Stone, Richard M.

Abstract Background: Retrospective analyses have demonstrated significantly improved survival for AYA ALL patients (pts) aged 16-21 years (yrs) when treated on pediatric versus adult U.S. NCI Cooperative group regimens where 2-yr event-free survivals (EFS) have been only 35-40%. The purpose of C10403, a large prospective US intergroup trial, was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness [with EFS as a primary endpoint), of treating AYA ALL pts (ages 16-39 yrs) using the standard arm of the successful Children's Oncology Group regimen (COG AALL0232) . Methods: Newly diagnosed AYA patients with B-precursor (B-ALL) or T-precursor (T-ALL) ALL were eligible to enroll on C10403. Burkitt type and Ph+ ALL were excluded. The regimen was identical to the Capizzi methotrexate arm of COG AALL0232 (Larsen E. JCO 2011; 29 suppl:3) and consisted of four intensive courses: remission induction, remission consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and prolonged maintenance therapy. Pts with M2 marrow response (>5% but < 25% lymphoblasts) after remission induction received an extended remission induction course of therapy. Events were defined as induction failure (M3 [³25% blasts] day 29 of induction or M2 day 43 of extended induction), death, relapse, or second malignancy. Key correlative science studies in a subset of the total accrued population included assessment of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) using quantitative real-time PCR of clonal IgH or TCR gene rearrangements as well as Low Density Microarray (LDA) assays designed to detect a previously validated gene expression profile (Harvey, R; ASH 2013, abstract 826) which can prospectively identify ALL pts with Ph-like (BCR-ABL1-like) ALL. Results: 318 pts were enrolled on C10403 from 11/2007 to 8/2012; 22 withdrew prior to therapy. Of 296 evaluable pts, the median age at diagnosis was 24 yrs (range: 17 to 39): 25% were 17-20 yrs, 53% were 21-29 yrs, and 22% were 30-39 yrs. The majority had B-ALL (76%) and were male ( 61%). Approximately 25% were non-Caucasian and 15% were Hispanic or Latino. 32% of pts were obese (BMI³30). There were 5 (2%) treatment-related deaths during protocol therapy: liver failure (n=2, both during induction), infection (1 in induction, 1 in consolidation), and ventricular arrhythmia (1 in induction). Overall, treatment toxicities were similar to those reported in the standard arm of COG AALL0232, with an increased thrombosis and early hyperbilirubinemia for C10403 pts, as reported previously (Advani A, ASH 2013, abstract 303). To date, 70 deaths have been reported and 87 pts remain on protocol therapy. With a median follow-up of 28 months for surviving pts, 105 events have been observed. The median EFS overall is 59.4 months (95% CI: 38.4 to NR) and the 2-yr EFS rate overall is 66% (95% CI: 60 – 72%) [Fig 1a] with similar 2-yr EFS rates for B and T- ALL pts (65%, and 68%). The 2-yr OS rate is 78% (95% CI: 72 – 83%)[Fig 1b], which is similar for B (78%, 95% CI: 72 – 84%) and T-ALL, (80%, 95% CI: 70 – 91%). These results allow rejection of the null hypothesis of this Phase II trial that the true median EFS is, at most, 32 months. In multivariable analysis of presenting clinical features, age > 20 years and initial WBC count ³ 30k/microliter were significantly associated with worse EFS and OS. Presence of MRD at day 28 following initiation of induction therapy and presence of a Ph-like gene expression signature were significantly associated with both worse EFS and OS. Notably, absence of detectable MRD noted in 22/58 [38%] evaluable pts at day 28 of induction was associated with 100% EFS (p=0.0006). The Ph-like like signature was detected in 28% of pts tested on C10403 and the 2 yr EFS for these patients was only 52%, compared to 81% for those without Ph-like disease (p = 0.04). Conclusions: This large prospective US adult intergroup trial (C10403) for pts 16-39 years old employing an intensive pediatric regimen demonstrates a significant improvement (compared to historical controls) in AYA EFS and OS and validates this approach for treatment of AYA with ALL by adult hematologists. The improved clinical outcomes and the predictive value of the correlative studies in this trial lay the foundation for the design of future trials, where incorporation of novel agents to eradicate MRD, and/or use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors to target the frequently detected Ph-like ALL in AYA pts may further improve survival for young adults with ALL. Figure 1a Figure 1a. Figure 1b Figure 1b. Disclosures Stock: Sigma-Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Sigma Tau: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: A majority of younger pts with AML receive initial therapy with a 7+3 