Luger, Selina M.

Abstract Results from clinical trials may change with time. Data presented in initial abstracts or early reports are often different from what appears in subsequent publications, sometimes due to a more rigorous analysis (as in initial response rates) or to maturity of data (as in reports of survival). Survival curves usually provide projected data based on Kaplan-Meier analyses. Such data may change with time when unexpected events occur (as, for example, relapse after T-cell depleted allogeneic transplants) or more patients advance to the initially projected time point. For AML, several groups have reported that there are very few relapses beyond 3 years. At issue is the optimal time for reporting these survival data. Table 1 reports data from 6 consecutive clinical trials addressing induction and post-remission questions in AML patients performed by ECOG. These data compare the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for the identical cohorts of patients as presented at 1 year and at 3 years after completion of the study accrual. PC 486 was a phase II study of induction therapy followed by allogeneic or autologous transplant without prior consolidation. E 3489 was a US intergroup study in which patients received post-induction therapy using an allogeneic transplant (allo), an autologous transplant (auto) or chemotherapy (chemo). E1490 was a study in older adults of induction and consolidation with GM-CSF or placebo. E2491 was an intergroup study comparing ATRA induction versus standard chemotherapy in patients with APL. After consolidation, patients were randomized to maintenance with ATRA versus observation (obs). E3993 was a study in older adults comparing priming with GMCSF or placebo. E4995 was a phase II study of intensified induction and consolidation followed by an autologous transplant. For the same cohorts of patients the 3-year OS tends to decrease as the time from completion of study accrual increases. When looking at the DFS, while a decrease may also occur, in several studies there was an improved DFS with time (for example, in E2491, chemo to ATRA, or in E3993 with GM-CSF priming). There were no changes in either OS or DFS beyond 3 years (data not shown). Table 1: Three-year OS and DFS Presented at Different Time Points OS (%) DFS (%) Study One year Three years One year Three years PC 486 auto or allo HSCT 42 → 38 45 → 39 E 3489 allo HSCT 50 → 50 48 → 47 auto HSCT 47 → 46 39 → 39 chemo 56 → 51 36 → 36 E 1490 Induction / consolidation GM-CSF 23 → 22 23 → 24 placebo 15 → 12 16 → 15 E2491 APL induction+ maintenance ATRA + ATRA 87 → 84 72 → 73 ATRA + obs 83 → 80 61 → 60 chemo + ATRA 81 → 75 43 → 58 chemo + obs 54 → 45 16 → 18 E 3993 Induction/consolidation GM-CSF priming 13 → 11 5 → 10 placebo 14 → 14 9 → 9 E 4995 Induction / consolidation / auto HSCT 54 → 48 63 → 53 In conclusion: For large cooperative group studies, treatment results in AML presented one year from conclusion of study accrual are unlikely to dramatically alter the overall results. Nonetheless, some differences may occur, both in OS and DFS, warranting caution in interpreting the data and comparing with other published reports. Such differences are likely to be even greater if data are presented upon completion of study accrual, prior to one year - although, in a cooperative group setting, this should be balanced against the need to release data for future planning. Publication of interim data, before conclusion of the study accrual, may be misleading and are to be strongly discouraged. Three years appear to be the appropriate time for the publication of definitive survival data.

Summary Late relapse [>3 years from complete remission (CR)] in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), is unusual. Data from the MRC UKALLXII/ECOG E2993 trial are presented to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of late relapse in adult ALL. Of 1,909 patients, 1,752 (92%) achieved CR and among these 757 (43·2%) relapsed; 691 (91·3%) within three years and 66 (8·7%) beyond. Among these 66 patients, median time to relapse was 47 (37–144) months. Relapse beyond three years occurred in 3·8% of all who achieved CR. The cumulative risk of relapse was 40%, 43% and 45% at three, five and ten years respectively. Out of the 1 752 patients who achieved CR, 11·7% underwent autologous and 40·6% allogeneic transplant, while in CR1. Of the autologous patients, 43·2% relapsed early and 3·4% relapsed late. However, among the allogeneic patients, 13·2% relapsed early and only 1·3% late. The five‐year overall survival from relapse was 5·8% and 20% in the early and late relapse patients respectively. In conclusion, late relapse in adults with ALL is not uncommon, and is associated with better outcome after relapse compared to early relapse.

Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin <9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD (>2 units/month) with serum Epo >500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a >2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients (<4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of >Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nohla: 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, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

Background: Relapse remains the most common cause of treatment failure after intensive induction and consolidation (CONS) therapy in older adults with AML. We therefore performed a prospective randomized phase II study to determine the safety and impact on DFS (relapse or death) and OS of DAC maintenance using an abbreviated 3-day schedule administered every 4 weeks for 1 year (per Lubbert et al, Haematologica 97:393, 2012) vs. Observation (OBS) after intensive AML therapy, conducted in the large multi-center E-A E2906 Phase III trial in patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs. Methods: The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior OS following 'Standard' 7&3 (Daunorubicin 60mg/m2) induction and intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation (CONS) vs. single agent Clofarabine (CLO, provided by SANOFI), despite similar CR/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery) and induction mortality rates. All CR/CRi pts after induction (n=311) were assigned to 2 cycles CONS with either Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age >/=70 yrs), or single agent CLO, based on induction randomization. Ongoing CR/CRi after recovery from CONS was confirmed with restaging BM biopsy, and eligible pts offered participation in the 'Step 3' maintenance study, a 1:1 randomization (stratified by induction therapy, cytogenetic risk group, age <70 yrs) to either OBS vs. DAC (20mg/m2IV Days 1-3, q4 wks) for 1 year. DAC could be held for up to 4 weeks for delayed hematologic recovery, but dose reductions were not permitted per protocol, and DAC was not continued beyond 12 months. Patients in both arms were evaluated with CBC q4 weeks for 1 year, and surveillance BM biopsy every 3 months (or at the time of suspected clinical relapse) for 2 years. 'Step 3' was designed as a phase II pilot randomized study, with target accrual n=172, allowing 90% power to detect 36% reduction in DFS Hazard Ratio (HR) with DAC maintenance for 1 year (using protocol-specified 1-sided log-rank test significance level of 0.1), assuming 140 events & 2 years of follow-up from randomization. However, further accrual to E2906 was suspended in 2/2015 by independent DSMC due to superior OS observed with standard Arm, so that 'Step 3' completed only 70% of target accrual. P-values reported are two-sided by convention unless specified otherwise. Results: 'Step 3' total accrual was n=120 (of 172 planned) (DAC 61, OBS 59), with median age 69 yrs (range 60-85), and groups were very well balanced for baseline clinical characteristics; most pts had Intermediate risk cytogenetics (74.2%) and ECOG performance status (PS)=0/1 (96%). The median number of DAC cycles received was 6 (range 0-13), and analysis was 'intention-to-treat'. The median follow-up is 49.8 months. There were 90 DFS events (47 OBS, 43 DAC), with 82 deaths (46 OBS, 36 DAC). Univariate DFS and OS are shown in Figure, with associated two-sided p-values; using protocol-prespecified one-sided significance level of 0.1, OS was significant (one-sided p=0.06) for DAC v. OBS, and there was a statistical trend favoring DFS (one-sided p=0.11), particularly for CLO pts (Table). We also performed multivariate Cox model (after adjustment for ECOG PS, sex, secondary AML, and baseline hematologic parameters) which confirmed superior HR for DFS (one-sided p=0.10) & OS (one-sided p=0.07), per statistical design. FLT3-ITD status is available for n=96 pts, and 84 were FLT3-ITD-negative (46 OBS, 38 DAC). Importantly, we observed a significant association of DAC maintenance with superior OS in the large FLT3-ITD-neg subgroup (p=0.039) (Figure). DAC was generally well tolerated apart from grade 3 febrile neutropenia (9%) and reversible grade 4 cytopenias, with no grade 5 events. Conclusions: In this randomized phase II study, DAC maintenance for 1 year after intensive AML therapy was associated with improved HR for OS and a trend for DFS, using protocol-specified statistical design. Furthermore there was a significant impact on OS for the FLT3-ITD-negative population. We acknowledge limitations based on incomplete accrual due to early termination of the parent E2906 study, and inherent to the phase 2 design of this E2906 endpoint, but results suggest an important impact of DAC maintenance on survival. These data strongly support a definitive phase III randomized study of DAC maintenance, particularly focused on the large intermediate risk FLT3-ITD-negative subgroup. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Claxton:Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celegene Corporation, Medimmune, Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Altman:Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Zheng:Pfizer: Research Funding. Pratz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Powell:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; KAHR: 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, Research Funding; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Cellerant: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Disclosure: Use of maintenance Decitabine in AML

