Citations

Background: Pegylated Interferon-alpha (PEG-IFNa) improves hematologic parameters and reduces mutant allele fraction in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs); however, widespread clinical use is limited by frequent discontinuation due to side effects. Identifying biomarkers of response to PEG-IFNa therapy might identify patient subsets most likely to derive benefit from this therapy. Serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels are increased in MPN patients and associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The effect of PEG-IFNa therapy on cytokine levels in MPN patients and correlation with clinical response has not been elucidated. We hypothesized that identification of cytokine signatures could predict for clinical/molecular response to PEG-IFNa in MPNs. Methods: Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were collected from available patients enrolled on the Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium (MPD-RC) 111/112 trials-multicenter studies assessing efficacy of PEG-IFNa in patients with high-risk polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia either up front or in the setting of hydroxyurea failure/intolerance. Serum was prepared using the Millipore MAP Human 41-Cytokine Magnet Bead System (Millipore; Cat:HCYTOMAG-60K) and run on the Luminex FLEXMAP 3D platform. Data was analyzed using Luminex xPonent 4.3 software. Correlative mutational data on 156 genes implicated in myeloid malignancies was also available for all patients. Age-matched serum from healthy individuals (N=6) was obtained from AllCellsTM for use as wild-type (WT) controls. Baseline cytokine samples were compared between groups of interest by use of Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Change from baseline in cytokines for each group were compared to the null hypothesis of zero change. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Pre- and post-treatment serum samples were available on 29 MPN patients from the MPN-RC 111/112 cohorts. 21 patients were classified as complete responders (CRs) vs. 8 non-responders (NRs) using European LeukemiaNet criteria. Baseline cytokine levels were generally increased in both CRs and NRs compared to WT, including significant increases in Eotaxin (p=0.023), IL3 (p=0.048), IP10 (p=0.04), and TNFa (p=0.006) (Table 1), as well as a non-significant trend increase in IL8 (p=0.076). Notably, other cytokines were decreased at baseline in comparison to WT, including EGF (p<0.001), as well as MDC (p=0.040) and PDGFaabb (p=0.02), in line with previous studies. Compared to CRs, NRs displayed significantly lower levels of GRO (p=0.020), MDC (p=0.003), and PDGFaabb (p=0.026) at baseline along with elevated levels of IP10 (p=0.028) suggesting pre-treatment levels of these cytokines might predict response to therapy. Comparison of pre- and post- treatment samples revealed a general increase in median cytokine levels in CRs, with significant changes in GM-CSF (p=0.012), IP10 (p<0.001), MCP1 (p=0.015) and IFNa itself (p=0.010). Notably, median cytokine levels in NRs post-treatment, including IFNa, were relatively unchanged from baseline despite on-going PEG-IFNa therapy. Additional pre-treatment serum samples, as well as correlative analysis of cytokine changes with JAK-STAT driver mutant allele fraction and mutational profiling are underway and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest individual cytokines are affected by PEG-IFNa in MPNs. Furthermore, baseline levels of GRO, MDC, PDGFaabb, and IP10 correlate with response to PEG-IFNa. These data may identify MPN patients most likely to respond to PEG-IFNa therapy and those for whom this therapy may be most appropriate. Further analysis with a larger cohort of treatment-naïve patients is underway to validate these findings and identify additional molecular and cytokine signatures of response to PEG-IFNa therapy. Disclosures Yacoub: Agios: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levine:Lilly: Honoraria; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Hoffman:Merus: Research Funding. Rampal:Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy.

Background: NGS of myeloid mutations is an integral part of AML clinical decision-making. There is currently no information regarding concordance between NGS panels in AML using samples from the same patient across various platforms in different diagnostic laboratories. To study this important question, we analyzed NGS of myeloid mutations in diagnostic samples from The Beat AML Master Trial (BAMT) for newly diagnosed older AML patients, and compared variant calls made between institutional laboratories enrolling the study subject with those made by Foundation Medicine (FM), the central laboratory used for treatment assignment in this precision medicine trial. Methods: We identified newly diagnosed AML patient samples (peripheral blood (PB) and/or bone marrow (BM)) from 2 lead institutions in the BAMT(Ohio State, OSU and Oregon Health and Sciences University, OHSU) that were analyzed by both the institutional and by FM from Nov 15, 2016 to Apr 15, 2019. Samples sent to both laboratories >3 days apart were excluded. Samples were analyzed at the institutional laboratories using their respective NGS mutational panels and by FM using the FoundationOne®Heme(FMH) NGS panel which utilizes capture based sequencing. The OSU NGS assay utilizes sequencing on Illumina MiSeq. The OHSU NGS assay employs semiconductor-based sequencing (Ion Torrent PGM platform). The variant allele frequency (VAF) sensitivity for detection for all 3 laboratories range from 1-2%. We evaluated the ability to identify mutations in 8 genes : FLT3, IDH1/ 2, NPM1, TET2, DNMT3A, WT1 and TP53 used in treatment assignment in theBAMT. A detection cutoff of 2% was used to define the presence or absence of a mutation. Overall, agreement was defined as the number of times the local and central laboratories made the same call divided by the total number of patients. Sensitivity was defined as the number of present calls made locally divided by the number of present calls made centrally, and specificity as the number of absent calls made locally divided by the number of absent calls made centrally. The overall kappa statistic, controlling for institution, provided another measure of agreement between local and central calls, where a value of 1 indicates perfect agreement. Results: 194 patient samples were identified using methods above and analyzed locally at the screening institution (125 at OSU, 69 at OHSU) and centrally at FM. Type of tissue analyzed for variants between local site and FM were 59 PB, 129 BM, and 6 with BM/PB mismatch. Overall agreement in presence/absence calls between local and central results for each of the 8 genes was over 95% (Table 1). There was perfect agreement for NPM1. The sensitivity was above 94% for all genes except TP53 (88.6%) and WT1 (63.6%). Failure to detect a mutation locally was primarily due to reporting of all TP53 variants, including variants of unknown significance (VUS) (5) by FM as agreed upon in the study protocol, detection at low levels below local site sensitivity cutoff (1), detection of variants in a portion of gene not covered at the local site(1)and possible artifact (1). For the WT1 gene, discordance in 5 samples included VUS (3) reported by FM ,a variant detected in a portion of the gene not covered at the local site(1).and difference in leukemic tissue analyzed with mutation not detected by the central laboratory on a PB sample, and present at the institutional lab on a BM sample; affecting the overall agreement and specificity but not sensitivity. Specificity was at least 98% for each of the 8 genes. Finally, most discrepancies in reported mutations in FLT3 (n=2), IDH1 (n=1), IDH2 (n=2), DNMT3A (n=4) and TET2 (n=5) were due to reporting of VUS in one laboratory and not by another. Conclusion: Detection of pathogenic myeloid mutations using orthogonal assays showed a high degree of concordance for genes used in therapeutic assignment on the BAMT.The small number of discordant results, in TP53 and WT1, were attributed to the reporting of VUS. This study illustrates the importance of quality control and standardization as NGS continues to be widely utilized in AML for clinical decision making, with a variety of platforms across multiple laboratories. Our next steps involve evaluating the differences in VAFs reported between local and central laboratories when a given mutation is identified, as well as the potential reasons for observed differences and clinical implications of known pathogenic mutations vs putative VUS. Disclosures Borate: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Vergilio:Foundation Medicine: Employment; Roche Holding AG: Equity Ownership. Stein:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Astellas: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller:Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Blum:AmerisourceBergen: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Astellas,: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding. Kovacsovics:Pfizer: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Druker:Pfizer: Research Funding; OHSU (licensing fees): Patents & Royalties: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees ; Cepheid: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aileron Therapeutics: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees , Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beta Cat: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; GRAIL: Equity Ownership, Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; Patient True Talk: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Beat AML LLC: Other: Service on joint steering committee; CureOne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; ICON: Other: Scientific Founder of Molecular MD, which was acquired by ICON in Feb. 2019; Monojul: Other: former consultant; Novartis: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Patents & Royalties: Patent 6958335, Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, exclusively licensed to Novartis, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute license #2063, Monoclonal antiphosphotyrosine antibody 4G10, exclusive commercial license to Merck & Co; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (antibody royalty): Patents & Royalties: #2524, antibody royalty; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Byrd:Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S. Levine:C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Lilly: Honoraria; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mims:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

OBJECTIVEScoliosis is frequently a presenting sign of Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) with syrinx. The authors’ goal was to define scoliosis in this population and describe how radiological characteristics of CM-I and syrinx relate to the presence and severity of scoliosis.METHODSA large multicenter retrospective and prospective registry of pediatric patients with CM-I (tonsils ≥ 5 mm below the foramen magnum) and syrinx (≥ 3 mm in axial width) was reviewed for clinical and radiological characteristics of CM-I, syrinx, and scoliosis (coronal curve ≥ 10°).RESULTSBased on available imaging of patients with CM-I and syrinx, 260 of 825 patients (31%) had a clear diagnosis of scoliosis based on radiographs or coronal MRI. Forty-nine patients (5.9%) did not have scoliosis, and in 516 (63%) patients, a clear determination of the presence or absence of scoliosis could not be made. Comparison of patients with and those without a definite scoliosis diagnosis indicated that scoliosis was associated with wider syrinxes (8.7 vs 6.3 mm, OR 1.25, p < 0.001), longer syrinxes (10.3 vs 6.2 levels, OR 1.18, p < 0.001), syrinxes with their rostral extent located in the cervical spine (94% vs 80%, OR 3.91, p = 0.001), and holocord syrinxes (50% vs 16%, OR 5.61, p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed syrinx length and the presence of holocord syrinx to be independent predictors of scoliosis in this patient cohort. Scoliosis was not associated with sex, age at CM-I diagnosis, tonsil position, pB–C2 distance (measured perpendicular distance from the ventral dura to a line drawn from the basion to the posterior-inferior aspect of C2), clivoaxial angle, or frontal-occipital horn ratio. Average curve magnitude was 29.9°, and 37.7% of patients had a left thoracic curve. Older age at CM-I or syrinx diagnosis (p < 0.0001) was associated with greater curve magnitude whereas there was no association between syrinx dimensions and curve magnitude.CONCLUSIONSSyrinx characteristics, but not tonsil position, were related to the presence of scoliosis in patients with CM-I, and there was an independent association of syrinx length and holocord syrinx with scoliosis. Further study is needed to evaluate the nature of the relationship between syrinx and scoliosis in patients with CM-I.

Abstract Context Prognosis of metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma following 131-Iodine metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is incompletely characterized due to small samples and shorter follow-up in these rare, often indolent tumors. Objective To describe long-term survival, frequency, and prognostic impact of imaging, biochemical, and symptomatic response to 131-I MIBG. Design Retrospective chart and imaging review at a tertiary referral center. Patients Six hundred sixty-eight person-years of follow-up in 125 patients with metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma with progression through prior multimodal treatment. Intervention Median 18 800 MBq 131-I MIBG. Main Outcome Measures Overall survival, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST) imaging response, symptomatic response per chart review, and biochemical response (20% change over 2 consecutive assays of catecholamines, vanillylmandelic acid, metanephrines, or chromogranin A). Results Median survival standard deviation [SD] from diagnosis was 11.5 years [2.4]; following metastasis, 6.5 years [0.8]; post treatment, 4.3 years [0.7]. Among 88 participants with follow-up imaging, 1% experienced complete response, 33% partial response, 53% stability, and 13% progression. Fifty-one percent showed subsequent progression, median progression-free survival [SD] of 2.0 years [0.6]. Stability/response vs progression at first imaging follow-up (3–6 months) predicted improved survival, 6.3 vs 2.4 years (P = 0.021). Fifty-nine percent of 54 patients demonstrated biochemical response. Fifty percent of these relapsed, with median time to laboratory progression [SD] of 2.8 years [0.7]. Biochemical response did not predict extended survival. Seventy-five percent of 83 patients reported improvement in pretreatment symptoms, consisting primarily of pain (42%), fatigue (27%), and hypertension (14%). Sixty-one percent of these patients experienced subsequent symptomatic progression at median [SD] 1.8 years [0.4]. Symptomatic response did not predict extended survival. Conclusions Imaging, symptomatic, and laboratory response to multimodal treatment including high-dose 131-I MIBG were achieved on long-term follow-up in metastatic pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma. Imaging response at 3 to 6 months was prognostic.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: 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; Janssen: Research Funding; 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have shown activity in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Elotuzumab is an anti-SLAMF7 MoAb that synergizes with immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and is approved for treatment of relapsed and refractory MM. Anti-CD38 MoAbs (daratumumab, FDA approved and isatuximab, in clinical trials) have also entered the therapeutic MM landscape but little is known about how to best sequence MoAbs and the existence of cross resistance between different classes of MoAbs. We analyzed outcomes of patients who become refractory to elotuzumab with emphasis on the activity of anti-CD38 MoAbs in the post-elotuzumab setting. Methods: We identified patients from 14 academic institutions within the US who were refractory to elotuzumab administered alone or in combination with other agents. Patients were considered refractory to elotuzumab if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of last dose. Time zero (T0) was defined as point when myeloma became refractory to elotuzumab-containing regimen. Data were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. We analyzed demographics, characteristics of their myeloma and prior therapy including number and type of therapy prior to elotuzumab, duration of elotuzumab therapy, and outcome after becoming refractory to elotuzumab. We performed a multi-variable analysis of these factors to determine significant factors associated with survival post T0. We subsequently identified a subset of patients who received an anti-CD38 MoAb alone or in combination as next or subsequent line of therapy after T0 and report their outcomes. Results: Eighty-nine patients were evaluated. Eighty-six (96.6%) had progression on elotuzumab in combination with IMiD (N=82) or another agent (N=4). Median age at T0 was 65 years (range 28-90), 51% of patients were males, 65% were White, 54% had IgG subtype, 27% had ISS stage III at diagnosis, and 27% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients received a median of 4 prior lines of treatment (range 1-11) prior to elotuzumab-containing regimen, including 66% who underwent autologous transplant. Sixty-one patients (69%) were refractory to at least one IMiD and one proteasome inhibitor (PI) at T0, classified as double-refractory. Twenty-one (23.6%) were quad-refractory, i.e. refractory to 2 IMiDs and 2 PIs. Twenty-eight patients (31.5%) were refractory to prior anti-CD38 MoAb. The median time from diagnosis to T0 was 59.5 months and duration of elotuzumab therapy was 3 months (range 0.4 - 59.5). Median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 15.1 months (95% C.I. 9.3-20.9). In multivariate analysis, the only factors affecting OS after T0 were high-risk cytogenetics (HR 3.31, 95% C.I. 1.74-6.27, P<0.001) and refractoriness to prior anti-CD38 MoAb (HR 4.22, 95% C.I. 2.22-8.01, P<0.001). Interestingly, median OS for patients not refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb was 33.1 months vs. 4.5 months for anti-CD38 MoAb-refractory patients (Figure 1). After T0, 45 patients (50.6%) received an anti-CD38 MoAb in the next (N=28, 62.5%) or subsequent regimens (N=17, 37.8%). Median time between T0 and initiation of anti-CD38 MoAb was 1.2 months (0-15.0). Anti-CD38 MoAbs employed were: isatuximab in 4 (8.9%) and daratumumab in 41 patients (91.1%). In most cases, the anti-CD38 MoAb was administered in combination with IMiD (N=30, 66.6%) or bortezomib (N=7, 15.6%). The overall response rate (ORR) for anti-CD38 MoAb regimens was 35.6%; responses to specific combinations are outlined in the Table. Median PFS for elotuzumab-refractory patients receiving therapy with anti-CD38 MoAbs was 4.6 months (95% C.I. 1.6-7.6), while median OS was 15.3 months (95% C.I. 8.2-22.4) (Figure 2). Conclusion: Patient who become refractory to elotuzumab have guarded prognosis, particularly dismal among patients also refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb, defining a population with great need for novel therapies. Failure of elotuzumab-based therapy does not preclude disease control with anti-CD38 MoAb, particularly in combination. Disclosures Paul: Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Amarendra:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Vij:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Development of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies (MoABs), including daratumumab and isatuximab, have drastically changed the therapeutic landscape for management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is a paucity of information regarding response to treatment after progression on CD38 MoABs. This collaborative research study (MAMMOTH: Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure) investigates the therapeutic choices and outcomes of subsequent treatments after refractoriness to MoABs. Methods Patients from 14 US academic institutions with diagnosis of MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination, were evaluated. Patients were considered refractory to a CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. Time of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data was collected by electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients with MM refractory to CD38 MoAB were evaluated; 249 (90.5%) of those patients who received at least one subsequent line of therapy were included in this analysis. The median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90) and 54% were male. At the time of diagnosis, 28% had ISS stage III disease and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics. Patients were heavily pre-treated at T0 with a median of 5 lines of therapy (range 2-17); most (74%) underwent a prior autologous stem cell transplant. The majority of patients were refractory to other anti-myeloma therapies including lenalidomide (78%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (69%) and carfilzomib (45%). In total, 97.1% of patients were exposed to at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and one proteasome inhibitor (PI), 79.3% were ≥ triple-refractory (refractory to 1 IMiD, 1 PI and 1 CD38 MoAB), while 25.3% were penta-refractory (refractory to 2 IMiDs, 2 PIs and 1 CD38 MoAB). Responses to the next subsequent line of therapy after progression with CD38 MoAB are shown (Table). The overall response rate (ORR; ≥PR) of first regimen post-T0 was 31% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 3.4 mo and median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 mo. Carfilzomib-based therapy resulted in an ORR of 32% with median PFS 4.2 mo and overall OS of 10.9 mo. The addition of an IMiD to daratumumab yielded an ORR of 37% with median PFS 4.5 mo and OS 12.6 mo. The addition of a PI to daratumumab yielded no responses. Elotuzumab-based therapy had an ORR of 21% with median PFS 2.6 mo and OS 8.3 mo. By multivariate analysis, alkylator-based therapies were found to have the highest ORR (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.7, p<0.001), however, resulted in median PFS of only 3 mo and OS of 7.7 mo. Multivariate analysis evaluating for PFS and adjusting for refractoriness to prior therapies found lower risk of progression with carfilzomib-based therapy (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, p=0.004, Figure 1) and with the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.94, p=0.02). The benefit of IMiD + daratumumab was essentially restricted to patients previously refractory to CD38 MoAB as monotherapy. These patients demonstrated improved PFS with subsequent daratumumab-combination therapy at time of progression compared with patients refractory to CD38 MoAB combination therapy (log-rank p=0.02, Figure 2). No particular regimen was associated with improved OS compared with the rest. Conclusions After progression on CD38 MoAB, treatment with carfilzomib-based regimens and the addition of an IMiD to daratumumab-monotherapy resulted in a higher ORR and PFS compared with other regimens. Alkylating agents resulted in the highest ORR but relatively short PFS and OS. The use of elotuzumab and the addition of a PI to daratumumab monotherapy resulted in relatively low response rates. Overall, progression after CD38 MoAB therapy is associated with a poor prognosis and innovative therapeutic strategies are needed. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Liedtke:Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Vij:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz 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, Research Funding; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Costa:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria. Kumar:Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) have significantly improved survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Refractoriness to PIs and IMiDs results in poor outcomes with a median survival of about 13 months.Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies (MoABs) with remarkable activity in relapsed and refractory MM. The outcome of MM patients in US clinical practice who becomes refractory to CD38 MoABs is unknown. The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study is to investigate the natural history of patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoABs (Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Outcomes after Therapy Failure: MAMMOTH study). Methods We identified patients from 14 academic institutions in the US with diagnosis of active MM and refractory to daratumumab or isatuximab, administered alone or in combination. Patients were considered refractory to CD38 MoAB if treated with at least 4 weeks of therapy and had evidence of progressive disease (PD) while on therapy or within 60 days after last dose. The time when patients met the above criteria of progression was defined as time zero (T0). Data including patient-disease characteristics and all therapies administered before and after T0 were collected with an electronic platform and submitted to peer-based quality check for completeness and internal consistency. For survival outcome analysis, patients were classified into three groups: "Penta-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 2 PIs + 2 IMiDs), "Triple-refractory and quad-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB + 1 PI + 1/2 IMiDs, or 1 CD38 MoAB + 1/2 PIs + 1 IMiD), and "Not triple-refractory" (refractory to 1 CD38 MoAB, and not both of a PI and an IMiD). Responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Results Two hundred and seventy-five patients were included in this study; median age at T0 was 65 years (range 27-90). Fifty five percent of patients were males, 52% had IgG isotype, 29% had ISS stage III disease, and 29% had high-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis. Median interval from diagnosis of MM to T0 was 50.1 months (mo) (range 2.5-230.1). Patients received a median of 4 lines of treatment (1-16) prior to the CD38 MoAB-containing regimen; 72% underwent prior autologous transplant. Daratumumab-refractory patients formed a majority (256, 93.1%) of this cohort. Most of the patients were refractory to lenalidomide (77%), pomalidomide (65%), bortezomib (68%), and carfilzomib (47%). Seventy patients (25.5%) were "penta-refractory" and 148 (53.8%) were "triple-refractory and quad-refractory". Median follow-up from T0 for survivors was 10.6 mo (range 1.9-42.3 mo). The median overall survival (OS) from T0 for the entire cohort was 8.6 mo (95% C.I. 7.2-9.9); OS for the groups based on refractoriness to prior treatments are shown (Figure). Two hundred and forty-nine patients (90.5%) received at least one line of treatment after T0, (median 2, range 1-10). The response rates and depth of responses to each line of treatment post T0 are shown (Table). Among patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent treatment, the median PFS and OS from T0 were 3.4 (95% C.I. 2.8-4.0) mo and 9.3 (95% C.I. 8.1-10.6) mo, respectively; the median OS for the 26 patients who received no further treatment was only 1.3 (95% C.I. 0.6-1.9) mo. By multivariate analysis, penta-refractoriness (HR 2.4, p <0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (HR 1.5, p=0.01), elevated LDH (HR 2, p<0.001) and creatinine > 2 (HR 2.4, p=0.01) at the onset of CD38-based therapy predicted inferior OS. Conclusions Patients with MM who become refractory to CD38 MoAB are increasingly less responsive to subsequent therapies. While survival is particularly dismal for penta-refractory patients, the outcomes are poor even for patients who are not refractory to other mainstream MM agents. The MAMMOTH study defines a MM population in urgent need for new therapies, and provides benchmark OS, PFS and response data for subsequent investigational therapies in this setting. Disclosures Malek: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Paul:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: Stock and pension plan (past employee). Neppalli:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Liedtke:Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vij:Amgen: 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, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Costa:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), carry a propensity to evolve into an accelerated phase (MPN-AP, 10-19% blasts in the blood or marrow) and blast phase (MPN-BP, ≥20% in the blood or marrow). Such disease evolution carries a dismal prognosis with a median survival of 3-5 months, and thus the development of innovative treatment strategies represents an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-AP/BP to both hypomethylating agents and single-agent ruxolitinib (RUX) have been reported. In vitro, the combination of RUX and decitabine (DEC) are synergistically active in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP. These observations led us to explore the safety of the combination in MPN-AP/BP in a phase I study. An MTD for RUX in combination with DEC 20mg/m2/d x 5 days was not reached in this study and the recommended Phase II dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for the first cycle of therapy followed by 10mg BID in subsequent cycles with a goal to minimize myelosuppression and maintain ambulatory administration (Rampal et al ASH 2016). Here we report the final results of the phase 2 combination of RUX + DEC in patients with MPN-AP/BP (NCT02076191). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open label, phase II trial in patients with MPN-AP/BP, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients enrolled were treated with the RPTD dose of RUX + DEC on a 28-day cycle until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity or patient/physician withdrawal. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v4.0. The primary endpoint was response rate by cycle 6 using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, ANC >1000/uL, hemoglobin ≥10g/L, and platelets ≥100x109/L; CRi required 0% peripheral blood blasts with incomplete count recovery; and PR required ≥50% decrease in peripheral blood blasts regardless of blood counts. Results: A total of 25 patients were accrued to study. The median age was 71 years (46.7-85.6). 10 patients (40%) had MPN-AP and 15 patients (60%) had MPN-BP. 6 patients (24%) had been previously been treated with single-agent RUX, and 2 patients (8%) had been treated with single-agent DEC. Median palpable spleen size was 7cm (range 0 - 20cm). The median number of cycles of treatment received on study was 4 (range 1 - 20). The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were pneumonia (16%), febrile neutropenia (16%) and infection (8%). The most common grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were anemia (16%), neutropenia (12%) and leukopenia (8%). The most common reasons for study discontinuation were AEs in 9 patients (36%), disease progression in 5 (20%) patients and hematopoietic cell transplantation in 2 (8%) patients. Eighteen (72%) patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate (CR+CRi+PR) was 61% (11/18 patients). CRi was observed in 2 patients (11%), PR in 9 patients (50%) and no response in 7 patients (39%). The median time to CR/PR was 3.4 mos (95% CI: 2.1 - not estimated). The median peripheral blood blast count reduction was 80.1% (range 71.4-100%) (Figure 1A). The median reduction in spleen size by palpation was 70.5% (range 0-100%) (Figure 1B). Median overall survival for all patients was 7.6 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated); 9.7 months (95% CI: 4.3 - Not estimated) for MPN-BP and 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.6 - Not estimated) for MPN-AP (Figure 2). Three patients (17%) were able to proceed to HCT. The results of ongoing genomic, histopathologic and cytokine profiling studies will be available for presentation at the meeting. Conclusions: The combination of RUX+DEC has activity in patients with MPN-AP/BP. The drug combination is generally well tolerated and can be administered as an outpatient, a distinct advantage over intensive induction therapies that have not shown significant benefit in these patients. Additional work is ongoing to assess the genomic and clinical variables predictive of response with this combination therapy approach. Given the tolerability and efficacy, this regimen may be of particular benefit to patients who are not candidates for intensive therapies. Disclosures Rampal: Constellation: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mascarenhas:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Wang:Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: 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; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Heaney:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Decipheral: Research Funding. Abboud:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. Odenike:ABBVIE: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: 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; CTI/Baxalta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotherapy Science: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Levine:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Epizyme: Patents & Royalties; Prelude: Research Funding; Qiagen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Imago: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Equity Ownership. Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hoffman:Incyte: Research Funding; Formation Biologics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Summer Road: Research Funding.