Citations

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: 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, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: 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; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: 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; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: 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; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: 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; UpToDate: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: 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. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Abstract Despite its efficacy, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is limited by the development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity (NT). While CRS is related to extreme elevation of cytokines and massive T cell expansion, the exact mechanisms for NT have not yet been elucidated. Preliminary studies suggest that NT might be mediated by myeloid cells that cross the blood brain barrier. This is supported by correlative analysis from CART19 pivotal trials where CD14+ cell numbers were increased in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients that developed severe NT (Locke et al, ASH 2017). Therefore, we aimed to investigate the role of GM-CSF neutralization in preventing CRS and NT after CART cell therapy via monocyte control. First, we investigated the effect of GM-CSF blockade on CART cell effector functions. Here, we used the human GM-CSF neutralizing antibody (lenzilumab, Humanigen, Burlingame, California) that has been shown to be safe in phase II clinical trials. Lenzilumab (10 ug/kg) neutralizes GM-CSF when CART19 cells are stimulated with the CD19+ Luciferase+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cell line NALM6, but does not impair CART cell function in vitro. We have found that malignancy associated macrophages reduce CART proliferation. GM-CSF neutralization with lenzilumab results in enhanced CART cell antigen specific proliferation in the presence of monocytes. To confirm this in vivo, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with high disease burdens of NALM6 and treated with low doses of CART19 or control T cells (to induce tumor relapse), in combination with lenzilumab or isotype control antibody. The combination of CART19 and lenzilumab resulted in significant anti-tumor activity and overall survival benefit compared to control T cells (Fig 1A), similar to mice treated with CART19 combined with isotype control antibody, indicating that GM-CSF neutralization does not impair CART cell activity in vivo. This anti-tumor activity was validated in an ALL patient derived xenograft model. Next, we explored the impact of GM-CSF neutralization on CART cell related toxicities in a novel patient derived xenograft model. Here, NOD-SCID-g-/- mice were engrafted with leukemic blasts (1-3x106 cells) derived from patients with high risk ALL. Mice were then treated with high doses of CART19 cells (2-5x106 intravenously). Five days after CART19 treatment, mice began to develop progressive motor weakness, hunched bodies, and weight loss that correlated with massive elevation of circulating human cytokine levels. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain during this syndrome showed diffuse enhancement and edema, associated with central nervous system (CNS) infiltration of CART cells and murine activated myeloid cells. This is similar to what has been reported in CART19 clinical trials in patients with severe NT. The combination of CART19, lenzilumab (to neutralize human GM-CSF) and murine GM-CSF blocking antibody (to neutralize mouse GM-CSF) resulted in prevention of weight loss (Fig 1B), decrease in critical myeloid cytokines (Fig 1C-D), reduction of cerebral edema (Fig 1E), enhanced leukemic disease control in the brain (Fig 1F), and reduction in brain macrophages (Fig 1G). Finally, we hypothesized that disrupting GM-CSF through CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing during the process of CART cell manufacturing would result in functional CART cells with reduced secretion of GM-CSF. We designed guide RNA targeting exon 3 of the GM-CSF gene and generated GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells. Our preliminary data suggest that these CARTs produce significantly less GM-CSF upon activation but continue to exhibit similar production of other cytokines and exhibit normal effector functions in vitro (Fig 1H). Using the NALM6 high tumor burden relapse xenograft model as described above, GM-CSFk/o CART19 cells resulted in slightly enhanced disease control compared to CART19 cells (Fig 1I). Thus, modulating myeloid cell behavior through GM-CSF blockade can help control CART mediated toxicities and may reduce their immunosuppressive features