Kadia, Tapan M.

AbstractThe progress with intensive chemotherapy and supportive care measures has improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Given the recent development of effective low intensity therapies, an optimal decision on the therapy intensity may improve survival through the avoidance of early mortality. We reviewed the outcome of 3728 patients with newly diagnosed AML who received intensive chemotherapy between August 1980 and May 2020. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as a cumulative cytarabine dose ≥ 700 mg/m2 during induction therapy. We divided the whole cohort into a training and validation group at a 3:1 ratio. The population was divided into a training (2790 patients) and a validation cohort (938 patients). The median age was 55 years (range, 15‐99). Among them, 442 patients (12%) had core‐binding factor AML. Binary logistic regression identified older age, worse performance status, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated creatinine, hyperuricemia, cytogenetic abnormalities other than CBF and ‐Y, and pneumonia as adverse prognostic factors for an early 4‐week mortality. This risk classification for early mortality was verified in the validation cohort of patients. In the validation cohort of more recently treated patients from 2000 to 2017, the 4‐week mortality rates with intensive chemotherapy were 2%, 14%, and 50% in the low‐, high‐, and very high‐risk group, respectively. The mortality rates with low intensity therapies were 3%, 9%, and 20%, respectively. The risk classification guides treatment intensity by the assessment of age, frailty, organ dysfunction, cytogenetic abnormality, and infection to avoid early mortality.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

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 &lt;10,000 vs. ≥10,000) and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs. &lt; 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 &gt;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 &lt;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 &gt;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.

Abstract Abstract 2926 Background: RAS proteins are encoded by 3 proto-oncogenes (K-RAS, N-RAS, and H-RAS) and regulate the growth and differentiation of many cellular types, including the myeloid compartment. Codons 12, 13, and 61 (in N-RAS and K-RAS) have been reported to be common targets of mutations. These mutations result in constitutive activation of the RAS pathway by increasing intracellular RAS GTP levels, which result in activation of the RAS/MEK and the RAS/PI3K pathways. Its prognostic significance in MDS is yet to be clarified. Because the potential prognostic and therapeutic implications of RAS mutations in MDS, we decided to study the impact of RAS mutations in patients (pts) with MDS. Methods: Mutation analysis of KRAS and NRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 was performed by Pyrosequencing using biotinylated reverse primers. All pts referred to MD Anderson between 2000–2009 were reviewed. In addition to standard clinical characteristics, including karyotyping, mutational status of Flt3, c-Kit and JAK2 was also analyzed. Overall survival was calculated based on Kaplan-Meier. Results: Of the 1067 pts with MDS of age above 17 evaluated for RAS mutation, 43 pts (4%) were positive. Seventy nine percent of RAS mutations were of N-RAS type (codon12 (55%), codon 13 (12%), codon 61(12%)) with K-RAS 12 comprising the rest (21%). Median age was 68 years (range, 18–94) with 66% being males (703 pts). Their median white blood cell (WBC) was 3.3×109/L (range, 0.3–72.2), hemoglobin 9.8 (range, 3–17.5), and platelets 73×109/liter (range, 1–1040). Median bone marrow blast was 5% and 77 pts (7%) had leukemic transformation. More than half of the pts had RAEB or RAEB-t (44% and 9 % respectively) which translated into fewer patients in the low IPSS category (19%). The median age was 66 years (range 26–84) in the RAS mutated (muRAS) group compared to 68 in the wild type (wtRAS). WBC was higher in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (6.8 ×109/L vs. 3.2 ×109/L, p<0.001 by Mann-Whitney median test (M-W-T)). Percent of bone marrow blasts was higher (9%) in muRAS group compared to 5% in wtRAS (p<0.001 by M-W-T). High (Int-2 and high) risk by IPSS was more frequent in muRAS 51% compared to 40% in wtRAS group (p=0.11). Leukemic transformation was 9% and 7% (p=0.61) in both muRAS and wtRAS groups respectively. RAS mutation was detected more frequently in the CMML subgroup (12/80 (15%) pts). There were no differences in terms of response to DNA methylating inhibitors (CR in 41% in muRAS versus 40% in wtRAS). ARA-C-based regimens resulted in better CR in wtRAS than muRAS (59% vs 25%); however, the size of muRAS group was too small (1 out 4 pts).There was a trend towards shorter overall survival (OS) in the muRAS group compared to wtRAS (395 vs. 500 days, p value=0.057). MuRAS RAEB (325 vs. 450 days, p= 0.13) and RAEB-t (125 vs. 375 days, p= 0.27) subgroups showed a trend towards worse OS compared to wtRAS group. There was a significant OS decrease in RCMD (150 vs. 700 day, p= 0.015). Surprisingly, muRAS CMML group showed a trend towards better OS compared to wtRAS (728 vs. 687 days, p=0.44). Additionally we analyzed patients for presence of Flt3 mutation. These were present in only 18 of the pts (4%) but none of them had also a RAS mutation. There was no c-Kit mutations found in this cohort of pts, compared to 9/37 (24%) pts tested positive for JAK2V617F. Conclusion: MuRAS occurs in 4% of pts with MDS. In the muRAS group, pts tended to have higher risk disease and risk of transformation to acute leukemia compared with wtRAS. OS tended to be worse in some subgroups in muRAS. Although the prognostic impact of RAS mutations in MDS appears to be limited, mutations could be used to develop targeted therapeutic interventions. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract 5-azacitidine (5-AZA) is standard of care in the first-line setting for higher-risk patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). However, 40-50% of patients are refractory to 5-AZA and most responders ultimately demonstrate disease progression within 2 years, often progressing to AML. For patients refractory to 5-AZA, 2-year survival probability is low (15%). Thus, there is a need for more effective initial and second-line therapies for patients with higher-risk MDS. The Inhibitors of Apoptosis (IAP) Proteins are a family of molecules that suppress apoptotic cell death. Expression of IAPs is dysregulated in MDS, suggesting a potential path for therapeutic intervention. SMAC (second mitochondrial activator of caspases) is an IAP antagonist, resulting in caspase activation, inhibition of NF-kB and increased apoptosis. Birinapant is a potent bivalent SMAC mimetic with improved tolerability and therapeutic index compared to other SMAC mimetics. This Phase Ib/2a study was designed primarily to determine the MTD and recommended Phase 2 dose and schedule of birinapant in combination with 5-AZA in patients with higher-risk MDS who are naïve or have relapsed or are refractory to 5-AZA. To date, 11 patients have been enrolled in the Phase 1b portion of the study, including 7 with IPSS classification high-risk MDS (5 male, 2 female; median age 75, range 64-82) and 4 with intermediate-risk MDS (2 male, 2 female; median age 72.5, range 65-84). All patients received standard 5-AZA, administered via either intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) routes, at 75 mg/m2 for 7 days of a 28-day cycle in combination with birinapant. Birinapant was administered IV twice weekly (Days 1 and 4) for either 3 of 4 weeks or 4 of 4 weeks per 28-day cycle at a dose of 13 mg/m2. No cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities have been observed. Adverse events ≥ Grade 2 observed in two or more patients and judged to be related to treatment were rash/pruritis (Grade 2, 2 patients), thrombocytopenia (Grade 4, 2 patients) and neutropenia (Grade 4, 1 patient; Grade 3, 1 patient). Two SAEs, Grade 3 abdominal soft tissue necrosis with abdominal pain in the area of subcutaneous injections of 5-AZA, and Grade 3 cellulitis were judged to be related to treatment. These local injection site reactions/cellulitis were more severe than usually expected with SC 5-AZA, suggesting an on target pharmacodynamic (TNF mediated) localized synergistic effect in skin, but were not observed with IV administration. Both occurred after cycle 1 and were not considered DLTs. Data showing inhibition of NF-kB, a downstream pro-survival molecule activated by IAPs, in circulating blast cells from patients treated with birinapant at a dose of 13 mg/m2 twice weekly for 3 weeks out of 4, suggests that birinapant is pharmacologically active at this dosing schedule. Based on these and other pharmacodynamic data, despite not determining the formal MTD, the Phase 2 dosing regimen has been established as birinapant administered at 13 mg/m2 IV twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 28-day cycle in combination with 5-AZA at 75 mg/m2 by IV infusion for 7 days of a 28-day cycle. Although not a primary endpoint, evidence of clinical activity in 5-AZA resistant/refractory patients was observed in 2 of 11 patients to date, with an additional good clinical response in a 5-AZA naive high-risk MDS/CMML patient. One patient with prior 5-AZA-refractory MDS (cytogenetics: hypodiploid and +11q) showed bone marrow (BM) blast count reduction from 25% to 2% after 1 cycle of 5-AZA/birinapant treatment. Another patient with MDS (cytogenetics: +X; +19; +21) refractory to single-agent 5-AZA showed BM blast count reduction from 21% to 7% after 2 cycles. A third patient with treatment-naïve MDS/CMML-2 (cytogenetics: 46, XY, inv(6)(p11.2q15), t(6;21)(q21;q22) ) who had received prior hydroxyurea demonstrated BM blast count reduction from 17% to 2% after 3 cycles and underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Several patients remain on study and are in active follow-up. This Phase 1b trial provide data for an acceptable safety profile of the first combination of a SMAC mimetic (birinapant) administered with IV 5-AZA. Early signs of clinical activity including in 5-AZA naïve and refractory patients were observed. These results provide rationale for a randomized Phase 2 study comparing birinapant in combination with 5-AZA against 5-AZA alone in the first-line setting for patients with higher-risk MDS. Disclosures Borthakur: Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Foran:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Wang:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Rakkar:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Hager:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Frey:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Andreeff:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Carter:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Minderman:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Russell:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Tibes:Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 677 Background: Activating mutations of NRAS and KRAS (‘RAS’) are found in 10–30% of myeloid malignancies. Evidence of constitutive activation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway, however, is more ubiquitous. Trametinib is a potent, selective, allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/2 that inhibits proliferation of myeloid cell lines in vitro. A Phase I/II study of single, daily, oral dosing of trametinib in myeloid malignancies is ongoing. Here we report the results from Phase I/II patients receiving the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of 2 mg. Methods: Patient eligibility was limited to patients with relapsed/refractory myeloid malignancies and adequate hepatic, renal and cardiac function. There were no hematologic eligibility criteria. Patients were prospectively screened for KRAS mutations at amino acids 12, 13 and for NRAS mutations at amino acids 12, 13 and 61. Clinical response was assessed using International Working Group (2003 and 2006) criteria for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), respectively. Pharmacodynamic marker (pERK) analysis was conducted in phase II patients with patient paired (pre/during treatment) blood and bone marrow samples. Results: Eighty-seven (9 in Phase I and 78 in Phase II) patients received 2 mg of trametinib daily: AML (n=66), MDS (n=11), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) (n=7) or other (n=3) (RAS mutations, n=57; RAS wild type, n=15 and RAS unknown, n=15). Median age was 68 years (range 21–87) and for close to half of the patients, trametinib was 3 3rd line of therapy. Trametinib exhibited a long effective half-life with small peak/trough ratios, and the exposure profile maintained time above preclinical target threshold for the 24-hour dosing period. Results of the pharmacodynamic analysis indicated an on-target effect of trametinib. Responses by RAS mutation status for Phase I/II subjects are summarized in Table 1. Responding patients have continued therapy for median of 16.9 weeks (range, 10.9 – 36.7). Drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were encountered in 31/87 (36%) of the Phase I/II patients and there was one grade 5 drug-related AE,cerebrovascular accident. Hepatic toxicities (9%), gastrointestinal disorders (7%) and rash (5%) were the most frequent grade 3/4 AEs. AEs possibly related to inhibition of MEK signaling were blurred vision (total,13%; grade 3, 1%) and decreased cardiac ejection fraction (total, 9%; grade 3, 6%); events were generally reversible. Conclusion: At the RP2D of trametinib (2 mg orally daily), trametinib has shown promising clinical activity and responses (CR/CRp/Marrow CR/MLFS/PR) were almost exclusively seen in patients with refractory myeloid malignancies characterized by somatic RAS mutations. Expansion of the CMML cohort for RAS positive subjects is ongoing. Disclosures: Borthakur: GlaxoSmithKline, Sigma-Tau, Eisai, XBiotech: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Trametinib, to report outcome of clinicla trial to audience at ASH meeting. Foran:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Platzbecker:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Giagounidis:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria. Ottmann:GlaxoSmithKline: Clinical trial participation Other. Kadia:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Bauman:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Liu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Schramek:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Zhu:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Wissel:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment, Equity Ownership.

BACKGROUNDRAS/RAF/mitogen‐activated protein kinase activation is common in myeloid malignancies. Trametinib, a mitogen‐activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1)/MEK2 inhibitor with activity against multiple myeloid cell lines at low nanomolar concentrations, was evaluated for safety and clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory leukemias.METHODSThis phase 1/2 study accrued patients with any relapsed/refractory leukemia in phase 1. In phase 2, this study accrued patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high‐risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with NRAS or KRAS mutations (cohort 1); patients with AML, MDS, or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) with a RAS wild‐type mutation or an unknown mutation status (cohort 2); and patients with CMML with an NRAS or KRAS mutation (cohorts 3).RESULTSThe most commonly reported treatment‐related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, nausea, and increased alanine aminotransferase levels. The phase 2 recommended dose for Trametinib was 2 mg orally daily. The overall response rates were 20%, 3%, and 27% for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and this indicated preferential activity among RAS‐mutated myeloid malignancies. Repeated cycles of trametinib were well tolerated with manageable or reversible toxicities; these results were similar to those of other trametinib studies.CONCLUSIONSThe selective, single‐agent activity of trametinib against RAS‐mutated myeloid malignancies validates its therapeutic potential. Combination strategies based on a better understanding of the hierarchical role of mutations and signaling in myeloid malignancies are likely to improve the response rate and duration. Cancer 2016;122:1871–9. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

RAS is an oncogene frequently mutated in human cancer. RAS mutations have been reported in 10–15% of cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but they appear to be less frequent among patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The impact of RAS mutations in patients with MDS is unclear. We conducted a retrospective study in 1,067 patients with newly diagnosed MDS for whom RAS mutational analysis was available. Overall, 4% of patients carried mutant RAS alleles. Notably, FLT3 mutations, which were found in 2% of patients, were mutually exclusive with RAS mutations. Patients with RAS mutations had a higher white blood cell count as well as bone marrow blasts compared with patients carrying wild‐type RAS. However, no differences were observed between both groups regarding the risk of AML transformation (9% vs. 7%) and overall survival (395 days vs. 500 days, P = 0.057). In summary, RAS mutations are infrequent in patients with MDS and do not appear to negatively impact their outcome. Am. J. Hematol. 88:365–369, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.