Optimal post-remission therapy for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 16-39 years) with Ph-negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remission (CR1) is not well established. We hypothesized that post-remission therapy with a pediatric-inspired regimen would yield superior outcomes to myeloablative allogeneic HCT for AYA patients with Ph- ALL in CR1. We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) for patients receiving post-remission therapy on CALGB 10403 to a contemporary matched AYA cohort undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT in CR1 reported to the CIBMTR (Table). The allogeneic HCT cohort consisted of patients 16-39 years of age with Ph- ALL in CR1 undergoing myeloablative transplant from a matched sibling/relative or unrelated donor using peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells between 11/2002 and 8/2012 in the United States. Patients receiving post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy had superior OS (P<0.0001), DFS (P=0.0011), and NRM (P<0.001) compared to allogeneic HCT. Patterns of relapse were time-dependent and examined in the Cox model. In multivariate analysis of Cox model, receiving allogeneic HCT was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.5-2.65, P <0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.94, P 0.002), and increased NRM (HR 3.93, 95% CI 2.53-6.10, P <0.001; Figure). In the early post-remission period (≤15 months after CR1), relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.59, p=0.04) whereas beyond 15 months after CR1 relapse was more likely in the chemotherapy arm (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, P <0.001; Figure). Obesity (BMI ≥30) was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69-2.91, P<0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P <0.001), increased relapse (1.90, 95% CI 1.37-2.64, P <0.001), and increased NRM (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.33-2.97, P <0.001). Extramedullary disease at diagnosis was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79, P=0.05). We conclude from this large retrospective study that post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as given on CALGB 10403 was superior to allogeneic HCT in CR1 for OS, DFS, and NRM in AYAs with newly-diagnosed Ph-negative B- and T-cell ALL. Late relapse was more likely with chemotherapy whereas early relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT. Future study should aim to elucidate the impact of measurable residual disease at CR1 and high-risk genetics, including Ph-like ALL, on the superiority of post-remission pediatric-inspired chemotherapy over allogeneic HCT. Figure. Allogeneic HCT (HCT) vs. CALGB 10403 pediatric-inspired chemotherapy (chemo) after CR1: Adjusted (left-truncated) overall survival, disease-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, and cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality. Disclosures Wieduwilt: Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership. Stock: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; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Advani:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria. Larson:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Contracts for clinical trials; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Nohla: 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, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Background: Studying gene expression and clinical outcome data from 136 clinical trials for patients with cancer (~21,000 patients with 26 cancer types), we found CD25 as one of the strongest predictors of poor clinical outcome in patients with B-cell malignancies, but not in other cancer types. This was unexpected because CD25 is known as one of three chains of the IL2 receptor on T-cells and NK-cells. Interleukin-2 (IL2) functions as essential T-cell growth factor. IL2 signals through b- and g-, but not a-chains (CD25) of its heterotrimeric receptor. CD25-deficiency causes lymphoproliferation and autoimmunity, however, its mechanistic role is unclear. Results: Our experiments based on genetic mouse models and engineered patient-derived B-cell leukemia and lymphoma xenografts revealed that CD25 expressed on B-cells is not an IL2 receptor chain, but in fact binds downstream signaling molecules of the B-cell receptor (BCR). Through these interactions, CD25 mediates negative feedback to BCR signaling in response to antigen-encounter in normal B-cells. Defects in CD25-/-B-cells were not replicated in mice that express CD25 but lack expression of the IL2 cytokine. These findings demonstrate IL2-independent functions of CD25 in B-cells and B-cell derived leukemia and lymphoma. To comprehensively study the interactome of the short cytoplasmic tail of CD25, we performed proximity-dependent biotin identification (BioID). This analysis revealed that the CD25 tail exerts negative feedback control through recruitment of the PKCβ-scaffold RACK1 and the inhibitory phosphatase SHIP1 (see schematic, left). Interestingly, the cytoplasmic tail of CD25 harbors a PKCβ-substrate motif and mutation of a central serine residue (S268) to A268 compromised interactions with PKCβ, its scaffold RACK1 and SHIP1, demonstrating that feedback control was dependent on PKCβ-mediated phosphorylation of CD25-S268. A genetic observation in a family with monogenic autoimmunity confirmed the functional importance of the cytoplasmic CD25-tail motif: a mutation immediately preceding S268 compromised CD25-surface translocation, which was restored by homology-directed repair of the S268. In vitro kinase assay with 62 candidate kinases against recombinant cytoplasmic tail of CD25-S268 or -A268 identified PKCβ as top-ranking kinase hit for CD25-S268 but not CD25-A268. Our genetic studies revealed that PKCβ is required for cell-membrane translocation of CD25, but also transcriptional expression of CD25 via NF-κB activation. Therefore, PKCβ act as critical effector molecule downstream of CD25 to mediate B-cell selection during normal B-cell development and calibrate oncogenic BCR signaling in B-cell tumors. In B-cell malignancies, BCR-dependent survival and proliferation signals are often substituted by oncogenic BCR-mimics (e.g. BCR-ABL1, JAK2, BRAFV600E, LMP2A, CD79B mutations; see schematic, right). Accordingly, we identified CD25 surface-expression as biomarker of oncogenic BCR-signaling and predictor of poor clinical outcomes. CD25-/-B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. Owing to imbalances of oncogenic BCR-signaling and p53-checkpoint activation, CD25-/- B-cell leukemia failed to initiate fatal disease in transplant recipients. In patient-derived xenograft models of drug-resistant B-cell malignancies, treatment with a CD25-specific antibody drug-conjugate (ADCT-301) extended survival of transplant recipients or eradicated disease. These findings identified CD25 as previously unrecognized feedback regulator of oncogenic BCR-signaling and provide a rationale for therapeutic targeting of CD25 in refractory B-cell malignancies. Figure Disclosures Zammarchi: ADC Therapeutics: Employment. Van Berkel:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Melnick:Constellation: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy. Luger:Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria. Meffre:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Grant. Weinstock:Celgene: Research Funding.

PURPOSE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia with high-risk cytogenetics in first complete remission (CR1) achieve better outcomes if they undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy alone. However, only approximately 40% of such patients typically proceed to HCT. METHODS: We used a prospective organized approach to rapidly identify donors to improve the allogeneic HCT rate in adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in CR1. Newly diagnosed patients had cytogenetics obtained at enrollment, and those with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA typing and were encouraged to be referred for consultation with a transplantation team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. RESULTS: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60 years of age), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics and 107 of these patients (67%) achieved CR1. Seventy (65%) of the high-risk patients underwent transplantation in CR1 ( P < .001 compared with the historical rate of 40%). Median time to HCT from CR1 was 77 days (range, 20-356 days). In landmark analysis, overall survival (OS) among patients who underwent transplantation was significantly better compared with that of patients who did not undergo transplantation (2-year OS, 48% v 35%, respectively [ P = .031]). Median relapse-free survival after transplantation in the high-risk cohort who underwent transplantation in CR1 (n = 70) was 11.5 months (range, 4-47 months), and median OS after transplantation was 14 months (range, 4-44 months). CONCLUSION: Early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donor led to a CR1 transplantation rate of 65% in the high-risk group, which, in turn, led to an improvement in OS when compared with the OS of patients who did not undergo transplantation.

Abstract Background: Adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with high-risk cytogenetics have a significantly worse survival compared to similarly treated intermediate- or favorable-risk patients. Although prior studies suggest better outcome in high-risk AML patients in first complete remission (CR1) who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) compared with consolidation chemotherapy, only 40% of patients proceed to HCT. The lack of a matched sibling donor (available in about 33%) should not be a barrier to HCT since alternative donors are available for the large majority of high-risk AMLpatients and recent data suggest outcomes after allogeneic HCT from fully matched unrelated donors are similar to those following matched related donor transplantation. We sought to determine if a prospective organized effort could rapidly identify alternative donors to improve the historical 40% allogeneic HCT rate in high-risk CR1 AML patients ≤ age 61. Secondly, we hypothesized that transplanting significantly more adults with high-risk AML in CR1 would lead to an improved outcome compared with the historical relapse-free survival (RFS) of 22%. Patients and Methods: Adult patients between ages 18 and 60 years with untreated AML were randomized to receive induction therapy with standard cytarabine plus daunorubicin (7+3; n=261), idarubicin with high-dose cytarabine (IA; n=261), or IA with vorinostat (IA+V; n=216). Conventional cytogenetics were obtained at time of enrollment and used to determine risk classification by standard criteria. All patients with high-risk cytogenetics underwent expedited HLA-typing. High-risk patientswere encouraged tobe referred for consultation with a transplant team with the goal of conducting an allogeneic HCT in CR1. Results: Of 738 eligible patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-60), 159 (22%) had high-risk cytogenetics, of whom 60 (38%), 61 (38%), and 38 (24%) received induction with 7+3, IA, or IA+V, respectively. A total of 107 of the 159 high-risk patients achieved CR/CRi (67%). HCT was performed in 317 of all 738 patients (43%) and 68 (64%) of the high-risk patients received a transplant in CR1 (p<0.001 compared to historical rate of 40%). Twenty-five (37%) had a matched related donor, 31 (45%) had a matched unrelated donor, 3 (4%) had a mismatched related donor, 8 (12%) had a mismatched unrelated donor, and 1 (1%) received an umbilical cord blood transplant. Sixty-six high-risk patients transplanted in CR/CRi have detailed data. Median time to HCT from CR1 was 76 days (range, 20-365). Fifty-seven patients (86%) received a myeloablative regimen and 9 (14%) reduced-intensity conditioning. Reasons for 39 high-risk CR1 patients not receiving a transplant in CR1 were: co-morbidities (n=1), death (n=6), no insurance (n=1), no donor (n=1), physician decision (n=3), patient decision (n=3), relapse (n=6), other (n=10), or unknown (n=8). The 2-year RFS estimate in the entire high-risk cohort is 32%, significantly higher than the 22% historical rate (p=0.05). Median RFS in the high-risk CR1 cohort (n=107) was 10 months [range, 1-32* (censored) months]. RFS and OS were similar among HCT patients using matched related [1 year estimates: 40% (95% CI 27%, 74%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] and matched unrelated [1 year estimates: 52% (37%, 75%) and 56% (37%, 74%), respectively] donors in CR1. The HR (reference = unrelated) for RFS was 0.67 (0.32, 1.37) and for OS was 0.88 (0.41, 1.90). Median overall survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort (n=159) was 12 months [range, 1-33* (censored) months] and was 18 months [range 3-33* (censored) months] for those transplanted in CR1 (Fig. 1). Conclusions: In newly diagnosed adults with AML age 18-60, early cytogenetic testing with an organized effort to identify a suitable allogeneic HCT donorled to a CR1 transplant rate of 64% in the high-risk group, which in turn led to a significant improvement in RFS over historical controls. Better outcomes in poor prognosis AML patients may be achieved simply by rapidly finding unrelated donors and performing allogeneic HCT in CR1 as soon as possible. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233; Support: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI #021039 Figure 1 Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Figure 1. Overall Survival (OS) among all patients in the high-risk cohort, all high-risk patients achieving CR1, and in those high-risk patients transplanted in CR1. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: laboratory contract; ARIAD: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; TwinStrand: Consultancy; Bristol-MyersSquibb: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:AbbVie: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Novel therapies are required to improve the outcome of patients with AML. New agents are asked to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit before qualifying for FDA approval. The long duration of clinical trials required in order to achieve this endpoint hampers quick evaluation of candidate therapies, including novel agents. Identification of reliable surrogate endpoints for OS in AML is needed. Here we compare the results of therapy for patients with untreated AML ages 16-60 years on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1900 trial (E1900) of induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation and autologous transplant in order to evaluate the validity of an event free survival (EFS) endpoint as a surrogate for OS. Methods:OS was measured from randomization for induction therapy to death from any cause (censored at last contact). EFS was measured from randomization to induction treatment failure, relapse after compete response (CR), or death in remission (censored at last contact). Hazard ratios (HR) were computed using Cox proportional hazards models. The association between EFS and OS was evaluated using the Kendall tau-a rank correlation for censored data. Results:There were657 patients enrolled of which 426 patients relapsed or had induction treatment failure before death or date of last contact. Median EFS and OS were 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 9.7 months) and 23.6 months (95% CI, 16.9 to 23.6 months), respectively. With a median follow-up of 80.1 months, there is a statistically significant correlation between EFS and OS (Kendall tau-a = 0.467, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.425, 0.510), p<0.001). This correlation was similarly significant at a median follow-up of 25.2 months (Kendall tau-a = 0.361, 95% CI (0.323, 0.400), p <0.001) when the E1900 trial was originally reported (Fernandez et al. NEJM 2009). Key findings reported based on the original OS endpoint are similar when analyzed with an EFS endpoint (Table 1). High-dose daunorubicin (90 mg/m2) (DNR 90) confers both an EFS and OS benefit in patients aged < 50 years and patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk, and does not confer an EFS or OS benefit in older patients and patients with unfavorable cytogenetic risk, on univariate analysis. Divergent results are only seen in the small subset of favorable cytogenetic risk patients, where DNR 90 conferred an OS benefit (p=0.027) without an EFS benefit (p=0.32). Both EFS and OS endpoints consistently reflect the impact of mutation status on survival. The presence of a FLT3-ITD or DNMT3A mutation has a negative impact on both EFS and OS while an IDH2 mutation has a favorable impact on EFS and OS. The presence of a NPM1 mutation confers a favorable impact on EFS and OS in patients who received DNR 90 and did not impact EFS or OS in patients receiving standard-dose daunorubicin (45 mg/m2) (DNR 45). The presence of an IDH1 mutation does not impact EFS or OS. Conclusions:The results of E1900 demonstrating superiority of DNR 90 in AML induction in patients up to age 60 are concordant when using an EFS or OS endpoint. This is true for the group as a whole as well as for subgroups for which targeted agents are in development (FLT3/IDH2 inhibitors). Further investigation of whether EFS is a reliable surrogate for OS is warranted in AML. If confirmed, its use as a primary endpoint could be adopted by regulatory agencies in order to allow more rapid completion of clinical trials in AML and bring new therapies to AML patients in a timely fashion. Table 1. Results of E1900 based on an EFS endpoint versus an OS endpoint. Subgroup N OS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P DNR 45 DNR 90 Age < 50 yrs ³ 50 yrs 188 142 172 155 0.66 (0.50, 0.85) 0.81 (0.62, 1.06) 0.002 0.118 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) 0.86 (0.67, 1.10) 0.0004 0.23 Cytogenetic Favorable Intermediate Unfavorable 38 141 59 51 127 63 0.51 (0.28, 0.93) 0.68 (0.50, 0.92) 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) 0.027 0.012 0.225 0.76 (0.44, 1.31) 0.63 (0.47, 0.83) 0.72 (0.49, 1.05) 0.32 0.001 0.09 Subgroup N OS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P FLT3-ITD WT MUT 456 147 1.62 (1.31, 2.01) <.0001 1.48 (1.21, 1.82) 0.0002 DNMT3A WT MUT 371 119 1.30 (1.03, 1.65) 0.03 1.23 (0.98, 1.54) 0.07 IDH1 WT MUT 465 36 0.88 (0.59, 1.33) 0.55 0.91 (0.62, 1.34) 0.64 IDH2 WT MUT 451 50 0.63 (0.43, 0.93) 0.02 0.68 (0.48, 0.97) 0.03 NPM1 DNR 45 DNR 90 245 257 0.84 (0.61, 1.16) 0.60 (0.41, 0.89) 0.30 0.01 0.90 (0.66, 1.22) 0.59 (0.41, 0.84) 0.49 0.004 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.