Citations

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates (ORRs), durable efficacy, prolonged overall survival (OS), and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). Atypical response patterns have been observed with checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical benefits may be experienced by pts who are treated beyond progression (TBP) as defined by conventional criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2016; Younes et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Stable reductions in tumor burden without symptoms of active disease were seen in pts TBP in CheckMate 205, suggesting that pts might continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression. As TBP was an option for some pts in CheckMate 205, we report here updated outcomes of those pts. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 cohorts (A: BV naïve; B: BV after auto-HCT; C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo was administered at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or after 1 year in complete response [CR] for cohort C). Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. A protocol amendment allowed pts with stable performance status and perceived clinical benefit to be TBP per investigator assessment. Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed; exploratory analyses included OS and time to next therapy (TTNT). Pts TBP were further categorized as PD-1 resistant (failure to achieve CR/partial response [PR] during initial treatment with nivo or CR/PR with subsequent progressive disease [PD] ≤90 d of response) and non-resistant pts (CR/PR followed by PD >90 d from response). Results: At data cutoff, 130 pts had PD, among whom 80 (62%) were TBP, and 50 (38%) were not (non-TBP). Demographics of pts TBP and non-TBP were similar to the overall study population, although more pts TBP had ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline (59% vs 36%) and stage IV disease at diagnosis (30% vs 22%), but fewer had B symptoms at baseline (23% vs 30%). In pts TBP vs non-TBP, the cause of initial progression was new lesions in 50 (63%) vs 23 (46%), increased total tumor burden in 17 (21%) vs 11 (22%), and non-target lesion progression in 19 (24%) vs 4 (8%) (pts could have multiple reasons for progression). ORR prior to progression was similar between TBP (54%) and non-TBP (64%) pts. At data cutoff, the median (range) doses of nivo given beyond progression was 11 (1-64) and median TBP duration was 5 (95% CI: 3, 7) mo. Nine (11%) pts TBP remained on treatment compared with 2 (4%) non-TBP. The most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression in 55 (69%) and 28 (56%) pts TBP and non-TBP, respectively. The majority of pts TBP (37/67 evaluable pts) had stable or reduced target lesion tumor burden and most had sustained further reduction compared with the burden presented at the time of disease progression (Figure). There was no discernible difference in the response to TBP between PD-1 resistant vs non-resistant pts. Median OS for pts TBP was not reached; 1- and 2-yr OS (95% CI) was 94% (85, 97) and 87% (77, 93), respectively. Median TTNT was 20 (95% CI: 14, 24) mo for all pts TBP. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 50% of pts after progression vs 68% prior to progression. The most common TRAEs reported after progression were fatigue (8%) and increased lipase (6%). Treatment-related serious AEs after progression were reported in 2 (3%) pts: aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1). No deaths occurred in pts TBP. Conclusions: Among pts treated beyond investigator-assessed progression, most commonly due to development of new lesions, continued reductions in tumor burden were observed in a majority with further nivo treatment irrespective of prior PD-1 resistance status. Nivo continued to be well tolerated during TBP with no new safety signals. Pts who have stable performance status despite progression according to conventional criteria may derive continued clinical benefit from TBP. Future work will focus on identifying subsets of pts TBP who may benefit the most from continued nivo treatment. Study support: BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Younes:Abbvie: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Trněný:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Collins:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Armand:Otsuka: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 127 The precise molecular mechanism of action and targets through which thalidomide and related immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) exert their anti-tumor effects remains unclear. A landmark paper has recently identified cereblon (CRBN) as a primary target of thalidomide teratogenicity. We hypothesized that this protein would also be required for myeloma (MM) cytotoxicity. To examine this issue we first tested 12 MM cell lines: 4 of which (OCIMY5, OPM1, SKMM2 and KMS12 PE) were very resistant to treatment with both lenalidomide and pomalidomide. Of these, OCIMY5 and OPM1 showed CRBN gene expression levels at the bottom 10% across the human MM cell lines. We next used CRBN shRNA lentiviral expression constructs to knock down CRBN in 5 human-derived myeloma cell lines (HMCLs) (KMS18, MM1.S, H929, OPM2 and JJN3). HMCLs infected with CRBN shRNAs have a significant reduction of CRBN expression and subsequent diminished cell viability (reduced 65–78%). Surviving MM cells with CRBN knock down demonstrate an acquired (essentially complete) resistance to lenalidomide when compared with controls but retained sensitivity to melphalan, dexamethasone and bortezomib. Gene expression changes induced by lenalidomide were dramatically suppressed in those CRBN depleted cells, e.g., OPM2 cells only showed 30 down regulated (3% of control) and 150 up-regulated genes (24% of control) after lenalidomide treatment, further emphasizing that CRBN is required for lenalidomide activity. We next compared by array comparative genomic hybridization the differences between MM1.S (lenalidomide sensitive) and its isogenic lenalidomide resistant line (MM1.S res), generated by culturing MM1.S in gradually increasing concentrations of lenalidomide. Only three structural abnormalities were noted differentiating the two lines one of which was deletion of CRBN. In fact the baseline MM1.S cell line has a minor population of 9% of cells with CRBN depletion which becomes dominant after lenalidomide treatment. However, further scrutiny of CRBN status in additional HMCLs and MM patients (irrespective of therapy and stage) suggested that copy-number abnormalities affecting this gene are uncommon events in MM, with 12% of HMCLs (7 out of 60) and only 1.2% of MM patients (3 out of 238) showing CRBN monoallelic deletion. Next, we examined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR) ten MM patients who had become resistant to lenalidomide therapy. CRBN expression level by Q-PCR in 8 of 10 patient samples had a significant reduction (20% to 90% reduction compared to baseline) at time of drug resistance, suggesting CRBN expression as a potential biomarker to predict IMiD response. Notably however some clearly resistant patients have normal CRBN, demonstrating that while CRBN is absolutely required for response, multiple resistance mechanisms are likely present. By gene and protein expression downstream targets of CRBN were examined and included interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4) previously reported to also be a target of lenalidomide. In summary, we demonstrate here that CRBN is essential for IMiD activity and preliminary data support that low levels of CRBN predict for poor drug response. In addition, our data suggest that CRBN is a critical molecule but not the unique source of IMiD resistance. We suggest that the “IMiDs” be renamed Cereblon binding small molecules to more accurately reflect their mechanism of action. Disclosures: Orlowski: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Classical Hodgkin lymphomas (cHLs) include infrequent malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells within an extensive but ineffective inflammatory/immune cell infiltrate. HRS cells exhibit frequent copy number alterations (CNAs) of 9p24.1/CD274 (PD-L1)/PDCD1LG2(PD-L2), ranging from low-level polysomy to relative copy gain and high-level amplification, all associated with increased expression of programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) ligands on the tumor cell. PD-1 ligands engage the PD-1 receptor on T cells, inhibiting T cell activation and anti-tumor immune responses. cHL patients (pts) with the highest-level 9p24.1 alterations, PD-L1/PD-L2 amplification, have inferior progression-free survival (PFS) after standard primary chemotherapy (Roemer et al. J Clin Oncol 2016). Given the demonstrated responsiveness of cHL to PD-1 blockade, we examined the prevalence and type of 9p24.1 genetic alterations, PD-L1 expression, and association of these alterations with clinical outcome in pts receiving nivolumab (nivo; anti-PD-1) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL. CheckMate205 is a multicenter, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivo in R/R cHL. This analysis focused on 2 cohorts: pts with recurrent cHL following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and subsequent brentuximab vedotin (BV) (cohort B), and pts with R/R cHL following ASCT and BV given pre- or post-ASCT (cohort C). Pts received nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Best overall response (BOR) and PFS were assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC). In pts with available tumor biopsies, 9p24.1 genetic alterations were evaluated via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay; probes encompassed CD274 (PD-L1, red) or PDCD1LG2 (PD-L2, green)and included a centromeric control (aqua).Dual immunohistochemical staining of PD-L1/PAX5 was performed to delineate PD-L1 expression in PAX5dim+ HRS cells and PAX5- cells in the tumor microenvironment. A modified PD-L1 H-score (range 0-300) was calculated by multiplying the percentage of PAX5+ (malignant) or PAX5- (non-malignant) cells with positive staining (0-100%) and the average intensity of positive staining (1-3+; ≥50 RS cells counted). All p-values are nominal. 96 pts had evaluable baseline tumor biopsy specimens; all 96 had detectable 9p24.1 alterations: polysomy in 10/96 (10%), copy gain in 56/96 (58%), amplification in 28/96 (29%), and presumptive rearrangement (split-apart FISH signal) in 2/96 (2%) (Figure). There was a significant association between PD-L1 protein expression (H-score) and the level of 9p24.1 alterations in HRS cells (p=0.002) (Figure). We next evaluated the association between BOR and defined 9p24.1 alterations and PD-L1 H-scores. The level of 9p24.1 CNAs was significantly associated with BOR (p=0.01); no pts with progressive disease (PD) had genomic amplification and no pts with complete response (CR) had polysomy. Similarly, there was significant association between PD-L1 H-score in HRS cells and BOR (p=0.02); all pts with PD had PD-L1 H-scores in quartiles (Q) 1/2, whereas most pts with CR had PD-L1 H-scores in Q4. We also assessed the association of PFS with 9p24.1 status and PD-L1 H-scores. The level of 9p24.1 alterations was associated with PFS; pts with 9p24.1 amplification had the most favorable PFS with nivo. HRS cell PD-L1 H-score (by quartiles) was also significantly associated with PFS (p=0.048), as pts with PD-L1 H-scores in Q1/Q2 had significantly shorter PFS than those with scores in Q3/Q4 (p=0.01). In contrast, there was no association between PD-L1 expression on non-malignant cells in the tumor microenvironment and PFS (p=0.43). In conclusion, all evaluable pts in this study had genetic alterations of 9p24.1/PD-L1/PD-L2 and copy number-dependent increased expression of PD-L1 in HRS cells. Although high-level alterations of 9p24.1 and increased PD-L1 expression were previously linked with inferior response to standard primary chemotherapy, we now associate these parameters with more favorable outcomes to targeted PD-1 blockade. These analyses also highlight the importance of quantifying and delineating PD-L1 expression in HRS cells and non-malignant cells in the tumor microenvironment in cHL biopsy evaluation. While further research is needed to guide possible use in clinical practice, these data advance understanding of 9p24.1 alterations and PD-L1 expression as prognostic biomarkers in cHL. Disclosures Engert: Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zinzani:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Timmerman:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding. Armand:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sequenta Inc: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Collins:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Trneny:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. Farsaci:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Rodig:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Perkin Elmer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shipp:Bayer: Research Funding; Merck, Gilead, Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with splenomegaly, debilitating symptoms, progressive bone marrow fibrosis and shortened survival. Inflammatory cytokines are associated with the disease and monitoring cytokine levels provides information about response to therapy. Momelotinib (MMB) is a JAK1/2 inhibitor under investigation for the treatment of MF that has been shown to be safe and efficacious while providing an anemia benefit to MF patients in the phase I/II studies: CCL09101 (ASH 2013) and YM387-II (EHA 2014). AIMS: To perform an exploratory analysis of the association between cytokines and anemia-related laboratories, 8 week transfusion response, spleen response by MRI at 24 weeks and total symptom score (TSS) reduction (≥50% decrease at week 24) and JAK2 mutation status, in the phase I/II, open-label YM387II trial. METHODS: 61 patients were enrolled and received MMB treatment. Whole blood samples were collected at baseline, 6 and 24 hours post-dose on day 1, and weeks 8 and 20. Plasma levels of 25 cytokines were analyzed by ELISA or MSD. Comparison of post-treatment data with baseline was carried out using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Significant change from baseline was declared when ≥ 20% change from baseline was observed with Bonferroni adjusted p < 0.05. As this was an exploratory evaluation, comparison between treatment responders and non-responders was carried out using Wilcoxon rank sum test with no multiple testing corrections. Correlations between the cytokines and main biological parameters were investigated using Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: JAK2V617F allele burden. The prevalence of JAK2V617F-positive patients was 68%. A statistically significant decline in JAK2V617F allele burden from baseline in this subgroup was observed at week 12 (median decrease 16.6%; p = 0.0063; n=21) and week 24 (median decrease 21.1%; p = 0.0019; n=18). Higher baseline IGFBP1 was associated with JAK2V617 mutation (48.2% higher in JAK2 mutated patients than in wildtype patients; p = 0.027). Cytokines and iron metabolism markers at baseline At baseline, hepcidin and IL-8 were anti-correlated with anemia-related markers such as transferrin and hemoglobin (Hb) (Spearman correlation coefficients < -0.5). IL-6, CRP and IL-10 showed strong, positive correlation (Spearman correlation coefficients > 0.5). Lower baseline IL-6 was associated with 24 week spleen response (42.3% lower in responders, p = 0.005); higher baseline thrombopoeitin (TPO) was associated with transfusion response at 8 week (3-fold higher in responders, p = 0.002). Baseline ferritin was 63.7% lower in TSS responders compared to non-responders (p = 0.015). On-treatment changes of cytokines and iron markers A significant decrease was observed in CRP, EPO, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12, TNFRII and TNFα following MMB treatment. IL-6 was reduced 30.3% as early as 6 hrs after first dose of MMB and CRP levels were reduced 27.3% after 24 hrs after treatment and continued to decline to 75% by week 4. A peak of IGFBP1 at 24h and increased TPO were observed. Decreased IL-12 and increased IL-8 at week 8 was significantly associated with 24 week spleen response (p < 0.05). Decline of CRP at week 8 was associated with TSS response (p = 0.045). Hb stayed at or above baseline for 6 months. An early peak of Hb was observed at Day 15 which was correlated with a significant increase in red blood cells and decrease in reticulocytes. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, a rapid and sustained reduction in inflammatory cytokines was observed with MMB treatment as expected based on the mechanism of action of MMB through JAK1/2 inhibition. Data from this study suggest an association between IGFBP1 and JAK/STAT signaling in myelofibrosis that will need to be explored in future studies with larger sample sets. Individual baseline biomarkers were correlated with MMB response, but no single biomarker was associated with all responses. Changes in IL-12 and IL-8 were significantly correlated with 24 week spleen response. The Day 15 data suggest that MMB treatment facilitates erythrocyte maturation. These observations, as well as a panel of iron metabolism markers and cellular signaling pathways, will be investigated in a planned Phase 2 translational biology study of MMB in transfusion-dependent subjects with MF (Gilead Sci: GS-US-352-1672). Disclosures Gupta: Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Deininger:Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zhang:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Xiao:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Collins:Gilead Science: Employment. Kwei:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Joshi:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Brachmann:Gilead Sciences: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 3063 Background: The combination of Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (CYBOR-D) is proven to be highly active and effective in multiple myeloma. (Reeder, Leukemia 2009) We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this regimen in a separate plasma cell neoplasm, AL Amyloidosis. The primary endpoint of this study is hematologic response. Complete hematologic response is defined as normalization of the free light chain ratio with no evidence of a monoclonal protein by immunofixation. Partial hematologic response is defined as a 50% reduction in M-spike or absolute light chain level (Gertz Am J Heme 2006). Methods: We report a series of patients with symptomatic AL Amyloidosis who received treatment with a combination of Bortezomib (1.3mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 28 days or 1.5 mg/m2 weekly), Cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2 orally weekly) and Dexamethasone (40 mg weekly). We include patients in this study regardless of autologous bone marrow transplant candidacy or previous treatment history. Results: Fifteen patients with AL amyloidosis received two to six cycles of CYBOR-D. The treatment history, bone marrow transplant candidacy prior to treatment, hematological response, and status of transplant after therapy are shown in table 1. Of note, 8 (53%) had symptomatic cardiac involvement all of whom had elevated levels of both cardiac biomarkers (Troponin T and B-natriuretic peptide). Complete hematological response occurred in 11 patients (73.3%) with partial hematological response in 3 patients (20.0%). One patient (6.6%) did not achieve a partial response but did receive autologous bone marrow transplant after treatment with CYBOR-D. Median time to response was 2 months. Six patients (40%) had objective evidence of kidney response to therapy with a greater than 50% decrease in proteinuria. Conclusions: CYBOR-D produces a rapid and complete hematological response in the majority of patients with AL amyloidosis regardless of previous treatment history or bone marrow transplant candidacy. Overall, it is well tolerated with few side effects that included peripheral neuropathy and infectious complications. Two patients originally determined to be not eligible for transplant improved sufficiently on CYBOR-D to become eligible and then went on to receive autologous bone marrow transplant. The retrospective nature and small sample size limit this study, and prospective, randomized studies are needed to further elucidate the role of this regimen in AL amyloidosis. Disclosures: Stewart: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy; Onyx: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Medtronic: Consultancy.

Abstract -Background: An increase in the Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) serum transport protein, transcobalamin II (TCII), has been noted in myeloma (MM) patients (Carmel, Blood. 1978.51(6):1057). Uptake of B12 bound to TCII is regulated by transcobalamin II receptors (TCII-R). Labeled thymidine studies have shown, in vitro, that TCII-R are up-regulated in proliferating malignant cells and correlate with increased incorporation of 3H-thymidine and DNA synthesis (Amagasaki, Blood, 76:1380; 1990). Via cobalt-57 labeled B12 studies, the up-regulation of TCII-R has been demonstrated in solid tumors, in vivo, by Flodh (Int J Cancer, 1968.4(5):694). Indium-111diethylenetriaminepentaacetate adenosylcobalamin (In-111DAC) is a novel radionuclide labeled B12 conjugate that has shown preferential uptake in malignant tissue compared to normal tissue via clinical gamma camera imaging of nude mice with sarcoma xenografts and human patients with various solid tumors (Collins, J Nuc Med, 1997.38(5):717 and Mayo Clin Proc, 2000.75(6):568). Nearly all the human tumors were visualized with In-111DAC and a correlation between increased In-111 uptake and higher invasiveness of the tumor at biopsy was observed. We questioned whether In-111DAC could be utilized to image MM, in vivo in murine models. Methods: In accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, we assessed In-111DAC as an imaging agent for MM in mice with subcutaneous (SQ) MM tumors and mice with systemic MM. 7 week old CB17/scid mice received total body irradiation 150cGy before 1x107 myeloma cells (KAS-6/1-gift of Dr. D.F. Jelinek) were injected SQ between the scapulae. Once tumors reached at least 5mm, both tumor bearing mice and saline control mice without tumor were injected intraperitoneally (IP) with 400 μCi In-111DAC. Mice with SQ tumors were injected with 400 μCi of free In-111 for comparison. Gamma camera images at 15h were followed by CT/SPECT (Single photon emission tomography) images at 18h after IP injection. To evaluate In-111DAC imaging in mice with systemic MM, 7 week old bg-nu-xid mice were injected via tail vein with 1x107 myeloma cells (5TGM1-gift of B.O. Oyajobi). Animals with late stage myeloma (day 23–28) and saline control animals were injected with In-111DAC 400 μCi, and were compared to control animals with late MM, injected with 400 μCi of free In-111. Animals underwent gamma camera and CT/SPECT imaging as in the time-frame above. All animals were sacrificed. Organs and tumors were harvested and weighed. Radioactivity was measured in a NaI scintillation well counter and recorded as cpm/mg. Results: Images and radioactivity measurements in the SQ MM model (KAS-6/1) demonstrated excellent uptake of In-111DAC within the tumor compared to normal tissue and controls. In the 5TGM1 systemic MM model, the spleen is a known sanctuary of MM and displayed especially strong uptake of In-111DAC compared to normal tissue. Conclusion: We report the first murine MM models to be imaged with In-111DAC. Our study affirms that In-111DAC is an excellent imaging agent for MM. In-111DAC imaging could be utilized clinically to complement standard staging studies to assess MM tumor burden in patients at time of diagnosis, relapse, or to assess treatment response; especially in patients with non-secretory disease. Moreover, our study strongly suggests the rationale to exploit TCII-R as a target for MM therapy.

