Citations

7053 Background: Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 ( IDH1) occur in ̃3% of patients (pts) with MDS and are associated with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (IVO), an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) enzyme, is FDA approved for m IDH1 R/R AML and m IDH1 newly diagnosed AML in pts ≥75 years old or with comorbidities precluding the use of intensive induction chemotherapy. In the first-in-human study of IVO in pts with m IDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839), 12 pts with R/R MDS received IVO 500 mg once daily (QD). Based on encouraging safety and efficacy findings, including an investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) of 75%, with median response duration of 21.4 months, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to IVO in m IDH1 R/R MDS and the study was amended to enroll additional pts. We report updated results. Methods: This substudy of the single-arm, open-label study of IVO evaluated pts with R/R MDS after documented failure or relapse following prior standard therapy including intensive chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents. Other key eligibility criteria included: high disease burden based on IPSS or IPSS-R risk at baseline; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2; and no prior IDH1 inhibitor therapy. Pts received IVO 500 mg QD orally on days 1–28 of 28-day cycles. Results: As of 08May2021, 16 pts with R/R MDS were enrolled: 5 (31%) pts remained on treatment and free from leukemic transformation; 11 (69%) had discontinued including 6 for disease progression, 1 for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and 1 owing to an adverse event (AE) of sepsis (the only fatal AE; reported by investigator as not related to IVO). AEs are summarized in the Table. 2 pts each experienced differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and QTcF prolongation (grade 1 and 2). 7/16 pts achieved complete response (CR, 44%; 95% CI, 20%, 70%), 1 achieved partial response (6%), and 5 achieved marrow CR (31%), resulting in an ORR of 81% (95% CI, 54%, 96%). Hematologic improvement in ≥1 lineages was achieved by 11/16 (69%) pts. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of duration of CR+PR at 12 months was 60%. 3 pts experienced CRs lasting 24.0, 63.7, and 65.4 months, which remain ongoing. 5/7 pts (71%) who were transfusion dependent at baseline became independent of red blood cell or platelet transfusions for 56 or more consecutive days on treatment. Additional translational data are being analyzed. Conclusions: In pts with m IDH1 R/R MDS, IVO monotherapy was tolerable and induced durable remissions and transfusion independence. These findings support the role of IVO as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for pts with m IDH1 R/R MDS. Clinical trial information: NCT02074839. [Table: see text]

7015 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, is the current standard of care for patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF) that improves splenomegaly and disease symptoms with limited impact on disease biology. Many pts lose response over time, highlighting an unmet need for novel therapies. Navitoclax (NAV) is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of BCL-XL and BCL-2 that has a synergistic effect when used in combination with JAK inhibitors to enhance apoptosis. This ongoing, open-label, multicenter, phase 2 trial (NCT03222609) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of NAV with/without RUX in pts with MF. Here, we report results from JAK inhibitor-naïve pts treated with NAV+RUX. Methods: Enrolled pts had primary or secondary MF with splenomegaly (DIPSS ≥INT-1) and did not receive prior JAK-2 therapy or bromodomain and extraterminal motif (BET) inhibitors. Pts initiated NAV at 100 mg QD or 200 mg QD if baseline (BL) platelet count was ≤150 × 109/L or >150 × 109/L, respectively. RUX was given BID with starting dose based on BL platelet count per local label. The primary endpoint was spleen volume reduction of ≥35% (SVR35) from BL at wk 24. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50), bone marrow (BM) fibrosis reduction, and anemia response. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study. Results: As of Oct 04, 2021, 32 pts received NAV+RUX. Median duration of f/u was 6.1 (range, 1.9 ─ 18.6) mos. 28 (88%) pts received NAV 200 mg and 4 (13%) received 100 mg OD. Median age was 69 (44 ─ 83) yrs, and median spleen volume was 1889.08 cm3 (645.6 ─ 7339.6). Median NAV and RUX exposures were 24.1 (5.1 ─ 80.9) and 20.1 (0.1 ─ 80.1) wks, respectively. 31 (97%) pts reported ≥1 AE (Grade ≥3 AEs, 25 [78%]; serious AEs, 6 [19%]). Most common Grade ≥3 AEs were anemia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and neutropenia (19%). 3 (9%) and 2 (6%) pts reported an AE leading to NAV and RUX discontinuation, respectively, and 2 (6%; 1 PD, 1 cardiac disorder unrelated to NAV) AEs led to death ≤30 days after last NAV dose. SVR35 was achieved by 52% of evaluable pts at wk 24 (SVR35 in INT-2, 50%; HR, 33%) and by 76% at any time on treatment (Table). Median time to first SVR35 was 12.1 (11 ─ 47) wks. Conclusions: The combination of NAV+RUX was well tolerated and demonstrated early and robust reductions in spleen volume, anemia, and BM fibrosis in pts without prior JAK-2 inhibitor exposure. SVR35, TSS50, and BM fibrosis improved over time. Clinical trial information: NCT03222609. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Targeting the BCL-XL pathway has demonstrated the ability to overcome Janus kinase inhibitor resistance in preclinical models. This phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of adding BCL-XL/BCL-2 inhibitor navitoclax to ruxolitinib therapy in patients with myelofibrosis with progression or suboptimal response to ruxolitinib monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03222609 ). METHODS Thirty-four adult patients with intermediate-/high-risk myelofibrosis who had progression or suboptimal response on stable ruxolitinib dose (≥ 10 mg twice daily) were administered navitoclax at 50 mg once daily starting dose, followed by escalation to a maximum of 300 mg once daily in once in weekly increments (if platelets were ≥ 75 × 109/L). The primary end point was ≥ 35% spleen volume reduction (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary end points included ≥ 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50) from baseline at week 24, hemoglobin improvement, change in bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) grade, and safety. RESULTS High molecular risk mutations were identified in 58% of patients, and 52% harbored ≥ 3 mutations. SVR35 was achieved by 26.5% of patients at week 24, and by 41%, at any time on study, with an estimated median duration of SVR35 of 13.8 months. TSS50 was achieved by 30% (6 of 20) of patients at week 24, and BMF improved by 1-2 grades in 33% (11 of 33) of evaluable patients. Anemia response was achieved by 64% (7 of 11), including one patient with baseline transfusion dependence. Median overall survival was not reached with a median follow-up of 21.6 months. The most common adverse event was reversible thrombocytopenia without clinically significant bleeding (88%). CONCLUSION The addition of navitoclax to ruxolitinib in patients with persistent or progressive myelofibrosis resulted in durable SVR35, improved TSS, hemoglobin response, and BMF. Further investigation is underway to qualify the potential for disease modification.

AbstractGilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3‐mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) was conducted prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or posttransplant FLT3 inhibitor maintenance. We performed a retrospective analysis using data from 11 US centers and where we identified 113 patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. The composite complete remission (CR) rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp]) was 48.7% (n = 55). The CRc rate after treatment with gilteritinib in patients who were treated with only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD (clinical minimal or measurable residual disease) negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of stem cell transplant. The mitogen‐activated protein kinase pathway activating mutations that are known for gilteritinib resistance (NRAS, KRAS, and PTPN11) had lower CRc (35% vs. 60.5%) and lower median overall survival than patients' whose leukemia did not express these mutations (4.9 months vs. 7.8 months) (HR 2.4; 95% CI 1. 5.4) p value <.01.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is the most effective post remission anti-leukemia strategy. However, the associated toxicity is a barrier for its routine adoption as standard of care in older adults. Studies of AML patients who underwent alloSCT are mainly retrospective as randomized controlled trials comparing transplantation to non-transplantation are very difficult to conduct. We herein present prospective data from a randomized controlled phase III study, E2906, designed to compare two intensive chemotherapy arms. Patients who achieved remission and had a donor were to proceed to alloSCT after induction or first consolidation, at investigator discretion. Non-transplanted patients received 2 cycles of consolidation and then underwent a second randomization between observation and decitabine maintenance. Herein are reported all patients who received alloSCT either on protocol during first remission (CR1) or at other post induction time-points. Patients and Methods: Enrolled to E2906 study were 727 AML patients age 60 years and over. AlloSCT was performed in 166 patients, of whom 71 received alloSCT as part of the study and 95 received alloSCT off protocol. 105 patients (66/71 on protocol, 39/95 off protocol) received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 (CR: 92, CRi: 9 LFS: 4). Patients were followed for a median of 33.6 months from diagnosis and 29.1 months from transplant. No patients received decitabine maintenance prior to alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) is defined as the time from allo transplant to death from any cause, with follow-up censored at the date of last contact. Disease free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from alloSCT transplant to relapse or death of any cause. The censored follow-up time for patients without relapse or death information is the date of last contact. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate OS and DFS. DFS and OS were compared between subgroups using log rank tests. A cumulative incidence analysis, with death without prior relapse as competing events, was performed to evaluate the subgroup effect on time to relapse after transplant. Results: Patient characteristics of those who received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are similar to the general distribution of AML patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. Median age was 66 years, 52% were male and 88% with ECOG PS of 0-1. Cytogenetic data were available for 85 patients of whom 26% presented with unfavorable cytogenetics. Minimal residual disease (MRD) status prior to alloSCT was available for 44 patients of whom 19 (43%) achieved a MRD negative state. Long-term OS and DFS rates for all 105 patients who underwent alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are encouraging (Figure 1). OS and DFS at two years were 56.4% and 53.6% and 49.4%, 45.6% and 42.9%, 39% at 3 and 4 years, respectively. Age above or below 65 years, gender, induction regimen (3+7 or clofarabine) and MRD status prior to transplantation had no impact on outcome. Survival curves by intermediate or adverse cytogenetic risk are not significantly different. The numbers of patients with CRi1 or LFS1 are too small to compare with patients in CR1. Nevertheless, 36/38 patients that were alive and remain in first remission at the time of data cutoff, are patients who achieved CR1 and only 2/38 are patients transplanted at CRi1 or LFS1. Notably, the non-relapse mortality (NRM) was not significantly different for patients less or over 65 years. NRM at 6 months and 2 years for patients over and under 65 years of age were 4.4%, 8.4% and 15.6%, 24.0% respectively. Relapse during the first year post alloSCT is the main barrier for longer survival, particularly in patients with adverse cytogenetics and MRD positivity prior to transplantation (Figure 2). Conclusions: Fit older patients, including those over age 65, who undergo an alloSCT in CR1, can expect a 4-year survival of 43% with an acceptable NRM rate. The NRM was, surprisingly, not higher than for a typically younger cohort of AML. Relapse within one year after transplant is the major limitation to prolonged survival and this finding reflects the biology of the leukemia in these patients. In this patient population, novel post remission strategies should either be complimentary to alloSCT or competitive with updated outcome of alloSCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ofran: Medison Israel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Tallman: Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Melnick: Constellation: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; KDAC Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levine: Prelude: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ajax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Zentalis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mission Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; QIAGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Imago: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Auron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee.