Litzow, Mark R.

Abstract Introduction: ASP2215 is a highly selective inhibitor of AXL and FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3) receptors. ASP2215 is active against both FLT3 internal tandem duplication [ITD] and D835 mutations. Prior analyses of an open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study in subjects with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) show ASP2215 was well tolerated from 20-300 mg and associated with antileukemic activity in FLT3 mutation-positive (FLT3+) patients at ≥80 mg with minimal activity observed in wild-type FLT3 subjects. Here we describe the tolerability and potent activity of ASP2215 in a large cohort of FLT3+ patients. Methods: Patients (≥18 years) with R/R AML were assigned to treatment in dose-escalation cohorts or were randomized to an open dose level in the dose-expansion cohorts. Although FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, each expanded dose level enrolled ≥10 FLT3+ subjects; 120 mg and 200 mg dose levels were further expanded with ≥40 FLT3+ subjects. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event (AE) monitoring. Response assessment was based on modified Cheson criteria and duration of response and overall survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: As of June 19, 2015,215 patients with a median age of 61 yr (range: 21-90) had received ≥1 dose of ASP2215 (safety population). Across the safety population, 65% of subjects received ≥2 prior lines of AML therapy, 29% had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant prior to ASP2215 treatment, and 23% had prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Approximately 73% of patients were FLT3+, of which 137 had FLT3-ITD mutation, 7 were FLT3-D835+, and 9 had both FLT3-ITD and D835. Treatment-related AEs of all Grades, reported in ≥10% of the safety population were diarrhea (16%), fatigue (13%), and increased AST (11%); <2% of subjects reported a Grade ≥3 QTc prolongation. Activity was assessed in the 133 FLT3+ patients treated with ASP2215 ≥80 mg. Overall response rate (ORR; composite complete [CRc] plus partial remission [PR]) for all FLT3+ subjects was 55% (Table). Median overall survival for FLT3+ patients receiving ASP2215 ≥80 mg was ~29 weeks (95% CI: 22-32) and was similar for patients who achieved CRc or PR (Figure). Treatment with ≥80 mg ASP2215 was associated with an ORR of 60% in FLT3-ITD subjects; ORR for the other FLT3 populations was 29% (Table). No difference was observed in median ORR of ASP2215 (≥80 mg) in TKI-naïve patients (55%) and patients with prior TKI treatment (55%). Conclusions: ASP2215, a novel AXL/FLT3 TKI, was well tolerated in subjects with R/R AML and demonstrated a strong antileukemic activity in FLT3+ subjects. Importantly, the ASP2215 response rate in these FLT3+ patients was independent of prior TKI treatment. Even in this heavily pretreated population, the survival of R/R FLT3+ AML patients who received ≥80 mg ASP2215 was longer than prior reports of cytotoxic chemotherapy or other FLT3 inhibitors. Table. ASP2215 Response Assessment 80 mg 120 mg 200 mg 300 mg 450 mg Total All FLT3+ Subjects Population, n 12 52 57 10 2 133 CRc, n (%) 5 (42) 25 (48) 28 (49) 3 (30) 0 61 (46) PR, n (%) 3 (25) 3 (6) 3 (5) 3 (30) 0 12 (9) ORR, n (%) 8 (67) 28 (54) 31 (54) 6 (60) 0 73 (55) Subjects with FLT3-ITD Only Population, n 10 46 50 8 0 114 CRc, n (%) 4 (40) 23 (50) 26 (52) 3 (38) 0 56 (49) PR, n (%) 3 (30) 3 (7) 3 (6) 3 (38) 0 12 (11) ORR, n (%) 7 (70) 26 (57) 29 (58) 6 (75) 0 68 (60) Subjects with FLT3-D835 and Subjects with FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 Population, n 2 5 5 1 1 14 CRc, n (%) 1 (50) 1 (20) 2 (40) 0 0 4 (29) PR, n (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORR, n (%) 1 (50) 1 (20) 2 (40) 0 0 4 (29) CRc, composite complete remission (complete remission + complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery + complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery); ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response. NR, no response. Subjects with non-evaluable data (N=8) were not included in this curve. Figure 1. Overall Survival by Best Overall Response Achieved with ASP2215 ≥80 mg Across All FLT3+ Subjects Figure 1. Overall Survival by Best Overall Response Achieved with ASP2215 ≥80 mg Across All FLT3+ Subjects Disclosures Altman: BMS: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Spectrum: Other: Advisory board; Ariad: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Other: Participation in an advisory board December 2013. Off Label Use: ASP2215 is currently under investigation for the treatment of AML and is not yet approved.. Perl:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Asana Biosciences: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit/Daichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas US Pharma Inc.: Consultancy. Cortes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy. Levis:Arog: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Smith:Plexxikon: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Claxton:NCI: Research Funding; Medimmune, Inc: Research Funding; Ambit Biosciences Corp: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Gill:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Goldberg:Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celetor: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Jurcic:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Larson:Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lui:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Ritchie:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Sargent:Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Employment. Schiller:Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Strickland:Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Steering Committee and Advisory Board Participation; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board Particpation; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Other: Advisory Board Particpation. Wang:Immunogen: Research Funding. Stuart:Sunesis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma, Inc: Research Funding. Baldus:Novartis: Research Funding. Martinelli:MSD: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy. Bahceci:Astellas Pharma Global Development: Employment.

Abstract HCT entails substantial TRM justifying continued efforts to better risk stratify patients. Single institutional studies have suggested several clinically available biomarkers of CRP, ferritin and albumin influence TRM if not overall survival (OS). We sought to confirm the independent prognostic value of these biomarkers in a large multi-institutional cohort. The study population consisted of 784 adults with AML in remission (80%) or MDS (20%) undergoing unrelated donor HCT between 2008 and 2010 and available cryopreserved samples through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) repository. CRP and ferritin were centrally quantified by ELISA from cryopreserved plasma whereas albumin levels obtained from center reported data. Correlation studies for biomarkers required log transformation of CRP and ferritin to produce a normal distribution. Multivariate models were fitted separately for each biomarker applying protocol specified thresholds generated from the literature of CRP > 10 mg/L, ferritin > 2500 ng/mL, albumin < 3.5 g/dL on TRM. Further analysis explored optimal cutpoints for this cohort for all significant clinical variables for TRM. HCT characteristics included a median age of 50 (range 18-78) years, HCT-CI (co-morbidity index) 3 or more in 35%, single allele/antigen mismatch (7/8) in 23%, PB as stem cell source in 83%, and myeloablative conditioning in 72%. Biomarker data were available in 783, 781 and 695 cases for CRP, ferritin and albumin respectively. The median values and ranges for each biomarker were as follows: 5.0 mg/L (0.3 - 316) for CRP, 1148 ng/mL (51 – 14,298) for ferritin and 3.6 g/dL (0.6-5.3) for albumin. Log transformed CRP and ferritin showed a modest correlation (r=0.35, P<0.001), and log CRP was marginally associated with albumin (r=-0.12, P=0.002). HCT-CI had no correlation to CRP and albumin. Higher ferritin was associated with HCT-CI (P=0.014) and disease (P<.001). In the entire population, TRM and overall survival (OS) at 2 years were 23% and 54%, respectively. The table shows the independent association of each biomarker with TRM and OS. Ferritin had no association with these outcomes but only 12% had levels above 2500 by ELISA. The optimal cutpoints for TRM were defined as follows: CRP > 3.67 (HR=1.75, P=0.001); albumin < 3.4 (HR 1.70, P <0.001); and ferritin as a continuous variable (HR 1.30, P = 0.008). A risk score was created modeling optimal biomarker thresholds to predict TRM based on the following formula: risk score = 0.44633*I(CRP>3.67)+0.18330*ln(Ferritin)+0.44730*I(albumin<3.4), where “I” is an indicator function and represent 1 or 0 depending on the presence of the abnormal biomarker level in parenthesis. The risk score included adjustment for HCT-CI. The biomarkers did not influence the incidence of relapse or graft-versus-host disease with any of these models. Elevated CRP and ferritin and decreased albumin prior to HCT were associated with impaired transplant survival, primarily through higher TRM. Integration of a biomarker panel in clinical practice once validated can enhance risk-stratification, improve adjustment for comparative studies and point towards the design of biomarker driven trials. Abstract 422. Table: Multivariate analysis of TRM and OS for biomarkers, and biomarker panel risk score* Abnormal, N (%) Transplant related mortality Overall Survival Biomarker HR 95% CI P HR 95% CI P Protocol defined CRP >10 mg/L 184 (24) 1.52 1.11 – 2.07 0.008 1.22 0.98 – 1.53 0.072 Ferritin >2500 ng/mL 93 (12) 1.26 0.84 – 1.88 0.27 1.15 0.86 – 1.54 0.35 Albumin < 3.5 g/dL 290 (42) 1.48 1.10 – 2.0 0.010 1.39 1.13 – 1.72 0.002 Optimal threshold, combined model ** CRP >3.67 mg/L 497 (64) 1.56 1.11 – 2.19 0.010 1.24 1.00 – 1.55 0.054 Log(Ferritin), linear n/a 1.20 0.99 – 1.46 0.07 1.20 1.04 – 1.38 0.010 <3.4 g/dL 203 (29.5) 1.58 1.16 – 2.15 0.004 1.37 1.10 – 1.72 0.005 Biomarker Score ** N Low (<1.5) 200 1.0 - - 1.0 Intermediate (1.5-2.0) 331 1.66 1.10-2.49 0.015 1.38 1.06-1.80 0.017 High (>2.0) 159 2.72 1.77-4.19 <0.001 2.01 1.51-2.70 <0.001 * biomarkers adjusted for significant covariates of BMI, disease, mismatch, and CMV serostatus and stratified on conditioning regimen ** combined model includes all biomarkers and HCT-CI Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has a high relapse rate in adults. While the biology of the patient may be responsible for the marked difference in survival seen in comparison to children, variable adherence to complex chemotherapy regimens may also play a role. However, there is very little understanding about the risk factors for delays in therapy and the impact of delays on survival. To study delays in newly diagnosed adult ALL patients, we conducted an observational study using data from ECOG 2993/ MRC_UKALLXII (Rowe, Blood 2005). We analyzed Ph- patients who started intensification after documented complete remission (CR). A long delay (LD) was defined as > 98 days from start of induction to start of intensification (IS), which was >2 weeks delay beyond the 84 days recommended per protocol. A Very Long Delay (VLD) was defined as a >4 weeks delay. Of 2109 patients enrolled, 1247 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of note, 435 Ph- patients who achieved CR after induction but did not proceed to intensification were excluded. In univariate analysis, female sex (p<0.001), Black race (p=0.01), and older age (p<0.001) were associated with increased odds of LD. During induction presence of infection (p=0.01), dose reductions (p=0.001), duration of neutropenia (p=0.007), thrombocytopenia (p<0.001), and hospitalization duration (p<0.001) were associated with LD. In multivariate regression, age, female sex, dose reduction, Black race, and hospitalization duration were significantly associated with LD and VLD (Table I). At 2 years after diagnosis, 801/1247 (64.2%) patients were alive. Of the surviving patients, 181 (22.5%) had VLD, and 620 (77.4%), had delay <4 weeks, p=0.073. Of the alloHCT patients, 333 were alive: 57/333 (17%) had VLD, and 276/333 (83%) had been delayed <4 weeks (p=0.036). As of July 2014, 687/1247 (55%) patients have died, with a median time to death from start of intensification of 13.3 months (range 0.8-231). Survival analysis was stratified by post-remission therapy, with living patients censored at date last seen. Patients who received myeloablative allogeneic HCT (allo HCT) had poorer overall survival from start of intensification (OS-IS) and event free survival (EFS-IS) after LD or VLD. While OS-IS and EFS-IS were significantly worse for alloHCT patients after VLD (p=0.02 and p=0.03) respectively, survival was not worse for non-transplant patients after VLD (p=0.24 and p=0.10) (Figure I). In a multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for other high-risk disease features (age, cell lineage, and white cell count at diagnosis), patients who underwent allo HCT had significantly worse OS-IS (HR 1.4, p=0.02) and EFS-IS (HR 1.4, p=0.02) after experiencing VLD compared to alloHCT patients who experienced <4 weeks delay. When evaluating OS and EFS from diagnosis, VLD was still associated with poorer OS (HR 1.34, p=0.04) and EFS (HR 1.34, p=0.03). There was no difference in OS or EFS in patients who received non-transplant post-remission therapy based on delay. In a comprehensive analysis of the largest adult ALL study ever reported, we identified significant risk factors predictive of LD and VLD (>2 and >4 weeks beyond mandatory rest period). Our findings highlighted that patients were delayed because of chemotherapy toxicity and also identified healthcare disparities. VLD was associated with poorer OS and EFS in patients undergoing alloHCT, but not in patients undergoing non-transplant post remission therapy. Further studies are planned to prospectively identify patient barriers to on-schedule treatment with a goal of earlier intervention. The ability to better predict and intervene on risk factors for delay can improve adherence to protocol and optimize long-term survival. Table I: Multivariate Regression for LD and VLD Risk Factors Variable Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval p-value Days in the hospital Phase I Induction 1.01 1.00-1.02 0.04 Duration of Thrombocytopenia, Phase I 1.02 1.01-1.03 0.001 Age by Decade 1.2 1.08-1.31 <0.001 Reduced Dose in Induction 1.54 1.08-2.22 0.019 Sex, Female 1.56 1.22-2.0 <0.001 Race, Black 3.4 1.41-7.96 0.006 Figure 1 Figure 1. p=0.023 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background : Momelotinib (a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor) induces both anemia and spleen response in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) (Leukemia 2013;27:1322). The favorable effect on anemia was a distinguishing feature for momelotinib, compared to other JAK inhibitors, but the drug was also associated with treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (TE-PN). We examined the natural history and risk factors of momelotinib-associated peripheral neuropathy. Methods : The study patients constitute part of a larger phase-1/2 clinical trial (CCL09101; NCT00935987) using momelotinib for the treatment MF. Toxicity grading was according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.03. Momelotinib capsules (as opposed to the newer tablet formulation used in the currently ongoing phase-3 study) were used in the current study, which represents a sponsor-independent analysis. Results : 100 patients with MF (median age 66 years; 58% males) were treated at the Mayo Clinic between 11/20/09 and 11/10/10. DIPSS-plus (JCO. 2011;29:392) risk distribution was 63% high, 36% intermediate-2 and 1% intermediate-1. 75% of the patients harbored JAK2V617F and 50% abnormal karyotype. Previous treatment included other JAK inhibitors in 21 patients, thalidomide/lenalidomide/pomalidomide in 31 and hydroxyurea or other cytoreductive agents in 55. History of diabetes was documented in 7% of the patients at baseline and 14 (14%) of the patients had symptoms of PN before starting treatment with momelotinib, all of which were grade-1. Momelotinib was initiated at 100 mg/day in 3 patients, 150 mg/day in 21, 150 mg twice-daily in 20, 200 mg/day in 3, 300 mg/day in 47 and 400 mg/day in 6. The maximum momelotinib dose was 150 mg/day in 6 patients, 150 mg twice-daily in 20, 300 mg/day in 68 and 400 mg/day in 6. Treatment duration was <6 months in 12 patients, 6-12 months in 22, 12-24 months in 19 and >24 months in 47. Median follow-up after the institution of protocol drug therapy was 35 months (range 1-49). During this period, TE-PN was documented in 44 (44%) patients; of these, 42 were in patients without baseline neuropathy. TE-PN involved the feet only in 28 patients, hands only in one patient and both feet and hands in 15 patients. Median (range) for the time of onset of TE-PN was 32 weeks (1-132) and duration of TE-PN 11 months (0-40). All 42 newly-emergent PN were grade-1 sensory while the two patients with grade-1 baseline PN progressed to grade-2. Formal neurological evaluation, which was performed in 9 patients, mostly showed length-dependent sensory-motor large and small fiber neuropathy with axonal features. TE-PN resulted in drug discontinuation in 7 patients and reduction in drug dose in 28 patients. Improvement after drug dose reduction was documented in only one patient and in none of those with drug discontinuation. Progression to grade-2 PN was documented in 3 patients. TE- PN was significantly associated with clinical improvement (CI) with 54% incidence in responders vs 30% in non-responders (p=0.02); however, longer treatment duration was also associated with higher prevalence of TE-PN (p=0.03). In univariate analysis, patients with TE-PN lived longer than those without TE-PN (p=0.048); however, significance was lost during multivariable analysis that included either achievement of CI or treatment duration. Neither the initial (p=0.53) nor maximum (p=0.37) momelotinib dose was correlated with TE-PN, which was also not influenced by JAK2V617F (p>0.99), karyotype (p=0.26), history of diabetes (p=0.39) or previous treatment with JAK inhibitor therapy (p=0.7), thalidomide (p=0.24), lenalidomide (p=0.59), pomalidomide (p=0.63) or hydroxyurea (p=0.56). There were no correlations between TE-PN and age (p=0.37), sex (p=0.37), type of MF (p=0.98), DIPSS-plus score (p=0.07), baseline transfusion dependency (p=0.15), constitutional symptoms (p=0.83) or spleen size (p=0.53). TE-PN did not correlate with hematologic (p=0.14) or extramedullary toxicity other than PN (p=0.41) or lipase/amylase abnormalities (p=0.35). Conclusions : Momelotinib-associated neuropathy in MF might not be reversible in the majority of cases but also does not appear to be progressive. We were not able to identify risk factors for TE-PN, other than duration of treatment, which also explains its apparent association with response/survival. We are currently looking into possible correlations with serum thiamine levels. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background:Morphologic complete remission (CR) is the gold standard for assessing response in acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) and CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) are associated with inferior overall survival post induction therapy (Walter et al, JCO 2010 and Chen et al, JCO 2015). Furthermore, residual cytogenetic disease is associated with a higher relapse compared with patients with cytogenetic CR (CCR; Chen et al, JCO 2011). There is a paucity of literature regarding the impact of CRi, CRp and CCR prior to allogeneic transplantation. Aim:To study the impact of CRi, CRp and CCR and their impact on relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS) in reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation (RIC-SCT). Methods:After due IRB approval, patients (pts) with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received RIC-SCT at our institution between 2008-2014 were identified. All clinical and pathologic data were retrospectively extracted. CR, CRi, CRp and CCR were defined in accordance to the international working group definition. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared and Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, respectively. Survival estimates were calculated using the kaplan-meier and log-rank test. RI was estimated on a competing event analysis using Grey's model. Cox proportional regression was used to compute hazard ratios (HR). Results: A. Baseline characteristics: A total of 134 patients were identified. A total of 70 (52%) were in CR, 40 (30%) in CRi and 24 (18%) in CRp. 129 patients had evaluable cytogenetic data pre-SCT; 81 (63%) were in CCR and 48 (37%) had persistent cytogenetic disease. Baseline patient, disease and transplant characteristics stratified by peripheral count recovery pre-SCT are shown (Table 1). Significantly more patients in CR had higher KPS, higher proportion AML diagnosis, more likely to be in first complete remission (CR1), higher rate of cytogenetic CR and a higher proportion of minor ABO mismatched donor. No other significant variables were identified between the three cohorts. B. Transplant outcomes: Median follow up of the entire cohort was 41.9 months and the 2-yr OS, RI and NRM were 61.7%, 25.7% and 21.9%. Patients in CR, CRi and CRp had a similar 2-year rates of RI (26.3%, 18.4% and 28.9%, respectively; p = 0.66), 2-year NRM (20.5%, 38.8% and 22.1%, respectively; p = 0.18) and 2-year OS (61.8%, 55.1% and 58.6%, respectively; p = 0.82). RI was significantly lower for patients in CCR pre-SCT with HR 0.25 (95% CI 0.11-0.51 p = 0.0001) without a difference in overall survival HR 0.68 (0.41-1.15; p = 0.14). However, we observed a similar RI in CR, CRi and CRp patients who had persistent cytogenetic disease pre-SCT (p = 0.55). The outcome remained similar between strata after excluding MDS patients (data not shown). Conclusion: We observed equivalent post-transplant outcomes between CR, CRi and CRp despite the presence of persistent cytogenetic disease. This suggests that RIC SCT had a role in mitigating the negative prognosis associated incomplete hematologic recovery. These findings have implications as physicians may not need to postpone SCT to await count recovery. This important question should be further validated in a larger cohort of patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3315 The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial, E2902, was a randomized phase III intergroup trial of the Farnesyl Transferase Inhibitor, R115777(Tipifarnib), as maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients (pts) with AML in remission after requiring salvage therapy (primary induction failure or second or subsequent remission) or over the age of 60 in first remission were eligible. A confirmatory bone marrow exam was required within 2 weeks prior to randomization. Pts were eligible if they were in a complete remission (CR) or morphologic remission (MR). Consolidation or post remission therapy prior to enrollment was allowed but not required. Pts who had received an allogeneic transplant in this remission were ineligible. Adequate blood counts (absolute neutrophil count >= 1000/mm3 and platelet count >=50,000/mm3), and normal renal, and hepatic function were required within 2 weeks of randomization. Pts were randomized to either receive tipifarnib twice daily (BID) or to observation. The main objective of this study was to compare disease free survival in the two groups. Although the study has completed accrual, an insufficient number of events have been recorded at this point to allow for evaluation of the survival data. However, toxicity data are now available. Between August 2004 and December 2009, 144 pts were accrued to the study. The median age of the pts is 70 (range 28–86). Seventy-three pts (51%) were male and 135 pts (94%) were white. Seventy-three pts were enrolled onto the treatment arm (Arm A) and 71 pts were enrolled onto the observation arm (Arm B). When the study was initially opened, pts on Arm A were treated with tipifarnib at a dose of 400 mg BID with dose reductions and interruptions defined per protocol for toxicity. After the first planned interim analysis, based on toxicity data, the ECOG Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the starting dose be decreased to 300 mg BID. The majority of pts enrolled on the study were in first CR (CR1) (Table 2). Among the 30 pts treated with the initial 400 mg BID dose, 23 pts (77%) had their dose held or reduced to a lower dose in the subsequent treatment cycles. For the 41 pts whose initial dose was 300 mg BID, 61% required either dose modification (n=19) or discontinued (n=6) due to toxicity. Table 1: Baseline characteristics Arm A 400 mg BID n=31 Arm A 300 mg BID n=42 Arm B Observation n=71 CR1 16 (52%) 34 (81%) 47 (66%) >CR1 10 (32%) 8 (19%) 16 (23%) Unknown 5 (16%) 16 (11%) Table 2: Toxicity Toxicity Type Arm A 400 mg n=31 Arm A 300 mg n=41 Arm B Observation n=69 Grade (n) Grade (n) Grade (n) 3 4 3 4 3 4 Hemoglobin 1 1 6 1 1 2 Leukocytes 2 4 16 4 3 Neutrophils 5 8 3 7 1 Platelets 4 10 11 11 1 5 Cardiac-ischemia 1 Fatigue 1 Diarrhea 1 Nausea 1 Febrile neutropenia 1 1 Infection w/gr 3-4 neutrophils (ANC) 1 Infection Gr0-2 ANC 1 1 3 GGT 1 Hypokalemia 1 Confusion 1 Agitation 1 Neuropathy-sensory 1 Back pain 1 Worst degree Non Hematologic 4 2 9 1 1 While non-hematologic toxicity was acceptable, significant hematologic toxicity was seen in pts treated at an initial dose of either 400 mg or 300 mg BID (Table 2). Of note, hematologic toxicity was also seen on the observation arm although less frequently than with both treatment doses. Non-hematologic toxicity was much less frequent overall and there were no significant non-hematologic toxicities in the observation arm. Reduction of the initial dose did not ameliorate either the hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity seen on the treatment arms. There was however no fatal toxicity at either dose level. Results of the randomization with respect to efficacy remain essential to determining the utility of this agent as maintenance therapy in AML. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 676 Although maintenance therapy has been shown to be of value in Acute Lymphoid Leukemia, its role in non M3 Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) has never been proven. Studies have been limited by issues related to efficacy as well as toxicity. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial, E2902, was a randomized phase III intergroup trial of the Farnesyl Transferase Inhibitor, R115777(tipifarnib), as maintenance therapy for AML. Patients(pts) with AML in remission after requiring salvage therapy or over age 60 in first remission were eligible. A confirmatory bone marrow exam prior to randomization was required to demonstrate a complete remission (CR) or morphologic remission(MR). Absolute neutrophil count >1000/mm3, platelet count >=50,000/mm3, normal renal, and hepatic function were required. Consolidation or post remission therapy prior to enrollment was allowed but not required. Pts who had received an allogeneic transplant in this remission were ineligible. Pts were randomized to either receive tipifarnib twice daily (BID) or to