Roboz, Gail J.

Abstract Background: Rigosertib (RIG) is a RAS-mimetic interacting with the RAS-binding domains of RAF kinases, preventing their binding to RAS and inhibiting the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway. Rigosertib also binds to the RAS-binding domains of Ral-GDS and PI3Ks (Athuluri-Divakar, et al, Cell 165:643, 2016). Mutations of RAS are involved in proliferative processes important in neoplastic transformation (Gil-Bazo, et.al, Cancer Biology and Therapy 17:719, 2016). As of May 2016, 557 patients with MDS or AML received IV (N=335) or oral (N=222) rigosertib. All IV rigosertib was administered as monotherapy. Oral rigosertib was administered as monotherapy (N=168) or in combination with injectable azacitidine (AZA; N=54). Safety results across this rigosertib development program have not been presented. Methods: We reviewed all treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with MDS/AML treated with rigosertib IV monotherapy, rigosertib oral monotherapy, or in combination therapy, overall and by grade of severity, and serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Due to the unexpected observation of urinary AEs, including occasional gross hematuria, we analyzed urinary AEs in greater detail. Results: Rigosertib IV monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were fatigue (33%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (27%), constipation (25%), anaemia (24%) and pyrexia (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (21%), febrile neutropenia (13%), pneumonia (12%) and thrombocytopenia (11%). The most common serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (10%), pneumonia (9%), and sepsis (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of IV rigosertib were sepsis and pneumonia (3% each) (Table 1). Rigosertib oral monotherapy: The most common TEAEs were pollakiuria (increased urinary frequency) (35-%), fatigue (32%), diarrhoea (26%), dysuria (29%) and haematuria (24%). The most common ≥Grade 3 AEs were anaemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (5%), haematuria (4%) and urinary tract infection (4%). The most common serious AE was pneumonia (6%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation of patients receiving oral rigosertib as monotherapy were (dysuria [8%], urinary tract pain [7%], haematuria [5%] and urinary frequency [5%] (Table 2). Rigosertib oral in combination with azacitidine (AZA): The most common TEAEs were nausea (41%), fatigue (39%), diarrhea (37%), constipation (37%) and dysuria (28%). The most common serious AEs were pneumonia (11%) and febrile neutropenia (7%). The most common AEs leading to discontinuation were AML (4%) and pneumonia (4%) (Table 3). In patients fully evaluable for gross hematuria the cause of bleeding was bladder inflammation. Urinary and plasma concentration of RIG were examined to assess dose relationship. According to the azacitidine package insert, the incidence of gross hematuria of any grade with single agent azacitidine is 6.3 % and Grade 3-4 of 2.3%. Evaluations performed of hematuria among 5 studies of oral rigosertib (4 monotherapy and 1 in combination with AZA) in patients with MDS/AML (Table 4). Conclusions: Rigosertib IV or oral formulations were generally well tolerated in clinical trials in over 500 patients with MDS/AML. Gastrointestinal AEs were most frequently reported with IV rigosertib and genitourinary AEs were seen more often with oral than IV dosing. The greater rate of urinary AEs in the oral than in the IV studies indicates a need for close monitoring of these patients and proactive risk management, such as adequate hydration, timing of administration of the second dose, and bladder emptying prior to sleep. Studies are being designed to optimize dosing and schedule to maximize efficacy and minimize hematuria of single agent oral rigosertib. A randomized trial of oral rigosertib/azacitidine versus azacitidine will be required to optimize the clinical benefit and safety in the management of higher-risk patients with MDS. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Al-Kali:Celgene: Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Navada:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Roboz:Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Onconova, Teva, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrone:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Brownstein:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy. Zbyszewski:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Silverman:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Patents & Royalties: Co-Patent holder for the combination of azacitidine and rigosertib, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation HMA administered as a small volume subcutaneous (SC) injection which results in extended decitabine exposure. Phase 2 studies have been conducted in TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy using two different doses and schedules of guadecitabine. We report here a comparative efficacy and safety analysis of the 5-day and 10-day regimens. Methods: TN-AML patients who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy based on age (≥ 65 y), poor performance status (PS 2), comorbidities, or poor risk cytogenetics were enrolled in 2 separate treatment cohorts in the Phase 2 study. In the first cohort, patients were randomized (1:1) to either 60 mg/m2/d or 90 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 (5-day regimen). In the second cohort, patients were treated with 60 mg/m2/d on Days 1-5 and Days 8-12 (10-day regimen) for up to 4 cycles, followed by 60 mg/m2/d Days 1-5 in subsequent cycles. Cycles were scheduled every 28 days for both regimes with dose reductions/delays allowed based on response and tolerability. Patients remained on treatment as long as they continued to benefit with no unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the composite Complete Response (CRc): Complete Response (CR) + CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) + CR with incomplete neutrophil recovery (CRi) using modified International Working Group (IWG) criteria (Cheson et al, 2003). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: There was no difference in efficacy or safety between 60 and 90 mg/m2/d on the 5-day regimen (Yee et al, European Hematology Association meeting 2014, S647), so data are reported here for the two doses combined on the 5-day cohort. There were 51 patients treated in the 5-day regimen cohort and 52 treated with the 10-day regimen. There was no statistically significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 regimens; median age 77.9 vs. 77.3 years ; male 59% vs. 65%; PS 2 or higher 35% vs. 40%; median BM blasts 40.0% vs. 49.5%; poor risk cytogenetics 46% vs. 43% for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. Follow up of the 10-day cohort patients was shorter as it started after completion of enrolment of the 5-day cohort. The median follow up was 25.7 and 12.4 months and median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-26) and 3 (range 1-13) for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint, CRc, between the 2 regimens (p=0.43). CRc was achieved in 29/51 patients (57%) on the 5-day regimen (19 CR, 3 CRp, and 7 CRi) and in 25/52 patients (48%) on the 10-day regimen (16 CR, 5 CRp, and 4 CRi). Median OS was 10.5 and 8.7 months for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts, respectively (p=0.89). The 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were not statistically significant between the two cohorts: 5.9%, 15.7%, and 21.6% on the 5-day regimen and 1.9%, 17.3%, and 28.8% on the 10-day regimen. The most common Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to guadecitabine were: febrile neutropenia 59% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 47% vs. 38%, neutropenia 39% vs. 33%, anemia 27% vs. 19%, pneumonia 24% vs. 27%; and sepsis 12% vs. 19%, for the 5-day and 10-day cohorts respectively, none of which was statistically significant. Fifteen patients remain on treatment (5 from the 5-day cohort and 10 from the 10-day cohort). Conclusions: Guadecitabine is clinically active with a good safety profile in TN-AML patients not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Unlike in relapsed/refractory AML, where the 10-day regimen of guadecitabine showed a trend toward improved efficacy (Roboz et al, Annals of Oncology 25 Supplement 4, 2014), there was no significant difference in either efficacy or safety between the 5-day and 10-day regimens in newly diagnosed AML patients. Guadecitabine 60 mg/m2/d SC Days 1-5 is currently being investigated in an 800-patient multicenter randomized phase 3 study in TN-AML patients unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (ASTRAL-1 Phase 3 clinical trial: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT02348489). Disclosures Kropf: Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. O'Connell:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Astex: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rizzieri:Teva: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: ad board, Speakers Bureau. Stock:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savona:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Berdeja:Celgene: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Wilson:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Lowder:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Issa:Janssen: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: SGI-110 is a second generation HMA formulated as a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine delivered as a small volume SC injection that yields longer half-life and more extended DAC exposure than DAC IV infusion. A phase 1 clinical trial of SGI-110 demonstrated a differentiated pharmacokinetic profile from DAC IV, potent hypomethylation, and clinical responses in previously treated patients with MDS and AML (Kantarjian et al. 2012). Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles. Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in MDS patients. Methods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve or previously treated were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2QDx5 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. Adverse events (AEs) as graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria and pharmacodynamic biological activity as measured by Long Interspersed Nucleotide Element LINE-1 (an index of global DNA methylation) were also assessed. Patients are being followed for overall survival. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 who were refractory or have relapsed on prior treatment, and 49 previously untreated. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 8.2 months (range 1-21). Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms with no significant differences in median age (71.7 vs. 72.5 y); male gender (70 vs. 61%); ECOG PS 2 (15 vs. 12%); HR MDS (28 vs. 37%); transfusion-dependence (57 vs. 55%), median baseline Hb (9.25 vs. 9.3 g/dL); platelets count (42.5 vs. 45 x109/L), and neutrophils count (1.19 vs. 1.16 x109/L) for the 60 and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 respectively. However, there were 15 CMML patients (28%) randomized to 60 mg/m2 vs. only 7 CMML patients (14%) randomized to 90 mg/m2(p=0.097). All but 2 patients in the previously treated group received one or more HMA. At the time of the data cutoff, 38 of 102 patients (37%) were still on treatment. Median number of treatment cycles was 4 for previously treated patients, and 5 for the treatment naïve group (range 1-22 cycles). CR+mCR were observed in 10/53 (19%), and 11/49 (22%) in the 60 and 90 mg/m2 arms respectively (p=0.8). CR was observed in 7/49 treatment naïve patients (14%) while CR+mCR were observed in 11/53 previously treated patients (21%) with no significant differences between 60 and 90 mg/m2 arms. Transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was reported in 32% and 24% for platelets and RBCs respectively with no difference between the 2 treatment arms. Treatment naïve patients benefited from higher rate of transfusion-independence (58% and 46% for platelets and RBCs respectively). Potent demethylation was achieved in both treatment arms with a mean LINE-1 DNA demethylation of 27.3 and 30.5% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 respectively (p=0.12). Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 81 vs. 88% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 treatment arms respectively (p=0.42).There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (51 vs 38%) and pneumonia (20 vs. 13%) for the 90 mg/m2 arm compared to 60 mg/m2. Early 8-week any-cause mortality occurred in 3/102 patients treated (3%), 2 at 60 and 1 at 90 mg/m2. Follow up for survival is still ongoing. Conclusions: SC SGI-110 is a well-tolerated novel HMA with biological and clinical activity in the treatment of Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients with particularly promising activity in patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine. Clinical responses, transfusion independence, DNA demethylation as assessed by LINE-1, and Safety did not significantly differ between the 2 treatment doses. Disclosures Tibes: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Rosenblat:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 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 Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. 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. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. 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. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 414 Background: SGI-110 is a dinucleotide of decitabine (DAC) and deoxyguanosine formulated as a low volume and pharmaceutically stable SQ injection allowing more extended decitabine exposure than DAC IV infusion. The anticipated differentiated PK profile offers the potential of improved biological and clinical activity and safety over currently available HMAs. Methods: A randomized Phase 1–2 FIH Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)-guided, dose-escalation study has been conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory intermediate or high-risk MDS or AML. The objective of the first stage (dose escalation) is to determine safety and tolerability and to establish the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) and Biologically Effective Dose (BED). Patients were randomized to one of two SQ regimens (dailyx5 or once weeklyx3, 28-day courses). PD is evaluated by LINE-1 global DNA hypomethylation. The second stage (dose expansion) is to determine the clinical activity and safety in AML and MDS using the established BED and MTD. We report here the results of the dose escalation phase which has completed enrolment. Results: 78 patients (64 AML, 14 MDS) were enrolled in the dose escalation phase: 44 patients in the dailyx5 regimen and 34 in the weeklyx3 regimen. Median age was 69 years (range 29–86), 65% were male, and 82% had ECOG PS of 0–1. Median number of prior regimens was 3 (range 1–9), 59% of patients had prior HMA treatment (50% of AML patients, and 100% of MDS patients). Six patients are still ongoing treatment. The PK profile demonstrated efficient conversion of SGI-110 to decitabine as predicted from the SGI-110 rational design, resulting in longer decitabine exposure window (beyond 8 hrs) compared to DAC IV (3–4 hrs). At SGI-110 dose range of 60–125 mg/m2, observed mean decitabine AUCs (88–231 ng*hr/mL) reach or exceed the therapeutic range seen with 20 mg/m2 DAC IV (115 ng*hr/mL) while achieving only a small fraction of the Cmax (26–64 ng/mL vs 146 ng/mL for DAC IV). The effective half-life for decitabine after SQ SGI-110 injection appeared to be prolonged (up to 4-fold or ∼2.4 hrs) compared to DAC IV (0.58 hrs). Decitabine exposures (AUC) increased in a dose-proportional manner regardless of the regimen and no accumulation was observed. Dose-related LINE-1 hypomethylation was observed in patients treated with the daily regimen between 18 and 60 mg/m2; a plateau in maximum average hypomethylation (∼25%) was evident at higher daily doses (90-125 mg/m2) and therefore the BED for the dailyx5 schedule is established at 60 mg/m2. The 25% average hypomethylation of LINE-1 compares favorably with that observed historically after DAC IV at the dose of 20 mg/m2 dailyx5. The extent of LINE-1 hypomethylation after weeklyx3 SGI-110 was inferior as the maximum average hypomethylation plateaued at ∼8% from baseline. Starting at 36 mg/m2 daily and 60 mg/m2 weekly (44 AML, and 7 MDS patients), clinical responses were observed: 2CRs, 1CRp, and 1CRi in heavily pretreated AML patients; 1 mCR and 1 HI in MDS patients previously treated with azacitidine. All responses were in patients who achieved >10% LINE-1 hypomethylation. The most common Adverse Events (AEs), regardless of relationship to SGI-110, were diarrhea (21%), febrile neutropenia (17%), fatigue/injection site pain/nausea at 15% each. The most common drug-related AEs were injection site pain (15%), fatigue (8%), nausea (6%), and thrombocytopenia (5%). MTD was not reached with the weekly regimen up to 125 mg/m2 weeklyx3. With the daily regimen, 125 mg/m2dailyx5 resulted in 2 Dose-Limiting Toxicities (DLTs) of febrile neutropenia in 3 MDS patients (1 associated with bacteremia, and the other with sepsis and thrombocytopenia Grade 4) while none of the 9 patients with AML had DLT at that dose. Conclusions: SGI-110 is well tolerated at doses higher than BED which is established at 60 mg/m2 dailyx5 where average hypomethylation of ∼25% was achieved. MTD estimated to be 90 mg/m2 dailyx5 for MDS and 125 mg/m2dailyx5 for AML patients. SQ administration of SGI-110 achieved efficient conversion to decitabine resulting in an improved PK profile over DAC IV. Clinical responses were observed in this heavily pretreated population and they seem to correlate with the extent of LINE-1 hypomethylation. Study is currently enrolling patients in the dose-expansion Phase 2 stage. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Roboz:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Rizzieri:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Stock:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. O'Connell:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Griffiths:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yee:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Tibes:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Garcia-Manero:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Ravandi:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Walsh:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Feldman:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Ritchie:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Rao:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Decastro:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Schimmer:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Mesa:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Syed:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Choy:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Oganesian:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Taverna:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Chung:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Issa:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding.