Sekeres, Mikkael A.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 mutations are observed in 6-10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (AG-120), a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) protein, is a promising therapeutic candidate for the treatment of patients with mIDH1 AML. Through inhibition of mIDH1, ivosidenib suppresses the abnormal production of the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells. AIM: To report safety and efficacy data from the first-in-human phase 1 study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies including relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML (NCT02074839). This is the first report of data from the 4 expansion cohorts, with a total of 258 patients treated on study. METHODS: The ongoing phase 1 study assesses the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of ivosidenib in mIDH1 hematologic malignancies. Enrollment was completed on May 8, 2017. During dose escalation, patients received ivosidenib as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in 28-day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the recommended dose to be tested in 4 expansion cohorts: R/R AML (Arms 1 and 4, where Arm 1 patients are those with relapse after transplantation, second or later relapse, resistance to initial induction or reinduction treatment, or relapse within 1 year of initial treatment, and Arm 4 patients have R/R AML but are not eligible for Arm 1); untreated AML (Arm 2); and other advanced hematologic malignancies including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Arm 3). Updated safety data will be presented for all patients. Efficacy outcomes will be presented for all R/R AML patients treated at 500 mg QD across the dose escalation and expansion cohorts who received their first dose of ivosidenib at least 6 months prior to the analysis cut-off date of May 12, 2017, as well as for the poorest prognosis Arm 1 subset. Efficacy data for all treated patients from the other expansion cohorts (untreated AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies including MDS) will also be presented. RESULTS: In all, 258 patients (78 in dose escalation, 180 in expansion) were treated with ivosidenib. As of May 12, 2017, 62 of 258 (24%) patients were continuing on treatment. The median duration of exposure to ivosidenib was 3.5 months (range 0.1-33.5). Twenty-two (8.5%) patients discontinued treatment to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Treatment was well tolerated; the most common adverse events (AEs) (n=258) of any grade irrespective of causality occurring in ≥20% of patients were diarrhea (33%), leukocytosis (30%), nausea (30%), fatigue (29%), febrile neutropenia (25%), dyspnea (24%), anemia (23%), QT prolongation (23%), peripheral edema (22%), pyrexia (21%), and decreased appetite (20%). The majority of these AEs were grades 1-2 and reported as unrelated to treatment. Differentiation syndrome (DS) was observed in 29 of 258 (11.2%) patients, including grade ≥3 DS in 14 (5.4%); study drug was held owing to DS in 11 patients (4.3%), and no instances of DS led to permanent treatment discontinuation or death. The primary efficacy endpoint for R/R AML is the CR+CRh rate, i.e., the rate of complete remission (CR according to modified IWG 2003 criteria plus CR with partial hematologic recovery, defined as CR except absolute neutrophil count >0.5 × 109/L [500/µL] and platelet count >50 × 109/L [50,000/µL]). Among 125 Arm 1 R/R AML patients receiving ivosidenib 500 mg QD across dose escalation and expansion who received their first dose at least 6 months prior to the analysis cutoff date, the CR+CRh rate was 30.4% (95% CI 22.5%, 39.3%), including CR in 27 (21.6%) and CRh in 11 (8.8%) patients. Median duration of CR+CRh was 8.2 months (95% CI 5.5, 12.0), and duration of CR was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6, 18.3). The overall response rate (CR+CRi/CRp+PR+MLFS) was 41.6% (95% CI 32.9%, 50.8%) (52/125 patients). CONCLUSION: Ivosidenib monotherapy is well tolerated in patients with mIDH1 AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies. In a high-risk, molecularly defined R/R AML patient population with unmet medical need, ivosidenib induced durable remissions and improved patient outcomes. These findings support the role of ivosidenib as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 AML. Disclosures DiNardo: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. De Botton: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stein: GSK: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Constellation Pharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz: AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Array Biopharma Inc., Astex, AstraZeneca, Celator, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CTI BioPharma, Genoptix, Immune Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Juno, MedImmune, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche Pharmace: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Mims: Novartis: Honoraria. Pollyea: Takeda, Ariad, Alexion, Celgene, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Jazz, Servier, Curis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios, Pfizer: Research Funding. Altman: Syros: Consultancy; NCCN: Other: Educational speaker; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ceplene: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ASH: Other: Educational speaker. Collins: Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Mannis: Curis: Honoraria; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Uy: GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Suppport; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Fathi: Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medimmune: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy. Erba: Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Scientific