Citations

Abstract Background: MV-NIS is an Edmonston-lineage measles virus that expresses the human sodium-iodide symporter (hNIS). The virus is oncolytic, and its activity can be monitored by noninvasive imaging of radioiodine uptake by hNIS. The receptor is CD46, a membrane regulator of complement activation that is overexpressed on myeloma cells. Methods: Formal studies were done in collaboration with the RAID program to assess the efficacy, biodistribution and safety of MV-NIS in transgenic, measles susceptible mice and in non-human primates. The protocol therapy for the animal studies was modeled on the planned human clinical trial. Mouse efficacy studies were done in irradiated 6-week old female CB17 ICR SCID mice implanted subcutaneously with human KAS-6/1 cells. Mouse toxicity & biodistribution were done in 184 6–8 week IfnarKO x CD46 Ge mice treated with 105–107 TCID50 MV-NIS. Squirrel monkey toxicity studies were done in 12 measles-naïve adults with 108 TCID50. The clinical trial is a 3 patient/cohort dose escalation study which allows for 1 dose of MV-NIS/patient. Once MTD of MV-NIS is reached, subsequent cohorts will be treated with CTX 10 mg/kg 2 days prior to MV-NIS at MTD/100. Immune response to measles is tested pre & post therapy. PK & biodistribution are tested by measurements of MV-N in blood, urine, & gargle samples and by serial nuclear imaging, respectively. BM myeloma cells are tested for CD46 expression and MV infectivity. Results: Preclinical studies: The minimum effective dose in the mouse model was 4 x 106 TCID50 /kg. The MTD for MV-NIS with CTX was not reached in the mouse study. Pre-treatment with CTX changed the biodistribution of MV-NIS infected cells and the kinetics of virus elimination from infected tissues in mice and monkeys. In monkeys, MV-N mRNA was detected at day 1 in the buccal cavity with levels declining on day 2, then surging on day 8, suggesting viral replication. There were no unscheduled deaths or treatment related lesions on necropsy. Patients: Three patients were treated with a dose of 106 TCID50 (Table). No DLT was observed. Two patients had MV-N amplified from their gargle specimen. Accrual to dose level 2 has begun. Conclusions: IV administration of MV-NIS is feasible. The virus is capable of traveling to a distant site and replicating before being cleared by the immune system. Patient 2 Patient 2 Patient 3 *copies per microgram RNA of cells derived from gargle sample at each time point: day +3, +8, +15, +22, and +29; no MV-N detected in urine or blood Anti-measles neutralizing Ab titer, pre-Rx / post Rx 1:10 / 1:160 < 1:10 / 1:20 < 1:10 / 1:10 AEs possibly related Gr 2 plts Gr 1 plts, cough, fever, rigors Gr 2 Incr aPTT CD46 copies/cell CD138+ / CD138- BMPC 79,771 / 10,322 140,187 / 10,145 28,258 / 11,228 MV-N QRT-PCR: d3/ d8/ d15/ d22/ d29 (cp/ug RNA)* −/ −/ −/ nd / nd −/ −/ 16,440 / 1405 / − 123-I uptake on SPECT No Uptake day 8 No

Abstract Abstract 3842 Background: Dysregulated JAK-STAT signaling is a key feature in MF, which is characterized by splenomegaly, debilitating symptoms, poor quality of life (QoL), cytopenias, and shortened survival. Ruxolitinib is a selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor with clinical activity in MF. COMFORT-I is a Phase III, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of ruxolitinib in patients with MF. At wk 24, 41.9% of patients receiving ruxolitinib reached the protocol-defined threshold of a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SV) compared to 0.7% in the placebo group (p<0.0001). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the relationship between SV reduction achieved with ruxolitinib treatment and changes in symptoms and QoL. Methods: 309 patients were randomized to receive ruxolitinib (n=155) or placebo (n=154). Initial dosing was based on baseline platelet counts: 15 mg BID for counts of 100–200 x109/L and 20 mg BID for >200 x109/L. SV was measured by blinded imaging (MRI or CT scan) every 12 wks. Via electronic diary, patients reported MF symptoms daily using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0. The Total Symptom Score (TSS) from the MFSAF represents a combined score for the individual symptoms of abdominal discomfort, pain under ribs on left side, early satiety, itching, night sweats, and bone/muscle pain. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMISE) Fatigue questionnaires were administered at each visit; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was administered at every visit beginning at wk 4. The PGIC rates a patient's overall sense of whether a treatment has been beneficial or not on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse, with 4 = no change. Results: Baseline QoL scores reflected debilitating disease, and were similar to scores for similar-aged patients with other cancers (Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values Manual, July 2008). The impact on patients was particularly evident on the PROMIS Fatigue scale and QLC-C30 Global Health, Physical Functioning, Role Functioning, and Social Functioning subscales. Baseline Symptom and QoL Measures* Associations between changes in symptoms and QoL with the objectively measured changes in SV were evaluated. Patients receiving ruxolitinib were grouped according to SV reduction at 24 wks of treatment: ≥35% reduction in SV (n=65), 10-<35% (n=51), and <10% (n=23). Symptom and QoL responses were evaluated among the various subgroups (of the SV reduction percentage strata) and comparisons were made across these and the total placebo group (n=106). Shown in the Figure are mean changes at wk 24 relative to baseline for TSS, QoL indicators, and PGIC scores. Conclusions: Changes in SV as low as 10% in ruxolitinib-treated patients were associated with improvements on EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health subscale, PROMISE Fatigue scale, and the MFSAF v2.0 diary TSS. Moreover, commensurate improvements in these outcomes were observed as the SV reduction increased. Importantly, the simple PGIC questionnaire allowed patients to characterize a meaningful change in their condition that was consistent with more comprehensive measures of MF symptoms and quality of life, reflecting a doctor-patient assessment easily applied to clinical practice. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: 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; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Shields:Incyte: Consultancy. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Hare:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte: Research Funding.

Abstract Background In the primary analysis of the phase III COMFORT-I study, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) significantly improved splenomegaly, myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms, and quality of life (QoL) measures in patients (pts) with MF versus placebo (PBO). An additional analysis (median follow-up 51 weeks [wks)]) showed RUX was associated with a survival advantage versus PBO (Verstovsek et al. N Engl J Med2012). Longer term follow-up (median 102 wks) showed durable SV reductions and QoL improvements. At this time point, RUX continued to be associated with a survival advantage, despite all pts originally randomized to PBO having discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib shortly after the primary analysis (Verstovsek et al. ASH 2012. abstract 800). We report additional longer-term follow-up of pts from COMFORT-I. Methods In COMFORT-I, 309 pts were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. RUX starting dose depended on baseline platelet count (100–200´109/L: 15 mg BID; >200´109/L: 20 mg BID). Doses could be titrated for lack of efficacy or excess toxicity as specified in the protocol. Pts receiving PBO could crossover to RUX after the primary analysis (ie, when all pts completed 24 wks and half the pts completed 36 wks of therapy) or at any time if they met protocol-specified criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts who achieved a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SV) at wk 24. Symptoms were assessed up to wk 24 using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0. QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis according to original randomized treatment. To better understand the effect of crossover on the PBO arm, statistical modeling of survival was conducted using a generalized Gamma distribution. Results Median follow-up was 149 wks at the time of this updated analysis. Of 155 pts originally randomized to RUX, 77 remain on therapy. Of 154 pts originally randomized to PBO, 111 crossed over to RUX; the median time to crossover was 41.1 wks (range, 5.1–65.4). At wk 24, pts originally randomized to RUX had a mean SV reduction of −31.6%; this was durable for pts who continued on RUX, where the mean SV reduction at wk 144 was −34.1%. Fifty-nine percent (91/155) of pts originally randomized to RUX achieved a ≥35% SV reduction at any time during study; for these pts, the probability of maintaining this response for >132 weeks from the time of their initial response was 0.53. Pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy experienced durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL and functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall survival favored RUX (HR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.03; P= 0.067; Fig 1), with 42 and 54 deaths among pts originally randomized to RUX and PBO, respectively. Modeling of the hazard function of death over time to explore the effect of crossover to RUX in pts originally randomized to PBO showed a decrease in hazard for these pts, which corresponded to an increased proportion of pts crossing over to RUX. In pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy, there was no substantial change in the rate, distribution, or severity of nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) with longer-term therapy; most nonhematologic AEs were grade 1 or 2. Mean and median hemoglobin and platelet count remained stable with longer-term therapy. Consistent with this, the incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia observed after the first 6 months of RUX therapy decreased relative to that seen in the first 6 months of therapy (Fig 2). With approximately 1 year of additional follow up, 4 new cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported: 2 pts originally randomized to PBO (376 and 666 days after crossover to RUX) and 2 pts originally randomized to RUX (848 and 1143 days after starting RUX). Conclusions After a median follow-up of 149 wks, the hazard ratio for overall survival favored pts originally randomized to RUX over those originally randomized to PBO, the majority of whom crossed over to RUX. The hazard of death for pts originally randomized to PBO decreased as pts crossed over to RUX. SV reductions and QoL improvements were sustained with longer-term therapy. The incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia decreased with longer-term therapy. Collectively, these data reinforce the durable efficacy and longer-term safety of RUX in pts with MF. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Genentech: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Travel support, Travel support Other; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Levy:Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership; Incyte Corporation: Employment. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Inctye Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arcasoy:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Lyons:Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Raza:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Onconova Inc: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Peng:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1882 Introduction: Lenalidomide (L) with dexamethasone (D) has demonstrated activity in untreated symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) (Rajkumar et al. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 29–37). Neutropenia may occur, requiring dose reductions, interruptions, or G-CSF support in up to 20% of patients. Renal clearance accounts for 67% of L elimination, and renal insufficiency is associated with an increased risk of cytopenias. Product information recommends the use of the Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) equation for creatinine clearance (CrCL) estimation for initial dosing; however, other estimates including the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) method may be more accurate. We evaluated the impact of renal function on L dosing, cytopenias, and response in patients on the Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) E4A03 study. Methods: All patients (n=445) enrolled on E4A03 were included in this analysis. Clinical data at baseline and after 4 cycles was reviewed. Renal function over the first 4 treatment cycles was estimated using both last reported on cycle 4 and last ever reported serum creatinine (SCr) as the former method resulted in a loss of 70 more patients. Patients were classified by CrCL (mL/min) stage: (1) ≥90 (2) 60–89 (3) 30–59 (4) 15–29 (5) <15. Patients were further categorized into CrCL groups collapsing stages 3–5 while maintaining division of normal status. Demographic and disease data of age, ECOG performance status (PS), sex, race, ISS stage, and complete blood counts were included. Percent of planned L dose and dose interruptions were calculated. Descriptive statistics were used to assess measures at each timepoint. Associations between baseline MDRD, C-G, SCr and patient characteristics were assessed by chi-square testing, and logistic regression models of L dose modification, cytopenias, and response status with renal function measures were created. Results: Mean SCr improved in 361/445 (81%) by 0.23 mg/dL following treatment initiation. Mean MDRD CrCL improved in 264/445 (59%) by 24.3 mL/min. Because only initial weight was captured, C-G estimates over time were not available. ISS stage II/III was associated with baseline elevated SCr (> 1.5 mg/dL) and low CrCL (p<0.001). Dose modification of L occurred in 44% of patients over 4 cycles (Table 1). In adjusted analyses, C-G predicted L dose modifications, p<0.001 [stage 3–5 vs 1 OR 2.09 (1.23-3.55)] along with ECOG PS. Similarly, in adjusted analyses, grade 2–5 cytopenias were better predicted by C-G stage, p<0.001 [stage 3–5 vs 1 OR 5.08 (2.18-11.84)], over MDRD stage, p=0.025 [stage 3–5 vs 1 OR 2.66 (1.07-6.61)]. No association between baseline or change in renal function and ≥ VGPR after 4 cycles was noted. Conclusion: Renal function improvement in patients receiving LD warrants regular CrCL monitoring and L dose increases in patients on reduced doses without cytopenias. Baseline MDRD is not superior to C-G for CrCL estimation for predicting L dosing and cytopenia development. Optimizing L exposure through pharmacokinetic modeling or other methods may further refine dosing. Disclosures: Lonial: Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 3803 Background: The MMRC is a non-profit, disease-focused consortium founded in 2004 comprised of 13 North American centers with expertise in multiple myeloma (MM). The MMRC Inc. (Norwalk, CT), MMRC's member institutions, and several pharmaceutical partners work closely to speed early development of new treatment options for MM patients. In December 2007, MMRC headquarters staff implemented multiple project management (PM) business solutions to address trial barriers that delay activation of our phase I-II clinical trials and established trial metric benchmarks considered attainable at our member institutions. In November 2009, we reported initial data1 on trial activation: MMRC trials initiated between Sep08-Jul09 (n=5) demonstrated a 38% decrease in mean time to first patient dosed (FPFD), compared with the Early Group trials (EG) initiated before PM solutions (Jun06-Sept08; n=7 trials). These results also confirmed improvement over published metrics from Dilts et al 2,3. We present additional data on time to FPFD and now enrollment, to assess impact of the MMRC PM resources and processes on trial efficiency. Methods: Twenty-one (21) trials conducted within the MMRC from May 2006 to June 2010 had sufficient trial data for review. Data