Litzow, Mark R.

Abstract Background: Molecular profiling has revolutionized the field of hematology, and in particular myeloid neoplasms. NPM1+/FLT3- mutational status has been shown to have a favorable prognostic impact in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, little is known about its interaction with age. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed AML patients, whose FLT3 and NPM1 data were available, and were treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy at our institution between 2003 and 2013. Patients 18 to 60 years of age were categorized as adult, and those above 60 years were classified as elderly. Each of the elderly or adult groups were further divided according to the presence or absence of combined NPM1+/FLT3- mutational status. Estimated probabilities of overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with the log-rank test to compare groups. Demographics and continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Appropriate IRB approval was obtained. Results: Out of 835 patients with AML, 86 patients with both known FLT3/NPM1 mutation status and receiving induction chemotherapy were found. NPM1+/FLT3- mutational status was present in 11 elderly (median age 68 yr, hemoglobin (Hb) 8.7 g/dL, white blood cells (WBC) 9.6 x109/L, platelets (PLT) 100 x109/L, peripheral blood blasts percentage (PB%) 31), and in 11 adult patients (median age 49 years, Hb 9.1 g/dL, WBC 14 x109/L, PLT 67 x109/L, and PB% 21). Twenty-eight elderly patients (median age 66 yr, Hb 9.4 g/dl, WBC 15.7 x109/L, PLT 66 x109/L, and PB% 33), and 36 adult patients (median age 49 years, Hb 9.1 g/dL, WBC 14 x109/L, PLT 67 x109/L, and PB% 21) were carrying genotypes other than NPM1+/FlT3-. There was no statistical significant difference in the median age, Hb, WBC, PLT, and PB% at the time of diagnosis. Out of 86 patients, 79 had intermediate, 6 had adverse, and 1 had favorable cytogenetic risk. All elderly and adult patients with NPM1+/FLT3- genotype had intermediate risk cytogenetics. When treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy, elderly patients with NPM1+/FLT3- genotype demonstrated a significantly better overall survival compared to elderly patients without this genotypes (p=0.015), and interestingly also to adult AML carrying other genotypes (p=0.028). Surprisingly, there was not an improved survival in adults with NPM1+/FLT3- genotype compared to adults carrying other genotypes (p=0.14), but this may have been related to the small numbers in each group. No significant difference in the overall survival was observed between elderly and adult patients who were carrying NPM1+/FLT3- mutational status (p=0.4). The estimated 5-year survival rates for elderly with and without NPM1+/FLT3- status were 71% vs. 14%, and for adults with and without this genotype were 49% vs. 19%, respectively. Conclusion: Age does not have an impact on the OS in AML patients with NPM1+/FLT3- mutational status, arguing strongly for intense chemotherapy in this group. Elderly AML patients with NPM1+/FLT3- genotype have a superior OS compared to both adult and elderly patients carrying other genotypes, when treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further validation in large prospective studies is warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Gilteritinib (ASP2215) is a novel, highly selective, potent oral FLT3/AXL inhibitor with preclinical activity against FLT3-ITD activating and FLT3-D835 resistance mutations. The objectives of this phase 1/2 study were to assess gilteritinib safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles after single- and multiple-day dosing, and antileukemic effects in patients with R/R AML. Methods: This open-label study (NCT02014558) enrolled patients (≥18 yr) into 1 of 7 dose-escalation cohorts (20-450 mg once daily [QD]) or concomitant dose-expansion cohorts. While confirmed FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, each expanded dose level enrolled ≥10 patients with FLT3 mutations (FLT3mut+); 120 and 200 mg dose levels were further expanded with ≥40 FLT3mut+ patients. The choice to expand these dose cohorts was based upon FLT3 inhibition in correlative assays and clinical activity seen during dose escalation. Safety and tolerability were primary endpoints; blood samples were drawn from patients in the dose-escalation cohorts to evaluate gilteritinib PK parameters and PD effects. Antileukemic response rates (eg, complete remission [CR], CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp], CR with incomplete hematological recovery [CRi], overall response rate [ORR]) were secondary endpoints. Results: Patients (N=252; 129M:123F, median age 62 yr [range: 21-90]) enrolled between October 2013 and August 2015 received ≥1 dose of gilteritinib. The study population was heavily pretreated: 70% (n=177) had ≥2 prior AML therapies, 29% (n=73) had a prior stem cell transplant, and 25% (n=63) had prior TKI treatment with sorafenib most commonly used. Across the study, 194 patients had a locally confirmed FLT3 mutation (ITD, n=159; D835, n=13; ITD-D835, n=16; other, n=6). For all enrolled patients, progressive disease (n=75), lack of efficacy (n=44), adverse events (n=34), and death (n=29) were the most common reasons for treatment discontinuation. Seven deaths were considered possibly/probably related to treatment: pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, hemoptysis, intracranial bleed, ventricular fibrillation, septic shock, and neutropenia (all n=1). Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 300 mg when 2 of 3 patients in the 450 mg cohort experienced diarrhea and/or hepatic transaminase elevation as dose-limiting toxicities. Diarrhea (16%) and fatigue (15%) were the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events of any grade. Less than 5% of patients (11/252) had a maximum post-baseline QTcF interval >500 msec. Gilteritinib concentrations were generally dose proportional and showed both a long-elimination half-life (45-159 h) and substantial accumulation (3.2-10 fold) by day 15. An exposure-related increase in the inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation with increasing doses of gilteritinib was also observed. Gilteritinib showed strong antileukemic activity in FLT3mut+ patients (ORR=49%); response was observed less frequently in patients with wild-type FLT3 (ORR=12%). While CR, CRi, and CRp occurred at all doses, responses were enriched among FLT3mut+ patients with gilteritinib steady-state trough concentrations ≥100 ng/mL, which correlated with potent FLT3 inhibition in PD assays and corresponded to doses ≥80 mg. The ORR in 169 FLT3mut+ patients receiving ≥80 mg was 52% (Table); median overall survival in this patient population was ~31 wk (range: 1.7-61; Figure) and median duration of response was 20 wk (range: 1.1-55). Clinical responses occurred in FLT3mut+ patients with -ITD, -D835, and both mutations (ORR: 55%, 17%, and 62%, respectively) as well as in FLT3mut+ patients with or without prior TKI treatment (ORR: 42% vs 56%, respectively). Conclusions: This PD-driven, first-in-human study shows that gilteritinib was well tolerated and generated frequent, prolonged, clinically important responses in FLT3mut+ patients with R/R AML. Antileukemic responses were enriched in FLT3mut+ patients treated at doses that consistently and potently inhibited FLT3 phosphorylation. The survival of these patients appears better than expected for this patient population when treated with standard therapy. Our data suggest that FLT3 inhibition may improve survival in patients with FLT3mut+R/R AML; as such, phase 3 testing of oral gilteritinib 120 mg QD in patients with FLT3mut+R/R AML after first-line therapy is underway (NCT02421939). Disclosures Perl: Astellas US Pharma Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Asana Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Janssen: Other: advisory board; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum: Other: advisory board; Ariad: Other: advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: advisory board; Syros: Other: advisory board. Cortes:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding. Smith:Astellas: Research Funding. Erba:Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Gill:Astellas: Employment. Goldberg:Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; COTA Inc: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Neostem: Equity Ownership. Jurcic:Astellas: Research Funding. Larson:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Liu:Astellas: Employment. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Strickland:Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Research Funding. Stuart:Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Martinelli:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bahceci:Astellas: Employment. Levis:Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 132 Late relapse in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been infrequently studied and variably defined in the literature. Two series have shown that late relapse of AML ≥5 years after first complete remission (CR1) is uncommon, with rates of 1.19–3% (Medeiros et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2007; Verma et al, Leuk Lymphoma 2010). We searched the long-term data available on 784 adults (<60 years-old) who were treated on 1 of 4 ECOG clinical trials (E3483, PC486, E3489, or E1900) and achieved CR1 for reports of late relapse (defined as recurrence of AML ≥3 years after CR1). Median follow-up for the 553 patients last known alive was 11.1 years. The longest median follow-up was 17.2 years on trial PC486. Outcomes We found that 11 patients (1.4%) relapsed late; of these, 2 were treated on E3483, 1 on PC486, 5 on E3489, and 3 on E1900. Seven patients with late relapse died from their disease and 4 were living at last known follow-up. Only 1 patient (0.13%) had recurrence of AML ≥5 years after achieving CR1. It is possible that more late relapses will occur on E1900 (a more recent study with ongoing follow-up). All of these trials except E3483 treated some patients with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) as part of post remission therapy. On PC486, no post remission consolidation chemotherapy was administered before autoHCT. Ninety-eight total patients on E3489 and PC486 received autoHCT, and there were no late relapses; on E1900, 2 of the 141 patients treated with autoHCT developed late relapse. No patients who underwent allogeneic (allo) HCT in CR1 experienced late relapse on any of the 4 clinical trials. Nine of the 11 patients with late relapse did not undergo HCT; of these, 5 were consolidated with high-dose cytarabine, 2 received maintenance with low-dose cytarabine and 6-thioguanine, and 2 received unknown post remission therapy. Of the 3 patients with late relapse on E1900, 2 received standard-dose and 1 high-dose daunorubicin with induction. Conclusions Across all 4 trials, only 2 of the 239 patients (0.8%) treated with post remission autoHCT experienced late relapse of AML (≥3 years after CR1), which reinforces previously published data that late relapse after autoHCT is uncommon (Cassileth et al, J Clin Oncol 1993). Furthermore, of the 35 patients treated with autoHCT on PC486, 11 relapsed early and no patients relapsed late, suggesting that post remission chemotherapy may not be necessary before autoHCT. Based on this large AML cohort of nearly 800 patients with long-term follow-up, patients who remain in CCR for at least 3 years have a very low risk of relapse and can be considered cured of their disease. Moreover, given that recurrent AML was extremely rare after 5 years or more of CCR (<0.2%), the risk of therapy-related AML from contemporary induction and post remission strategies including HCT appears to be minimal. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation is an effective treatment modality for patients with multiple myeloma. While most of the patients relapse after ASCT with a median time to progression of 2 years, there is a significant heterogeneity in the duration of response. It has been hypothesized that the effect of high dose alkylator therapy used for conditioning may have a dual effect on the myeloma cells as well as marrow microenvironment. It is also known that hematopoiesis, especially thrombopoiesis, depends to some extent on signals form the marrow microenvironment. We examined if there was any relationship between delayed platelet engraftment and outcome after ASCT. Methods: We examined the outcomes in a group of patients undergoing ASCT for myeloma at our institution to compare the response duration to platelet engraftment kinetics. We studied 687 patients undergoing ASCT with melphalan conditioning followed by peripheral blood stem cell transplant. Results: Among the 687 patients undergoing ASCT, 200 pts (29%) achieved a platelet count of 50,000 by day 21 (early group) and the rest achieved this level after 21 days or never engrafted (late group). The median time to progression (TTP) among the late group was 24.8 months (95% CI; 19.6, 30 months) vs. 16.8 months (95% CI; 15.1, 18.6 months) for the late group (p < 0.001) (Figure). Patients in the late engraftment group were more likely to achieve a complete response compared to the early group; 39% vs. 30%, p = 0.02. In a multivariate analysis examining factors predicting for longer time to progression after ASCT, delayed platelet engraftment was independent of transplant within 12 months of diagnosis, CR with ASCT, absence of cytogenetic abnormalities, B2M < 3.5 mg/L and a plasma cell labeling index < 1% at the time of ASCT (Table). Conclusions: In this study, we have demonstrated for the first time a relationship between delayed platelet engraftment after ASCT and the duration of response following ASCT. This intriguing finding raises several hypotheses. It is possible that the delayed platelet engraftment is a marker of marrow microenvironment dysfunction secondary to high dose therapy, given the role of marrow microenvironment on thrombopoiesis. It is possible that this is a surrogate marker for the biological effectiveness of the melphalan dose, which can affect the other cells in the marrow microenvironment as well. It is likely a reflection of the marrow microenvironment dependence on the myeloma cells for its survival. These findings should be confirmed in other larger patient groups. Predictors of progression Variable Hazard Ratio P Platelet Engraftment > 21 days 0.80 (0.60, 0.96) 0.02 Late transplant (>12 months from diagnosis) 1.6 (1.3, 2.0) <0.01 Plasma cell labeling index > 1% 1.9 (1.5, 2.4) <0.01 Complete response 0.41 (0.33, 0.51) <0.01 Abnormal Cytogenetics 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) <0.01 B2M > 3.5 1.2 (0.96, 1.5) 0.12 Figure Figure

Abstract Background: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by cytopenias and a propensity to progress into acute myeloid leukemia in a subset of patients. Clinical trials which led to FDA approval of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) stratified patient's risk status per the IPSS. In 2008, WHO further categorized patients into different groups and the IPSS was revised into the IPSS-R. Therefore, there is a paucity of data regarding the response rates and clinical outcomes of HMA therapy when stratified per WHO subtype and IPSS-R. Goal: We carried this review to assess whether WHO subtypes or IPSS-R had a differential response with corresponding impact on survival. Methods: After IRB approval, all MDS pts who received hypomethylating agents (HMA) (azacitidine or decitabine) with available response data (2000-2014) were included. Clinical characteristics were obtained retrospectively. IPSS-R (Greenberg 2012) was used for risk stratification. Response assessment was based on IWGR 2006 criteria. Statistical comparisons were performed with the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Survival analysis was based on the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. For all analyses, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We identified 823 pt in our MDS database; among those that received HMA therapy 70 patients (pts) had evaluable response data. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years (31-85) and 49 (70%) were males. MDS subtypes per WHO 2008 classification were 31(44%) RAEB1/2, 26(37%) RCMD, 10(14%) MDS-U, 2(3%) RARS, and 1(1%) MDS 5q. Fifteen (33%) patients had secondary MDS. 23(32%) developed AML, and median time to leukemic transformation was 14 months (7.8-21). Median time to start HMA was 2.7 months (0-77). Median follow up from initial diagnosis was 20 months (3-118) at which time 22(31%) deaths were documented. A. Patient characteristics: Prior to HMA therapy median laboratory values included; Hemoglobin 9.6 g/dL (6.6-14.8), ANC 1.1 x1010 (0.01-16), Platelet 66 x1010 (4-937), peripheral blast % 0 (0-18), and bone marrow blast % 5 (0-17). IPSS-R for our cohort was as the following, 15(27%) Very high, 14(25%) high, 10(18%) intermediate 12(21%) low, and 5(9%) very low risk. B. HMA Response rates based on WHO subtype: We observed no significant difference in response (p = 0.6) when comparing response rate among different groups. Response rates per WHO subtype were as follows: i. RAEB: 7 (22%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 1(3%) had HI/PR, 17(55%), and 6(20%) had stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD), respectively. ii. RCMD: 2 (8%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 4(16%) had HI/PR, 12(46%), and 8(30%) had SD and PD, respectively. iii. MDS-U: 1 (10%) pt achieved CR/Marrow CR, 1(10%) had HI/PR, 6(60%), and 2(20%) had SD and PD, respectively. iv. MDS 5q/RARS: 1(33%) had SD, and the remaining three pts had PD. C. HMA Response rates based on IPSS-R: i. Very low: 1(20%) had HI/PR, 3(60%), and 1(20%) had SD. ii. Low: 2(17%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 3(25%) had HI/PR, 4(33%), and 3(25%) had SD and PD, respectively. iii. Intermediate: 2 (20%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 5(50%), and 3(30%) had SD and PD, respectively. iv. High: 2(14%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 2(14%) had HI/PR, 7(50%), and 3(21%) had SD and PD, respectively. v. Very high: 1(7%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 9(60%), and 5(33%) had SD and PD, respectively. Comparing responses among IPSS-R risk stratification groups, was not statistically significant (p = 0.49). We did not observe a difference in response rate when we further classified pts into low risk (very low, low & intermediate), and high risk (high, very high) (p = 0.27). D. Response effect on Survival: Overall survival was not statistically different among responders (CR/Marrow CR/HI &PR) and non-responder (SD & PD); 22.3 vs 14.7 months respectively (p = 0.21) (Figure1). Conclusion: Using contemporary MDS risk stratification and WHO classification was not predictive of response to hypomethylating agents. Responders did not seem to benefit from prolongation of survival. Given the small sample size in this cohort, this should be further explored in larger groups to identify if there are any potential subgroups that would benefit more from such therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute erythroleukemia (AML-M6) is an aggressive myeloid leukemia, with poor outcomes (median survival < 12months). In 2008, the WHO further sub-classified this disease into two subgroups- erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia, based on the number of erythroblasts and myeloblasts. We carried out this study to evaluate differences in presenting features and outcomes between erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia. Methods: After due IRB approval, out of 923 AML, 43(4.6%) pts who met the 2008 WHO criteria for acute erythroleukemia (2000-2014) were identified, and clinical characteristics retrospectively reviewed. A diagnosis of erythroid leukemia (M6a) was considered if > 50% of the total nucleate BM cells were of erythroid lineage and > 20% of non-erythroid cells were myeloblasts. Pure erythroid leukemia (M6b) was diagnosed in pts who presented with > 80% of BM nucleate cells consisting of immature erythroid precursors. Cytogenetic risk stratification was based on NCCN AML guidelines. Statistical comparisons were performed with the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with the Cox logistical regression. Survival analysis was based on the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. For all analyses, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (27-90) and 34(79%) were male. 30 (69%) had M6a and 13 (30%) had M6b. 27 (62%) had de novo AML M6, whereas 16 (37%) had secondary AML (9 underlying MDS and 7 therapy related).The median time to leukemic transformation for pts with underlying MDS was 8 months (2-83). Median follow up in our cohort was 7.2 months (2-157) at which time 13 (30%) deaths were documented. A. Patient characteristics: At time of diagnosis median laboratory values included; Hemoglobin 8.5 g/dL (4.6-11), WBC 2x109 (0.7-11.1), ANC 0.47x109 (0.01-4.07), Platelet 33x 109 (7-177), peripheral blast % 2 (0-35), and bone marrow blast % 11 (0-84). Cytogenetic information was available in 38 pts; of which 6(16%) were diploid, 21(55%) were complex/monosmal and 1(3%) was complex/non monosomal. Intermediate risk cytogenetic was observed in 15 pts (39%), and poor risk cytogenetic was identified in 23(61%). Comparing M6a and M6b, we observed that pts with M6a tend to have more leukopenia and neutropenia and higher marrow blast percentage compared to M6b (Table 1). None of the patients experienced extramedullary disease or CNS involvement. B. Outcome and prognostics: We did observe a trend towards worse survival in pts with M6b, 7 months vs 12.9 months with M6a (p= 0.08) (Figure 1). There was no difference in survival in acute erythroleukemia compared to other acute myeloid leukemias, 10.1 vs 14 months (p= 0.28), respectively (Figure 2). In univariate analysis, WBC, ANC, and cytogenetic risk impacted survival (Table 2), however only cytogenetic risks retained significance in the multivariate model; Intermediate risk HR 0.18 (0.05-0.51; p = 0.0009) and poor risk HR 5.4 (1.9-17.6; p = 0.0009). Conclusion: Acute Erythroid Leukemia is a rare leukemia with ~5% incidence in our cohort. We observed that regardless of the percentage of bone marrow erythroblasts and myeloblasts, survival in patients with Acute Erythroleukemia are predominantly impacted by cytogenetic risk stratification. This raises a question on the clinical relevance of the sub-categorization of acute erythroleukemia into erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia. Larger studies are needed to validate our results. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract The optimal source of donor hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) is controversial. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has replaced bone marrow (BM) as the most common allograft source in adults but is associated with donor morbidity and higher rates of chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) compared to BM. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor (Px) mobilizes HSC into the PB (Px-PB) faster than G-CSF and preliminary data suggest both quantitative and qualitative differences in allograft content that may impact clinical outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of transplanted allografts collected following mobilization with Px alone in HLA-identical sibling transplantation. This was a Phase II, two-strata, multi-center prospective trial (NCT01696461) to evaluate Px-PB allografts prior to reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) based hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients aged 18-65 years with an HLA-ID sibling donor and a hematological malignancy suitable for HCT were eligible. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors whose cells could be successfully mobilized and collected with a sufficient CD34+ cell dose using Px as the sole mobilizing agent. Px mobilization was considered successful if ≥ 2.0x10^6 CD34+ cells/kg recipient weight were collected in no more than two leukapheresis (LP) collections. All donors receiving Px were included in the analysis of the primary objective based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary objectives included the incidence of acute and chronic adverse events in donors, rates of hematopoietic engraftment, donor chimerism, rates of acute and chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the recipients. From July 2013 to December 2014, 64 donor/recipient pairs were enrolled at 12 centers. Donors received Px at 240μg/kg subcutaneously 4 hours prior to LP. LP was performed processing at least 4X blood volume for up to two consecutive days (a third day was allowed for low CD34+ cell yields after 2 LP procedures) to achieve a target CD34+ cell dose of ≥ 4.0 x 10^6/kg recipient weight with a minimum goal of ≥ 2.0 x 10^6/kg. All allografts were cryopreserved. GVHD prophylaxis included cyclosporine or tacrolimus in combination with methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, or sirolimus. G-CSF was given routinely post HCT only to MAC recipients. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1. The median donor age was 56 years (18-65). 64% of the donors were male. Donors underwent one (23%), two (72%), or three (5%) LP procedures. 63 of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median total CD34+ cell dose/kg recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.6 (0.9-9.6). Maximal donor toxicity following Px injection and LP was grades 0 (30%), 1 (52%), 2 (17%), and 3 (2%). Bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, headache, paresthesisas, injection site reaction, and dizziness were the most commonly observed toxicities. Bone pain was not observed. The one grade 3 toxicity was a vasovagal episode felt related to LP and unlikely to Px. Toxicities typically resolved within a week of LP. The median follow up is 6.3 months. Median days to ANC (>0.5 x10^9/L) and Platelet count (>20 x 10^9/L) recovery were 13.5 (10-148) and 19 (1-76) after MAC and 14.5 (0-25) and 18 (0-141) after RIC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grades 2-4 and 3-4 at day 100 were 47% (95% CI: 30-64) and 9% (95% CI: 2-22) after MAC and 19% (95% CI: 6-38) and 5% (95% CI: 0-18) after RIC. Probability of NRM at day 100 was 4% (95% CI: 0-13) and 0% after MAC and RIC, respectively. The probability of OS at day 100 was 97% (95% CI: 88-100) and 90% (95% CI: 78-98) after MAC and RIC, respectively. In conclusion, this is the first multi-center trial to demonstrate that as an alternative to G-CSF, Plerixafor rapidly, safely, and effectively mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from HLA-ID sibling donors for HCT following both RIC and MAC regimens. Engraftment was generally prompt and early results of secondary endpoints in recipients are encouraging. Longer follow-up and more extensive analysis of donor allografts and recipient outcomes will be presented at the time of the meeting. Research support was provided in part by Genzyme, a Sanofi Company. Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Disclosures Chen: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Devine:Genzyme: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive form of blood cancers with a wide range of response and relapse rates using standard chemotherapy regimen (commonly known as 7+3). Several genes (FLT3, IDH1, RAS) have been targeted using small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors with encouraging results. The stem cell receptor tyrosine kinase KIT is expressed more than 10% in the blasts in 95% of relapsed AML cases and mediates leukemic proliferation and has anti-apoptotic effects (Domen and Weissman 2000). AML with high KIT expression is associated with poorer outcome (Del Poeta, Venditti et al 2003). Goals: To study the efficacy and safety of combination 7+3 and nilotinib in patients (pts) with AML and KIT expression. Primary goal is to determine the complete response (CR) rate; while secondary goals include 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in addition to safety of DATA regimen. Methods: A single arm, Phase II study, enrolled pts at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ). Appropriate IRB was obtained and study was registered (NCT 01806571). Pts were enrolled if they were newly diagnosed with AML with KIT (CD117) expression of 20% or higher on myeloblasts by flow cytometry. KIT mutations were allowed if present. Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily was given on days 4-14 of induction and consolidation; and continuous daily maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. Cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day continuous IV x7 days plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV daily x3 days were used for induction , while consolidation used standard cytarabine 3 gm/m2 twice daily days 1, 3, 5 for a total of 4 cycles. This is a Simon 1-stage design with a safety analysis after enrolling 12 pts, and an interim analysis after enrolling 18 out of 43 pts. If 11 or fewer pts achieve complete remission, the regimen will be considered ineffective. Results: Eighteen pts have been enrolled between July 2013 and July 2015, 17 of which have baseline data. Median age was 58 years (range 24-65) with 76.5% being male. Median laboratory findings include hemoglobin of 9.3 gm/dL, platelets of 52 x109, and white blood count of 7.0 (0.5-125). Cytogenetics were normal in 41% of the pts. Favorable cytogenetics were seen in 2 pts (inv 16). FLT3 testing was done on 15 pts and was positive in 27%. KIT gene sequencing (exon 8, 9, 10, 11, 17) revealed no pathogenic mutation. Median number of cycles was 3 (range 1-7). Six pts had treatment delays, with 2/13 (15%) delays being due to non-hematologic toxicities. No delays or missed doses affected cytarabine and daunorubicin administration. Out of 15 pts evaluable for response, 12 (80%) achieved CR (or CR with incomplete platelet recovery). Six of the 12 pts (50%) who achieved remission needed a second induction on protocol. Two out of 15 did not respond (did not get re-induction on protocol). One pt died before disease assessment due to liver failure (G5, had only one dose of nilotinib and toxicity was attributed to daunorubicin). Of the 14 pts having at least 1 bone marrow biopsy, the overall CR rate was 86%. Five (33%) pts proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant, all are alive and none were able to initiate protocol nilotinib maintenance therapy. Only 2 out of 12 (17%) pts relapsed after achieving CR, one was secondary AML from myelodysplastic syndrome with complex karyotype and the other was therapy-related AML with t(9;11). Only 2 (11%) pts died at time of report. Thirteen pts were evaluated for adverse events (AE). Six pts had G4 non-hematological AEs. Five of 12 G4 AEs were related to infection, 2 were electrolyte imbalances, and 2 were heart failures. Most common G3 non-hematological AEs were febrile neutropenia (53%), hypophosphatemia (23%), hyperglycemia (23%), and hypertension (23%). In agreement with the favorable outcomes, the molecular target validation revealed that nilotinib treatment down-regulates the expression of KIT, Sp1, DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) 1, DNMT3a and DNMT3b. Conclusion: Combination daunorubicin and cytarabine with nilotinib (DATA) appears to be safe and effective. Interim results show an acceptable safety profile in the first 12 evaluable pts with most common AE being infection as expected. Thirty day mortality is acceptable (7%). DATA regimen has encouraging CR rates of 80% (intent to treat) and 86% in assessed pts, with half of the pts who achieved remission requiring 2 cycles of induction. Relapse rate seems to be low at 17%. We will continue accrual until all pts accrued for final results. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Off Label Use: This is a Phase II study of combination nilotinib to standard chemotherapy in patients diagnosed with AML.. Tibes:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Extramedullary disease (EMD) of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was described decades ago but the incidence of this phenomenon and its prognostic impact are not clear. It is also uncertain whether every site of EMD has the same significance. This study explored these questions using a large cohort of AML patients treated on consecutive Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) frontline clinical trials. Methods For AML patients enrolled into ECOG clinical trials, the presence of EMD was captured at baseline on case report forms. From patients with newly diagnosed AML, age 15 and above, who were treated on 11 consecutive different clinical trials, we identified those with or without EMD, defined by physical examination, laboratory findings and imaging, without necessarily a biopsy. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient and disease characteristics. Univariate analyses of potential prognostic factors were done. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median overall survival (OS) within each prognostic category and differences were explored using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of one-unit increases in continuous variables on OS and for multivariable analyses. Multivariate models were built using backward selection. Factors (or groups of factors) significant at the 0.10 level in univariate analyses were tested for inclusion in the model, and retained if they were significant at the 0.05 level. Results Of the 3,522 patients enrolled in 11 different AML clinical trials, we excluded 281; for diagnosis of other types of leukemia (n=220), no EMD evaluation at baseline (n=41) or no survival data (n=20). The overall incidence of EMD was 23.8% (770 out of the remaining 3,241 patients). The sites involved were: lymph nodes 367 (11.3%) patients, spleen 234 (7.2%), liver 173 (5.3%), skin 146 (4.5%), gingiva 104 (3.2%), central nerve system (CNS) 32 (1%), peripheral nerve system (PNS) 8 (0.2%) and other sites 134 (4.1%). In 65 cases (8.4%) EMD was confirmed by biopsy. Most of the patients (64.4%) had only one site of EMD, 163 (21.2%) had 2 sites, 75 (9.7%) - 3 sites, 28 (3.6%) - 4 sites, and 4 patients (0.5%) each had 5 or 6 sites. EMD patients compared to those without EMD; tend to be younger (median age 45.7 vs 52.9 years); male (57.7% vs 52%); poorer ECOG performance status (76.4% with ECOG 0-1 vs 85.9%) and with higher white blood cell count (WBC) at diagnosis (median of 41.6/µl vs 10.2/µl). In univariate analysis, having EMD was associated with a shorter OS (P=0.006). Examination of individual EMD sites revealed that skin (P=0.002), spleen (P=0.0002) and liver (P=0.0007) but not CNS (P=0.35), PNS (P=0.53), nodal involvement (P=0.85) and gingival hypertrophy (P=0.14), were associated with poorer OS. Using proportional hazards models for continuous factors, each additional site of EMD conferred a 9.4% increase in the risk of death. In a multivariable model, after adjusting for known prognostic factors (such as: age, WBC count and cytogenetic risk group), the presence of EMD, number of EMD sites and any specific EMD site were not independently prognostic. Of 165 patients with known favorable cytogenetics EMD was present in only 22 patients (13%). This group appeared to have a worse prognosis, but the numbers are too small for a definitive assessment (figure 1). Conclusions Extramedullary disease is common in newly diagnosed AML with an incidence of almost 24%, but CNS involvement is very rare (0.95%). In contrast to published data, no site of EMD was found to have an independent prognostic impact in multivariate analysis. This large dataset emphasizes the importance of evaluating large number of patients and considering all known risk factors in the multivariate analysis. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.