scheme. Escalated doses of daunorubicin (dauno) in combination with standard doses of ara-C may lead to improved outcomes (Fernandez; NEJM 2009). A phase II trial of idarubicin and high-dose ara-C (IA) in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (IA+V) resulted in historically high response rates compared to IA or 7+3 (Garcia-Manero; JCO 2011). SWOG 1203 tested whether a high-dose ara-C induction with or without vorinostat could result in improved outcomes for younger AML pts compared to 7+3. Methods: The primary endpoints were comparison of event-free survival (EFS) of 7+3 vs IA vs IA+V and evaluating the frequency of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, remission rate, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) according to treatment arm, and by cytogenetic and molecular subgroups. Because of the historical trend of cured pts in S0106, EFS was modeled with an exponential cure model, and it was assumed IA or IA+vorinostat increased the proportion of pts cured from 35% to 45% and increased median EFS among those not cured from 4.7 months to 7.1 months. Main inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of previously untreated non-APL AML by WHO criteria, age 15 to 60 years, and preserved cardiac function but no severe comorbidities. Pts with known CBF rearranged or FLT3 mutant leukemias were eligible if no other alternative clinical trials existed. Treatment was as follows: Induction: 7+3 arm: dauno 90 mg/m2 IV QD x 3 on days 1-3 with ara-C CI 100 mg/m2 QD x 7 days on days 1 to 7. IA arm: ida 12 mg/m2 QD x 3 on days 1 to 3 with 24 hours CI ara-C 1.5 gm/m2 QD for 4 days on days 1 to 4. IA+vorinostat was as IA but with vorinostat 500 mg orally TID for 3 days on days 1 to 3. Consolidation: 7+3 arm: standard high-dose ara-c at 3 gm/m2 over 3 hrs q12 hours x 6 doses for 1 to 4 cycles depending on transplant availability. IA arm: idarubicin 8 mg/m2 IV QD x 2 days on days 1 to 2 with ara-C 0.75 gm/m2 CI for 3 days on days 1 to 3 for 4 cycles. The number of consolidation cycles depended on transplant indication; a secondary aim of the study was to transplant all cytogenetically-determined high risk pts (presented in a different abstract). Results: Of 754 pts randomized, 738 were eligible (261 to 7+3, 261 to IA, and 216 to IA+V). Baseline characteristics were well balanced among all three groups. Most (75%) pts were between 40 and 60 years, 51% were male, median (range) WBC and platelets were 10.8 (0.3-800) and 49 (3-3900), respectively; marrow blast percentage was 60% (0%-100%); cytogenetics were favorable in 13% of pts, intermediate in 63%, and high-risk in 22%; FLT-3 was mutated in 21% and unknown in 31%; NPM1 was mutated in 20% and was unknown in 37%. Complete remission (CR) rates were 75% for 7+3, 79% for IA, and 77% for IA+V (p=0.58). Significantly more pts received reinduction with 7+3 (24%) versus 11% with IA and 9% with IA+V (p=0.001). 48% of intermediate and unfavorable risk pts received transplant in CR1, with no significant differences among arms (p=0.44). There were no significant differences in EFS, RFS or OS among all three arms (Figure 1, all p>0.5). By cytogenetic or molecular group, there were no differences in outcome for any standard risk subset (FLT-3, NPM1, or CEBPα or cytogenetic subset), although pts with favorable cytogenetics had significantly better EFS, RFS and OS with 7+3 therapy compared to IA or IA+V (Figure 2, all p≤0.015). 30% of pts received 1 consolidation cycle, 18% 2, 16% 3, and 37% 4 cycles. Grade 5 induction toxicity rates were 4% (7+3), 8% (IA), and 9% (IA+V) by arm (p=0.07), and for toxicities related to therapy, 2%, 7%, 8%, respectively (p=0.01). Grade 4 induction toxicity rates were similar across arms (p=0.38). Conclusion: Treatment with IA is not more effective than 7+3 in younger pts with AML. Outcomes with IA or IA plus vorinostat are similar. In pts with favorable cytogenetics, outcomes were inferior with IA or IA+V when compared to 7+3, perhaps related to use of lower doses of ara-C during consolidation. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233 Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI grant #021039 Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Lundbeck: 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; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Ariad: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Background: Event free survival (EFS) is often used as an endpoint in AML clinical trials. EFS-based endpoints are controversial due to the lack of a consistent definition for the timing of complete remission (CR), and consideration of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Here, we examined the impact of the timing of achievement of CR and censoring for HCT in the estimation of the