were collected by MMRC-funded project managers at the clinical centers using a web-based clinical trial management system (CTMS). FPFD was defined as the time from the member institutions' receipt of the final protocol (FP) from the trial sponsor, to the time the first patient was dosed on the trial at any participating MMRC member institution. With respect to enrollment, pre-study enrollment commitment (EC) established between MMRC and the study sponsor was defined as the total number of subjects committed to receive at least one dose of study drug across all participating MMRC centers on a trial; baseline enrollment timeline (BET) was prospectively defined as the target time period to attain EC. Results: Mean time to FPFD was 181 calendar days for the early group trials (EG, n=7) and 122 days for the recent group (RG) trials (n=14, Sep08 – Jun10), representing a 32% reduction of time to FPFD in the RG. Additionally, time from final protocol to first patient dosed at all MMRC centers on a trial decreased 18% from a mean of 7.7 months (EG) to 6.3 months (RG). With respect to MMRC trial enrollment, data was available for 16/21 trials (5 EG and 11 RG). 2 EG trials were missing data and 3 RG trials were still enrolling as of June 2010. The mean MMRC pre-study EC was 39 subjects per trial (n=16 trials; 626 enrollment target); the mean actual MMRC enrollment was 49 subjects per trial (n=16; 783 enrolled through Jun 29, 2010) representing a 25% increase in actual versus committed enrollment. Two trials did not meet MMRC EC: MMRC investigators discontinued their involvement in these trials at approximately 30% target EC due to trial complexity or low patient enrollment. 14/16 evaluable trials (88%) met their EC; 11/16 trials met EC within BET (69%) of which 8/16 trials (50%) reached EC 34% faster than their BET (representing a mean reduction of 4.5 months). The overall pre-study mean BET for 16 trials was 13.1 months. MMRC's actual mean enrollment timeline was 11.3 months for the group of 14 evaluable trials representing improvement over the original BET by a mean of 1.9 months (14%). We believe FP to FPFD is a more meaningful metric beyond that of first patient consented. Moreover, we believe that if all participating trial centers focus their efforts on dosing the first patient and within a targeted timeframe, it may improve our research efforts overall. Conclusion: Development of drugs in the clinical setting has become time and resource intensive. Activating and enrolling trials promptly is a priority for drug development. The MMRC's standardization of processes and support for site-based PM resources results in improved trial metrics. MMRC member centers met or exceeded pre-specified enrollment targets in 88% of the trials analyzed to date. Ongoing monitoring of trial conduct continues to reveal areas where increased focus is needed to realize further trial efficiencies. These trial metrics and measures to improve efficiency may be applied with similar expected benefit in all oncology disciplines. Disclosures: Wear: Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Richardson:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Revta:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Vij:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Fiala:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Lonial:Bristo-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Francis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Siegel:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Schramm:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jakubowiak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Centocor Ortho-Biotech: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Exelixis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Harvey:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Reece:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Facet: Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gul:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jagannath:Celgene: Honoraria; Millenium: Honoraria; Orthobiotec: Honoraria; Onyx Pharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Proteolix: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. La:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Hofmeister:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Jansak:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Stewart:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Hagerty:Mayo Clinic: Employment; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Wolf:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Orthobiotech: Speakers Bureau. Davis:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Krishnan:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Duarte:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Zimmerman:Millennium, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Cisneros:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium: Member Institution of the MMRC. Birgin:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC. Ott:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Tasca:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Kelley:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment. Anderson:Millennium: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Member Institution of the MMRC; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giusti:Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC): Employment.

Abstract The efficacy of three therapeutic programs for acute leukemia were compared. These programs included (1) Methotrexate (Phase I) followed by 6-mercaptopurine (Phase II); (2) 6-mercaptopurine (Phase I) followed by Methotrexate (Phase II); and (3) Combination Therapy, i.e., 6-mercaptopurine given in combination with Methotrexate. In children with acute lymphocytic leukemia the remission rate was 59 per cent for combination therapy, 47 per cent for 6-mercaptopurine, and 29 per cent for Methotrexate. The better remission rate for combination therapy is consistent with that predicted if it is assumed that 6-mercaptopurine and Methotrexate act independently. The median duration of complete remissions for the three treatments was not different (4 to 5 months). However, long lasting remissions were more frequent in patients receiving combination therapy. The median survival from the onset of therapy to death was 9 months. There were no differences between the three treatment programs as regards survival. In adults the remission rate was 15 per cent for combination therapy, 21 per cent for 6-mercaptopurine and 7 per cent for Methotrexate. As regards survival in adults, early deaths were more common in patients who received MTX as initial therapy, whereas after 5 months survival was somewhat better in those patients receiving combination therapy. In both children and adults there was no evidence that prior treatment with one of the antimetabolites altered response to the other antimetabolite. This result differs from those in animal models, and its effect on our concept of the mechanism of resistance is discussed. Responsiveness to the second course of antimetabolite therapy (Phase II) was as good as that to the first course of treatment. This was true for the remission rate, remission duration, and even for survival when appropriate corrections were made. Thus, responsiveness to drug therapy is maintained as the disease progresses temporally. It may be concluded therefore that new agents can be effectively studied in patients with "late" disease. Responsiveness to Phase II therapy was independent of responsiveness to Phase I. The most common and severe toxic manifestations related to the bone marrow and gastrointestinal tract. There were no major differences quantitatively in the toxicity for the three treatment programs in children in spite of the fact that the drugs were given in full dosage in the combination program. Oral ulcers and a generalized erythematous rash occurred significantly more frequently in patients receiving Methotrexate. Jaundice was significantly more frequent in adults and in patients receiving 6-MP.

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 Early response to therapy, including assessment of MRD is a powerful prognostic factor in childhood ALL. However, there are many other known prognostic factors, and the precise relationship among these and MRD has been incompletely explored. In COG protocol P9900, patients were assigned to one of 3 risk-directed therapies based on NCI risk group, as well as TEL-AML1 translocations (TEL) and simultaneous trisomies of chromosomes 4 and 10 (DT). Infants and Ph+ patients were excluded. Good risk patients (9904) comprised NCI SR patients with either TEL or DT without CNS disease. Poor risk patients (9906) included a subset of NCI HR patients with particularly unfavorable risk factors based largely on age and white count, while 9905 had both NCI SR and HR patients not eligible for 9904 or 9906, including NCI HR patients with TEL or DT. MRD was satisfactorily measured with at least .01% sensitivity by 4-color flow cytometry in the marrow at end of induction (D29) or in blood at Day 8 (D8). D29 MRD was associated with poor outcome in all studies, and in both HR and SR patients on 9905 as shown: Study 4 y EFS ± SE (n) p value MRD <.01% MRD >.01% 9904 Overall 94±1%(668) 75±6%(105) <.0001 TEL-AML1 94±2%(367) 68±12%(38) <.0001 DT 95±1%(316) 80±7%(69) <.0001 9905 NCI-Standard Risk 89±2%(462) 63±6%(119) <.0001 9905 NCI-High Risk 83±4%(292) 49±9%(73) <.0001 9906 74±6%(156) 39±8%(84) <.0001 The proportion of D29 MRD positive DT(17.9%) patients was higher than that of TEL patients (9.4%) but MRD was also prognostic when each group was considered separately; similar findings were seen in HR TEL and DT patients. TEL or DT was associated with a significantly better prognosis in both HR and SR patients who were MRD negative, but were not favorable factors in MRD positive patients. D8 blood MRD was also prognostic in all studies, with higher MRD levels generally associated with poorer outcome. Patients who were both D29 and D8 MRD negative had a good outcome overall (93% 4 y EFS); combining all favorable risk factors, including TEL, DT, NCI risk group, D8 and D29 MRD identified a group of patients (about 13% of B-precursor ALL patients) with 98± 1% 4 y EFS. In multivariate analysis, D29 MRD was the most important prognostic factor. NCI Risk group, DT and D8 blood were also significant, but TEL and day 8 morphologic assessment of marrow were not. We conclude that MRD is a major prognostic factor in childhood ALL even accounting for other risk factors. The prognostic significance of TEL and DT depends on MRD status. The combination of good risk clinical and genetic factors, and absence of MRD in both D8 blood and D29 marrow identifies a group of patients with outstanding outcome on limited therapy.

Abstract Background: Retrospective analyses have demonstrated significantly improved survival for AYA ALL patients (pts) aged 16-21 years (yrs) when treated on pediatric versus adult U.S. NCI Cooperative group regimens where 2-yr event-free survivals (EFS) have been only 35-40%. The purpose of C10403, a large prospective US intergroup trial, was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness [with EFS as a primary endpoint), of treating AYA ALL pts (ages 16-39 yrs) using the standard arm of the successful Children's Oncology Group regimen (COG AALL0232) . Methods: Newly diagnosed AYA patients with B-precursor (B-ALL) or T-precursor (T-ALL) ALL were eligible to enroll on C10403. Burkitt type and Ph+ ALL were excluded. The regimen was identical to the Capizzi methotrexate arm of COG AALL0232 (Larsen E. JCO 2011; 29 suppl:3) and consisted of four intensive courses: remission induction, remission consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and prolonged maintenance therapy. Pts with M2 marrow response (>5% but < 25% lymphoblasts) after remission induction received an extended remission induction course of therapy. Events were defined as induction failure (M3 [³25% blasts] day 29 of induction or M2 day 43 of extended induction), death, relapse, or second malignancy. Key correlative science studies in a subset of the total accrued population included assessment of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) using quantitative real-time PCR of clonal IgH or TCR gene rearrangements as well as Low Density Microarray (LDA) assays designed to detect a previously validated gene expression profile (Harvey, R; ASH 2013, abstract 826) which can prospectively identify ALL pts with Ph-like (BCR-ABL1-like) ALL. Results: 318 pts were enrolled on C10403 from 11/2007 to 8/2012; 22 withdrew prior to therapy. Of 296 evaluable pts, the median age at diagnosis was 24 yrs (range: 17 to 39): 25% were 17-20 yrs, 53% were 21-29 yrs, and 22% were 30-39 yrs. The majority had B-ALL (76%) and were male ( 61%). Approximately 25% were non-Caucasian and 15% were Hispanic or Latino. 32% of pts were obese (BMI³30). There were 5 (2%) treatment-related deaths during protocol therapy: liver failure (n=2, both during induction), infection (1 in induction, 1 in consolidation), and ventricular arrhythmia (1 in induction). Overall, treatment toxicities were similar to those reported in the standard arm of COG AALL0232, with an increased thrombosis and early hyperbilirubinemia for C10403 pts, as reported previously (Advani A, ASH 2013, abstract 303). To date, 70 deaths have been reported and 87 pts remain on protocol therapy. With a median follow-up of 28 months for surviving pts, 105 events have been observed. The median EFS overall is 59.4 months (95% CI: 38.4 to NR) and the 2-yr EFS rate overall is 66% (95% CI: 60 – 72%) [Fig 1a] with similar 2-yr EFS rates for B and T- ALL pts (65%, and 68%). The 2-yr OS rate is 78% (95% CI: 72 – 83%)[Fig 1b], which is similar for B (78%, 95% CI: 72 – 84%) and T-ALL, (80%, 95% CI: 70 – 91%). These results allow rejection of the null hypothesis of this Phase II trial that the true median EFS is, at most, 32 months. In multivariable analysis of presenting clinical features, age > 20 years and initial WBC count ³ 30k/microliter were significantly associated with worse EFS and OS. Presence of MRD at day 28 following initiation of induction therapy and presence of a Ph-like gene expression signature were significantly associated with both worse EFS and OS. Notably, absence of detectable MRD noted in 22/58 [38%] evaluable pts at day 28 of induction was associated with 100% EFS (p=0.0006). The Ph-like like signature was detected in 28% of pts tested on C10403 and the 2 yr EFS for these patients was only 52%, compared to 81% for those without Ph-like disease (p = 0.04). Conclusions: This large prospective US adult intergroup trial (C10403) for pts 16-39 years old employing an intensive pediatric regimen demonstrates a significant improvement (compared to historical controls) in AYA EFS and OS and validates this approach for treatment of AYA with ALL by adult hematologists. The improved clinical outcomes and the predictive value of the correlative studies in this trial lay the foundation for the design of future trials, where incorporation of novel agents to eradicate MRD, and/or use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to target the frequently detected Ph-like ALL in AYA pts may further improve survival for young adults with ALL. Figure 1a Figure 1a. Figure 1b Figure 1b. Disclosures Stock: Sigma-Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Sigma Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Contemporary approaches to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) incorporate chemo-immunotherapy, biologic combinations, and immune modulating agents; toxicities in elderly pts (³65 years) receiving these therapies are not well studied. Further, clinical and biologic factors predicting these toxicities in pts receiving biologic therapy remain undefined. Methods: We reviewed data on NHL and/or CLL pts treated prospectively on 14 studies by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2004-2014 (Table 1). Toxicity was assessed per the NCI CTCAE at the time of trial enrollment, and the probabilities of experiencing grade 3 and grade 4 hematologic (hem) and non-hematologic (non-hem) toxicities were modeled as a function of age (³65 years vs. < 65), time on study, treatment (biologics only vs. biologic + chemotherapy), gender, race, LDH, performance status (PS), stage, and an age-by-treatment interaction using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1199 pts (409 age ³ 65; 790 age < 65; 736=CLL and 463=NHL) were included. Among these patients, 493 received only biologic therapy (166 age ³ 65; 327 age < 65; 104 CLL; 389 NHL), and 706 received biologic + chemotherapy (243 age ³ 65; 463 age < 65; 632 CLL; 74 NHL). Among CLL pts (259 pts ³ 65), the effect of age on the probability of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity differed by treatment type (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.047). Specifically, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (age ³ 65 vs. < 65) for pts receiving only biologic therapy was 3.075 (95% CI: 1,15-8.25), and that for pts receiving biologic + chemotherapy was 1.044 (95% CI: 0.69 - 1.57). Similar results were seen in CLL pts for grade 4 heme toxicities (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.033; biologic OR 6.937, 95% CI: 1.76-27.35; biologic + chemo OR 1.484, 95% CI: 1.04-2.13). No such interactions were found in CLL pts for grade 3 and 4 non-hem toxicities; however, older pts had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 non-hem toxicity than younger pts (adjusted OR 1.40; p = 0.047; 95% CI: 1.004-1.96). No age group differences were found in CLL pts for grade 4 non-hem toxicity. Similar analyses were performed for NHL pts (150 pts ³ 65), but no significant age group differences were found. Among CLL pts, women had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity than men (OR 2.01; p = 0.0007); no difference in grade 3 non-hem or any grade 4 toxicity was noted. Non-Caucasian CLL pts had higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 non-hem toxicity than Caucasians (OR 2.892; p = 0.0029), but no other toxicity differences were found. Worse PS was associated with increased toxicities (OR 1.871; p = 0.0009: grade 3 heme; OR 1.647; p = 0.0025: grade 3 non-hem; OR 1.410; p = 0.0448: grade 4 heme, and OR 1.931; p = 0.0252: grade 4 non-hem). CLL pts with advanced stage disease had higher odds of experiencing a heme toxicity (grade 3: OR 1.95; p = 0.0007, grade 4: OR 1.451; p = 0.0329), but no stage associations were found for non-hem toxicities. Among NHL pts, men had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 hematologic toxicity than women (OR 4.351; p = 0.0169), but no other toxicity differences were found. An increase in LDH was associated with significantly higher odds of experiencing grade 3 non-hem and grade 4 heme toxicities (grade 3 non-heme: OR 1.633; p = 0.021, grade 4 heme: OR 2.039, p = 0.0182), but no such effect was found for grade 3 heme or grade 4 non-hem. Worse PS was associated with higher odds of experiencing grade 3 toxicities (heme: OR 2.025; p = 0.0344, non-hem: OR 2.458; p = 0.0013), but no such differences were found for grade 4 toxicities. No significant stage or race effects were found in NHL patients. Conclusion: In pts ³65 years who have CLL or NHL, we identified several clinical and disease-related factors as potential predictors of developing grade 3 and/or 4 heme and non-hem toxicities (Table 2). A prognostic model is being constructed to predict toxicities in these under-studied pts to guide management and monitoring. Further, the impact of these toxicities on outcomes is being analyzed and will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Hurria: Celgene: Other: Research; Optum Health Care SOlutions: Consultancy, Other: Conference panel, research; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Carevive: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Research; GTx, Inc: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nabhan:Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.