observation. The main objective of the study was to compare disease free survival (DFS) in the two groups. The study was designed with 84% power to detect a 76% relative increase in the median DFS from 3.4 months to 6 months (mo). The final analysis was to take place when 111 events had taken place. Between August 2004 and December 2009, 144 pts were accrued to the study. The median age of the pts is 70 (range 28–86). The majority of pts enrolled on the study (67%) were in first CR. Seventy three pts were enrolled onto the treatment arm and 71 pts were enrolled onto the observation arm. When the study initially opened, tipifarnib was given at a dose of 400 mg BID with dose reductions and interruptions as per protocol for toxicity. Based on the first interim analysis, toxicity data, the starting dose was decreased to 300 mg BID. Significant hematologic toxicity was seen in patients at both 300 and 400 mg. The majority of patients experienced >=grade 3 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. There was 1 episode of febrile neutropenia. Non-hematologic toxicities were minimal. At the time of 110 events (90 relapses and 100 deaths), the final analysis of the study was conducted. The relapse rate was 60.3% on tipifarnib vs 64.8% for observation. Median DFS and 10 and 12 mo DFS and overall survival (OS) are documented in Table 1. Kaplan Meier curves for DFS and OS are presented. As the difference in median DFS is not considered significant (9.3 vs 5.8 mo, log rank p value 0.21), in July 2011, pts and physicians were informed of the lack of evidence of benefit so they could decide if they wished to continue drug. However an unplanned analysis of the data demonstrates a statistically significant improvement in OS at 10 months in pts who received tipifarnib. (70% vs 48%, p=0.05). While the benefit is subsequently lost, given a median survival measured in months, an increase in the number of pts alive and/or without disease at 10–12 mo is of value, particularly in the absence of noteworthy toxicity. Future studies are needed to better determine the role of maintenance therapy in pts with AML. Tipifarnib Observation Median DFS (months) 9.3 (95% CI:5.7, 13.3) 5.8 (95% CI: 3.7, 8.8) p=0.21 OS rate at 10 mo 70% (95% CI: 58%, 79%) 48% (95% CI: 36%, 60%) p=0.05 OS rate at 12 mo 59% (95% CI: 47%, 70%) 44% (95% CI: 32%, 55%) p=0.07 DFS rate at 10 mo 47% (95% CI: 36%, 59%) 32% (95% CI: 21%, 43%) p=0.07 DFS rate at 12 mo 39% (95% CI: 28%, 50%) 30% (95% CI: 20%, 41%) p=0.26 Disclosures: Larson: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 600 Background: Both MM and AL are plasma cell neoplasms. The underlying clone in both diseases appears to be different not only in terms of “tumor burden” but also in terms of their underlying biology. The overall “fitness” of patients with these two diseases is also different, with AL patients having more major organ dysfunction. Therapy for both diseases is directed at killing the underlying clone. ASCT is one method of reducing the clone size and thereby improving overall survival. Post-ASCT outcomes between the two diseases have never been formally compared. Methods: We compiled all patients with a diagnosis of AL or MM who received ASCT at the Mayo Clinic Rochester between June 1996 and January 2011 to compare outcomes. Patients were retrieved from two prospectively maintained clinical transplant data bases (M.A.G.). Differences between groups were compared using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests. Survival was calculated using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences between survival outcomes were calculated by log rank. Cox regression modeling was done to determine how non-disease specific variables—i.e. age, time period of ASCT, number of prior regimens, time to ASCT from diagnosis and acquisition of complete response (CR)—affected outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP (SAS, NC) software. This study was approved by the Mayo IRB. Results: The data set was comprised of 454 patients with AL and 1116 patients with MM. There were significant differences between the two respective groups of patients in terms of number of prior regimens (0 vs 1, p<0.0001), time to ASCT (3.95 months vs 7.20 months, p<0.0001), intensity of conditioning regimen (non-attenuated in 69.4% vs 89.1%, p<0.0001), serum creatinine (1.1mg/dl vs 1mg/dl p<0.0001), creatinine clearance (72.5 ml/minute vs 80 ml/minute p<0.0001), albumin (2.61g/dl vs 3.50g/dl, p<0.0001) CRP (0.40mg/dl vs 0.63mg/dl p<0.0001), LDH (196 U/l vs 182U/l, p<0.0001), and bone marrow plasmacytosis at transplant (6% vs 