Stone, Richard M.

Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore the need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 that has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. While other studies have been designed with the goal of discontinuation of ibrutinib through combinations with venetoclax, no other study has been presented using a response-dependent discontinuation strategy. Study Design and Methods A041702 is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). CLL patients age 70 years or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy are eligible. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab is allowed. Patients must have intermediate- or high-risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm3 unless due to marrow involvement, and platelets ≥ 30,000/mm3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness that is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially preregistered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), and are stratified by Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, patients in both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue for 3 years beginning January 2019, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, U24CA196171; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737981 Disclosures Woyach: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Lozanski:Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy. Byrd:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Uproleselan (GMI-1271) is a novel antagonist of E-selectin, an adhesion molecule expressed on endothelial cells. E-selectin is expressed transiently in the normal vasculature during an inflammatory response and constitutively in the bone marrow (BM). Binding of E-selectin (E-sel) to sialyl Lex, the E-sel ligand (E-sel-L), on the leukemic cell surface activates cell survival pathways and promotes chemotherapy resistance in AML. In preclinical models, blockade of E-selectin with uproleselan disrupts the activation of cell survival pathways and enhanced the efficacy of chemotherapy across multiple AML tumor models. Furthermore, uproleselan protected against chemotherapy-induced mucositis by regulating macrophage trafficking to the site of injury in the gut lining. A previous phase I/II study of uproleselan added to chemotherapy in patients with untreated AML (older adults ≥60 yrs) and relapsed/refractory AML (≥ 18yrs) showed promising remission rates (CR/CRi) and survival outcomes, and reduced rates of mucositis. In the newly diagnosed older patients, high remission rates were achieved overall (CR/CRi 72%) and for the high risk subgroup with sAML (CR/CRi 69%). In this phase 2/3 study, we will test the addition of uproleselan to a standard daunorubicin/cytarabine regimen in older adults with previously untreated AML. The study will enroll patients age ≥ 60 yrs with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia, activating mutations in FLT3, or evidence of central nervous system involvement are excluded. Subjects are randomized to 7+3 induction (cytarabine + daunorubicin) +/- uproleselan. Subjects achieving a CR/CRi may receive up to 3 cycles of consolidation with intermediate dose cytarabine 2 gm/m2 IV d1-5 +/- uproleselan. The primary phase II objective is to compare the event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 262 patients was selected for the phase II to detect an improvement in median EFS from 7 months to 11 months (HR= 0.64) with &gt; 95% power, using a log rank test. The phase III primary objective will compare overall survival (OS). For the phase III, a sample size of 335 evaluable patients per arm (670 total inclusive of patients enrolled in phase II) will provide &gt;90% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 12 months to 16 months (HR= 0.75), using a log-rank test. Correlative studies will measure E-selectin ligand on AML blasts and soluble E-selectin and will also measure minimal residual disease after remission induction by multiparameter flow cytometry. A comprehensive geriatric assessment will identify baseline measures associated with EFS and develop a risk model to predict OS among older adults receiving intensive AML therapy. The study is endorsed by SWOG and ECOG-ACRIN and opened to enrollment on 1/16/2019. Figure Disclosures Uy: Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Dinner:Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Strickland:Jazz: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Liesveld:Onconova: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Byrd:Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; BeiGene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Uproleselan in AML