Steering Committee , Speakers Bureau; Incyte: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; MacroGen: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Agios: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Juno: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Astellas: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Celator: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Traer: ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Tolero: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Stuart: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ONO: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cantex: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yen: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kapsalis: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Goldwasser: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agresta: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Fuji Film: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy. Kantarjian: ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Sapacitabine is a novel oral nucleoside analogue with a unique ability to induce single-strand DNA breaks after incorporation into DNA, leading to production of double-strand DNA breaks and/or G2 cell cycle arrest. In AML cell lines, the active metabolite of sapacitabine, CNDAC, is synergistic with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) particularly when treated with HMAs first. In a pilot study, there were 6 CRs and 2 PRs in 25 patients treated with sapacitabine in alternating cycles with decitabine. This global randomized phase 3 study evaluated the survival benefit of this treatment strategy vs. decitabine monotherapy. Methods: Decitabine 20 mg/m2 was administered intravenously daily x 5 days of a 4-week cycle (for the control arm and odd cycles of the study arm) alternating with sapacitabine 300 mg p.o. b.i.d. x 3 days/week x 2 weeks of a 4-week cycle (even cycles of the study arm). The safety of these doses was further evaluated in the lead-in phase of the phase 3 study to confirm the findings from the pilot study. Eligible patients were ≥70 years with untreated AML and unsuitable for or unwilling to receive standard induction chemotherapy. Patients who had received HMAs for prior MDS or MPD were excluded. Results: For 482 patients randomized to receive decitabine/sapacitabine (n=241) vs. decitabine only (n=241), randomization was stratified by the presence of antecedent MDS or MPN, peripheral white blood cell count (WBC <10,000 vs. ≥10,000) and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs. < 50%). Median age was 77 years (range 70-90), and 317 patients had de novo AML (66%), 165 secondary AML (34%). WBC was ≥10,000 in 161 patients (33%) and >40,000 in 59 patients (12%); 194 patients (40%) had unfavorable cytogenetic risk by SWOG criteria. Disease characteristics were well balanced in both arms. In total, 13.7% of patients achieved CR, more on the study arm vs. control (16.6% vs. 10.8%). A total of 37.3% treated patients received ≥5 cycles of treatment, similar on both arms, as were 30- and 60-day death rates. Median overall survival was 5.9 months on the study arm vs. 5.7 months on control arm, which did not reach a statistically significant difference. In the subgroup of patients with <10,000 WBC (n=321), median overall survival was higher on the study arm vs. control arm (8.0 months vs. 5.8 months), as was CR rate (21.5% vs. 8.6%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of causality) that occurred in >10% patients were thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and disease progression. Conclusion: The regimen of sapacitabine administered in alternating cycles with decitabine was active and well tolerated but it did not significantly improve overall survival as compared to decitabine monotherapy. Further analyses are being conducted to characterize the subgroups of patients who appeared to have benefited from this treatment regimen and the potential cost savings associated with the use of an oral drug. Disclosures Kantarjian: Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Goldberg: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; COTA: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Strickland: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Rubenstein: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Schiller: bluebird bio: Research Funding; mateon therapeutics: Research Funding. Gaidano: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montesinos: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri: Shire: Research Funding; Erytech: Research Funding. Subramanian: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Biocept: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Buyse: IDDI: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiao: Cyclacel LTD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as quality of life (QOL) are variably affected in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but the heterogeneous composition of disease states grouped together as "MDS" increases the difficulty of assessing and understanding these outcomes. Moreover, little is known about the potential relationship between QOL and frailty in this population. Methods: The NHLBI MDS Natural History Study (NCT02775383) is a prospective cohort enrolling patients undergoing diagnostic work up for suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in the setting of cytopenias. Untreated participants undergo bone marrow assessment with centralized histopathology review at enrollment for assignment into subcategories for longitudinal follow-up: MDS, MDS/MPN, ICUS, AML (<30% blasts), and "At-Risk" (cases with sub-threshold dysplasia or select karyotypic or genetic mutations). PRO and frailty data are collected at enrollment and every six months thereafter. PRO instruments include MDS-specific (QUALMS) and general (FACT-G, PROMIS Fatigue Short Form 7a, EQ-5D-5L) instruments, and a measure of frailty (VES-13). While no frailty instrument alone has been shown to be a substitute for comprehensive geriatric assessment, VES-13 has been successfully used in cancer-related studies for basic screening, where a score of 3 or more is considered frail (vulnerable). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the overall comparisons of mean baseline scores between diagnostic categories. Pairwise comparisons of scores between diagnostic categories and vulnerability subgroups were performed via two-sample t-tests. Results : Of 835 participants assessed for eligibility, 369 (44%) were classified as MDS, MDS/MPN, AML, ICUS or At-Risk, and further evaluated. Mean age was 72 years (standard deviation (SD)=10.7) and 68% were male. Mean baseline scores on the PRO measures are compared between diagnostic categories in the Table; scores did not differ significantly across categories. In particular, no significant differences were found between MDS and the other diagnostic categories. ICUS had similar QOL scores to MDS and MDS/MPN (e.g., means (SD) on EQ-5D-5L of 74.1 (17.8) in ICUS and 70.8 (19.4) in MDS, p=0.348) but had significantly higher scores than those for AML on EQ-5D-5L (60.7 (28.4), p=0.031). For the 216 participants with diagnostically-confirmed MDS, QOL impairment was similar to that routinely seen in other cancers; for example, the mean total FACT-G was 81.8 (SD=15.9), similar to localized breast cancer (82.4, SD=16.2), localized colorectal cancer (79.6, SD=16.1), and lung cancer with no current evidence of disease (82.6, SD=15.5; comparison means from Pearlman, Cancer, 2014). For frail/vulnerable participants with MDS or MDS/MPN (N=87), the most common reasons for vulnerability were age ≥75 years (68%), overall rating of health as poor or fair (62%), and difficulty with prolonged physical activity (90%) such as walking a quarter mile (75%) or doing heavy housework (70%). A minority also were vulnerable due to requiring help with instrumental activities of daily living (iADLS) such as shopping (28%) or managing money (16%). Mean QOL scores were compared between vulnerability subgroups (Figure). Vulnerable participants pooled over all diagnostic categories had significantly worse PROs than non-vulnerable participants for all measures (p<0.001). In particular, vulnerable MDS participants scored significantly worse on the QUALMS (mean 64.4, SD=13.4) vs. non-vulnerable MDS participants (mean 72.7, SD=13.3), p<0.001. Conclusions: Participants in our cohort with histologically-confirmed MDS-even low-grade MDS-had similar impairments in PROs as those with other cancers. Among those with histologically-confirmed MDS, vulnerable participants had significantly worse QOL on many measures compared to non-vulnerable participants, suggesting that this domain of function be specifically assessed in clinic. Moreover, while a "gestalt" of frailty may be inferred by observing how patients present and move in the office, these data suggest that other contributing domains, such as difficulty with prolonged physical activity and iADLs, should be evaluated explicitly. Disclosures Foran: H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xencor: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Padron:Incyte: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: 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; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Recent advances in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) have improved patient survival and quality of life (QOL), while reducing transfusion burden. However, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), widely used in younger MDS patients, remains the only curative therapy for MDS. While transplantation outcomes among selected older patients with MDS are similar to younger patients with MDS, early transplantation for older patients is infrequently offered since the relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in have not been well defined in this patient group. We conducted a multi-center, biologic assignment trial in older individuals with high risk MDS to define the benefit of HCT over non-HCT therapy. Methods: The study was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial in subjects aged 50-75 with higher risk de novo MDS (IPSS Intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High) who were candidates for reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, comparing outcomes of those with a suitable 8/8 HLA-matched donor to those without a donor. The trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781). Eligible subjects were enrolled prior to a formal donor search, and before or after MDS treatment was initiated. Biological assignment to the Donor or No Donor arm was based on high-resolution HLA typing of eligible family members and a search of the unrelated donor registries. Subjects were initially assigned to the No Donor arm and re-assigned to the Donor arm when a suitable donor was identified. Subjects who died or whose 90-day donor search ended without identifying a suitable donor remained in the No Donor arm. Subjects in the Donor arm were expected to undergo RIC HCT within 6 months of enrollment. Subjects underwent RIC HCT or non-HCT therapy according to institutional standards. The primary analysis compared three-year overall survival (OS) between arms using adjusted survival estimates to account for the potential bias resulting from biological assignment. The sample size was selected to provide at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in 3-year OS. Between January 2014 and November 2018, 384 subjects (Donor n=260, No Donor n=124) were enrolled at 34 centers. The study arms were well balanced for age, gender, KPS, IPSS risk, MDS disease duration and responsiveness to hypomethylating therapy (Table). The median follow-up time for surviving patients was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No Donor arm. Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, adjusted OS at 3 years from study enrollment in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI: 41.3%-54.1%) compared with 26.6% (95% CI: 18.4%-35.6%) in the No Donor arm (p=0.0001, absolute difference 21.3%, 95% CI: 10.2%-31.8%)(Figure). A sensitivity analysis excluding subjects assigned to the No Donor arm who died or withdrew prior to the end of the 90-day search window showed no effect on outcome (Adjusted OS: 48.0% vs. 28.1%, p=0.0004). Leukemia-free survival (LFS) at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%, 95% CI: 29.8%-41.8%) compared with the No Donor arm (20.6%, 95% CI: 13.3%-29.1%, p=0.003), with no changes in the sensitivity analysis. An OS and LFS benefit was seen across all subgroups tested (Figure). There were no clinically significant differences in QOL between Donor and No Donor arms as measured by the FACT-G, the MOS-SF36 Physical and Mental Component Scores and the EQ-5D utility score at all time points. The overall non-compliance rate for the trial was 26.3%. Reasons for non-compliance included the use of myeloablative conditioning or failure to proceed to RIC transplant in the Donor arm, and the use of alternative donors in the No Donor arm. In an as-treated analysis, comparison of the HCT and No HCT arms demonstrated a significant advantage in 3-year OS (47.4% vs. 16.0%, p<0.0001) and LFS (39.3% vs. 10.9%, p<0.0001) for subjects who underwent HCT. Conclusions: We observed a significant OS advantage in older patients with Int-2 and High IPSS risk de novo MDS who are RIC HCT candidates and have an HLA-matched donor, when compared with those without a donor. The benefit of having a matched donor was seen across subgroups, including those who were of Medicare age (>65) and below. HCT should be offered to all individuals between the ages of 50-75 with Int-2 and High IPSS risk MDS in whom a suitable donor can be identified. Table Disclosures Nakamura: Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Viracor: Consultancy. Scott:Alexion, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron: Consultancy; Agios, BMS: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis: Research Funding. Oran:ASTEX: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Maziarz:Novartis, Incyte, CRISPR Therapeutics, Artiva Biotherapeutics, and AlloVir: Consultancy; Novartis and Athersys: Other: DSMB participant; Athersys: Patents & Royalties; Incyte, Kite, BMS/Celgene, PACT Pharma, Orca BioSystems, and Omeros: Honoraria; Novartis and Juno: Research Funding. McGuirk:Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: 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; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cutler:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: 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; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: The NHLBI National MDS Study (NCT02775383) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 92 community hospitals and 29 academic centers. It enrolls patients undergoing work up for suspected MDS to understand the genetic, epigenetic, and biological factors associated with the initiation and progression of the disease. Previously untreated, cytopenic participants undergo both local and centralized pathology review and are assigned a diagnosis, including MDS, MDS/MPN, AML with blasts < 30%, and "Other". Emerging data suggests that Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), along with cytogenetics and clinical variables, may improve MDS diagnostic precision. Given that our study relies on central review (with additional tertiary pathology review used to adjudicate disagreements), we examined whether targeted gene sequencing data could be used to increase the agreement between local and central pathologic diagnosis of MDS vs. Other. Methods: Peripheral blood and bone marrow (BM) biopsy specimens from cytopenic patients, along with clinical history, CBC, and other results including karyotyping, FISH and pathology reports from local pathologists were reviewed by central pathologists. The updated 2016 WHO classifications were used to diagnose MDS. Targeted exon sequencing of 96 genes was performed using BM specimens. A subset of 648 individuals that were classified as MDS (n=212) or Other (n=436, including 90 CCUS and 89 individuals with other cancers) by pathology assessments were selected. A mean coverage of 1,317X was achieved and variants had a minimum variant allele frequency (VAF) of 2% (except FLT3). Variants for 596 subjects were manually reviewed to retain likely disease-causing variants to build a binary classifier (MDS vs. Other) using the maximum VAF per gene as input (Figure 1). Subjects diagnosed with MDS or Other by both central and local pathology were used for training, validation, and testing, and were considered "gold standard" (GS) cases (n=546). These subjects were split into 4 random groups with equal proportions of MDS cases. 75% of the GS cases were used to train and validate lasso-regularized logistic regression models using 3-fold cross validation. ROC curve analysis was carried out using the remaining 25% of GS cases (Test Set 1) on the best model to identify an optimal probability cut off point for classifying subjects as MDS. Model performance was then tested on 50 subjects for which the central and local pathology diagnosis disagreed (Test Set 2), as well as on 52 additional subjects irrespective of agreement (Test Set 3). Results : The best performing logistic regression model retained 7 genes as most informative in a discriminating diagnosis of MDS from Other based on their VAFs, in order of impact: TP53, SF3B1, U2AF1, ASXL1, TET2,STAG2, and SRSF2. We used this model to assign probabilities for each of the subjects in Test Set 1 and to estimate the performance using ROC analysis (Figure 1), resulting in a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89. We chose a probability cut-off of ≥0.17, being associated with a high percentage of correct classification of MDS with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.90 and 0.81, respectively. Among the cohort of 50 subjects with a discordant local and central pathology diagnosis (Test Set 2), the classifier accurately reassigned 37 subjects (accuracy = 74%) from the local to the central pathology. The blinded tertiary pathology reviewer agreed with central in all Test Set 2 cases. This included 24/34 MDS cases that had been labeled as Other by local pathology (positive predictive value [PPV]=0.89). 3/16 final pathology-classified Other cases were mis-classified as MDS by the local pathologist (negative predictive value [NPV] = 0.57). Next, we assessed the ability of the model to predict MDS vs. Other for 52 additional independent subjects using the third pathologist's diagnosis to break any ties (Test Set 3). The classifier correctly predicted 15/21 MDS cases (PPV=0.83) and misclassified 6/31 Others as MDS (NPV=0.82). The overall accuracy was 83%. Conclusions: We identified that VAFs for 7 genes can correctly re-classify subjects as either MDS or Other in 74% of cases that were misclassified between local and central pathology review. Further assessment on an independent cohort showed an accuracy of 83% of the model. Taken together, these data suggest that complementing pathology reviews with targeted sequencing of 7 genes could improve MDS diagnosis. Disclosures Lindsley: MedImmune: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bejar:Aptose Biosciences: Current Employment; AbbVie/Genentech: Honoraria; Astex/Otsuka: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Forty-Seven/Gilead: Honoraria; Genoptix/NeoGenomics: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foran:H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Komrokji:Acceleron: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Alexion, BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Padron:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Starczynowski:Captor Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tolero Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kurome Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

Abstract Background: Earlier cancer detection could identify tumors when they are more treatable and thus may improve clinical outcomes. A blood-based multicancer early detection test using circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers the potential to address this unmet need. Our previous discovery work identified whole-genome bisulfite sequencing as outperforming whole-genome and targeted sequencing approaches for multicancer detection across stages. We thus developed a targeted methylation (TM) assay for multicancer detection and tissue-of-origin (TOO) localization. Methods: Participants were from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) and STRIVE (NCT03085888) studies, both prospective, multicenter, observational studies with longitudinal follow-up. cfDNA samples spanning >20 cancer types of all stages were divided into a cross-validated training set and an independent validation set; there were 3,583 evaluable samples in training (1,530 cancer; 2,053 noncancer) and 1,803 in validation (678 cancer; 1,125 noncancer). Performance in a prespecified set of 12 high-signal cancers was also reported (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile-duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach). This multicancer early detection test evaluated cfDNA for the presence of cancer and localization of TOO; the TM classifier was trained to target >99% specificity. Precision was defined as the fraction of correct calls. Results: Participants with and without cancer were similar in age. Specificity across all cancer types in the training and validation sets was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.2-99.9%) and 99.3% (98.3-99.8%), respectively, which reflects a consistent (P=0.292) false positive rate of <1%. Across all cancer types, aggregate sensitivity was also consistent between the training and validation sets (55% [53-58%] and 55% [51-59], respectively; P=0.897). In the validation set, aggregate sensitivity in the prespecified group was 76% (73-78%); detection was 39% (27–52%) in stage I (n=62), 69% (56–80%) in stage II (n=62), 83% (75–90%) in stage III (n=102), and 92% (86–96%) in stage IV (n=130). Overall, the classifier assigned a TOO across >20 cancer types in 96% of samples (344/359); of these, the TOO was correct in 93% (321/344) of cases, which was consistent with training set analyses. Conclusions: This multicancer early detection test detected cancer signal across >20 cancer types with a single, fixed, low false positive rate and highly accurate TOO localization. Importantly, results in the independent validation set were consistent with the training set, demonstrating the robustness of machine learning classifier training, and confirms that data were not overfitted. These data support the feasibility of a single blood-based test that can detect multiple cancers, supporting further clinical development in preparation for the return of results. Citation Format: Anne-Renee Hartman, Geoffrey Oxnard, Eric Klein, Michael Seiden, Earl Hubbell, Oliver Venn, Arash Jamshidi, Nan Zhang, John Beausang, Samuel Gross, Kathryn Kurtzman, Eric Fung, Brian Allen, Alexander Fields, Hai Liu, Mikkael Sekeres, Donald Richards, Peter Yu, Alexander Aravanis, Minetta Liu. Multicancer detection of early-stage cancers with simultaneous tissue localization using a plasma cfDNA-based targeted methylation assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Liquid Biopsies; Jan 13-16, 2020; Miami, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(11_Suppl):Abstract nr IA02.

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.