9%, p<0.0001). Hematologic response rates were also significantly different between the groups, with higher overall hematologic response in the MM group (90.9% vs 79.5%, p<0.0001) and higher complete response (CR) rates (40.1% vs 29.4%, p<0.0001) in the AL group. With a median follow-up of surviving patients of 68 months, the respective median overall survival (OS) for the AL and MM patients was 113 and 59.5 months, p<0.0001. Notably, the 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 91.4% and 57.7%, respectively, p<0.0001. If only those patients who were transplanted within 1 year of their diagnosis are included in the analysis, the respective 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 90.4% and 61.3%, p<0.0001 (Figure 1). To correct for imbalances in non-disease specific parameters, 3 multivariate analyses were performed using: 1) all patients; 2) only those achieving CR; and 3) only those who achieved a CR and were transplanted within 12 months of their diagnosis (Table 1). Among those patients achieving CR, MM patients had nearly a 4-fold risk of death as compared to patients with AL. Conclusion: Although ASCT is not available to all patients with either AL or MM, there is a significant difference in outcomes based on the diagnosis. Patients with AL who undergo ASCT enjoy a superior survival as compared MM patients undergoing the same procedure. This difference is most notable among those patients who achieve CR suggesting very different plasma cell biology between the two diseases. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 663 Introduction: The biology and outcome of adult t(4;11) ALL are poorly understood. We report here 85 patients treated uniformly on the prospective trial (UKALL XII/ECOG 2993) with the aim of describing outcome and identifying prognostic factors and optimal therapy. Patients and methods: 1914 adult patients (≥15 years) with ALL were registered on the UKALL XII/ECOG 2993 study in the UK or United States from 1993–2006. Cell lineage was classified by local institutions (UK) or central immunophenotyping (ECOG). Cytogenetic, FISH and RT-PCR analyses of pre-treatment samples were either performed locally and reviewed centrally or performed centrally. Results: The 85 patients with t(4;11) were predominantly female (68%). Median age was 38 years (vs 32 years in the non-t(4;11) group) and 42% were >40 years. They had high white cell counts with 87% >30 and 66% >100 × 109/l (vs 7% in the non-t(4;11) group). Among the 27 ECOG patients, 22 (81%) had the typical pro-B (CD10NEG) immunophenotype, compared to 12% in t(4;11)NEG patients. Aside from expression of myeloid antigens, CD65 and CD15, which is part of the pro-B immunophenotype, t(4;11)POS lymphoblasts showed a unique combination of stem cell antigens: lower expression of CD34 and CD105, but higher expression of CD133 and CD135 compared to t(4;11)NEG blasts (p<0.0001). Additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACAs) were present in 31/75 (41%) evaluable cases. Most common ACAs were gain of chromosome X (n=13), i(7)(q10) (n=7) and abnormalities of 1p (n=4). Deletion of IKZF1 or CDKN2A/B was present in 18% of patients tested; neither affected outcome. Seventy seven evaluable patients attained complete remission (CR1, 93%). Treatment received in CR1 was either chemotherapy (n=46, 59%) or a myeloablative allograft (N=31, 16 matched sibling, 1 mismatched related and 15 unrelated donors UD). CR1 treatment received strongly correlated with age with the number of allografts decreasing with age: <25 years 12/17 patients; 24–39 years 13/29 and 40+ years 6/31 (p=0.001). At median follow up of 5.4 years, five year EFS was 34% (24–44%, 95% CI) and OS 35% (25–45%). Five year relapse rate was 45% (33–58%); only 1 relapsed patient survived, nearly all events had occurred by 2 years. The 46 patients who received chemotherapy had 24% survival and 69% relapsed but 5 year OS of patients who had sibling or UD allografts was 56% and 67% respectively (p=0.013) and only 3/31 relapsed. An allograft improved OS, EFS and relapse in the <40 year group. Age was also strongly associated with outcome (figure). Conclusions: This is the largest series of adult t(4;11) ALL patients treated uniformly. Allograft in CR1 from sibling or unrelated donors is an effective strategy. Current prospective trials of intensive pediatric-type regimens in younger patients will determine if CR1 allografts are necessary. Older patients have a poor outcome and different strategies such as reduced intensity allografting should be explored. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.