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

Abstract INTRODUCTION Recurrent somatic mutations in the metabolic enzymes isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH1/2) confer gain-of-function activity in cancer cells, resulting in accumulation of the oncometabolite, D-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). High levels of 2-HG result in epigenetic changes and impaired cellular differentiation. IDH mutations have been identified in multiple solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Approximately 6-10% and 9-13% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) carry mutations in IDH1 (mIDH1) or IDH2 (mIDH2), respectively. AG-120 is a first-in-class, oral, potent, reversible, selective inhibitor of the IDH1 mutant enzyme under evaluation in multiple ongoing single agent and combination clinical trials [NCT02074839, NCT02073994, NCT02632708, NCT02677922]. This is the first report of IDH1 mutation clearance assessed by variant allele frequency (VAF) analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in patients treated on the dose escalation portion of the first-in-human phase 1 study [NCT02074839]. METHODS Patients with advanced mIDH1-positive hematologic malignancies received AG-120 as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) continuously in 28-day cycles. Primary objectives were determination of safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and selection of a dose schedule for expansion cohorts and future studies. Secondary objectives included clinical activity assessed by investigators using modified 2003 International Working Group Criteria in AML. Determination of mIDH1 VAF was performed using the FoundationOne® Heme test on mononuclear cells from the bone marrow or peripheral blood at screening and subsequent time points on study. This NGS assay reports IDH1 mutations for samples with VAF ≥1%, with median coverage 500X. Patients with IDH1 mutational clearance (IDH1-MC) were defined as having mIDH1 at baseline and at least one on-study sample with no reported mIDH1. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients were treated in the dose escalation portion, which is now closed to enrollment. As of the data cut-off of May 12, 2016, the median duration on treatment was 3.2 months and 9 (11.5%) patients remain on treatment, with an additional 8 (10.3%) patients transitioned to stem cell transplant. Doses ranged from 300-1200 mg QD with 1 cohort at 100 mg BID. Though the MTD was not reached, the recommended phase 2 dose was determined to be 500 mg QD. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 and 2, the most common (≥30%) being diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea; the most common grade ≥3 AEs (≥15%) were febrile neutropenia, anemia, leukocytosis and pneumonia. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (16.7%) and pneumonia (12.8%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 38.5% (n=30), with 17.9% (n=14) achieving a complete remission (CR). Longitudinal mIDH1 VAF data were available for 51 patients; of these, 22% (n=11) achieved a CR. IDH1-MC was observed in 27.3% (3/11) patients who achieved CR (Figure 1). In contrast, only 1/40 patients who did not achieve CR experienced IDH1-MC. This occurred in a patient with an initially low mIDH1 VAF who had clinical progression despite IDH1-MC (Figure 1, bottom right). In all 3 patients with CR who achieved IDH1-MC, an initial increase in mIDH1 VAF, or early peak, was observed prior to IDH1-MC, suggesting that early clonal expansion might have occurred as part of the mechanism of action of AG-120. CONCLUSION This is the first demonstration that treatment with single agent AG-120 can result in mIDH1 clearance as determined by NGS. Further analysis of the mutational profiles is planned. AG-120, a potent, selective, oral inhibitor of mIDH1 continues to demonstrate a well-tolerated safety profile in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies, and induced objective single-agent durable responses. The data continue to support the efficacy and safety of single agent AG-120 and provide evidence that the underlying biology of the disease is altered by treatment. Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120 Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120. / Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Disclosures DiNardo: Daiichi Sankyo: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. de Botton:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Other: advisory board; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Other: advisory board. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Pollyea:Alexion: Other: advisory board; Pfizer: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Ariad: Other: advisory board; Glycomimetics: Other: DSMB member; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. Fathi:Bexalata: Other: Advisory Board participation; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board participation; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board participation, Research Funding; Merck: Other: Advisory Board participation; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Altman:Syros: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Foran:novartis: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; karyopharm: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kantarjian:ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Liu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacolick:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yen:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hurov:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Choe:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 4034 Through literature review we identified 376 pre-clinical studies in which a small molecule or antibody has been demonstrated to be cytotoxic to multiple myeloma (MM) cells either as cell lines, primary tumor samples or in mouse models. Indeed it seems there is no limit to the number of compounds that are cytotoxic to MM cell lines at high enough concentration. Since the pipeline to clinical trials is then large the utility of such assays in predicting future clinical value is debatable. We therefore sought to examine the utility of applying very early Phase I or Phase II trial experiences to predict for future clinical adoption. Using Pubmed, ASCO, ASH, EHA and IMWG abstracts we identified 117 drugs explored as single agents in 211 early stage clinical MM trials between 1961 and 2012 involving 7,166 patients. As definitions have changed over time, our analysis used partial responses (PR) or better as a response. When multiple trials were reported with a single drug, the average and the highest response rate for that agent was identified. Results were considered regardless of whether single or multi center trial, elderly or younger patients, stage of disease, targeted or non targeted therapy. High dose therapies requiring autologous stem cell support (eg. melphalan and etoposide), trials with less then 5 patients (e.g. siltuximab) or trials with concomitant steroid application which obscure single agent activity (e.g. pomalidomide, marizomib or daratumumab) were excluded in the analysis. Results: 17 drugs (14.5%) showed a best result of PR in more than 20% of patients, but when average response across all reported trials is considered, doxorubicin, arsenic trioxide and idarubicin drop out leaving 14 active drugs. Twelve drugs (10.3%) report as a best result PR in 10–20% of patients. 88 drugs (75.2%) reported a PR response in less than 10% of patients, 68 of which (58.1%) had no reported activity. A striking finding of our study is that all drugs approved for, or commonly used in clinical practice (prednisone, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, melphalan, bendamustine, thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib) have an average single agent PR response of at least 20%. Pomalidomide, although not approved, meets this threshold in Phase I testing. Older agents including teniposide, fotemustine, paclitaxel, and interferon also appear active by this criteria but have fallen from favor or were never adopted due to perceived toxicity. Of note, a number of newer agents which are in, or which recently completed Phase 3 testing, such MLN9708, elotuzumab, panobinostat, vorinostat or perifosine show little single agent activity. A weakness in this approach is that changes in measurement of response over time might bias the results, especially in favor of older studies. Furthermore, the chance of responding to a new drug has likely slowly declined as therapies have improved and patients have entered such trials at increasingly late stages of disease. It also does not rule out the possibility of synergistic activity or clinical benefit from a cytostatic drug. Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that a cut off of 20% single agent partial response activity averaged across all trials with that agent is highly predictive of future clinical success. If best reported response over 20% is considered no drug except vincristine has yet reached the clinic and has subsequently fallen from favor. Thus only drugs with 20% PR activity are in widespread use and thus this benchmark provides a framework for guiding choice of drugs for late stage clinical testing. Disclosures: Jimenez-Zepeda: MMRF: Research Funding; Jansenn Ortho: Honoraria. Fonseca:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cylene: Research Funding; Medtronic: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties. Stewart:Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.