World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients With ≥3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) and an Immunomodulatory Drug (IMiD), or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The Oncologist. 2016. Van Sanden S, Ito T, Diels J, Vogel M, Belch A, Oriol A. Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison. The Oncologist. 2017. Usmani SZ, Diels J, Ito T, Mehra M, Khan I, Lam A. Daratumumab monotherapy compared with real-world historical control data in heavily pretreated patients with highly refractory multiple myeloma: An adjusted treatment comparison. American Journal of Heamtology. 2017. Jelínek T, Maisnar V, Pour L, Špička I, Minařík J, Gregora E, et al. Adjusted comparison of daratumumab monotherapy versus real-world historical control data from the Czech Republic in heavily pretreated and highly refractory multiple myeloma patients. Current Medical Research an Opinion. 2017. Kumar SK, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Terpos E, Nahi H, Goldschmidt H, et al. Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study. Leukemia. 2017. Disclosures Demmer: Janssen: Employment. Huschens:Janssen: Employment. Potthoff:Janssen: Employment. Tomeczkowski:Janssen: Employment. Englisch:Janssen: Employment. Thilakarathne:Janssen: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Durie:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Eisele:Janssen: Employment.

Abstract Background: The oral BTK inhibitor ibrutinib is the only approved therapy for patients with symptomatic Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS) is a rare complication of WM that results from infiltration of malignant lymphoplasmacytic cells into the central nervous system (CNS) causing neurological deficits. Treatment options in patients with BNS are limited to agents with CNS penetration. Ibrutinib can penetrate into the CNS, but data on its efficacy in BNS is lacking outside case reports. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of ibrutinib in patients with BNS. The diagnosis of BNS was established in patients with a clinicopathological diagnosis of WM by radiological and/or cytological evidence of CNS involvement by WM, and response was assessed based on recently published criteria. Ibrutinib was given orally at doses of 420-560 mg PO once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Response was assessed using criteria from the 8th International Workshop for WM (Minnema et al. Haematologica 2017). Events were defined as death from any cause, progression of disease and stopping ibrutinib from any reason. Time to events was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We present data on 24 patients with BNS treated with ibrutinib. The median age at diagnosis of WM was 60 years (range 38-76 years) and 14 patients (58%) were men. The median lines of therapy for WM prior to BNS diagnosis was 1 (range 0-7 lines), and 9 patients (38%) were untreated for WM at the time of BNS diagnosis. Previous WM therapies included anti-CD20 antibodies (n=15), alkylators (n=13), nucleoside analogues (n=8), proteasome inhibitors (n=3), immunomodulators (n=2), and autologous transplant (n=1). The median age at BNS diagnosis was 65 years (range 38-80). The median time from WM to BNS diagnosis was 4 years (range 0-27 years). In 2 patients, the diagnosis of BNS was made concurrently with WM diagnosis. The median number of BNS lines prior to ibrutinib was 1 (range 0-5 lines). Previous BNS therapies included intrathecal chemotherapy (n=9), high-dose methotrexate (n=6), bendamustine (n=3) and radiation therapy (n=3). In 7 patients (29%), ibrutinib was the first line of treatment for BNS. The most common symptoms at BNS presentation were cognitive deficits (n=10), sensory deficits (n=8), ataxia/falls (n=8), motor deficits (n=6), headache (n=5) and seizures (n=5). MRI findings included leptomeningeal enhancement (n=16) and brain masses (n=5). Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow cytometry confirmed the presence of clonal CD19+ in 19 patients (79%). Biopsies were performed in 5 patients (21%) and confirmed presence of WM cells. 4 patients had normal MRI but had abnormal CSF cytology and/or flow cytometry. Tissue was not obtained in 1 patient in whom MRI showed leptomeningeal enhancement. Interestingly, 2 patients were diagnosed with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma secreting IgG paraprotein. The median serum IgM (n=20) prior to ibrutinib initiation was 1,294 mg/dl (range 125-5,938 mg/dl), and the median hemoglobin level was 11.9 g/dl (7.7-15.2 g/dl). Ten patients (42%) received ibrutinib 560 mg PO once daily, and 14 (58%) received ibrutinib 420 mg PO once daily. At best response, median serum IgM and hemoglobin levels were 340 mg/dl (82-3,330 mg/dl) and 14.6 g/dl (range 9.2-16.0 g/dl). Based on consensus BNS response criteria, complete response was attained in 2 patients (8%), partial response in 14 (58%) and clinical improvement in 3 patients (13%). With a median follow-up time of 13 months (95% CI 8-21 months), 5 patients have stopped ibrutinib, 3 due to BNS progression, 1 due to grade 3 muscle cramps and 1 due to arrhythmia, and 3 patients have died, 2 from infection and 1 from BNS progression. The median event-free survival (EFS) from ibrutinib initiation was not yet reached. The 1-year and 2-year EFS rates were 71% (95% CI 46-86%) and 52% (23-75%), respectively. Conclusion: Ibrutinib is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with BNS. Disclosures Palomba: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Talaulikar:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Buske:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tedeschi:Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Simpson:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Novartis: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding, TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Treon:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Castillo:Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin (BV) administered in combination with nivolumab (Nivo) in adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) who have failed frontline therapy (NCT02572167). Results from Parts 1 & 2 have been previously reported, wherein safety, efficacy, and biomarkers consistent with immune activation were observed in pts with R/R cHL (Herrera et al., Blood 2018). In Part 3, patients were treated with BV + Nivo on Day 1 of each cycle. In contrast, pts in Parts 1 & 2 received BV on C1D1 and Nivo on C1D8 with concurrent admin on subsequent cycles. Herein we present safety, efficacy, and biomarker results for Part 3 and updated progression free survival (PFS) from Parts 1 & 2. Methods Pts in Parts 1 & 2 received up to four 21-day cycles of staggered dosing (day 1 BV 1.8 mg/kg, day 8 Nivo 3 mg/kg in Cycle 1) and concurrent thereafter, with steroid and antihistamine premedication. Pts in Part 3 received up to four 21-day cycles of concurrent BV + Nivo on Day 1 with antihistamine premedication. Following Cycle 4 response assessment (Lugano Classification Revised Staging System with the incorporation of the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria [LYRIC, 2016]) responding pts were eligible to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results 30 pts were treated in Part 3 and all were evaluable for efficacy. Pt characteristics included the following: median age 31.5 yrs (range; 20 - 66), 63% female, 93% prior ABVD, 37% primary refractory HL, 30% relapsed within 1year of frontline therapy, 30% with extranodal disease and 17% with bulky disease at enrollment. 28 pts completed all 4 cycles. 1 pt discontinued treatment (tx) due to an adverse event (AE; Grade 3 [G3] elevated Gamma-Glutamyltransferase) and 1 pt due to progressive disease (PD). The latter pt eventually died due to PD. All pts are off tx and have been observed through the safety reporting period. 37% of pts experienced a G3 or higher tx emergent AE prior to ASCT. 30% of the pts experienced infusion related reactions (IRRs), which occurred most frequently during Cycle 2. Potential G3 or higher immune-related AEs (IRAEs), excluding IRRs, occurred in 2 pts, one of whom required steroids for G4 pneumonitis, which subsequently resolved. Among the 30 efficacy evaluable pts, the complete response (CR) rate was 80% (24/30), with an objective response rate (ORR) of 93%. 47% of pts (14) had a Deauville ≤2, and 17% (5) had Deauville 3. 5 pts with CR had a Deauville >3 and met LYRIC criteria for IR-2. 4/5 pts had a negative follow-up biopsy that confirmed CR and in 1 pt the PET finding was considered to be a false positive as contrast enhanced CT did not reveal any abnormality. All 5 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and remain in CR at follow-up. Among all treated patients, 25 went directly to ASCT after completing BV + Nivo tx with a median 6.8 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range 1-20) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 14 days, respectively. 4 pts required additional salvage therapy subsequent to study tx. Patients were followed for a median of 6 months from ASCT (N=25, range 0.8-8.8) and 10 months from first dose (N=30, range 1.8-12.7). The estimated 9-month PFS rate in all-treated pts was 88%. This is comparable to all-treated pts in Parts 1 & 2, whose estimated 9 and 15 month PFS were 86% and 82%, respectively (Fig 2). Biomarker testing was performed on peripheral blood samples, included immunophenotyping, serum cytokine analysis, and TCRβ sequencing. Concurrent dosing of BV+ Nivo resulted in increased levels of both activated and dividing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as increased regulatory T-cells and circulating plasmablasts. Cytokines and chemokines associated with innate and adaptive immune activation, including Type I and Type II interferons, IL-18, and IP-10, were significantly upregulated following BV + Nivo, while TARC levels were significantly diminished following therapy. TCRβ sequencing revealed clonal expansion in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Conclusion A concurrent dosing schedule of BV + Nivo was well tolerated with a high CR rate of 80%. Biomarkers evaluated in Part 3 indicate immune activation in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Cumulatively, the results in Part 3, along with the durable remissions noted in Parts 1 & 2, support BV + Nivo combination as an encouraging first salvage therapy prior to ASCT in pts with R/R cHL. Disclosures Advani: Forty Seven: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: 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. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Feldman:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; KITE: Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden:Seattle Genetics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Few treatments options are available for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously been treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and their prognosis is poor. Pomalidomide (POM) is a distinct IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with a mechanism of action consisting of direct anti-myeloma, stromal-support inhibitory, and immunomodulatory effects. In randomized phase 2 and 3 trials (MM-002 and MM-003), POM plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM+LoDEX) demonstrated marked efficacy in RRMM pts who had received multiple prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. This side-by-side analysis presents the most recent survival and safety data from these trials. Methods The MM-002 and MM-003 trials enrolled pts with ≥ 2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT. In MM-002, pts received POM (4 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) alone or in combination with LoDEX (40 mg/week). In MM-003, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive POM+LoDEX or high-dose DEX alone (HiDEX) (40 mg/days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 in a 28-day cycle); HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM, as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage therapy for heavily pretreated pts. Thromboprophylaxis was required for all pts treated with POM and pts at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Data cutoff was February 1, 2013 for MM-002 and March 1, 2013 for MM-003. The primary endpoint in both trials was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of response, and safety. Results In each study, pts had received a median of 5 prior therapies (range 1-17), and all pts had received prior LEN and BORT. In MM-002, 113 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 108 were treated with POM alone (60% of POM alone pts subsequently received DEX). A total of 79% of pts were LEN refractory; 62% were refractory to both LEN and BORT; and 35% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (mos), median PFS was 4.2 mos, OS was 16.5 mos, and overall response rate (ORR, defined as at least a partial response) was 33% with POM+LoDEX (Table 1). In MM-003, 302 pts were treated with POM+LoDEX and 153 pts were treated with HiDEX (50% of HiDEX pts subsequently received POM). A total of 94% of pts were LEN refractory; 74% were both LEN and BORT refractory; and 29% had received LEN as their last prior therapy. Survival outcomes were similar in MM-003; with a median follow-up of 10 mos, median PFS was 4.0 mos, OS was 12.7 mos, and ORR was 31% with POM+LoDEX. In both trials, LEN as last prior therapy did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall population. Commonly observed adverse events (AEs) are presented in Table 2 for pts treated with POM+LoDEX. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was 28% and 13% in MM-002, and 26% and 22% in MM-003 for the POM+LoDEX arms, respectively. AEs were generally manageable for POM+LoDEX in MM-002 and MM-003 with dose interruptions (67% for both) and reductions (29% and 26%, respectively), and standard supportive care, including growth factor support (46% and 43%), red blood cell transfusions (45% and 49%), platelet transfusions (14% and 20%), and anti-infective agents (89% in both trials). Rates of POM discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs were low (2–4% with POM+LoDEX). In MM-002 and MM-003, 49% and 51% of pts in the POM+LoDEX arms experienced neutropenia of any grade. With appropriate AE management, 9% and 23% had dose interruptions, 4% and 8% had dose reductions, and 1 pt in both MM-002 and MM-003 discontinued due to neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia developed in 3% and 10% of pts; 1% and 4% had dose interruptions, 0% and 2% had dose reductions, and no pts discontinued due to febrile neutropenia in the MM-002 and MM-003 studies, respectively. The majority of infections occurred in the absence of neutropenia of any grade (54% in MM-002 and 66% in MM-003). The rate of POM discontinuation due to infection was low (1% in MM-002 and 2% in MM-003). Conclusion In both the MM-002 and MM-003 trials, POM+LoDEX consistently extended PFS in advanced RRMM pts. PFS, OS, and ORR were not negatively impacted in patients who were refractory to LEN or BORT, even as last prior therapy. Both trials demonstrated that with dose modifications and supportive care POM was well tolerated, leading to few discontinuations. POM+LoDEX should be considered a standard of care for pts with advanced RRMM who have exhausted LEN and BORT. Disclosures: Siegel: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dimopoulos:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vij:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Baz:Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Hofmeister:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jagannath:Millennium: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Lonial:Millennium: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Delforge:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad, Sanofi, Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Ariad, BMS, Sanofi, INCYTE: Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. San Miguel:Jansen, Celgene Corporation, Onyx, Novartis, Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karlin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Expert board committee Other, Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Alegre:Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casey:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Onyx: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; sanofi aventis: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acetylon: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background LGH447 is a novel, specific pan-Pim kinase inhibitor in development for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and other hematologic malignancies. The PIM kinase gene family encodes 3 serine/threonine protein kinases that have roles in cell cycle progression and survival. In human disease, elevated levels of Pim1 and Pim2 are associated with hematologic malignancies, with MM showing the highest level of Pim2 expression. In preclinical studies, a majority of MM cell lines proved sensitive in vitro to LGH447-mediated Pim inhibition, exhibiting a dose-dependent decrease in cell proliferation. Furthermore, LGH447 was well tolerated and demonstrated significant inhibition of tumor growth in xenograft mouse models of MM as compared with control animals, supporting the clinical development of LGH447 in MM patients. Methods Patients with relapsed/refractory MM for whom no effective treatment options exist were enrolled on this first-in-human, multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose-escalation study (CLGH447X2101). Escalating doses of single-agent LGH447 were administered orally on a continuous daily dosing schedule. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or death. The primary objective was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of LGH447 administered as a single agent, orally, once daily. Secondary objectives included assessing the safety, tolerability, preliminary antimyeloma activity, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of LGH447. Dose escalation followed a Bayesian logistic regression model based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Efficacy assessments were made by investigators according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform response criteria with modifications. Following determination of the MTD for LGH447, additional patients will be enrolled in an expansion cohort to further characterize the safety and tolerability profile of LGH447. Results At the data cutoff, 19 patients have been treated at the following doses: 70 mg (n = 5), 150 mg (n = 6), 200 mg (n = 4), 250 mg (n = 4), with enrollment ongoing in dose escalation. Median age was 66 years (range, 41-75 years). Most patients (94.7%) presented with baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Most patients (73.7%) had received ≥ 2 prior regimens (median 4; range, 1-11), 89.5% had received prior bortezomib, and 84.2% had received prior lenalidomide and/or thalidomide (68.4% and 47.4%, respectively). Ten patients are ongoing at doses between 150-250 mg, with a median duration of exposure of 6 weeks (range, 1-26.6 weeks), and 9 patients discontinued (disease progression [n = 6], AEs [n = 2], withdrawal of consent [n = 1]). There was 1 DLT consisting of grade 3 thrombocytopenia at the 200 mg dose level and no reported suspected unexpected serious AEs. The majority of AEs regardless of study drug relationship were grade 1/2. Most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (31.6%), anemia (21.1%), and neutropenia (15.8%). No deaths have occurred on study. LGH447 displayed time-dependent PK with a 3- to 6-fold accumulation from day 1 to steady state (day 14). After a single oral dose, area under the curve and maximum concentration increased somewhat more than in proportion to the dose from 70 to 250 mg. Evidence of single-agent activity, as determined by investigators using IMWG criteria, has been seen in multiple patients, with best response to date being a very good partial response (VGPR). Conclusion In heavily treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM, LGH447 was generally well tolerated and exhibited evidence of single-agent efficacy in multiple patients, validating Pim kinase inhibition as a promising therapeutic rationale and supporting its further clinical development in patients with MM and other hematologic malignancies. Dose escalation is ongoing and updated results will be presented. Disclosures: Ocio: BMS: Consultancy; Arry-520: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Thomas:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Research Funding. Günther:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Allos/Spectrum: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song:Novartis: Employment. Xiang:Novartis: Employment. Hynds:Novartis: Employment. Vanasse:Novartis: Employment. Goh:Jannsen: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hospira: 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.

Abstract Background: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients; however, there are concerns that ESAs increase mortality in some patients. Within the framework of an international collaboration we thus conducted a patient-level meta-analysis to assess the effects of ESAs on mortality in cancer patients. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis, based on the intention-to-treat principle, of cancer patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alfa, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alfa plus red blood cell transfusions as needed versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia while or after receiving anticancer therapy. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments. Primary endpoints were on-study mortality and overall survival in patients receiving chemotherapy, defined as all patients from studies in which =/> 70% of study population received chemotherapy, and in all cancer patients regardless of anticancer therapy. On-study mortality was defined as death from any cause between date of randomization and 28 days after end of active study phase. Overall survival was defined as death from any cause between date of randomization and longest follow up available. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated per study and meta-analyzed with fixed-effects and random-effects models. Stratified multivariable Cox-regression analyses were conducted to assess the impact of baseline imbalances. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effect across pre-specified subgroups. All analyses were pre-specified in a peer-reviewed protocol (Bohlius et al. 2008). An independent steering committee consisting of clinicians and methodologists agreed on all analyses and interpretations. Independent investigators and representatives from manufacturers contributing data offered advice, but had no decision-making authority. Results: Data from 13,933 cancer patients enrolled in 53 studies were included in the analysis; 38 trials including 10,441 patients used mainly chemotherapy. Including all cancer patients ESAs increased on-study mortality by 17% (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.06–1.30), with little evidence for a difference between chemotherapy and other trials (p for interaction=0.42), and worsened overall survival by 6% (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00–1.12). In the chemotherapy population on-study mortality was increased by 10% (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98–1.24) and overall survival was worsened by 4% (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97–1.11). Adjusting for known prognostic factors had little effect on the overall estimates. There was no conclusive evidence for effect modification by patient level characteristics such as age, sex, Hb and Hct at baseline, Hb ceiling, type and stage of tumor or study level characteristics (anticancer treatment, ESA treatment schedules, study design and quality) for the outcomes tested. Conclusion: ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on-study mortality by 17% and worsened overall survival by 6%. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but could not be excluded. In clinical practice, risks of ESAs must be balanced against benefits of ESAs depending on the clinical circumstances of the individual patient.