to improve leukemic control. These studies illuminate a novel approach to abrogate NT and CRS through GM-CSF neutralization that also potentially enhances CART cell functions. Based on these results, we have designed a phase II clinical trial using lenzilumab as a modality to prevent CART related toxicities in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Disclosures Ahmed: Humanigen: Employment. Sahmoud:Humanigen: Employment. Durrant:Humanigen: Employment. Russell:Vyriad: Equity Ownership. Kay:Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Humanigen: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Blasts and leukemic stem cells of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as well as several other hematologic malignancies express CD123, potentially providing a target for novel therapies. XmAb14045 (also known as SQZ622) is a potent bispecific antibody targeting both CD123 and CD3 that stimulates targeted T cell-mediated killing of CD123-expressing cells, regardless of T cell antigen specificity. It is a full-length immunoglobulin molecule designed to be dosed intermittently, in contrast to smaller constructs that are referred to as "DART" or "BiTE" bispecific antibodies that require a continuous infusion. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory AML, B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), blast phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, or blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm were eligible to enroll on this first-in-human, multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose-escalation study (XmAb14045-01) with standard 3+3 design. The primary objective was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose and schedule of XmAb14045. Secondary objectives included safety, preliminary antileukemic activity, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of XmAb14045. Treatment was administered weekly in 28 day cycles, using a weight-based dose with a single dose level in Part A and, in Part B, an initial priming dose on Day 1 followed by an escalated dose on subsequent weeks. Premedication to prevent cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was instituted as needed and included a steroid, acetaminophen, and diphenhydramine. Patients were premedicated at all XmAb14045 doses ≥0.075 µg/kg. Therapy was continued for as long as tolerated and there was continuing evidence of therapeutic benefit in the opinion of the investigator. Treatment response was assessed by the 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria after Cycle 1 and after each odd-numbered cycle. CRS was graded using the CRS revised grading system (Lee et al., Blood, 2014). Results: At data cut-off, 64 patients have been treated to date, 63 with relapsed/refractory AML and 1 with B-ALL. Patients had a median age of 61 years and were heavily pretreated (median of 3 prior therapies [range 1-8], including 19 [30%] who had undergone prior allogeneic stem cell transplantation). The recommended dose for Part A was 1.3 µg/kg after a single dose-limiting toxicity of Grade 4 CRS at 2.3 µg/kg; no MTD has been identified. CRS or its component symptoms was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). CRS episodes began within approximately 1-4 hours of the start of drug infusion and occurred in 49 of 64 patients (77%). Seven patients (11%) developed Grade ≥3 CRS, the majority of these on the first dose. There were no CRS-related deaths. Excluding CRS-related events, additional TEAEs occurring in >10% of patients included fatigue (31%), febrile neutropenia (30%), peripheral edema (30%), cough (23%), elevated hepatic transaminases (19%; all recovered without sequelae), pneumonia (17%), stomatitis (14%), hyperglycemia (13%), and sepsis (11%). No myelosuppression requiring dose modification or evidence of tumor lysis syndrome was seen. In Part A, single agent antileukemic activity was documented with a best response of CR (2) or CRi (1) in 3/13 AML patients (CR/CRi rate 23%) treated at the two highest dose levels studied to date (1.3 and 2.3 µg/kg weekly); no CR, CRi, or morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) responses were seen at lower doses. Antileukemic activity occurred quickly; all responders had achieved at least an MLFS response after 4 doses (1 cycle). Two responders were bridged to stem cell transplantation, and the third was ineligible for medical reasons but remains in remission at 14+ weeks after initiating therapy. Conclusions: XmAb14045 demonstrated evidence of antileukemic activity in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory AML treated in Part A at the 1.3 and 2.3 µg/kg doses administered once weekly, with a 23% CR/CRi rate. CRS was the most common toxicity but was generally manageable with premedications. The study is ongoing with further optimization of dose, schedule, and premedication regimen for CRS anticipated during accrual to dose escalation cohorts in Part B. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02730312 Disclosures Ravandi: Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Honoraria; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Orsenix: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding. Foran:Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Mawad:Swedish Cancer Institute: Employment. Blum:Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding. Saville:Xencor, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Johnson:Xencor, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vanasse:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ly:Xencor, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mims:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Guadecitabine SC (SGI-110) is a dinucleotide next generation HMA resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase resulting in extended in vivo exposure to its active metabolite decitabine. A Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles (Issa et al, 2015, Lancet Oncology). Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in both untreated MDS patients, and patients previously treated with other HMAs. M ethods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory to other HMAs (r/r) were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5 every 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated by the clinical responses of CR, PR, marrow CR (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2006, as well as transfusion-independence, and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 r/r MDS, and 49 TN MDS. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 3.2 years (IQR 2.8-3.5 years). Median age was 72 and 71 years for r/r and TN MDS respectively. Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment dose groups except that more CMML patients were randomized to the 60 mg/m2 group (28%) vs. 14% in the 90 mg/m2 group, and more patients with baseline BM blasts >5% were in the 90 mg/m2 group (67%) vs. 38% in the 60 mg/m2 group. Most patients were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline (57%). In the r/r MDS cohort, most patients (58%) received their last HMA treatment <3 month before enrolment, and most of them received ≥6 months of prior HMA treatment (77%). Median number of treatment cycles was 5 for both r/r and TN MDS (range 1-37 in r/r MDS and 1-49 in TN MDS). In the TN MDS cohort CR was achieved in 11 (22%) of patients with no major difference between the 2 dose groups (19% in the 60 mg/m2 group vs 27% in the 90 mg/m2 group). Overall CR+mCR was achieved in 18 patients (37%) in TN MDS patients and median OS was 23.4 months. In the r/r MDS cohort, CR was achieved in 4% of patients in each of the 2 dose groups. Overall CR+mCR in the r/r MDS cohort was achieved in 17 patients (32%), with a median duration of response of 7.9 months, and median OS of 11.7 months. No significant difference in response or OS between the 2 dose groups was observed. In patients who were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline, transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was achieved in 42% of TN MDS, and 15% in r/r MDS patients. In the overall population of 102 TN and r/r MDS patients there were no major differences in OS based on DNMT3A or TET2 mutation status while patients with TP53 mutations had worse median OS (7.4 months) compared to those without TP53 mutations (22.6 months). Other baseline prognostic factors for worse OS were BM blasts >5%; RBC transfusion-dependence; IPSS High Risk; and ECOG Performance Status of >1. Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 83 vs. 96% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 dose groups respectively. There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (57 vs 41.5%); neutropenia (51 vs 39.6%); febrile neutropenia (43% vs 32%); and pneumonia (32.7 vs. 26.4%) for the 90 mg/m2 compared to 60 mg/m2 dose group. Early 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality was observed in 0, 3.7%, and 5.7% in the 60 mg/m2 dose group respectively; and in 2%, 4%, and 12% in the 90 mg/m2 dose group respectively. Conclusions: Guadecitabine at both dose groups is a well-tolerated novel HMA with clinical activity in the treatment of both TN and r/r Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients. In TN MDS patient CR rate of 22% and median OS of 23.4 months compare well with first generation HMA efficacy (Fenaux et al, 2009, Lancet Oncology). Activity in r/r MDS who previously failed prior HMAs is particularly promising (CR+mCR in 32% of patients with median duration of response and overall survival of almost 8 and 12 months respectively). A phase 3 trial (ASTRAL-3) of guadecitabine vs Physician Treatment Choice in r/r MDS and CMML patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine is actively enrolling (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02907359). Disclosures