Abstract Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 1 is 0.41 with one-sided p&lt;0.0001; HR comparing Arm 3 to 2 is 1.01 with one-sided p=0.48). 2-year PFS estimates were 74%, 87% in 2, and 88% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.87), median OS has not been reached for any arm, and 2-year OS estimates were 95%, 90%, and 94% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were compared among arms using Fisher's exact tests. Grade 3+ treatment-emergent AEs were seen in 428 of 537 evaluable pts with 61%, 41%, and 38% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ heme AEs (p&lt;0.0001) and 60%, 72%, and 71% of pts experiencing Grade 3+ non-heme AEs (p=0.03) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Grade 5 AEs were seen in 5 (2.8%), 14 (7.8%), and 14 (7.7%) pts (p=0.07). Unexplained or unwitnessed death over the entire observation period was seen in 2 (1.1%), 7 (3.9%), and 4 (2.2%) pts (p=0.24) in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Mutations localized in the tyrosine kinase domain activation loop of FLT3 (FLT3-TKD), representing point mutations in codon D835/I836 and rarely deletions of codon I836, induce constitutive tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase similarly to FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations. However, the prognostic role of FLT3-TKD in AML, particularly in the presence of NPM1 mutations, is not well established. The phase 3 RATIFY trial [NCT00651261; Stone et al. N Engl J Med. 2017] showed that in combination with standard chemotherapy, midostaurin (PKC412) improved survival outcomes across all 3 FLT3 stratification subgroups (ITD high allelic ratio [≥ 0.7], ITD low allelic ratio [< 0.7], and TKD) vs placebo in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated AML. Here, we evaluated the prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD and NPM1 mutations in a post hoc analysis from the RATIFY trial. Methods: In RATIFY, newly diagnosed patients with AML 18-60 years old were randomly assigned to receive midostaurin or placebo together with standard induction and consolidation therapy followed by 12 28-day cycles of maintenance therapy with midostaurin or placebo. FLT3-TKD mutation was detected by PCR and capillary electrophoresis at 9 reference laboratories. Patients were categorized as NPM1 mutated (mut) or NPM1 wild-type (WT) using PCR. Efficacy outcomes included complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). EFS and DFS analyses were performed considering CR within a 60-day window. P values presented have not been adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Of the total randomized 162 FLT3-TKD patients, 134 with available NPM1 data had consented for exploratory analysis and thus were included in this study (see Table for subgroup distribution). Overall, 47.8% of patients were male, and the median age was 49 years (95% CI, 45.5-51.1 years). The median white blood cell (WBC) count was higher in patients with NPM1-mut than in patients with NPM1-WT (34.1 vs 15.5 × 109/L, P = .0011). CR rates (during the first 60 days) were higher in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT (66% vs 53%); however, this was driven by the higher rate of CR in the midostaurin arm (76% NPM1-mut vs 44% NPM1-WT) rather than the placebo arm (53% NPM1-mut vs 60% NPM1-WT). The overall CR rate (regardless of NPM1 genotype) was 64% for midostaurin and 56% for placebo in FLT3-TKD patients. The prognostic effect of the NPM1 mutation concurrent with FLT3-TKD was seen for all endpoints consistently with hazard ratios (HRs) around 0.50 or lower (Figures 1 and 2 and Table). Overall (regardless of treatment) OS, EFS, and DFS estimates at 3 years were 73% vs 52%, 48% vs 25%, and 74% vs 47%, respectively, in patients with FLT3-TKD/NPM1-mut vs FLT3-TKD/NPM1-WT. Whereas the HRs for midostaurin vs placebo were 0.73 for both OS and EFS, the impact of treatment on outcomes varied between the individual NPM1/TKD subgroups and was not consistently observed when endpoints were censored at stem cell transplant (SCT) (Table). It should be noted that the number of patients in each subgroup was small and therefore the HRs with 95% CIs should be interpreted with caution. Multivariate analyses in these FLT3-TKD patients revealed that NPM1 genotype was an independent prognostic factor for OS, EFS and DFS (2-sided P < .05), whereas study drug, age, sex, WBC at baseline and SCT (no/yes) did not reach this level of significance in the Cox model. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the FLT3-TKD patient subset in the RATIFY trial showed the high prognostic value of NPM1 mutational status. Whereas midostaurin showed an overall benefit in the FLT3-TKD patients for OS, EFS, CR and DFS, the impact of treatment on outcome varied between the individual NPM1 subgroups within these FLT3-TKD patients and was not consistently observed.Further analyses using additional endpoints and additional multivariate analyses are planned. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180791, U10CA180888, U10CA180863, (CCSRI) #704970, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00651261 Disclosures Voso: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Heuser:Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; StemLine Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; BergenBio: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Bayer Pharma AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tetralogic: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Wei:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory committee, Research Funding. Brandwein:Lundbeck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding. de Witte:Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Medeiros:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Employment. Tallman:Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board. Schlenk:Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheng:Novartis: Employment. Gathmann:Novartis: Employment. Tiecke:Novartis: Employment. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orsenix: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Recurrent mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) are observed in approximately 4% of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and have been linked with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. Ivosidenib (AG-120), an oral, potent, targeted, small-molecule inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 protein (mIDH1), is a therapeutic candidate for the treatment of patients with mIDH1 MDS. Through inhibition of mIDH1, ivosidenib suppresses the production of the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells. AIM: To report safety and efficacy data from patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) MDS enrolled in the first-in-human, phase 1, dose escalation and expansion study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839). METHODS: This ongoing study is evaluating the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of ivosidenib. Trial enrollment was completed on 08May2017. In dose escalation, patients received single-agent ivosidenib orally once daily (QD) or twice daily in 28-day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the dose to be tested in expansion. Expansion Arm 3 enrolled patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies, including MDS. The overall response rate (ORR) for MDS was defined as complete remission (CR) + partial remission + marrow CR. Exploratory biomarker assessments included baseline co-occurring mutations (next-generation sequencing panel for hematologic malignancies) and mIDH1 variant allele frequency (VAF) in bone marrow mononuclear cells (BEAMing Digital PCR; lower limit of detection for mIDH1, 0.02-0.04%). Here, we present safety and efficacy data for patients with MDS in expansion Arm 3 and in dose escalation whose starting dose was 500 mg QD. RESULTS: In all, 258 patients (78 in dose escalation, 180 in expansion) received ivosidenib, including 12 patients with MDS (9 from expansion and 3 from escalation) whose starting dose was 500 mg QD. Baseline characteristics for these 12 patients were: 9 men/3 women; median age, 72.5 years (range, 52-78) and 42% were ≥75 years of age; median number of prior therapies, 1 (range, 1-3). As of 10Nov2017, 7 of 12 (58.3%) patients remained on treatment and 5 (41.7%) had discontinued (one for allogeneic stem cell transplantation). The median duration of exposure to ivosidenib was 11.0 months (range, 3.3-31.1). The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade, irrespective of causality, occurring in ≥20% of the 12 patients were back pain (n=4, 33.3%) and anemia, decreased appetite, diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, hypokalemia, pruritus, and rash (n=3, 25.0% each). The majority of these AEs were grade 1-2 and reported as unrelated to treatment. No AEs led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. IDH differentiation syndrome (IDH-DS) was observed in 2 of 12 (16.7%) patients; the events were grade 1 and 2, respectively. Of the 12 patients with MDS receiving ivosidenib 500 mg QD, 5 achieved CR (41.7%; 95% CI 15.2%, 72.3%) and 6 achieved marrow CR (50.0%), resulting in an ORR of 91.7% (95% CI 61.5%, 99.8%). The median durations of CR and overall response were not estimable at the time of the data cutoff. The percentages of patients who remained in CR and response at 12 months were 60.0% and 61.4%, respectively. Among 5 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, 4 became transfusion independent for at least 56 days on treatment. Baseline co-occurring mutations and changes in mIDH1 VAF levels on ivosidenib therapy will be presented. CONCLUSION: In patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS, ivosidenib monotherapy was well tolerated and induced durable remissions and transfusion independence. These findings support the role of ivosidenib as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS. Disclosures DiNardo: Karyopharm: Other: Advisory role; Medimmune: Other: Advisory role; Celgene: Other: Advisory role; Bayer: Other: Advisory role; Agios: Consultancy, Other: Advisory role; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Advisory role. Watts:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Stein:Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. de Botton:Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fathi:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stein:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Stone:AbbVie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cornerstone: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Ono: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Amgen: Consultancy. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tallman:Cellerant: Research Funding; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; AROG: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board. Choe:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dai:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fan:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yen:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kapsalis:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hickman:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agresta:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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 Background. Gene mutation profiling is increasingly employed for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical management in patients with MDS. However, current World Health Organization MDS classification is still based on histologic findings (with the exception of SF3B1 for MDS-RS), and guidelines generally suggest that clinical decisions be guided by clinico-pathologic risk stratification tools such as Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). We sought to study beliefs and patterns of practice with respect to gene mutation profiling among health care providers who manage patients with MDS. Methods. A link to a 23-question web-based survey was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 5/1/2018 with 6 subsequent weekly reminders. The Qualtrics survey platform was used to record anonymous responses. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. No incentive was provided for responses. Results. Of 371 received responses, 262 were received from providers who did not manage MDS patients or lacked analyzable data and therefore were excluded. Of 109 eligible responses, 108 responders were from institutions representing 31 US states (one respondent was from South America). Median age of respondents was 48 years (range, 33-75); 43 (39%) were women. A third of responders (32%) worked at a university hospital, while 25%, 17%, and 5% worked at a community hospital, private practice, or other settings, respectively. While 37% of participants worked at institutions with guidelines for clinical care of MDS patients, 28% reported that their institutional guidelines recommended MDS-specific gene mutation profiling. Such testing was performed at institutions of 13% participants; institutions of 26% of responders tested a general AML panel that included MDS-specific genes. The total number of respondents whose institutions sent out either an MDS-specific gene panel or a general AML gene panel with MDS-specific genes was similar, 25% and 12%, respectively (Fig. 1). Of those who routinely perform molecular testing, 94% do so at diagnosis, 56% at relapse, 33% during preparation for stem cell transplant, 31% after the failure of hypomethylating agents (HMA), 24% during screening for a clinical trial, and 15% at initial treatment (Fig. 2). MDS gene mutation profiling was felt to be most helpful in diagnosis (rarely 11%; sometimes 49%; often 30%; always 9%), risk stratification (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 15%), and prognosis (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 14%); its role was more limited in response assessment (never 12%; rarely 25%; sometimes 44%; often 14%) and to predict responses to HMAs (never 5%; rarely 28%; sometimes 52%, often 14%) (Fig. 3). Various types of evidence were used to stratify MDS risk and prognosis: genetic mutations were used by nearly everyone (95%); 70% relied on morphologic findings, while gene expression/transcriptome profiling was used by 40%. Eighty-four percent of responders reported relying on conventional prognostic models like IPSS-R to identify high-risk patients for whom they would consider intensive treatment options. For this purpose, 62% would also rely on mutation profiling, and 32% would also consider higher frequency of gene mutations. While mutations in the p53 pathway were felt to be helpful in terms of risk stratification and treatment decisions by 70% of responders, 43%, 39%, 31%, 26% 23%, 20%, and 3% considered mutations in spliceosome, DNA methylation, transcription factors, histone modification, signaling, RAS pathway, and cohesin genes, respectively, to be useful as well. Approximately 31% of responders were not certain as to which mutations would affect risk stratification and management choices and said they needed to review literature. The respondents also cited multiple limitations to wider clinical use of MDS gene mutation profiling (Fig. 4). Conclusions. Our survey demonstrates widespread use of gene mutation profiling in the management of patients with MDS, but also reveals substantial variability in beliefs, practices, testing logistics, and interpretation of molecular profiling. Our findings emphasize the need for high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for gene profiling of MDS patients. Disclosures Sekeres: Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bejar:AbbVie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Astex/Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Modus Outcomes: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genoptix: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

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