Garcia‐Manero, Guillermo

Background: Heterozygous somatic mutations in the genes encoding RNA splicing factors SF3B1, U2AF1, SRSF2 or ZRSR2 induce aberrant splicing in cancer cells and are among the most common mutations in patients with MDS, AML or CMML. H3B-8800 is an orally available small molecule that binds to the SF3b complex and induces alternative splicing changes in cells. Because splicing factor mutant cells depend on residual wild-type function of splicing factors for survival, we hypothesized that H3B-8800 would induce preferential cell killing of mutant cells by further perturbing splicing to synthetic lethality. In pre-clinical models, H3B-8800 preferentially kills spliceosome mutant cells and induces antitumor activity in xenograft leukemia models with core spliceosome mutations (Seiler M et al Nature Medicine 2018). Therefore, we conducted a phase I clinical trial (NCT02841540) of H3B-8800 in patients with MDS, AML or CMML. Here we describe the safety profile and clinical outcomes of the dose escalation cohorts in this phase I trial. Methods: This phase I trial explored the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of H3B-8800 in patients with myeloid cancers. Dose escalation cohorts, employing a standard 3+3 design, examined 2 different once daily dosing regimens (schedule I: 5 days on/9 days off; schedule II: 21 days on/7 days off) in a 28-day cycle, with stratification based on lower-risk (LR) versus higher-risk (HR) myeloid neoplasms. Results: As of June 16th, 2019, 84 patients were enrolled at 24 centers in the US and Europe. Dose ranged from 1-40 mg among 65 patients on schedule I, while 19 patients were enrolled with dose ranging from 7-20 mg on schedule II. The patient population included AML (n=38), CMML (n=4), HR-MDS (n=20), LR-MDS (n=21) and 1 MDS with unknown risk level. Most patients (88%) had spliceosome mutations of interest. The most common mutations were in SRSF2 (p.P95H in 17, p.P95L in 9, p.P95_R102Del in 4), SF3B1 (p.K700E in 11, p.R625C in 4), and U2AF1 (p.Q157P in 6, p.S34F in 4). Patients remained on treatment from 7 to 819 days; 25 patients (30%) had time on treatment greater than 180 days, 20% more than 1 year and 2% over 2 years. The median therapy duration for LR-CMML/MDS, HR-CMML/MDS, and AML patients were 216, 62, and 47 days respectively. Most observed treatment related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were Grade 1 or 2. The most common treatment-related (as judged by the investigator, >10% frequency) TEAEs in the patients treated on schedule I were diarrhea (75%), nausea (37%), fatigue (28%) and vomiting (27%). The most common treatment-related TEAEs in the patients treated on schedule II were diarrhea (68%), vomiting (42%), QTc prolongation (21%), nausea (16%), and fatigue (16%). The most common dose limiting toxicity was prolongation of the QTcF interval >500 msec (n=2, 40 mg on schedule I and n=1, 20 mg on schedule II, all ≥Grade 3) and bradycardia without other arrhythmias (n=1, 14 mg on schedule II, ≥Grade 3). No ophthalmic AEs were observed; 1 patient (LR-MDS) experienced durable marrow aplasia. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) has not been confirmed for either Schedule I or Schedule II. PK analysis indicates that H3B-8800 is rapidly absorbed and exhibits dose-proportional increase in plasma exposure. Consistent dose-dependent target engagement (i.e., alteration in mature mRNA transcripts) was observed in blood mononuclear cells from patients enrolled in the 2 mg up to 40 mg dose cohorts on both schedules. Despite this splicing modulation, no objective complete responses (CR) or partial responses (PR) meeting International Working Group criteria were observed. One patient with CMML had a durable platelet response that began in Cycle 1 and persisted through Cycle 13. Nine red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with MDS or CMML and 2 patients with AML did not require RBC transfusions for ≥8 weeks (up to 28 weeks) while on study. One platelet transfusion-dependent patient with LR-MDS did not require platelet transfusions for ≥8 weeks. Conclusion: Results from this first-in-human multicenter prospective clinical trial of a splicing modulator in myeloid neoplasms demonstrate dose-dependent target engagement and predictable PK profile of H3B-8800, and safety even with prolonged dosing. Although no objective CR or PR were achieved, decreased RBC or platelet transfusion requirements were observed in 12 (14%) of enrolled patients. Disclosures Steensma: H3 Biosciences: Other: Research funding to institution, not investigator.; Pfizer: Consultancy; Aprea: Research Funding; Stemline: Consultancy; Arrowhead: Equity Ownership; Summer Road: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy. Wermke:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Greenberg:Notable Labs: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; H3 Biotech: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Font:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; DSI: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Brunner:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Ades:Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Silence Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Coombs:H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Micol:AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Perez De Oteyza:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Wang:Abbvie: Other: Advisory role; Kite: Other: Advisory role; Jazz: Other: Advisory role; Astellas: Other: Advisory role, Speakers Bureau; celyad: Other: Advisory role; Pfizer: Other: Advisory role, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Other: Advisory role, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi: Other: Advisory role; Amgen: Other: Advisory role; Agios: Other: Advisory role. Watts:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buonamici:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Kim:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Gourineni:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Marino:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Rioux:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Schindler:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Smith:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Yao:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Yuan:Eisai: Employment. Yu:H3 Biomedicine: Employment. Platzbecker:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: H3B-8800 (experimental, unapproved)

