Citations

Abstract Background: In the past several years, biology of CLL is being unleashed which had led to discovery of novel treatments, including ofatumumab and obinutuzumab, CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which exhibited a paradigm shift in CLL. Available clinical trials provided direct comparison with chlorambucil, with no head-to-head trials to compare them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to summarize the evidence on first-line treatments of CLL. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of ofatumumab, obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, rituximab, bendamustin or alemtuzumab, in patients with previously untreated CLL. Efficacy outcome measures included progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months and best overall response rate (ORR), which consists of both complete and partial response rates. Bayesian NMA method was used to conduct this NMA that pools evidence from direct and indirect comparisons to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments used. Results: Five trials were identified, enrolling 2,113 newly diagnosed CLL patients with a median age ranging from 60 to 73. NMA demonstrated superiority of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil over other mAb combinations and ibrutinib, and had the highest probability of achieving PFS at 18 months when compared to ibrutinib with risk ratio (RR) of 2.41 (credible interval [CrI] 0.89 to 5.29) and ofatumumab plus chlorambucil with RR of 7.11 (CrI 3.31 to 13.8). Table-1 depicts the results of NMA for PFS at 18 months. It also had the highest probability of achieving ORR, followed by ibrutinib ranking the second. Conclusion: Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil has higher probability of achieving efficacy compared to other mAb combinations or ibrutinib, in terms of better ORR and better PFS rates, followed by ibrutinib. The certainty in the evidence is low because of indirectness, which is a limitation in this NMA, however our results parallel the evidence based practice. Although no head to head clinical trials compared first-line treatments for CLL, our NMA showed that obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil and ibrutinib had better efficacy profile. NMA is not a substitute for well conducted RCTs investigating direct comparisons. Abbreviations: CrI, credible intervals; PFS, progression free survival. *Treatments are ranked according to their probability of achieving comparative effectiveness. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Chronic GVHD contributes to morbidity and mortality after allogeneic transplantation. Several phase 2 and 3 open label studies suggested that ATLG (formerly referred to as ATG-F) reduces cGVHD without impacting relapse or survival. This report describes the first prospective randomized double blind phase 3 trial to assess the effect of ATLG (Neovii) when added to tacrolimus / methotrexate prophylaxis on cGVHD free survival. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted at 27 sites in the United States and Australia. 260 patients were randomized (132 placebo, 128 ATLG). 6 patients who were randomized never received ATLG/placebo (4 placebo and 2 ATLG). Data presented include the 128 placebo and 126 ATLG patients who underwent treatment and transplant. Patients were ages 18-65 years with a diagnosis of acute myeloid (AML, 64%) or lymphoblastic (ALL, 21%) leukemia in first or subsequent complete remission or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS, 15%) with less than 10% marrow blasts. Median age was 48 years (18-65) with 55% males. All patients received 8/8 HLA (A, B, C, DR) allele matched unrelated products (80% mobilized peripheral blood, 20% bone marrow). Myeloablative conditioning was with cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (Cy/TBI, 27%), busulfan and cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy, 33%), or busulfan and fludarabine (Bu/Flu, 40%). All patients received tacrolimus starting on Day -1 and standard mtx on days 1, 3, 6, and 11 for GVHD prophylaxis. Patients received ATLG or placebo on Days -3, -2, -1 at an ATLG dose of 20 mg/kg per day (60 mg/kg total). The primary endpoint of the study was moderate/severe chronic GVHD free survival. cGVHD was scored by the investigator and then confirmed or overturned by an independent adjudication committee. Secondary endpoints included engraftment, acute GVHD , moderate/severe cGVHD, non-relapse mortality, GVHD and relapse free survival (GRFS), progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The impact of ATLG on immune reconstitution was assessed in 91 patients. Results: Treatment arms were balanced with respect to age, diagnosis, remission status, cytogenetics, graft source (PB or BM), CMV serostatus and conditioning regimen. Median follow up of survivors was 745 days (61, 1425). Regarding the primary endpoint, there was no difference in 2 year moderate/severe cGVHD free survival between ATLG and placebo (48 vs 44%, p = 0.57), nor was there a difference in GRFS (Table 1). Neutrophil engraftment at Day 30 was less in the ATLG arm (85% vs 95%, p=0.00001). Grade 2 or higher infusion reactions were higher in the ATLG arm (16% vs 2.3%, p=0.0001). Reactivation of CMV was similar (27% vs 31%, p=0.58). The Day 180 cumulative incidence of grades 2-4 acute GVHD was lower in the ATLG arm (23 vs 40%, p = 0.003) as was the 2-year cumulative incidence of moderate/severe cGVHD (12 vs 33%, p = 0.000006). However, both 2-year OS and PFS were lower in ATLG treated patients (58 v 76% and 47 vs 67%, respectively) due in part to a higher incidence of relapse (32 vs 19%, p=0.068). Multivariable models confirmed that ATLG was associated with inferior OS, HR 1.85 (1.1-2.9, p=.0075) and PFS, HR 1.63 (1.1-2.41, p=0.015). We then conducted an unplanned post-hoc analysis and discovered a striking influence of conditioning regimen on outcomes. There were no differences in OS or PFS between ATLG and placebo arms in patients receiving Bu/Cy or Bu/Flu but a dramatic difference in patients receiving Cy/TBI conditioning (OS, 88% vs 48% p =0.006 and PFS, 75 vs 29%, p=0.007 in placebo and ATLG arms, respectively). 91 patients (44 ATLG, 47 placebo) participated in the immune reconstitution study. ATLG treatment was associated with lower CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts at Days 30, 100, and 360, respectively. In turn lower CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts assessed as time dependent variables were all associated with inferior OS and PFS as well as higher NRM (data not shown). Conclusion: In this first ever prospective, randomized, double blind trial of ATLG added to tacrolimus /methotrexate in recipients of matched unrelated donor grafts after myeloablative conditioning, there was no significant difference in 2 year moderate/severe cGVHD free survival or GRFS. ATLG did significantly reduce grades 2-4 acute and moderate/severe chronic GVHD. However, overall survival was higher in the placebo arm, driven mainly by patients who received Cy/TBI conditioning. Further analyses are needed to understand the proper role for ATLG in HCT. Disclosures Soiffer: Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Porter:Genentech: Employment; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Szer:Alnylam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ra Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ritz:Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Glavin:Neovii Biotech: Employment. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract Background: The Philadelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) includePolycythemia Vera (PV), Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF). These stem cell disorders carry a propensity to evolve into acute myeloid leukemia (MPN-blast phase [BP] or post-MPN AML) with a dismal prognosis not meaningfully improved by conventional anti-leukemia therapy. Thus, MPN-BP is an urgent unmet clinical need. Responses in patients with MPN-BP to hypomethylating agents and single agent ruxolitinib have been reported. More recently, combination of ruxolitnib and decitabine has demonstrated synergistic activity in vitro in cells derived from patients with MPN-BP and from a murine model of MPN-BP (Rampal et al PNAS 2014). These observations led us to explore the safety of combined decitabine and dose escalation of ruxolitinib in MPN-BP. Objective: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ruxolitinib in combination with a fixed dose of decitabine (DEC-RUX). Methods: We conducted an open label Phase I trial in patients with MPN acceleration phase (AP) as defined by 10%-19% blasts in the peripheral blood or bone marrow or a diagnosis of MPN-BP as defined by ≥ 20% blasts in the blood or bone marrow, following a previous diagnosis of ET, PV or PMF. Patients were enrolled in a standard 3+3 phase I design with an MTD defined as a dose <33% DLT. Ruxolitinib was administered at doses of 10mg, 15mg, 25mg, or 50mg every 12 hours in combination with concurrent decitabine at a dose of 20mg/m2 daily intravenously over 5 days and repeated every 28 days. Adverse events were assessed using the NCI CTCAE v. 4.0. DLTs were defined as Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity events not clearly related to disease and grade 4 hematologic events with a bone marrow cellularity of ≤5% and no evidence of leukemia. Response assessment was carried out every cycle using modified Cheson criteria: CR required 0% peripheral blood blasts, WBC ≥4x109/L, 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 21 patients were accrued to study (Table 1). The median age was 63 years (range 48-88). 52% carried a diagnosis of MPN-AP, and 48% carried a diagnosis of MPN-BP. 29% of patients and 24% of patients had prior exposure to ruxolitinb and decitabine, respectively. The median number of cycles received varied from 10.5 cycles in the 10mg BID cohort to 2 and 2.5 cycles in the 25mg BID and 50mg BID cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The most common Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs observed were due to infection in all dosing cohorts. In terms of hematologic toxicity, treatment emergent Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in 1 patient in each of the 10mg BID, 15mg BID, and 50mg BID cohorts. Grade 3/4 leukopenia was observed in only 1 patient at the 50mg BID cohort, and Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 2 patients in the 10mg BID cohort and 1 patient in the 15mg BID cohort. DLT rate was below 33% for all dose levels so the MTD was not reached. The most common reason for ending study treatment was toxicity/adverse events (33%) followed by disease progression (22%). 9 patients died during study or follow-up. Of those, 5 (56%, 2 in 10mg BID cohort, 1 in 15mg BID cohort, 2 in 50mg BID cohort) died of infection, 3 (33%, 1 in each of 10mg, 25mg, and 50mg BID cohorts) of progressive disease, and 1 (11%, 25mg BID cohort) of hemorrhage. The median overall survival for patients on study was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.3 mo - not reached). CR/CRi as best response was observed in 7/21 patients (33%, 95% CI 15-57%; 2 CR, 5 CRi; Table 2). Conclusions: DEC-RUX combination therapy was safely administered to patients with MPN-AP/BP and an MTD was not reached. Based on pre-clinical data, observed safety profile, duration of treatment, and clinical responses in this phase I trial, the Recommended Phase II Dose of RUX was selected as 25mg BID for an induction cycle followed by 10mg BID in all ensuing cycles. Molecular and bone marrow pathology responses will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Hexner:Blueprint medicines: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding. Abboud:Alexion: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Baxalta: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gerson and Lehman Group: Consultancy; Cardinal: Honoraria. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) represents an important therapeutic advance for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Nonetheless, patients with lenalidomide (Len) and bortezomib (double) refractory disease have a median progression-free survival of only 3.7 months with the combination, thus highlighting the need for further progress. Ixazomib, a novel, oral proteasome inhibitor, has pharmacodynamic properties that may allow for improved proteasome inhibition at the tumoral level and has synergistic activity in combination with IMiDs in preclinical MM models. Clinical studies have demonstrated activity as a single agent in relapsed/refractory MM and in combination with Len-Dex in newly diagnosed patients. We therefore evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of Pom, ixazomib and Dex in patients with Len and proteasome inhibitor (PI) refractory MM in the phase I portion of Alliance study A061202. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included: relapsed or relapsed/refractory disease; ≥2 prior lines of therapy; double refractory disease (progression on or ≤60 days from the last dose of a Len- and PI-based therapy); ECOG performance status (PS) ≤2; absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0 x 109/L, platelets ≥50 x 109/L, creatinine clearance ≥50 mL/min; and ≤grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. Patients were treated with escalating doses of Pom and ixazomib utilizing a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design in combination with standard dose Dex (Table 1). Patients received 2 - 4 mg of Pom on days 1 - 21; ixazomib 3 - 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15; and Dex 40 mg (20 mg for those >75 years of age) on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Out of 17 evaluable patients, the median age was 64 (range 47 - 77) and the median time from diagnosis 5.5 years (range 3.3 - 8.3). Sixty-five percent, 24% and 12% had ISS stage 1, 2 and 3 disease at the start of treatment, respectively, and 65% had high-risk cytogenetics (gain of 1q, del[17p] and/or high-risk IgH translocation). All patients had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 (59% and 41%, respectively). Of 14 patients with complete prior treatment data available, 100% had received prior Len, bortezomib and Dex, 71% alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide or low dose melphalan), 71% autologous stem cell transplant and 29% carfilzomib. Eighty-two percent were refractory to sequential Len- and bortezomib regimens, whereas 6% were refractory to a prior Len/proteasome inhibitor combination (12% not reported). Two dose limiting toxicities have occurred to date, 1 each at dose levels 3 and 4 (Table 1). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia attributable to protocol therapy have been seen in 29%/6%, 12%/6% and 29%/0% of patients, respectively. Twelve percent of patients have experienced grade 3 infection, regardless of attribution, but none have experienced ≥grade 4 infection. The incidence of therapy-related peripheral neuropathy was 24%, none of which was ≥grade 3 in severity. Other common, therapy-related adverse events have included fatigue (53%), nausea (24%), constipation (18%), diarrhea (29%), rash (18%), tremor (24%), anxiety (18%), insomnia (29%) and edema (24%), all of which were ≤grade 2 in severity. Fifty-three percent of patients had at least 1 of the 3 medications dose reduced, and 35% experienced dose delays. To date, 1 patient has discontinued therapy due to adverse events and 1 due to refusal of further therapy. Of 13 patients receiving >1 cycle of therapy, the best overall response rate was 62% (7 partial responses, 1 very good partial response). CONCLUSIONS: The Pom, ixazomib and Dex combination has demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile thus far with encouraging preliminary efficacy. Updated results of the phase I portion of the study will be presented at the meeting, including the maximum tolerated dose that will be used in the randomized, phase II portion of the study, in which the 3-drug combination will be compared with Pom-Dex in double refractory MM patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004275. Supported by U10CA180821, U10CA180882. Table 1. Dose Level Pomalidomide Dose (mg) Ixazomib Dose (mg) DLT Evaluable DLTs 1 2 3 3 None 2 3 3 3 None 3 4 3 6 1 febrile neutropenia 4‡ 4 4 4 1 grade 4 thrombocytopenia lasting 8 days ‡enrollment into dose level 4 is complete. Disclosures Voorhees: Janssen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, and Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda and Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: We will discuss the use of Ixazomib, an agent that is not FDA approved, in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma.. Richardson:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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.

Abstract Background: Treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) requires a careful balance between providing enough therapy to cure the disease and avoiding unnecessary treatment that could result in excessive long-term treatment-related complications. The preferred treatment option for limited stage non-bulky HL currently involves the use of combined chemotherapy and involved-field radiation therapy. Given the unclear overall survival advantage and the long-term side effects associated with consolidative radiation, the use of this modality remains one of the most controversial topics in the treatment of HL. Therefore, alternative consolidation approaches are worthy of exploration for treatment of limited stage non-bulky HL. Brentuximab vedotin has been associated with favorable response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory HL. We hypothesize that brentuximab vedotin may be safe and effective in eradicating residual disease after induction chemotherapy and may potentially replace radiation therapy for consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL. Methods: In this phase 2 multicenter study, patients with non-bulky (< 7.5 cm) stage I or II HL are being enrolled to determine the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered for consolidation after a standard chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01578967). The primary objective of the study is to estimate the proportion of patients who achieve PET-negative disease (Deauville score of 2 or less) after induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation with brentuximab vedotin. Involved-field radiation is recommended only if the PET scan is positive at the completion of therapy with brentuximab vedotin. Patients received 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD based on their baseline risk factors and the interim PET scan result; patients with favorable disease with negative interim PET received 2 cycles, favorable disease with positive interim PET or unfavorable disease with negative interim PET received 4 cycles, and unfavorable disease with positive interim PET received 6 cycles of ABVD. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after the induction chemotherapy, 1.8 mg/kg of brentuximab vedotin was given every 3 weeks for 6 cycles for consolidation. Results: Interim analysis was performed per protocol for futility and safety after 15 evaluable patients were enrolled since April 2012. Out of 15 evaluable patients, 8 patients have completed 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin, and the remaining 7 patients are currently under active treatment. The median age was 28 years (range 19 – 58), and 7 patients (47%) presented with unfavorable disease defined by the presence of B symptoms, ESR > 50, or > 3 sites of disease. All patients had masses measuring less than 7.5 cm in diameter except one patient who requested an exception to the eligibility criteria for a conglomerate mediastinal mass measuring 10 cm. No grade 3 or above adverse events have been observed with brentuximab vedotin therapy. No grade 2 or above peripheral neuropathy or pulmonary toxicity has been reported. Ten out of 12 patients, who completed ABVD, achieved PET-negative disease after 2 cycles of ABVD, and all 7 patients who completed brentuximab vedotin achieved PET-negative disease and remain in remission with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 5.6 – 15). Thus far, none of the treated patients on this protocol required consolidative radiation therapy. Conclusion: In this interim analysis of 15 patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL, brentuximab vedotin as consolidation therapy demonstrates promising safety and clinical activity following ABVD. Enrollment is currently open with the target accrual of 40 patients to assess the feasibility of achieving PET-negative disease and thereby avoiding radiation therapy in at least 85% of patients who receive ABVD followed by brentuximab vedotin consolidation. Table: PET results in HL patients who received ABVD followed by BV Consolidation Interim-PET2 (n = 12) Post ABVD (n = 12) Post BV (n = 7) Deauville 1 0 1 4 Deauville 2 10 11 3 Deauville 3 2 0 0 Deauville ≥ 4 0 0 0 PET, positron emission tomography; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; ABVD, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine; BV, brentuximab vedotin; Interim-PET-2, PET scan after 2 cycles of ABVD; Post ABVD, PET scan after 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD; Post BV, PET scan after 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin Disclosures Park: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Janssen: Travel, Travel Other. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin in previously untreated Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 798 Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a lymphoid neoplasm associated with the presence of CD30-positive Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in a background of inflammatory cells. The regimen containing doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) has become a common standard of care for the frontline treatment of HL. However, although ABVD is curative for the majority of patients with advanced stage HL, up to 30% of patients will require a salvage therapy. Brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS®) comprises an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule-disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). This phase 1, open-label, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered in combination with standard therapy (ABVD) or a modified standard (AVD) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01060904). Patients received doses of 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with standard doses of ABVD or 1.2 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin with AVD, depending upon cohort assignment. The combination regimens were administered on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles of therapy. Each regimen evaluated a dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period, defined as any Cycle 1 toxicity requiring a delay of ≥ 7 days in standard ABVD or AVD therapy. Determination of antitumor activity was based on investigator assessment of objective response according to the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). FDG-PET interpretation for Cycle 2 was performed by a central review per Deauville criteria with uptake above liver background considered positive. Data are presented for the 51 patients treated. Six patients received 0.6 mg/kg, 13 received 0.9 mg/kg, and 6 received 1.2 mg/kg with ABVD; 26 patients received 1.2 mg/kg with AVD. Overall, 37 patients were male (73%) and the median age of all patients was 33 years (range, 18–59). At baseline, 45% of all patients had Stage IV HL, 25% had an IPS score ≥4, and all patients with available ECOG status had a score of 0 or 1. No DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg in either regimen. Common AEs (≥20 patients overall) noted in the ABVD and AVD cohorts, respectively, were nausea (76%, 77%), neutropenia (80%, 69%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (72%, 65%), vomiting (60%, 38%), fatigue (44%, 46%), and constipation (48%, 31%). Common ≥Grade 3 AEs (>10% of patients overall) observed in the ABVD and AVD cohorts, respectively, were neutropenia (80%, 65%), anemia (20%, 12%), febrile neutropenia (20%, 8%), and pulmonary toxicity (24%, 0%). In the ABVD cohorts, 11/25 (44%) patients had AEs of pulmonary toxicity, interstitial lung disease, or pneumonitis that led to discontinuation of bleomycin; 2 of these events led to death. Of these 11 patients, 7 completed treatment with AVD and brentuximab vedotin. In general, these events occurred between Cycles 3 and 6. No pulmonary toxicity was observed in the AVD cohort. The incidence of neuropathy was similar between the ABVD (72%) and AVD (73%) regimens; none of these events were ≥Grade 4 in severity. Overall, 7 patients discontinued brentuximab vedotin due to an AE (5 ABVD patients and 2 AVD patients). At Cycle 2, 48 patients were evaluated by FDG-PET by central review; of these, all 22 ABVD and 24/26 AVD patients were PET negative. Of the 51 patients treated, 4 withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up prior to end of treatment (EOT) assessments. The remaining 47 patients had a 96% objective response rate: 21/22 ABVD patients (95%) and 23/25 AVD patients (92%) achieved CR at the end of frontline therapy, 1 AVD patient had PR (with further workup ongoing), 1 ABVD patient died of AEs (hyponatremia and pulmonary toxicity) prior to EOT, and 1 AVD patient had PD. In patients with newly diagnosed HL, the maximum tolerated dose of brentuximab vedotin combined with ABVD or AVD was not reached; no DLT was observed up to 1.2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, the maximum planned dose. The safety profile observed confirmed that brentuximab vedotin can be safely combined with AVD; however, combination with a bleomycin-containing regimen is not recommended due to the incidence of pulmonary toxicity. The very high CR rate seen in this cohort of advanced-stage HL patients compares favorably with historical controls and warrants comparison with standard therapy. A phase 3 study comparing brentuximab vedotin combined with AVD versus ABVD alone is planned. Disclosures: Ansell: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. These indications are based on response rate. There are no data available demonstrating improvement in patient reported outcomes or survival with brentuximab vedotin. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Park:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. O'Meara:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Younes:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 707 Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are disorders that result in unregulated overproduction of one or more myeloid blood cell types by the bone marrow. Polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF) comprise the three classic MPNs. The somatic JAK2 V617F mutation is present in 95% of PV patients, and 50–60% of ET and PMF patients. Past work has identified a germline haplotype in JAK2 associated with risk of developing a V617F-positive MPN (Kilpivaara et al; Olcaydu et al; Jones et al, Nat. Genet., 2009). Methods: We recruited a web-based participatory cohort of individuals with MPNs to better understand the genetic basis of these conditions. Participation in this MPN research initiative included free genotyping, and participants provided informed consent and responses to surveys online, under a protocol approved by the external AAHRPP-accredited IRB, Ethical & Independent Review Services. We enrolled and collected saliva samples from more than 700 participants with the following self-reported diagnoses: systemic mastocytosis (n=142), ET (n=145), PV (n=137), PMF (n=50), chronic myelogenous leukemia (n=108), and 97 with overlapping diagnoses (e.g. ET or PV with PMF). Participants were genotyped using a derivative of the Illumina HumanOmniExpress BeadChip with additional custom content, including probes for the JAK2 V617F variant. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of classic MPN diagnoses (at least one of ET, PV, or MF), using 407 cases from this MPN research initiative and 94,037 controls drawn from the broader 23andMe research participant community. Association was assessed by logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and 5 principal components to model ancestry. Results: We replicated the known association between germline variation in JAK2 and classic MPNs (rs12340895: odds ratio=2.5, P=7.4 × 10−35). We also identified a novel genome-wide-significant association in TERT, or telomerase reverse transcriptase (rs2853677: odds ratio=1.6 per G allele, P=6.3 × 10−11). The association is consistent with an additive model on the logistic scale (odds ratio=2.6 for 2 versus 0 G alleles). Another variant in TERT, rs2736100, has previously been associated with several non-hematological cancers and with red blood cell count, and our lead SNP is in linkage disequilibrium with TERT variant rs2736100 (r2=0.54). While no other loci reached the threshold of genome-wide significance (P<5.0 × 10−8), we saw a suggestive association with a germline missense variant (F858L) in ATM, or ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene (rs1800056: odds ratio=2.6 per C allele, P=1.4 × 10−5). This variant has also been reported to be associated with breast cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The rs2853677 TERT variant was associated with each of ET, PV, and PMF, with similar effect sizes. It was not associated with JAK2 V617F mutation status within the MPN cohort (odds ratio=1.0, P=1.0), while the germline JAK2 variant was preferentially associated with V617F-positive MPNs (odds ratio=2.1, P=3.0 × 10−6). The high-risk allele of rs2853677 was also predictive of V617F status among 23andMe participants who had not been recruited into the MPN community (odds ratio=1.6, P=0.0012). These results suggest that while variation in TERT facilitates either acquisition or proliferation of V617F-positive myeloid cells, it also predisposes to MPNs through a V617F-independent mechanism. Conclusion: We have identified a germline variant in TERT which is a new predisposition allele for classic MPNs. These results demonstrate the potential for web-based recruitment methods to contribute to genetic research for uncommon diseases. Disclosures: Hinds: 23andMe: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Barnholt:23andMe, Inc.: Employment. Zehnder:23andMe, Inc.: Unpaid advisor and collaborator Other. Kiefer:23andMe, Inc.: Employment. Do:23andMe, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Eriksson:23andMe, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Mountain:23andMe, Inc.: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Francke:23andMe, Inc.: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding; Locus Development: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tung:23andMe, Inc.: Employment. Mesa:23andMe, Inc: Unpaid advisor and collaborator Other. Gotlib:23andMe, Inc.: Unpaid advisor and collaborator Other.