Michaelis, Laura C.

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

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P < .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P < .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Abstract Background: Therapies for myelofibrosis (MF) are limited and most are palliative. The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces spleen size and MF-related symptoms and improves survival, but can be limited by dose-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, nearly half of ruxolitinib responders relapse within 5 years. PI3Kd is highly expressed in MF patient samples, independent of ruxolitinib pre-exposure. In JAK2-mutated cell lines, inhibition of PI3K/AKT signaling reduced proliferation and clonogenic potential. The once daily, next generation PI3Kd inhibitor TGR-1202 inhibited PI3K/AKT signaling and led to apoptosis in leukemia and lymphoma cell lines and was well-tolerated in clinical studies, with a toxicity profile distinct from that of ruxolitinib and other PI3Kd inhibitors. We hypothesized that adding TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib could resensitize or augment the response of MF patients with lost or suboptimal response to single-agent ruxolitinib. Objective: To assess safety of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib in MF patients Secondary Objectives: Hematologic response, symptom assessment Methods: MF patients who had sub-optimal responses to ruxolitinib continued their highest tolerated dose of ruxolitinib without change for ≥ 8 weeks, and were assigned to escalating doses of TGR-1202 in a standard 3+3 algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Efficacy was assessed according to IWG-MRT consensus response criteria. Symptoms were assessed by the MPN symptom assessment form total symptom score (TSS). All patients received Pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis after cycle 1. Results: Eleven MF patients were enrolled and received 400 mg (n=3), 800 mg (n=6), or 600 mg TGR-1202 (n=2) daily. Nine were evaluable for response. Median age was 66y, 73% were male. All had ECOG PS 0-1. Five patients had mutations in JAK2, 4 in CALR, and 3 in MPL; these were mutually exclusive with exception of 1 patient with CALR and MPL mutations (Table 1). Median number of cycles of TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib treatment was 5 (1-13). Grade 2 anemia was the most common AE (Table 2). Two patients had asymptomatic Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase that persisted after drug was held, meeting criteria for dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) in 2 separate cohorts (TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 15mg BID and TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 10mg BID). Both patients had peak plasma TGR-1202 concentrations 1.5-2x higher than the other patients receiving 800mg TGR-1202, although steady-state levels were equivalent. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib was not established. Two patients went off-study due to AEs, and 3 due to progressive disease. One of 9 evaluable patients achieved complete remission and 7 had stable disease. Seven of the 9 evaluable patients had improvement in hematologic parameters and 8 had reduced MF symptoms with a median 33% decrease in TSS (Fig. 1). Conclusions: TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Pharmacokinetic data were consistent with single-agent TGR-1202 (unpublished data), indicating that ruxolitinib does not alter absorption or metabolism of TGR-1202. Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase were considered DLTs, per protocol. Although the clinical significance of these asymptomatic laboratory findings is not clear, the protocol was amended to further assay these labs and to exclude concomitant medications with the potential to increase amylase/lipase. Importantly, no grade ≥3 hepatotoxicity, colitis, or thrombocytopenia was seen and no MTD was found. Although only one patient achieved CR, 89% demonstrated clinical benefit with the addition of TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib, supporting further exploration of this combination. Disclosures Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Miskin:TG Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cavers:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sportelli:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Cellgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mesa:CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Savona:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Outcomes of patients with AML have remained poor despite the availability of cytotoxic chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and targeted therapies. HMAs, such as azacitidine, in combination with Bcl-2 inhibitors like venetoclax have demonstrated response rates of 67% in newly diagnosed AML and 21% in relapsed/refractory (RR) AML (DiNardo et al. Blood 2019 and Am J Hematol 2018). While the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax is efficacious in AML, preclinical studies indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of MCL-1, an anti-apoptotic protein (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that has demonstrated activity against AML (Swords RT et al. Blood. 2010). Pevonedistat induces NOXA, a pro-apoptotic protein leading to neutralization of MCL-1 inducing apoptosis (Wang et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017). Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated synergistic effect (Knoor KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we hypothesize that the addition of pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax would enhance the therapeutic efficacy by overcoming resistance to apoptosis. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-initiated phase Ib study evaluating the safety of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented AML (de novo, secondary or therapy-related), ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function are eligible for the study. Major exclusion criteria are patients with isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, acute promyelocytic leukemia, liver cirrhosis and severe liver impairment. While the dose escalation phase is available only for patients with RR-AML, the dose expansion phase can also include newly diagnosed AML patients who are ineligible for intensive induction. The study is planned to be conducted at Medical College of Wisconsin, Mayo Clinic and University of Pennsylvania. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. The study will follow 3+3 design with dose escalation (Arms A and B), de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (arms Z and Y) and dose expansion phase (figure 1). Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with dose level 0. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 1 cycle. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experiences a DLT. A minimum of 9 and a maximum of 24 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase and 6 patients for the dose expansion phase. Response rate, duration of response and exploratory endpoints will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier method will be used to determine survival. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Michaelis:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Abedin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn Healthcare: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Runaas:Agios: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicine: Honoraria. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background: Less-fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplasia (MDS) age 60 years and older constitute the majority of patients with AML/MDS but are not well represented in clinical trials. DNA-methyltransferase inhibitor (HMA) monotherapy (e.g. azacitidine or decitabine) is usual. Overall response rates (ORR) are low; improvement in overall survival relative to supportive care alone is modest, highlighting the critical need for efficient identification of effective novel therapies. Blocking programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) signaling with nivolumab may increase the sensitivity of AML cells to azacitidine and improve outcomes and is the focus of one arm of the S1612 trial. Signaling through PD-1 contributes to tumor immune evasion and growth in AML [Chen, Cancer Biol Ther 2008]. Increased expression of PD-1 (~40% of AML), is associated with poor HMA response [Ørskov, Oncotarget 2015]. A single center azacitidine/nivolumab non-randomized phase II study in relapsed/refractory AML reported ORR of 33% (23/70), including 22% complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery [Daver, Cancer Discovery 2018]. About 25% of the patients developed grade 2-4 immune toxicities; nivolumab immune-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in nearly 1 in 7 patients. Study Design and Methods:The S1612 trial [NCT03092674] is a platform randomized phase II/III clinical trial with a common azacitidine control arm (CA) and two currently active experimental arms (EA). Therapy is intended for community setting: azacitidine/nivolumab; and azacitidine/midostaurin. The innovative design utilizes a phase II go/no-go decision comparing each EA with the CA independently when there are 100 pts/arm and 104 deaths on the EA and CA combined. EAs will proceed to phase III if the null hypothesis (HR=1) is rejected in favor of the EA (15% one-sided alpha). When the two currently active EAs complete phase II accrual, a third EA (decitabine/cytarabine) will open. The CA stays open the entire length of the trial and only concurrently randomized patients will be compared across arms. If an EA proceeds to phase III, 200 additional patients (300 total patients) will be accrued. Phase III analysis occurs 1.5 years after accrual or at 414 deaths (in the respective EA and CA), whichever comes first. The phase III tests the null hypothesis with 4.5% two-sided alpha and 83% power for each EA to detect an improvement in median OS from 10.4 to 15.6 months. Eligible pts are age ≥60 years, newly diagnosed AML with ≥ 20% blasts or myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS-EB-2); deemed by the treating physician unfit for standard cytotoxic chemotherapy; and no prior HMA permitted. Trial in Progress Issues:Between December 2017 and October 2018, 113 patients were screened and 78 randomized to study treatment (median/range age: 75/61-86 years; median/range performance status 1/0-3). Two concerns challenged this trial: 1) required administration of 7-day azacitidine at the enrolling sites created a burden for this population and 2) an early excess grade 5 toxicity signal in the azacitidine/nivolumab arm compared with the control arm. Without a control comparison, this safety signal likely would have been missed. Strategies to address these concerns were developed by the study team. Discussion with the sponsor and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focused on allowance of standard-of-care protocol-directed azacitidine administration in the patient's primary care doctor's office rather than at the oncology center. Because of the toxicity concern, the trial was placed on partial clinical hold for further evaluation and possible nivolumab-arm eligibility changes, along with new surveillance and pre-emptive action including prompt steroid initiation for suspected immune-related toxicities. The S1612 trial highlights special concerns when enrolling vulnerable populations onto leukemia clinical trials, and the importance of collaborative strategies including with the FDA to preserve clinical trial integrity for patient benefit. It also demonstrates the efficiency this novel platform design has for therapeutic investigation and, importantly, very early identification of serious toxicity. Updates on accrual and resolution and of these issues will be presented. Disclosures Hay: Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Assouline:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walter:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Radich:TwinStrand Biosciences: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: RNA Sequencing. Othus:Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Glycomimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Erba:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off label experimental combination therapies in newly diagnosed AML/MDS will be discussed, including nivolumab and azacitidine.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Consideration of HCT is recommended by international working groups and national guidelines for MF patients (pts) age <70 with intermediate-1 with adverse indicators, intermediate-2 or high-risk disease by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) for MF- a recommendation made in the absence of clear data indicating the optimal timing of HCT for MF. In this large multicenter retrospective study, we analyze overall survival in MF pts treated with and without HCT. Methods: Disease characteristics, treatments, and outcome data from MF pts receiving non-transplant therapy at 14 US academic medical centers between 2000-2014 were retrospectively collected. MF pts who underwent HCT were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The Cox proportional hazards model was used. The reference time point (time zero) was time of referral for the non-transplant (non-HCT) arm and the time of transplant for the HCT arm. The main effect variable (HCT vs. non-HCT) violated the proportionality assumption where comparing to non-HCT, mortality was higher with HCT in early time period from time zero but then was lower in late time period; therefore, the comparison is presented as early time period and late time period. The Cox model identified 14 months from time zero as the ideal cut point to define early and late time periods. The proportionality assumption is satisfied within each of these two periods. Results: A total of 1377 and 551 pts were included in the non-HCT and HCT arms, respectively (Table 1). In the overall cohort, survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in early time period (relative risk [RR]: 0.34, P< .0001, Figure 1D), but in late time period survival was lower with non-HCT vs. HCT (RR: 2.37, P< 0.001) (Table 2). In the DIPSS low-risk MF group, while survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.19, P=0.007, Figure 1A), survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period, but the latter did not reach statistical significance (RR: 1.45, P=0.39). In the DIPSS intermediate-1 risk group, a survival advantage was present with non-HCT treatments vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.27, P < .0001, Figure 1B), however survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 3.13, P < .0001). Similarly, in those with DIPSS intermediate-2 and high-risk MF, survival advantage was observed with non-HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.41, P< .0001, Figure IC), but survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 2.82, P < .0001). Conclusion: A long-term survival advantage with transplant was observed for pts with intermediate-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of potential early mortality. The magnitude of benefit increased as DIPSS risk score increased. Although this retrospective study has limitations, the results have an impact on clinical practice by suggesting that transplantation could be considered earlier in the disease course and supports the recommendation for consideration of HCT in the setting of intermediate-1 risk MF. Disclosures Gowin: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy.