Citations

Abstract Introduction: Midostaurin, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus induction and consolidation chemotherapy followed by single-agent midostaurin maintenance therapy resulted in significant benefits in event-free and overall survival (OS) in adults with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with placebo (RATIFY study; Stone et al, N Engl J Med, 2017). In RATIFY, patients who received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) did not receive midostaurin maintenance. Despite alloSCT providing the highest likelihood of sustained remission, relapse rates remain high (30%-59%; Schiller et al, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 2016), especially in patients with FLT3-internal tandem duplication-positive (ITD+) AML. Posttransplant maintenance therapy may improve this outcome. Here, we report the primary results from RADIUS, a randomized, open-label, phase 2 exploratory trial (NCT01883362) that investigated whether the addition of midostaurin to standard of care (SOC) after alloSCT could reduce the risk of relapse in patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML. Methods: Adults (aged 18-70 y) who had undergone myeloablative alloSCT in first complete remission (CR1), had achieved hematologic recovery, and were transfusion independent were eligible. Patients enrolled postengraftment and were randomized to receive SOC with or without midostaurin 50 mg twice daily continuously (4-week cycles) for up to 12 cycles. Study treatment started 28 to 60 days post-alloSCT and patients were followed for ≥24 months post-alloSCT. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) at 18 months post-alloSCT. Secondary endpoints included safety and disease-free survival (DFS), OS, and RFS at 24 months post-alloSCT. The study was not adequately powered to detect a statistical difference between the 2 arms; a sample size of 60 was calculated to detect a 50% reduction in the risk of relapse. Results: 60 patients were randomized (30 per arm). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the 2 arms. Overall, 30 patients completed 12 cycles of study treatment (14 with SOC; 16 with midostaurin). The median exposure to midostaurin was 10.5 months (range, 0.2 to 12.0 months) and the median dose intensity was 93 mg/day (range, 15-100 mg/day). Early treatment discontinuations were similar between arms (15 in the SOC arm; 13 in the midostaurin arm), frequently due to adverse events (AEs; 3% vs 23%) and consent withdrawal (20% vs 7%). Among 6 patients who withdrew consent in the SOC arm, 2 did so to pursue other TKI therapies. Midostaurin dose modifications occurred in 19 patients (63%), mostly due to AEs (84%); 1 instance was due to receiving a concomitant CYP3A4 inhibitor. With an estimated 18-month RFS (95% CI) of 76% (54%-88%) in the SOC arm and 89% (69%-96%) in the midostaurin arm, estimated relapse rates were 24% and 11%, respectively, which is a 46% relative reduction in the risk of relapse with the addition of midostaurin (Figure 1). At 18 months, the median RFS was not reached in either arm. Longer follow-up at 24 months (data not yet matured) will be presented, including RFS, OS, and DFS. In the SOC and midostaurin arms, AEs were reported in 87% and 100% of patients, respectively (the most common any-grade AE was vomiting: 23% vs 73%; Figure 2); serious AEs were reported in 57% and 30% of patients, respectively, with diarrhea (7% vs 13%), nausea (10% vs 3%), vomiting (10% vs 3%), and pyrexia (7% vs 7%) being the most common. Overall, 8 patients discontinued midostaurin therapy due to AEs (mostly gastrointestinal related) and 12 died on study (all during the follow-up phase; 8 in the SOC arm and 4 in the midostaurin arm [n=4 vs n=2 due to AML disease progression]). Rates of graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) were generally similar between the SOC and midostaurin arms (overall, 70% vs 73%; acute GVHD, 53% vs 57% [grade 2/3 events: 37% vs 30%; no grade 4 events]; chronic GVHD, 47% vs 37% [most events were mild or moderate; severe events: 1 with SOC and 2 with midostaurin]). Conclusions: Adding midostaurin to SOC reduced the risk of relapse at 18 months post-alloSCT by 46% (vs SOC). The safety profile of single-agent midostaurin was consistent with previous reports; no major safety concerns were identified when adding midostaurin to SOC following alloSCT. These data suggest that midostaurin monotherapy can be safely administered for ≤1 year and may improve outcomes in patients who undergo alloSCT in CR1. Disclosures Maziarz: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Therapeutics: Honoraria; Athersys, Inc.: Patents & Royalties. Scott:Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Deol:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Briston-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Paladin: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haines:Novartis: Employment. Bonifacio:Novartis: Employment. Rine:Novartis: Employment. Purkayastha:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment.

Abstract Background: Overall survival (OS) remains the definitive primary efficacy endpoint to evaluate previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) therapies, but it requires prolonged follow-up. An earlier endpoint assessed post-treatment would expedite clinical trial conduct and accelerate patient access to effective new therapies. Our objective was to formally evaluate event-free survival (EFS) as a surrogate endpoint for OS in untreated AML. Methods: Individual patient data were analyzed from 2,475 patients (pts) from 4 multicenter, randomized controlled phase III trials of active treatment in previously untreated AML using anthracycline and cytarabine induction chemotherapy as the concurrent control (CALGB 10201, n=506, enrollment period 2003-2006, age 60-88 years (y); CALGB 10603, n=717, enrollment period 2008-2015, age 18-60 y, FLT3-mutated pts only; SWOG 0106, n=595, enrollment period 2004-2009, age 18-60 y; ECOG-ACRIN 1900, n=657, enrollment period 2002-2008, age 17-60 y). Individual patient-level surrogacy examines the association between the individual patients' EFS and OS time after adjusting for treatment effect, and was assessed using the copula bivariate survival model (Kendall's tau). Trial-level surrogacy measures how precisely the treatment effect on OS can be predicted on the basis of observed treatment effect on EFS, and was evaluated using both linear regression (R2WLS) weighted by trial size and Copula bivariate (R2Copula) models. Pre-specified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥0.80, neither below 0.7, with either lower bound 95% Confidence Interval (CI) >0.60. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different EFS definitions (Table 1). Results: With a median follow-up of 50.2 months for the 896 patients still alive, the median OS and EFS across all four trials were 20.9 months (95% CI: 19.0-22.7) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.5-6.4), respectively. Trial-level surrogacy for EFS was strong (R2WLS=0.79; R2Copula=0.89), indicating a high correlation of treatment effect between EFS and OS. At the individual patient-level, however, EFS showed weak association with OS (tau= 0.52), compared to the strength of trial-level surrogacy. The discrepancy between patient-level EFS and OS was greatest among patients who did not achieve a CR, followed by those who achieved a CR but relapsed (Figure 1). Sensitivity analysis on alternative EFS definitions showed that the trial-level surrogacy was similar, but individual patient-level surrogacy varied across different EFS definitions (Table 1). This is consistent with what we previously reported (ASH 2016): EFS estimates differed considerably based on the definition of induction failure (IF) in a single arm setting, but this had minimal impact on the estimation of the treatment effect using EFS in randomized trials. In addition, when considering only relapse and death as events (definition 4), both individual patient- and trial-level correlations were high. Conclusions: Correlation between EFS and OS was impacted by patients not achieving CR during induction. Despite the lack of patient-level correlation, a strong correlation between hazard ratios for treatment effects was observed between EFS and OS on the trial level. Hence, it remains debatable whether EFS represents a clinical benefit in itself for patient with untreated AML considering the strong correlation in treatment effects. Further validation is needed due to the small number of trials included and the heterogeneity across trials. Acknowledgment: We gratefully acknowledge the important contributions of the late Dr. Stephen H. Petersdorf, SWOG S0106 Study Chair. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180794, U10CA180820, U10CA180888; Clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00085124 (10201), NCT00651261 (10603), NCT01253070 (11001), NCT00085709 (SWOG S0106), and NCT00049517 (ECOG-ACRIN E1900) Disclosures Uy: Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3814 Poster Board III-750 Introduction The 1997 IPSS remains the most widely used prognostic scoring system for patients with MDS, and it has important strengths, but several other prognostic systems have been proposed recently to overcome some of the well-recognized IPSS limitations. These systems include a new risk model for patients with MDS and CMML – including previously treated patients and those with secondary (treatment-related) MDS – proposed by Kantarjian and colleagues at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) (Cancer 2008; 113:1351), as well as the WPSS, proposed by Malcovati and colleagues in Europe (J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3503) To date, the MDACC risk model has not been validated in a large external independent cohort or directly compared to the WPSS. We assessed the performance of the MDACC model compared to the WPSS and the IPSS in a 12-year Mayo Clinic MDS/CMML cohort. Patients and Methods We reviewed the medical records of 1,503 adult patients (pts; 984 males; median age 71 years, range 17-98) with MDS (n=1,249) or CMML (n=254) evaluated at Mayo Clinic between January 1996 and December 2007. Pediatric pts (age ≤16 and pts with ≥30% marrow blasts were excluded. IPSS and WPSS scores were calculated, and data collected for MDACC risk model assignment (age, performance score, platelet count, hemoglogbin, marrow blast proportion, white blood cell count, karyotype, and transfusion history). Data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results The overall median survival was 17.8 months (mos) – 13.7 mos for CMML, 19.1 mos for WHO-defined MDS, and 9.6 mos for RAEB-t – similar to the 14.1 mos observed in the test cohort used to derive the MDACC risk model. Follow-up was complete until death in 1,122 (74.7%) pts. Pts excluded from the cohort stratified using IPSS included 122 patients with CMML and leukocytosis (>12 × 109/L), and 176 pts with secondary MDS/CMML (there were 12 pts with secondary CMML with leukocytosis) – total excluded, 286 pts. Patients excluded from the WPSS cohort included 27 pts with RAEB-t, 254 pts with CMML, and 148 pts with secondary MDS – total excluded, 429 pts. Survival by IPSS risk group was 38.9 mos for Low (n=413), 17.9 mos for Int-1 (n=541), 9.6 mos for Int-2 (n=206), and 6.6 mos for High (n=57). Survival by WPSS risk group was 39.0 months for Very Low (n=352), 26.6 months for Low (n=276), 15.9 months for Intermediate (n=185), 11.2 mos for High (n=221), and 4.9 months for Very High (n=40). Survival by MDACC risk group was 45.6 mos for Low (n=426), 20.0 mos for Int-1 (n=552), 12.3 mos for Int-2 (n=325), and 4.9 mos for High (n=200). When the MDACC risk model was used to classify only the 1,074 pts with conditions for which the WPSS has been validated, survival was 51.4 mos for Low (n=336), 21.2 mos for Int-1 (n=411), 13.3 mos for Int-2 (n=213), and 4.6 mos for High (n=114) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). In a multivariable proportional hazards model, all of the MDACC risk model components except WBC>20 × 109/L retained independent prognostic significance. Conclusions All 3 systems stratify patients accurately, but the MDACC risk model best identifies the lowest-risk patients, and also classifies the broadest group of patients (i.e., primary and secondary MDS, and primary and secondary CMML with or without leukocytosis). The revised IPSS that is currently in development should include the patient factors accounted for by the MDACC risk model, with the possible exception of leukocytosis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.