Ritchie: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kropf:Celegene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Griffiths:Alexion Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene, Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Daiichi Snakyo: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Berdeja:Genentech: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Aggressive chemo-immunotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell autografting (ASCT) in CALGB (Alliance) 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL of 5 years (Damon et al JCO, 2009), but late recurrences occurred. Using the CALGB 59909 treatment backbone, we evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM)in a randomized phase II trial. Interim results of CALGB (Alliance) 50403 were previously presented (ASH 2015) demonstrating 5 yr PFS 70% and 69% for the BM and BC arms respectively. We now report final 8 year follow up results from this trial and compare outcomes to CALGB 59909, which differed from CALGB 50403 only by the absence of post-transplant bortezomib. Methods: The primary endpoint was PFS measured from randomization for each treatment arm. Induction therapy was with 2-3 cycles of augmented R-CHOP (2000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide) and methotrexate (300 mg/m2) followed by high-dose cytarabine/etoposide/rituximab(R)/filgrastim (EAR) stem cell mobilization and cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) ASCT. After 2 doses of post-transplant R, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/ m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for 4 cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly x4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning at approximately day 90. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was analyzed using patient-specific PCR probes for the bcl-1 / IgH junction or the IgH CDR3 region. Results: 151 patients were enrolled from 10/2006 - 6/2010 at 14 sites; 147 who received treatment are included in this analysis. Median age was 59 years (29-69); stage II (2.7%), III (11.6%), IV (85.0%); MIPI low (52.4%), intermediate (30.6%), high (17.0%); blastoid histology (12.9%); bone marrow involvement (81.0%); Ki67 was evaluated in 86 and was >30% in 17.4% of patients. 118 (80%) underwent ASCT and 102 (68%) were randomized. Most withdrawals (45) were for progression (10) or adverse events (AEs) (19) including 4 treatment-related deaths. Fifty-two patients were randomized to BM and 50 to BC. Following randomization, 34 (65%) completed BM and 33 (66%) completed BC. Withdrawal for AEs occurred in 14 (28%) of BC and 7 (13%) of BM patients (p = 0.09), most for cytopenias or peripheral neuropathy. With a median follow-up 7.8 years from randomization (8.3 from registration), the median PFS from randomization for the BM arm was not reached and was 8.9 years (95% CI 7.2 to not reached) for the BC arm. Both arms had median PFS significantly greater than the null hypothesis setting median PFS to 4 years (p < 0.001; 1-sided test of exponential parameter)The 8-year PFS estimates in the BM and BC arms were 77% (95% CI 66-90%) and 58% (95% CI 44-76%), respectively. Among all 147 patients treated on CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from time of registration was 43.6% (35.6-53.3%). PFS from registration was not significantly extended in CALGB 50403 compared with CALGB 59909 (log rank p=0.24), but using a landmark analysis from time of transplant, PFS was significantly extended in CALGB 50403 (log rank p=0.005)(fig 1). Baseline patient characteristics in the two studies were not significantly different. In CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from registration by MIPI was 52.0% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) in MIPI low risk, 37.5% (95% CI 25.3-55.4%) in intermediate risk, and 28.2% (95% CI 13.7-57.9%) in high-risk. Bone marrow MRD results were collected for 42 patients post-induction therapy; 8-year PFS estimates were 80.2% (95% CI 62.2-100%) (n=17) and 43.2% (95% CI 27.3-68.2%) (n=25) for MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients, respectively (p=0.009). Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT and either BC or BM was efficacious and tolerable, although BC was associated with more withdrawals for toxicity. PFS was not significantly different between BC and BM. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up continues to suggest a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM among patients undergoing transplant. This did not translate into a PFS benefit from time of study enrollment possibly due to the higher pre-transplant dropout rate in 50403. MRD-negativity following induction chemo-immunotherapy is highly associated with improved PFS and the role of ASCT in post-induction MRD-negative patients is currently under investigation in a randomized clinical trial. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 Disclosures Kaplan: Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: 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; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Blum:Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board. Leonard:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Dasatinib with corticosteroid yields high complete remission (CR) rates in Ph+ ALL with minimal induction death. Optimal post-remission therapy is not known. We report a prospective study evaluating dasatinib/dexamethasone induction then consolidation with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), autologous HCT (autoHCT), or chemotherapy alone (chemo), followed by dasatinib-based maintenance. Methods: We conducted a phase II, 3-arm, non-randomized trial (NCT01256398, Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180861, U24CA196171) at 17 US centers with primary objectives to determine 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of adults ≥18 years (yrs) old with untreated Ph+ ALL treated with dasatinib/dexamethasone induction, CNS prophylaxis with systemic and intrathecal methotrexate, consolidation with alloHCT, autoHCT, or chemo, then dasatinib maintenance. Induction (Course I) used dasatinib 140 mg orally daily and dexamethasone 10 mg/m2/day orally or IV days 1-7. If ≤20% lymphoblasts in marrow at Day 15, Course II continued dasatinib with 7 days of dexamethasone. If >20% lymphoblasts, patients (pts) also received vincristine and daunorubicin. Pts not in CR/CRi received a second induction (Course III) with dasatinib, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, daunorubicin, and dexamethasone. CNS prophylaxis (Course IV) used dasatinib, IV vincristine and IV, oral, and intrathecal methotrexate. Course V consisted of HCT or chemo. Pts 18-70 yrs old underwent RIC alloHCT if they had a HLA-matched donor; otherwise they underwent autoHCT. AlloHCT conditioning used fludarabine 30 mg/m2/day IV day -7 through -3, alemtuzumab 20 mg/day IV day -7 through -3, and melphalan 140 mg/m2 IV once on day -2. GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus began day -2. Pts undergoing autoHCT received etoposide 10 mg/kg/day (age >65, 5 mg/kg/day) CIV for 4 days and cytarabine 2 g/m2 (age >65, 1 g/m2) IV every 12 hours for 8 doses then G-CSF for mobilization. AutoHCT conditioning was melphalan 100 mg/m2/day IV on days -2 and -1. Pts >70 yrs old or unable to undergo HCT received etoposide/cytarabine alone. Dasatinib maintenance (Course VI) began day 30 of Course V and continued for 12 months and until 2 consecutive negative BCR-ABL1 RT-PCR assays 3 months apart or relapse. BCR-ABL1 isoform and ABL1 kinase domain (KD) mutation determination were done locally. Results: From 12/15/2010 to 11/14/2014, 64 eligible pts enrolled. Median age was 60 yrs (22-87); median WBC 23.2 x 103/μl (0.3-454). The dominant BCR-ABL1 isoform was p190 in 59%, p210 in 17%, and not reported in 23%. The CR rate was 97% with no induction deaths. Fifty-five pts completed CNS prophylaxis (Course IV). Twenty pts underwent protocol-specified alloHCT, 7 autoHCT, and 9 chemo. Nine pts underwent off-study alloHCT and 5 skipped Course V. Dasatinib maintenance was tolerable with 72%, 80%, and 80% receiving >50% of planned maintenance doses in alloHCT, autoHCT, and chemo arms, respectively. With a median follow up of 48 months (37-78) for survivors, 3-yr OS and DFS were 55% (median OS 45 months) and 43% (median DFS 30 months), respectively. For pts undergoing consolidation with protocol-specified alloHCT, autoHCT, or chemo, 3-yr OS was 75%, 71%, and 55% respectively with median OS not reached (NR) for all groups. DFS at 3-yrs was 55%, 43%, and 46% respectively. Median DFS for alloHCT was 42 months vs 15 months for autoHCT and 34 months for chemo (Log-Rank P=0.4). Outcomes were similar with inclusion of off-study alloHCT and chemo patients skipping Course V. Relative to p190 BCR-ABL1 isoform, p210 was associated with shorter median OS (NR vs 16 months, P=0.04) and median DFS (35 months vs 10 months, P<0.0001). Three-year DFS was 9% with p210. Relapse occurred in 23 pts with 5 CNS relapses reported, one isolated. Relapse occurred in 25% of alloHCT, 43% of autoHCT, and 37% of chemo pts. T315I mutation in ABL1 KD was detected in 6 of 8 marrow relapses (75%). One isolated CNS relapse had no ABL1 KD mutations. Conclusions: Dasatinib and dexamethasone followed by alloHCT, autoHCT, or chemo yield similar 3-yr survival comparable to approaches using intensive induction chemotherapy. Pts with the p210 BCR-ABL1 isoform had dismal outcomes and may benefit from alternate approaches. T315I mutation was the major cause of relapse and should be addressed in future studies. Disclosures Wieduwilt: Amgen: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leadiant: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Powell:Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolitz:Magellan Health: Consultancy, Honoraria. Liedtke:Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; celgene: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; 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; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy. Larson:BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Introduction Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloid neoplasm in which 75% of patients have anemia and 25% are erythrocyte transfusion-dependent (TD) (Emanuel et. al. JCO 2012). MF patients receiving chronic transfusions are at risk of multiple co-morbid conditions and iron overload may develop with potential for end-organ damage. Iron chelating therapies (ICTs) help eliminate iron surplus by binding with plasma iron to form a non-toxic conjugate that can be safely excreted from the body. The objective of this study was to examine transfusion patterns and incidence of MF-related complications in TD MF patients treated with vs. without ICT from a US managed care perspective. Methods Two commercial claims databases, Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (2000-2012) and PharMetrics Integrated Database (2001-2012) were used to address the study objectives. Patients with ≥2 MF ICD-9 diagnosis codes (238.76, 289.83) ≥30 days apart, ≥18 years at the time of the first observed diagnosis for MF, and ≥6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the first observed evidence of transfusion dependency (index date), defined as ≥3 transfusion events within any 3-month period, were included (modified Gale et al. Criteria). A transfusion event was defined as a unique day when ≥1 procedure code for packed red blood cells, whole blood, or exchange transfusion was recorded. Frequency of transfusions and time from first evidence of TD to initiation of ICT were analyzed. Incidence of MF-related complications was assessed using incidence rates (IR) and compared between TD patients with vs. without ICT using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR), adjusting for baseline comorbidities and complications. Results Characteristics of MF patients receiving ICT: Of the 571 TD MF patients who met the inclusion criteria, 103 (18%) received ICT and 468 (82%) did not. Mean (SD) age was similar between the two groups (with ICT: 67.2 (10.4) vs. without ICT: 66.6 (11.7), p=0.65), but the proportion of men was higher in the ICT group (with ICT: 70.9% vs. without ICT: 58.3%, p=0.02). The mean (SD) observation time was longer for patients with ICT than without ICT (months, 22.2 [13.9] vs. 12.6 [11.6], p<0.001). A greater proportion of TD patients without ICT had a history of essential thrombocythemia (with ICT: 11.7% vs. without ICT: 20.9%), whereas the proportion of patients with prior polycythemia vera was similar between the two groups (with ICT: 11.7% vs. without ICT: 13.7%). Differences in TD MF patients by utilization of ICT: Overall, patients without ICT were generally more ill than those with ICT (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI], with ICT: 1.8 vs. without ICT: 2.3, p=0.01). The mean (SD) number of transfusion events per year was similar between the two groups with 22.4 (19.5) events/year in the group with ICT compared to 22.2 (28.5) events/year in the group without ICT (p=0.94). Among patients receiving ICT, therapy was initiated after a median time of 5.6 months following the first evidence of TD. TD patients with ICT had lower rates of thrombocytopenia (aIRR: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.74) and pancytopenia (aIRR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.76), but higher rates of anemia (aIRR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.27-2.02). The incidence of other MF-related complications considered was similar between the two groups. Conclusion In this first analysis of the utilization of ICT amongst MF patients whom are TD we identified several important differences between those receiving ICT compared to those who do not. Whether these difference are a result of ICT, or a reflection of whether physician practice leads to ICT utilization in certain subsets of MF patients (i.e. those with less thrombocytopenia/leukopenia) could not be assessed with the current data. Potential short term and long term benefits of ICT in MF need to be validated in prospective clinical trials. Disclosures Vekeman: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Cheng:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Sasane:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Huynh:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Kaminsky:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Duh:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Paley:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Mesa:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding.