Tallman, Martin S.

Abstract Abstract 1038 The relationships of inherent disease-related characteristics and of treatment to the nature of APL cell clones that emerge at disease relapse are poorly understood. We studied these relationships in 45 patients who relapsed after ATRA/chemotherapy treatment on the non-arsenic trixoxide arm of intergroup phase III trial C9710 (Powell, et al. Blood, Epub). Four variably-expressed APL cell clonal markers were assessed: PML-RARA ligand binding domain mutations (LBD-M), FLT3 internal tandem duplication mutations (ITD), FLT3 receptor tyrosine kinase mutations (D835; RTK-M) and additional chromosome abnormalities (ACA), i.e., in addition to the hallmark t(15;17). The methods for mutation analysis of PML-RARA and FLT3 have been reported and were RNA transcript-initiated supplemented by selected quantitative FLT3 mutation analyses initiated from DNA. Karyotype data were derived by standard cytogenetic methods. Four patients were excluded from analysis because the sample level of PML-RARA, as determined by quantitative RT-PCR, was insufficient to exclude possible false-negative mutation results. In 41 evaluable patients, the marker incidences were: LBD-M, 44%; ITD, 37%; RTK-M, 12%; ACA (22 tested), 59%. At presentation, the corresponding incidences were: LBD-M, 0% (by high-sensitivity testing a minor subclone of the relapse mutation was found in 2/7 patients tested); ITD, 43% (37 tested); RTK-M, 22% (37 tested); ACA, 24% (34 tested). The low frequency of RTK-M impeded further analysis. The other markers, using relapse determinations, were assessed for potential associations between the markers and with the following parameters: age, sex, presenting WBC count, PML-RARA type, time to relapse, relapse on or off ATRA treatment (on = taking or within 30 days of discontinuing) and post-relapse survival. The most essential positive findings are summarized below:Association of Marker with Parameter or Other MarkerCases with ParameterCases without Parameterp-valuePretreatment parameters: LBD-M with WBC count < 5,000/uL12/18 (67%)7/23 (30%)0.030 ITD with WBC count >10,000/uL10/15 (67%)5/26 (19%)0.006 ITD with S-form PML-RARA15/15 (100%)10/26 (38%)<0.0001Relapse parameters: ITD with lack of ACA1/7 (14%)12/15 (80%)0.007 LBD with relapse On-ATRA11/18 (61%)7/23 (30%)0.064 Off-ATRA only: LBD with lack of ITD0/7 (0%)9/16 (56%)0.019 The results confirm reports, which tested pretreatment samples, of a strong association between FLT3ITD mutations present at relapse and high WBC count and S-form PML-RARA. At relapse, there was, also, divergent selection of ITD-harboring vs ACA-harboring clones. LBD-M occurred more frequently in patients with low presenting WBC counts. They, also, occurred in patients who relapsed while on ATRA, consistent with an ATRA selective role for clones harboring LBD mutations. A significant segregation of patients with LBD-M or ITD was observed after relapse off ATRA treatment (p = 0.019), while no segregation was observed in overall relapse patients (p = 0.346) or after relapse on ATRA (p = 0.316). In 2 patients who relapsed on ATRA, quantitative analysis indicated that LBD-M and ITD mutations must be present in the same APL cell clone. There were no significant survival differences related to any clonal marker (post-relapse survival = 66%). Although the small number of cases is cautionary, the overall data suggest that LBD-M may have an overriding, dominant APL clone selection role in relapse that occurs on ATRA therapy. Other inherent clinicopathologic characteristics of APL may predispose to divergent molecular pathways of disease progression and relapse in patients alternatively harboring clones with LBD-M or ITD after the termination of ATRA selection pressure. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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

Abstract Abstract 169 The Philadelphia positive (Ph+) arm of the international adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) trial UKALL12/ECOG2993 opened in 1993 and is the largest single study of patients with Ph+ ALL, with a total of 441 participants. The first cohort of study patients was treated prior to Imatinib (N=266 “Pre Imatinib“) with 2 phases of induction therapy given over 2 months followed by matched sibling or unrelated donor myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) whenever possible. The treatment protocol and outcome for these patients has been published (Fielding et al, Blood 2009). Beginning March 2003, a second cohort of study patients had Imatinib 600mg daily added, as a consolidation block after the second induction chemotherapy, (N=86, “Late Imatinib”). From late 2005, a final cohort within the trial were given Imatinib earlier, in conjunction with the second phase of induction (N=89, “Early Imatinib”). Patients in both Imatinib cohorts resumed the drug for a further 2 years following alloHSCT, if tolerated. If alloHSCT was not possible, Imatinib was permitted for 2 years, with maintenance. The trial closed to recruitment in December 2006 (USA) and October 2008 (UK). All except 8 patients have now completed therapy. An earlier analysis of these data did not indicate a clear long-term advantage to receiving Imatinib. We now report 3-year follow-up, which shows large outcome differences between the 3 groups. There were no pre-existing differences between the 3 cohorts in terms of gender, presenting white blood cell counts and presence of central nervous system disease at diagnosis. However, the Pre-Imatinib cohort was younger than the two Imatinib cohorts, due to an increase in the upper age limit for study entry. Percentage complete remission (CR) rates and survival of induction therapy are shown in table 1. The total CR rate for the imatinib cohorts was significantly higher than for the pre-imatinib cohort (p=0.004). Table 1 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib N=266 Total With Imatinib N=175 Part 1 Late Imatinib N=86 Part 2 Early Imatinib N=89 Died in induction<d56 5 5 3 7 Survived induction but never achieved remission 13 3 5 1 Total not achieving CR 18 8 8 8 CR on protocol induction 67 77 73 80 Total CR rate (includes those achieving remission later than post induction) 82 92 92 92 Pre- Imatinib, only 28% of patients went on to receive alloHSCT as per protocol. With any Imatinib, 44% of patients received alloHSCT as per protocol. Survival outcomes of patients in the 3 cohorts are shown in the table 2. Overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS) and relapse free survival (RFS) are all at 3 years with 95% confidence intervals (CI) shown in brackets. The P values are for two comparisons - ** denotes the comparison between patients receiving any Imatinib and patients receiving none and ^ denotes the comparison between the Early and Late Imatinib cohorts. Table 2 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib Total With Imatinib Part 1 Late Imatinib Part 2 Early Imatinib % OS (95% CI) (see also Figure 1) 25 (20–30) 42 (34–49) 34 (24–44) 48 (36–60) p=0.0001** p=0.05^ % EFS (95% CI) 19 (14–24) 36 (29–44) 29 (19–38) 45 (34–56) p=0.0001** p=0.04^ % RFS (95% CI) 36 (28–43) 54 (45–63) 45 (33–57) 62 (50–75) p=0.0001** p=0.02^ Figure 1 Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. Figure 1. Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. In conclusion, receiving any Imatinib during induction for Ph+ ALL significantly enhances CR rate and increase alloHSCT rate. This translates into a highly significant EFS, OS and RFS advantage to receiving Imatinib during therapy. An earlier start to Imatinib is significantly better than a later start. Though comparisons between study cohorts are not randomised, the large differences seen are unlikely to be explained by factors other than treatment. There can be no basis for omitting Imatinib from the initial therapy of adult patients with Ph+ ALL. However, our data show that the best outcome is seen when patients receive Imatinib followed by myeloablative alloHSCT, where nearly 60% of such patients survive 3 years from diagnosis. Disclosures: Goldstone: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

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

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

Background:Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) occur in ∼4% of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and have been linked with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (IVO; AG‐120) is an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 protein (mIDH1) that is approved for the treatment of adults with mIDH1 relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. Through inhibition of mIDH1, IVO suppresses production of the oncometabolite 2‐hydroxyglutarate, leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells.Aims:To report safety and efficacy data from patients with R/R MDS enrolled in the first‐in‐human, phase 1, dose escalation and expansion study of IVO in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839).Methods:This ongoing study is evaluating the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of IVO. Enrollment was completed on May 8, 2017. In dose escalation, patients received single‐agent IVO orally (dose range, 200–1200 mg daily) in 28‐day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the dose for expansion. The overall response rate (ORR) for MDS was defined as complete remission (CR) + partial remission + marrow CR (mCR) according to International Working Group 2006 criteria for MDS. Exploratory biomarker assessments included baseline co‐occurring mutations (next‐generation sequencing panel for hematologic malignancies) and mIDH1 variant allele frequency (VAF) in bone marrow mononuclear cells (BEAMing Digital PCR; lower limit of detection for mIDH1, 0.02–0.04%).Results:Baseline characteristics of the 12 patients with R/R MDS who received 500 mg IVO once daily were: 9 men/3 women; median age 72.5 years (range 52–78), and 42% were ≥75 years of age; median number of prior therapies 1 (range 1–3). As of Nov 2, 2018, 3 of 12 (25.0%) patients remained on treatment; 9 (75.0%) had discontinued (one for allogeneic stem cell transplantation). Median duration of exposure to IVO was 11.4 months (range 3.3–42.5). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade, irrespective of causality, occurring in ≥20% of the 12 patients were diarrhea, fatigue, back pain, rash (n = 4 each, 33.3%), anemia, urinary tract infection, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, arthralgia, dyspnea, pruritus, and hypotension (n = 3 each, 25.0%). No AEs led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. IDH differentiation syndrome was observed in 1 of 12 (8.3%) patients (grade 2). Electrocardiogram QT prolonged was reported in 2 of 12 patients (17%; grade 1 in 1 patient and grade 2 in 1 patient). Five of 12 patients achieved CR (41.7%; 95% CI 15.2%, 72.3%), 1 achieved PR (8.3%), and 5 achieved mCR (41.7%), resulting in an ORR of 91.7% (95% CI 61.5%, 99.8%). The median duration of CR was not estimable (NE) at the time of datacutoff and the median duration of response was 21.4 months (95% CI 2.3, NE). At 12 months, 60.0% of patients remained in CR. Among 5 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, 4 became transfusion independent for ≥56 consecutive days on treatment. Baseline co‐occurring mutations and changes in mIDH1 VAF levels will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:In patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS, IVO monotherapy was well tolerated and induced durable remissions and transfusion independence. These findings support the role of IVO as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS.

Background:Mutations localized in the tyrosine kinase domain activation loop of FLT3 (FLT3‐TKD), induce constitutive tyrosine phosphorylation, and activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase similarly to FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) mutations. However, the prognostic role of FLT3‐TKD in AML is not well established. In the phase 3 RATIFY trial [CALGB 10603/Alliance; NCT00651261; Stone et al. N Engl J Med. 2017] midostaurin, in combination with standard chemotherapy, improved survival outcomes across all three FLT3 stratification subgroups (ITD high allelic ratio (AR) [≥ 0.7], ITD low AR [< 0.7] and TKD) vs placebo.Aims:Here, a post hoc analysis was used to establish the efficacy of midostaurin in patients (pts) in the RATIFY trial stratified by FLT3‐TKD AR and NPM1 mutational status.Methods:In RATIFY, newly diagnosed pts with AML 18–60 years (y) old were randomly assigned to receive midostaurin or placebo together with standard induction and consolidation therapy followed by twelve 28‐day cycles of maintenance therapy with midostaurin or placebo. FLT3‐TKD mutation was detected by PCR and capillary electrophoresis at nine reference laboratories. The FLT3‐TKD AR was calculated as the ratio between the areas under the curve of mutant to wild‐type allele. Pts were categorized as NPM1 mutated (mut) or NPM1 wild‐type (WT) using PCR. Efficacy outcomes included complete remission (CR), overall survival (OS), event‐free survival (EFS) and disease‐free survival (DFS). EFS and DFS analyses were performed considering CR within a 60‐day window. P values presented were not adjusted for multiplicity.Results:Of 163 FLT3‐TKD pts, 134 with available NPM1 data had consented for exploratory analysis and were included in this study. Overall, 58.9% of pts had NPM1‐mut, 47.8% were male and the median age was 49 y (range: 19.3–59.9 y). The median white blood cell (WBC) count was higher in pts with NPM1‐mut than in pts with NPM1‐WT (34.1 vs 15.5 × 109 /L). The median FLT3‐TKD AR was 0.4 (range: 0–2.7). Overall CR rate (regardless of NPM1 genotype) was 64% for midostaurin and 56% for placebo in FLT3‐TKD pts. Pts with FLT3‐TKD AR ≥ 0.4 treated with midostaurin showed a trend towards improved OS and reduced cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) (Figure). In FLT3‐TKD AR ≥ 0.4 pts, the presence of a NPM1 mutation had a significant prognostic effect for all endpoints consistently with hazard ratios (HRs) around 0.50 or lower. Regardless of treatment OS, EFS, and DFS estimates at 3 y were 73% vs 52%, 48% vs 25%, and 74% vs 47%, respectively, for the 45 pts with FLT3‐TKD/NPM1‐mut vs the 25 pts with FLT3‐TKD/NPM1‐WT. It should be noted that the number of pts in each subgroup was small. Multivariate analyses in these FLT3‐TKD pts revealed that NPM1 genotype was an independent prognostic factor for OS and EFS (2‐sided P < 0.05), whereas study drug, age, sex, TKD AR, WBC at baseline and stem cell transplantation (SCT) (no/yes) did not reach this level of significance in the Cox model.Summary/Conclusion:This post hoc analysis of the subset of FLT3‐TKD pts in the RATIFY trial showed the high prognostic value of NPM1 mutational status. Midostaurin showed an overall benefit in the FLT3‐TKD pts for OS, EFS, CR and DFS, with the impact of treatment on outcome for NPM1‐mut pts being greatest in those with higher FLT3‐TKD allelic burden. U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, U10CA180861; Novartis; htt∗∗∗ps://acknowledgments.alliancefound.orgimage

Abstract Retrospective studies have suggested that older adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have better survival rates when treated using a pediatric ALL regimen administered by pediatric treatment teams. To address the feasibility and efficacy of using a pediatric treatment regimen for AYA patients with newly diagnosed ALL administered by adult treatment teams, we performed a prospective study, CALGB 10403, with doses and schedule identical to those in the Children's Oncology Group study AALL0232. From 2007 to 2012, 318 patients were enrolled; 295 were eligible and evaluable for response. Median age was 24 years (range, 17-39 years). Use of the pediatric regimen was safe; overall treatment-related mortality was 3%, and there were only 2 postremission deaths. Median event-free survival (EFS) was 78.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.8 to not reached), more than double the historical control of 30 months (95% CI, 22-38 months); 3-year EFS was 59% (95% CI, 54%-65%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Estimated 3-year OS was 73% (95% CI, 68%-78%). Pretreatment risk factors associated with worse treatment outcomes included obesity and presence of the Philadelphia-like gene expression signature. Use of a pediatric regimen for AYAs with ALL up to age 40 years was feasible and effective, resulting in improved survival rates compared with historical controls. CALGB 10403 can be considered a new treatment standard upon which to build for improving survival for AYAs with ALL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00558519.