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

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

Abstract Background: Pracinostat, a potent oral Class I, II, IV histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, exhibited modest single-agent activity in relapsed AML. Inhibition of histone deacetylation and DNA hypermethylation induces re-expression of silenced genes in myeloid malignancies in a synergistic fashion. A pilot study of pracinostat with azacitidine (AZA) in myelodysplastic syndromes showed the combination to be active and well tolerated (Blood2012;120:3821). We conducted a Phase 2 study to evaluate pracinostat + AZA in patients ≥65 years with AML not eligible for induction chemotherapy. Minimum 1-year survival data were reported previously (Blood 2015;126:453). Here we report long-term survival and response analyses. Methods: Main eligibility: Age ≥65, untreated de novo or secondary AML, ≥20% bone marrow (BM) blasts, not candidate for intensive therapy due to co-morbidities and/or AML features, intermediate or high-risk cytogenetics, and no prior treatment with HDAC inhibitors or hypomethylating agents. Treatment consisted of pracinostat 60 mg orally 3 days/week on alternate days for 3 weeks and AZA 75 mg/m2 subcutaneously or intravenously daily for 7 days, with cycles repeated every 28 days until disease progression, lack of response or poor tolerability. The primary endpoint was a composite complete response rate (cCR) of CR + CRi+ MLFS by IWG criteria. Response was assessed at the end of Cycles 2, 4, 6 and then every 3 cycles or when clinically indicated. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (cCR + PR), duration of response and overall survival (OS). Study registered under NCT01912274. Results: Between December 2013 and December 2014, 50 patients were enrolled at 15 U.S. sites. Baseline characteristics: Median age 75 years (range 66-84 years); 33 de novo and 17 secondary AML; 27 intermediate-risk and 21 high-risk cytogenetics and 2 not known; median BM blasts 40% (range 20%-89%), ECOG performance status 0-1 in 84% and 2 in 16%. The median number of treatment cycles was 6.5 (range 1-24+). A CR was achieved in 21 patients (42%), CRi in 2 (4%), and MLFS in 3 (6%) for a cCR rate of 52%. Median time to BM blasts <5% was 57 days (range 25-243 days) and exceeded 168 days (6 cycles) in 3 patients (12%). Median duration of cCR is 13.2 months (95% CI 10.9-21.5 months), with 6 of 26 patients (23%) continuing on therapy for a periods ranging from 20.5 to 29.5 months. With a median follow-up of 21 months, the median OS is 19.1 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached). One-year and 2-year OS are 62% and 45%. Non-protocol therapies (NPT) were administered in 23 patients (46%). There was no effect on OS after censoring survival duration at the start of NPT. Response and OS by population subsets are summarized in Table 1. Non hematologic adverse events Grade ≥3 reported in >5% of patients: Fatigue 34%; anorexia 10%, cellulitis, pneumonia, asthenia and sepsis in 8%; urinary tract infection, nausea, back pain, hypoxia, hyponatremia, and syncope in 6%. Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities in> 5% of patients: thrombocytopenia 46%; febrile neutropenia 44%; neutropenia 36%; anemia 30%; pancytopenia 6%. The 30-day and 60-day mortality rates were 2% and 10%. Conclusions: Pracinostat + AZA led to a high rate of responses in elderly patients with AML. Responses were durable and observed irrespective of age, cytogenetics risk, ECOG performance status, and de novo or secondary AML. Marrow remission was typically achieved early, but prolonged exposure was required in some patients to maximize response. The results compare favorably with historical single-agent AZA data in a similar AML population. A phase 3 study of AZA +/- pracinostat in untreated patients with AML unfit for standard induction chemotherapy is starting. Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Table 1. Response and Survival According to Baseline Characteristics Disclosures Atallah: Incyte: Consultancy; CTI biopharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Other: Grant review; Takeda: Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Arellano:Cephalon: Research Funding. Odenike:Geron: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Suneisis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI/Baxter: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Algeta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghalie:MEI Pharma: Employment.

Background: Patients with HR-MDS have a dismal prognosis after failure of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) (Zeidan 2014), with median overall survival (OS) of less than 6 months (Prebet 2011) and currently no approved second-line therapy (Garcia-Manero 2016). Targeted therapies with novel mechanisms of action, combination strategies, as well as innovative study designs, are all needed to expedite and address the high unmet medical need in patients with HMA refractory HR-MDS. Rigosertib is a unique targeted therapy that inhibits PI3K and PLK signaling pathways by binding directly to the Ras-binding domain (Athuluri-Divakar 2016) and in vitro cytotoxicity studies have demonstrated synergy with azacitidine (Cosenza 2015). INSPIRE study is an example of a study with a novel compound and unique mechanism of action as well as an innovative study design. Methods: INSPIRE (NCT02562443) is a global randomized Phase 3 trial in patients with HR-MDS after HMA failure. Patients are randomized in a 2:1 fashion to rigosertib or physician's choice of treatment. Key inclusion criteria: age <82 years; MDS classified as RAEB-1, RAEB-2 or RAEB-t; ≥1 cytopenia; patient must demonstrate one of the following: progression any time after initiation of HMA treatment, intolerance to HMA, failure to achieve complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), or hematologic improvement (HI) after six 4-week cycles of AZA or either four 4-week or four 6-week cycles of DAC, or relapse after initial CR, PR or HI; duration of prior HMA ≤9 cycles within 12 months; last dose of HMA ≤6 months before enrollment; and ECOG score 0-2. The primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) will be tested in a sequential fashion in the intention to treat (ITT) population and the IPSS-R very high risk (VHR) subgroup. Secondary endpoints include OS in patients with monosomy 7 or trisomy 8, overall response, quality-of-life, and HI. The initial sample size was 225 patients with a pre-planned interim analysis (IA) after 88 deaths. INSPIRE featured an adaptive trial design with a pre-planned Sample Size Re-estimation (Cui 1999) to 360 patients and 288 OS events as one option that the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) could implement at IA. The adaptive sample size modification of an on-going two-arm, group sequential clinical trial is used to categorize the results for each population into three zones of Unfavorable, Promising, and Favorable. This adaptive design is advantageous as it allows study sample size to be adjusted when there is high variance in estimating the true effect of the drug under investigation which could otherwise result in underpowering of the study. The IDMC had several options following the interim analysis, including continuation of the study as initially planned, discontinuation for futility or safety, trial expansion using pre-planned sample size re-estimation, and continuation for only the pre-defined VHR subgroup. The investigators remain blinded to the specific interim analysis results. Enrollment in the trial is ongoing with topline data expected in 2020. Conclusions: Based on the results of interim analysis, the IDMC recommended continuation of the trial based on ITT result in promising zone with one-time expansion in enrollment, using a pre-planned sample size re-estimation, the sample size for the study was increased from 225 to 360 with unchanged eligibility criteria. The Adaptive Design used real time data from the IA to modify sample size and mitigate the risk of underpowering without undermining its validity and integrity, while preserving type-1 error. The study design used in INSPIRE may be advantageous for other novel agents in rare hematological diseases during the transition from phase 2 to phase 3 studies. Clinical trial information: (NCT02562443). Disclosures Luger: Agios: Honoraria; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Woodman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Adesanya:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Parris:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Jedrzejczak:Roche: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Celgene: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) . Díez-Campelo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: More than 45 mutations have been identified in association with HR-MDS. In the majority of patients with MDS (80%) co-mutations are present and the prognostic contribution of each individual mutation remains elusive, especially after adjusting for clinical variables such as IPSS-R score. N-RAS and K-RAS mutations as well as regulators of the Ras pathway (e.g. PTPN11, NF1) are frequently observed (15-20%) in HR-MDS, however their clinical impact is unclear, especially in de novo MDS. Rigosertib (RGS) is a non-ATP-competitive small molecule RAS mimetic that has the potential to block RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK and PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathways (Athuluri-Divakar 2016). Rigosertib has the potential to also inhibit wildtype upregulation of RAS. We report here genomic profiling at the time of study entry in the ongoing phase 3 randomized global study (known as INSPIRE) in patients with HR-MDS after failure of HMA therapy. Methods: INSPIRE (NCT02562443) is a global randomized Ph3 trial in pts with HR-MDS after HMA failure with an overall target enrollment of 360 pts with currently 298 pts randomized. Pts are randomized 2:1 to rigosertib or physician's choice of treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). All pts failed to respond or progressed on HMA therapy. Key inclusion criteria includes: age < 82 years, RAEB-1, RAEB-2 or RAEB-t; intermediate risk (IR), high risk (HR) and very high risk (VHR) per IPSS-R; ≥ 1 cytopenia; duration of prior HMA ≤ 9 cycles within 12 months; last dose of HMA ≤ 6 months before enrollment; baseline blast counts between 5-29% and one of the following: progression any time after initiation of HMA treatment, intolerance to HMA, failure to achieve complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), or hematologic improvement (HI) after six 4-week cycles of AZA or either four 4-week or four 6-week cycles of DAC, or relapse after initial CR, PR or HI. Bone marrow samples were collected at study baseline and throughout the study for mutational analysis as an exploratory endpoint. Baseline blast counts are described as % reported in bone marrow aspirate at screening. Genomic DNA was extracted from diagnostic bone marrow or peripheral blood samples and targeted capture deep sequencing of 295 genes were performed (median sequencing depth 500x) using Agilent's SureSelect custom panel. Modified Mutect and Pindel were used to identify high-confidence somatic mutations. Results: All data is presented as blinded aggregate results for both arms of the study. Baseline mutations are presented for 114 pts; 92 pts were randomized and 22 pts were screen failures. Median age is 72 years (59-81). The IPSS-R scores for the pts randomized were: Intermediate 5(5%), High 30 (32%) and VHR 56 (60%). In total 48 different mutations were identified at baseline prior to pts receiving study treatment. The most common mutations identified in pts were ASXL1 40%, STAG2 26%, TP53 24%, RUNX1 22%, SRSF2 and TET2 each 18%. Average number of mutations per pt was 3.06. At baseline, 4 pts (4%) had no mutations, 17 pts (18%) had only 1 mutation while 17 pts (18%) had between 6-8 mutations. N-RAS and K-RAS mutations occurred in 4 pts each (7% of pts) and all in the presence of other mutations. Mutations involving regulators of the Ras pathway (N-RAS, K-RAS, PTPN11, NF1) occurred in 12 (13%) of patients. Of note, 23 pts (25%) had IDH1 (6 pts) or IDH2 (17 pts) and the majority of these pts (68%) were High/VHR with an average blast count of 15% (range 5-27%) at study entry. The high proportion of IDH1/2 mutations observed is most likely due to inclusion of patients with RAEB-t. These results will be updated at the meeting with blinded baseline mutational analyses for all pts randomized into the study. Conclusion: The baseline mutational analyses from the INSPIRE study provides important initial insights into the genomic profile of pts with HMA failure, especially for the subset with VHR. Following analysis of the primary endpoint, it is anticipated that correlation of overall survival and clinical response with mutational status will be possible, including changes in mutations following therapy. Given the number of mutations involving the Ras pathway the efficacy of rigosertib in patients with this group of mutations will also be examined. Figure Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Luger:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Jedrzejczak:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Celgene: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) ; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Other: travel support for hematology meetings (ASH, EBMT, EHA) . Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Cavanaugh:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Woodman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Fruchtman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Takahashi:Symbio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

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

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