EFS, and assessed its robustness as an endpoint in AML. Methods: All prospective trials since 2003 using anthracycline and cytarabine chemotherapy for newly diagnosed patients (pts) with AML conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, and whose primary endpoint data has been reported, were included (5 trials total). Trial 1 - randomized phase III study in older AML pts (n=504, median age 69, 61% male); trial 2 - single-arm phase II study in older FLT3-mutated AML pts (n=54, median age 67, 56% male); trial 3 - randomized phase III study in younger AML pts (n=546, median age 48, 55% male); trial 4 - randomized phase III study in younger FLT3-mutated AML pts (n=717, median age 48, 45% male); and trial 5 - single arm phase II study in core-binding factor AML pts with no restriction on age (n=61, median age 51, 51% male). Induction failure was defined as one of: no CR by 60 days (Definition 1), no CR by the end of all protocol induction courses (Definition 2), or no CR by the end of all protocol treatment (Definition 3). CR was defined as <5% blasts in a cellular marrow with recovery of >1000 neutrophils/ul (>1500 neutrophils/ul for trial 1), >100,000 platelets/ul, and no red cell transfusion requirement. EFS was defined as the time from randomization / registration to the first evidence of induction failure using each of the 3 methods above, relapse, or death from any cause. Patients last known to be alive without relapse were censored at the date of last contact. Including the 3 induction failure definitions and consideration of censoring or no censoring for HCT, the Kaplan Meier estimates of EFS were computed for the six different definitions of EFS. Results: The number of deaths was respectively 464, 38, 307, 357, and 13 across the 5 trials, with a median follow-up of 99.7, 28.2, 60.1, 58.2, and 33.5 months on the alive patients, respectively. Not considering HCT, in trial 1, the median EFS ranged from 2.0 to 4.3 months (115% difference); in trial 2, the median EFS ranged from 6.9 to 8.3 months (20% difference); in trial 3, the median EFS ranged from 9.8 to11.2 months (14% difference); and in trial 4, the median EFS ranged from 5.5 to 9.7 months (76% difference). The median EFS was not achieved in trial 5; however the 1-year EFS estimates ranged from 78 to 83% (6% difference). Consistently across all trials, as expected, the EFS estimate using the 60-day induction failure yielded the shortest estimates, whereas the end-of-treatment induction failure yielded the longest estimates. Results were similar both with and without censoring at the time of HCT as the event of interest occurred prior to transplantation in most cases. Conclusions: Although relapse and death are firm endpoints, the determination of failure to achieve CR is not consistent across studies. While there is minimal impact of censoring at HCT on EFS estimates, the median EFS estimates differed considerably based on the timing of CR used to define induction failure, with the magnitude of difference being large enough in most cases (observed range: 14% to >100%) to lead to incorrect conclusions about efficacy in a single arm trial if the trial definition was not consistent with the definition used for the historical control. The timing of CR should be carefully examined in the historical control data used to guide the design of the next trial. Table. Table. Disclosures Uy: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Stone:Celator: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Recurrent somatic mutations in the metabolic enzymes isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 (IDH1/2) confer gain-of-function activity in cancer cells, resulting in accumulation of the oncometabolite, D-2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). High levels of 2-HG result in epigenetic changes and impaired cellular differentiation. IDH mutations have been identified in multiple solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Approximately 6-10% and 9-13% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) carry mutations in IDH1 (mIDH1) or IDH2 (mIDH2), respectively. AG-120 is a first-in-class, oral, potent, reversible, selective inhibitor of the IDH1 mutant enzyme under evaluation in multiple ongoing single agent and combination clinical trials [NCT02074839, NCT02073994, NCT02632708, NCT02677922]. This is the first report of IDH1 mutation clearance assessed by variant allele frequency (VAF) analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in patients treated on the dose escalation portion of the first-in-human phase 1 study [NCT02074839]. METHODS Patients with advanced mIDH1-positive hematologic malignancies received AG-120 as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) continuously in 28-day cycles. Primary objectives were determination of safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and selection of a dose schedule for expansion cohorts and future studies. Secondary objectives included clinical activity assessed by investigators using modified 2003 International Working Group Criteria in AML. Determination of mIDH1 VAF was performed using the FoundationOne® Heme test on mononuclear cells from the bone marrow or peripheral blood at screening and subsequent time points on study. This NGS assay reports IDH1 mutations for samples with VAF ≥1%, with median coverage 500X. Patients with IDH1 mutational clearance (IDH1-MC) were defined as having mIDH1 at baseline and at least one on-study sample with no reported mIDH1. RESULTS Seventy-eight patients were treated in the dose escalation portion, which is now closed to enrollment. As of the data cut-off of May 12, 2016, the median duration on treatment was 3.2 months and 9 (11.5%) patients remain on treatment, with an additional 8 (10.3%) patients transitioned to stem cell transplant. Doses ranged from 300-1200 mg QD with 1 cohort at 100 mg BID. Though the MTD was not reached, the recommended phase 2 dose was determined to be 500 mg QD. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 and 2, the most common (≥30%) being diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea; the most common grade ≥3 AEs (≥15%) were febrile neutropenia, anemia, leukocytosis and pneumonia. The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (16.7%) and pneumonia (12.8%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 38.5% (n=30), with 17.9% (n=14) achieving a complete remission (CR). Longitudinal mIDH1 VAF data were available for 51 patients; of these, 22% (n=11) achieved a CR. IDH1-MC was observed in 27.3% (3/11) patients who achieved CR (Figure 1). In contrast, only 1/40 patients who did not achieve CR experienced IDH1-MC. This occurred in a patient with an initially low mIDH1 VAF who had clinical progression despite IDH1-MC (Figure 1, bottom right). In all 3 patients with CR who achieved IDH1-MC, an initial increase in mIDH1 VAF, or early peak, was observed prior to IDH1-MC, suggesting that early clonal expansion might have occurred as part of the mechanism of action of AG-120. CONCLUSION This is the first demonstration that treatment with single agent AG-120 can result in mIDH1 clearance as determined by NGS. Further analysis of the mutational profiles is planned. AG-120, a potent, selective, oral inhibitor of mIDH1 continues to demonstrate a well-tolerated safety profile in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies, and induced objective single-agent durable responses. The data continue to support the efficacy and safety of single agent AG-120 and provide evidence that the underlying biology of the disease is altered by treatment. Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120 Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Figure 1. VAF analysis using FoundationOne® Heme NGS assay in 4 AML patients with IDH1-MC treated with AG-120. / Figure subscript: Y-axis is mIDH1 VAF, x-axis is days on treatment. Text indicates investigator-assessed clinical response. CR, complete remission; CRi, CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery; CRp, CR with incomplete platelet recovery; R/R, relapsed/refractory; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; *post-transplant sample Disclosures DiNardo: Daiichi Sankyo: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. de Botton:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Other: advisory board; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Other: advisory board. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Pollyea:Alexion: Other: advisory board; Pfizer: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Ariad: Other: advisory board; Glycomimetics: Other: DSMB member; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Research Funding. Fathi:Bexalata: Other: Advisory Board participation; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board participation; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board participation, Research Funding; Merck: Other: Advisory Board participation; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Altman:Syros: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Foran:novartis: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; karyopharm: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Pigneux:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kantarjian:ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Liu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacolick:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yen:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hurov:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Choe:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy.

Abstract Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that blocks the autophosphorylation and activation of a number of kinases including the FLT3 tyrosine kinase with an internal tandem duplication mutation (FLT3-ITD). Sorafenib has activity against AML with FLT3-ITD mutations as a single agent in the setting of post-transplant relapse and in combination with chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. Historical Cancer and Leukemia Group B results using standard chemotherapy for older patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD have demonstrated a complete remission (CR) rate of 67%, median survival of 0.8 yrs, and 1-yr overall survival (OS) of 30% (Whitman et al., Blood 2010). More recently, sorafenib was demonstrated to significantly prolong event-free (EFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of younger adults irrespective of FLT3 mutation status (Rollig, et al., ASH 2014). We hypothesized that the addition of sorafenib to induction and post-remission therapy would improve the overall survival of older pts with FLT3-mutated AML. The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology conducted a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 study in pts ≥ 60 years old with AML and either a FLT3-ITD or a point mutation in the activation loop of the kinase domain (FLT3-TKD). Subjects with PML-RARA, core-binding factor AML or who had received prior treatment for AML were excluded. Induction chemotherapy consisted of cytarabine 100 mg/m2 CIVI on days 1-7 and daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV on days 1-3 (7+3) with oral sorafenib 400 mg bid on days 1-7. Those not achieving a hypoplastic bone marrow on day 14 were to receive a second cycle of cytarabine and daunorubicin (5+2) plus sorafenib 400 mg bid on days 1-7. Post-remission therapy consisted of intermediate-dose cytarabine 2 g/m2 on days 1-5 with sorafenib 400 mg bid on days 1-28 for 2 cycles followed by maintenance sorafenib 400 mg bid for 12 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was 1-yr OS. With a sample size of 39 FLT3-ITD patients and type I error rate of 10%, this design provided 90% power to distinguish between true 1-yr OS rate of 50% compared to our historical rate of 30% for the FLT3-ITD pts. A total of 474 pts were screened for FLT3 mutations though a central laboratory. FLT3 mutations were identified in 83 subjects (17.5%). Fifty-four pts with a median age of 67 years (60.3-82.7) were enrolled, including 39 with FLT3-ITD (71%) and 15 with FLT3-TKD (29%). All pts have now completed protocol treatment. Of the 54 pts, 37 achieved a CR or CRi (69%). The 30-day induction mortality was 9% with no additional deaths occurring between days 30-60. With a median follow up of 28.3 months, the observed 1-yr OS (95% CI) was 62% (45-78) for the FLT3-ITD pts and 71% (42-92) for the FLT3-TKD pts. The median DFS and OS was 12.5 mo (7.7-17.4) and 15.0 mo (10.4-20.1) respectively in the FLT3-ITD group and 9.0 (1.6-NA) and 16.2 mo (5.0-NA) for the FLT3-TKD group. For all subjects, the 2-yr OS was 28% (17-43) and DFS was 27% (15-46). There were no treatment-related deaths during consolidation or maintenance. For pts receiving sorafenib maintenance, the most commonly reported related adverse events were Grade 1 diarrhea, fatigue, transaminitis, and Grade 2 palmar-plantar erythodyesthesia. The mean plasma inhibitory activity (PIA) for FLT3 was 94% (n=25) on day 6 of induction, 93% (n=15) on day 15 of consolidation and 99.2% (n=6) on day 15 of maintenance demonstrating robust inhibition of FLT3 in vivo. This study represents the first prospective clinical trial for older adults with AML targeting a specific mutational profile within the US cooperative group setting. The study met the primary endpoint demonstrating that the addition of sorafenib to chemotherapy for FLT3-ITD AML improves the survival of older adults more than doubling the 1-yr OS compared to historical controls (62% vs 30%, p <0.0001). Disclosures Uy: Novartis: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Sorafenib for AML. DeAngelo:Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Byrd:Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding. Stone:Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AROG: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy. Larson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 755 Background: TG101348 is a potent, orally bioavailable, JAK2-selective small molecule inhibitor, that is currently being evaluated in a Phase I study for the treatment of myelofibrosis. Data from the dose escalation cohort (n=28; 30-800mg administered as a single daily dose) showed dose-linear plasma exposure, with mean elimination T1/2 at steady state ranging from 20 to 52 hours. The dose-limiting toxicity was asymptomatic grade 3 or 4 amylasemia/lipasemia that was reversible, and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 680mg. The most frequent non-hematological toxicities were mild nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea that were easily controlled or resolved spontaneously. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 14% and 25% of patients, respectively. TG101348 had activity in reducing spleen size, leukocyte count, and JAK2V617F (VF) allele burden. Here, we present updated results with a focus on data from the dose confirmation cohort who initiated treatment at a dose of 680mg/day. Results: Fifty nine patients (median age=66 years; range 43-86) have been treated – 28 in the dose escalation phase, and 31 in the dose confirmation phase. Overall, 44 patients had PMF, 12 post-PV MF, and 3 post-ET MF; 86% were VF-positive. Median palpable spleen size was 18cm and 22 patients were RBC transfusion-requiring at study enrollment. After a median follow-up of 12 weeks (range <1-76), 18 (31%) patients have discontinued treatment due to toxicity (n=7; thrombocytopenia=3, neutropenia=1), comorbidities (n=5), withdrawal of consent (n=4), or non-compliance/lack of response (1 each). The remaining 41 patients are currently at the following dose levels: 680mg (n=14), 520-600mg (n=16), 360-440mg (n=10), and 240mg (n=1). The cumulative drug exposure to date is 362 patient-months; exposure at or above MTD (≥680mg) is 154 patient-months. Forty patients (68%) started treatment at ≥680mg. Toxicity: TG101348 is well tolerated. Of the patients who started at ≥680mg, Gr3/4 neutropenia was observed in 15/0% and Gr3/4 thrombocytopenia in 20/10%. Twenty four (60%) patients did not require RBC transfusions at baseline (median Hgb=9.6g/dL; range 7.4-13.1); of these, 42% and 8% of patients developed Gr3 and Gr4 anemia, respectively. The majority of patients who started at ≥680mg developed mild nausea (1 Gr3), vomiting (1 Gr3), and/or diarrhea (3 Gr3) that were self-limited or easily controlled. Other non-hematological toxicities included Gr1/2 transaminitis (38%), Gr1/2 serum creatinine elevation (38%), and asymptomatic hyperlipasemia (33%). Efficacy: Thirty three patients who started at ≥680mg have completed at least 3 cycles of treatment; at 3 months, reduction in palpable spleen size (baseline median=18cms; range 6-32) was at least 50% in 22 (67%) patients; the spleen became non-palpable in 9 (27%) patients. All 21 patients with leukocytosis at baseline (WBC range 11 to 203 ×109/L) who started at ≥680mg have experienced a marked reduction in their WBC count (range 4 to 90); 70% had a normal WBC count at their last follow-up visit. Overall, 48 of the 51 VF-positive patients completed at least 1 cycle and were evaluable for response in VF allele burden; at last available follow-up, the median decrease in granulocyte mutant allele burden was 48%; 21 (44%) patients have had a ≥50% reduction, and in the group who started treatment at ≥680mg, 48% have had a ≥50% reduction. Of those evaluable, there was clinically significant benefit or resolution of constitutional symptoms, including early satiety, fatigue, cough, pruritus, and night sweats. Conclusions: TG101348 continues to be well tolerated in patients with myelofibrosis. Spleen and leukocyte responses are frequent, observed early, and produce substantial clinical benefit for patients. These responses are associated with significant decrease in VF allele burden and point to activity of TG101348 against the malignant clone in myelofibrosis. Disclosures: Pardanani: TargeGen: Research Funding; Cytopia: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Data from ongoing clinical trial will be presented. Gotlib:TargeGen: Research Funding. Jamieson:Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Wintherix: Consultancy; TargeGen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cortes:Targegen: Research Funding. Stone:Cephalon: ad hoc advisory board. Silverman:TargeGen: Consultancy. Shorr:TargeGen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gilliland:Merck: Employment. Tefferi:TargeGen: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 788 FLT3 mutations are common in AML and are associated with poor prognosis. Lestaurtinib is a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor with potent activity against FLT3. In an attempt to definitively establish whether or not there is clinical benefit for FLT3 inhibition in the relapse setting, we conducted a randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by lestaurtinib for patients with FLT3 mutant AML in first relapse. Patients were randomized to receive either chemotherapy alone, consisting of mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC) or high-dose cytarabine (HiDAc) depending on the duration of CR1) or chemotherapy followed by 80 mg lestaurtinib orally BID. Patients on the chemotherapy only arm were eligible for crossover if they were refractory to therapy. Patients on the lestaurtinib arm received the drug for up to 112 days on study (they could continue to receive the drug through a separate extension protocol). The primary objective was complete remission (CR/CRp). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. From January 2004 through December 2008, 224 patients at 52 different centers were enrolled and randomized, with 220 patients actually receiving therapy. Blood samples from patients on the lestaurtinib arm were obtained at baseline, on Day 15, and on Day 42 for pK studies and for determination of in vivo FLT3 inhibition and measurement of plasma FLT3 ligand (FL) and alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AGP) levels. The median age for all patients enrolled was 55 years (53.5 in the control arm, 58.5 in the lestaurtinib arm), with 88% having FLT3/ITD mutations, 8% having D835 mutations, and 4% having both. The duration of CR1 was less than 6 months in 47% of patients in each arm. On the lestaurtinib arm, 107 patients received at least 1 week of lestaurtinib (mean 60.1 days, range 8-418), with 17 of these patients receiving drug on the extension protocol. On the chemotherapy only arm, 7 patients crossed over to receive lestaurtinib, and 31 patients went on to receive lestaurtinib on the extension protocol after outcome evaluation. Lestaurtinib was generally well tolerated following chemotherapy, with 104 Grade 3/4 adverse events in the lestaurtinib arm versus 99 in the control arm. There were 61 serious adverse events in the lestaurtinib arm versus 49 in the control arm. Early death (by Day 42) occurred in 22 lestaurtinib patients (2 progressive leukemia, 14 infectious, 6 organ failure) and16 control patients (6 progressive leukemia, 5 infectious, 5 organ failure). By intention to treat analysis, there were 29 CR/CRp in the lestaurtinib arm and 23 in the control arm (26% versus 21%; p = 0.35), with no difference in OS (4.73 months versus 4.57 months) between the two arms. Blood samples from 79 of the 107 lestaurtinib-treated patients obtained on Day 15 were analyzed for FLT3 inhibitory activity (plasma inhibitory activity [PIA] assay), as well as FLT3 ligand (FL), lestaurtinib, and AGP concentrations. Mean lestaurtinib plasma concentration was 12 uM at Day 15 and fell to 7.5 uM on Day 42. Mean lestaurtinib concentration at Day 15 was 13.3 uM in patients achieving CR/CRp and 11.5uM in non-responders. A target of >85% inhibition of FLT3 maintained at trough (pre-dose) was defined from previous studies. Of the 79 patients tested, 46 (58%) achieved this degree of FLT3 inhibition on Day 15. FL concentrations rose from baseline (15.6 pg/mL) to Day 15 (1148 pg/mL), and AGP concentrations rose by an average of 52% over the same period, both of which may have reduced the degree of FLT3 inhibition. Of the 46 patients with target FLT3 inhibition on Day 15, 18 (39%) achieved CR/CRp, while only 3 (9%) of the 32 patients with below target FLT3 inhibition achieved CR/CRp. Thus, in patients with FLT3 mutant AML at first relapse, pharmacokinetic factors and possible physiologic factors (FL and AGP) limit lestaurtinib's ability to effectively inhibit FLT3. FLT3 inhibition by lestaurtinib, when achieved, correlates with better CR rates, but in this trial that benefit was negated by a poor CR rate in those patients for whom the drug did not reach the target level of FLT3 inhibition. Overall, lestaurtinib treatment following re-induction chemotherapy failed to increase response rates or prolong survival of patients with FLT3 mutant AML in first relapse. Disclosures: Levis: Cephalon: Clinical Advisory Board member. Ravandi:Cephalon: Honoraria, Member, clinical advisory board, Research Funding. Erba:Cephalon: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baccarani:Novartis Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Cephalon: ad hoc consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding, ad hoc consultancy. Advani:Cephalon: Research Funding. Douer:Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Litzow:Cephalon: Research Funding. Tremmel:Cephalon: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bensen-Kennedy:cephalon: Employment. Smith:Cephalon: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is one of the most common lymphoid malignancies, accounting for ~11% of all hematologic neoplasms. Over the last 15 years, a series of phase 3 trials have established that chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) improves both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone. FCR is the gold standard for young fit patients with treatment naïve CLL. In parallel with the advances in CIT, a profound increase in the understanding of CLL B-cell biology led to new therapeutic approaches.1 Among these, ibrutinib (an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase [BTK]) has had the largest impact on clinical practice to date. Initial trials of ibrutinib demonstrated robust and durable efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Subsequent phase 3 trials showed improved PFS and OS with ibrutinib relative to chlorambucil in previously untreated, older CLL patients. Despite these advances, the efficacy of ibrutinib as a first-line treatment for younger CLL patients (i.e. <70) relative to the most efficacious CIT regimens, such as FCR, is unknown. METHODS: Eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL who were age <70 and required therapy. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating given the poor response of these patients to FCR therapy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 ) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2) days 1-3 with rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. The planned accrual was 519 patients. Hematologic toxicity was graded according to the 2008 IWCLL Working Group scale. All other adverse events were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). The primary endpoint was PFS with a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. The first planed interim analysis for PFS was scheduled to occur 24-27 months after full accrual with the first interim analysis for OS scheduled to occur if the boundary for PFS was crossed. The primary analysis was a stratified logrank test applied to all patients as randomized. Treatment effect p-values are one-sided. The study was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board for the National Cancer Institute, conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02048813). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were accrued between January 31, 2014 and June 9, 2016. 354 patients were assigned to ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) and 175 to FCR. Nineteen patients did not start protocol therapy. The first interim analysis was performed September 2018. With median follow-up of 33.4 months, we observed 77 PFS events and 14 deaths. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.352; 95% CI 0.223-0.558; p<0.0001) which crossed the pre specified boundary. The HR for OS also favored the IR arm (HR=0.168, 95% CI 0.053-0.538; p=0.0003, pre-specified boundary for superiority p=0.0005). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS and OS are shown in Figure 1A and 1B. In subgroup analysis for PFS, IR was superior to FCR independent of age, sex, performance status, disease stage or the presence/absence of del11q23. With current follow-up, IR was also superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.262; 95% CI 0.137-0.498; p<0.0001) but not IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.435; 95% CI 0.140-0.1350; p=0.07). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 58% of IR and 72% of FCR treated patients (p=0.0042). Specifically, FCR was more frequently associated with grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (FCR: 69 [44%] of 158 vs. IR: 80 [23%] of 352; p<0·0001) and infectious complications (FCR: 28/158 [17.7%] vs. IR: 25/352 [7.1%]; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab provides superior PFS and OS relative to FCR for patients with previously untreated CLL age <70. These findings have immediate practice changing implications and establish ibrutinib-based therapy as the most efficacious first-line therapy for patients with CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; Celgene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kay:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Brien:Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences Inc.: Consultancy; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; 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; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Juno: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; FujiFilm: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Ono/Theradex: Consultancy; Otzuka/Astex: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator / Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cornerstone: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. Recent advances have resulted in an expansion of treatment options for AML, especially concerning targeted therapies and low-intensity regimens. This portion of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for AML focuses on the management of AML and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.