Citations

Abstract Background: MCL is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma for which auto-HCT is often employed in first CR, based on non-randomized phase 2 trials, and a randomized trial (Dreyling et al, Blood 2005) conducted before the advent of more effective induction and maintenance regimens. The TRIANGLE trial (Dreyling et al, Lancet 2024) suggested that auto-HCT may not add benefit to more effective induction and maintenance regimens containing high-dose cytarabine, rituximab and BTK inhibitors. E4151 explored whether auto-HCT benefits pts achieving deep first remission, as measured by a highly sensitive immunoglobulin high throughput sequencing minimal residual disease (MRD) assay. Methods: EA4151 is a four arm trial conducted through the U.S. National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT-CTN). Pts with MCL between the ages of 18 and 70 and in first remission were eligible. After induction, pts underwent PET/CT, bone marrow biopsy, and the clonoSEQ® MRD assay from peripheral blood. Pts in CR with uMRD at 1 in 10-6 sensitivity (uMRD6) were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (auto-HCT + 3 years of maintenance rituximab [MR]) or Arm B (3 years of MR alone), stratified by MIPI-c score and intensive vs non-intensive induction. Pts with either MRD-positive (MRD+) CR or MRD-indeterminate CR (Arm C and Arm D, respsectively) both received auto-HCT + 3 years of MR. Pts who were MRD+ pre-transplant had MRD repeated at day 100. Primary endpoint was to compare overall survival (OS) in Arms A and B, with secondary endpoints including progression-free survival (PFS). Primary analysis population included all randomized pts. As some pts refused their assigned treatment (N=65 [25.3%] for arm A and N=2 [0.8%] for arm B), a “treated as assigned” analysis was also performed. Stratified logrank test was used to compare survival distributions. P-values are two-sided. Results: From Aug 2017 to July 2024, 650 pts were assigned to a treatment arm with 257, 259, 49, and 85 pts enrolled on Arms A, B, C, and D, respectively. Pts were 79% male and 92% white race. Median age was 60 years (range 27-70). MIPI-c was low/low-intermediate (LI) in 63% and high/ high-intermediate (HI) in 37%. Induction was intensive (defined as high-dose cytarabine-containing) in 73% and non-intensive in 27%. A BTK inhibitor was given during induction in 7.2% of pts, and during maintenance in 0.3% of pts. The third pre-planned interim analysis was based on data as of 7/15/24, with median follow up of 2.7 years. The futility boundary was an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.984 for Arm A vs B. The estimated OS HR for Arm A vs B in all randomized (n=516) and pts treated as assigned (n=375) were 1.11 (CI 0.71-1.74, p=0.66) and 1.00 (CI 0.58-1.74, p=0.99), respectively and crossed the futility boundary. The 3 year (yr) OS for Arms A and B were 82.1% and 82.7% in all randomized pts, and 86.2% and 84.8% in pts treated as assigned. The estimated PFS HR for Arm A vs B in all randomized and pts treated as assigned were 1.05 (CI 0.71-1.56, p=0.79) and 0.95 (CI 0.59-1.54, p=0.84), respectively. The 3 yr PFS for Arms A and B were 76.6% and 77.4% in all randomized pts, and 81.5% and 80.4% in pts treated as assigned. For Arm C, 3 yr OS and PFS were 81.9% (CI 69.6-96.4%) and 76.9% (CI 64.4-91.7%), respectively. For Arm D, 3 yr OS and PFS were 85.1% (CI 76.0%-95.4%) and 73.4% (62.7-85.9%), respectively. For the MIPI-c low/LI group, 3 yr OS was 84.6% vs 85.7% for Arm A vs B (p=0.96), while in the MIPI-c high/HI group, 3 yr OS was 77.4% vs 77.6% for Arm A vs B (p=0.71). For the intensive induction group, 3 yr OS was 83.0% vs 86.2% for Arm A vs B (p=0.30), while in the non-intensive induction group, 3 yr OS was 79.5% vs 72.8% for Arm A vs B (p=0.48). Exploratory analysis of MRD+ pts (Arm C) showed that pts who converted to uMRD6 post auto-HCT (n=17) had 3 yr OS of 100% and PFS of 100%, whereas those who remained MRD+ (n=13) post auto-HCT had 3 yr OS of 63.6% and PFS of 48.8%. Causes of death (COD) in Arm A were 4.7% lymphoma, 5.1% COVID-19, and 5.0% other/unknown. COD in Arm B were 3.5% lymphoma, 6.6% COVID-19, and 4.6% other/unknown. In Sept 2024, the DSMC recommended termination of accrual and release of trial findings based on these results. Conclusion: In this interim analysis, in the era of highly effective induction and maintenance regimens, MCL pts in first CR with uMRD6 did not benefit from consolidative auto-HCT. Pts who remain MRD+ after induction may benefit from auto-HCT. Longer follow-up will be important to confirm these findings.

Introduction E1910 randomized pts with ALL aged 30-70 years who were measurable residual disease negative (MRD-) by multi-color flow cytometry (FC) after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (chemo) with or without blinatumomab (blina). The addition of blina resulted in improved overall survival (OS) (Litzow, NEJM 2024) and led to a new standard of care. Older ALL pts have inferior outcomes when compared to younger pts in part due to increased treatment toxicity. In E1910, exposure to dexamethasone and pegasparagase was reduced for older pts (age >55 years). We present results of subgroup analyses describing outcomes of older pts enrolled in E1910. Methods Details of the E1910 protocol remission induction (step 1), high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase intensification (step 2), blina randomization (step 3), and maintenance (step 4) or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) were previously presented (Litzow, NEJM 2024). MRD status was determined after step 2 centrally with 6-color FC with MRD- defined as <0.01% in the bone marrow (BM). Following approval of blina in the US for MRD positive (MRD+) disease in 2018, MRD+ pts were assigned to the blina arm and no longer randomized. The primary objective was to compare the OS and relapse free survival (RFS) among older pts aged >55 years (pre-specified stratification factor) who received chemo + blina to that of pts who received chemo alone (step 3 treatment). Estimates of OS and RFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS and RFS between treatment arms was conducted using the two-sided stratified log-rank test and Cox model with CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intended to receive HCT or not as stratification factors. Stratified Multivariate Cox models of OS and RFS were used to further evaluate the effect of step 3 treatment, adjusted by gender, white blood cell count (WBC), platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, BM blasts, performance status and combined molecular risk category. Results Among the 488 enrolled pts, 211 were ≥55 years old with median age of 61 (range 55-70). Among older pts, 49.3% were female and 83.4% were white, 17 (8.1%) pts had WBC >30.000/uL at the time of diagnosis. 156 (73.9%) pts had CD10+ early B-ALL and 46 (21.8%) had CD10- B-ALL immunophenotype. The most common genetic subgroups were low hypodiploid (n=58, 27.5%), BCR::ABL1-like (n=34, 16.1%) and KMT2A rearranged (n=26, 12.3%). 8.1% of pts had low, 9.0% intermediate, 63.5% high combined molecular risk disease and in 19.4% of pts risk could not be assigned. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different in chemo + blina and chemo only pts. The median follow-up for this analysis from step 1 registration was 54.6 months. Complete response with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery after induction was observed in 174 (82.5%) pts (167 CR, 7 CRi). 93 (44%) pts were MRD-. 32 (15.1%) pts received HCT on study and 24 (11.4%) pts received it off study. Among MRD- pts (n=93), 46 were randomized to and 45 received blina: 6 (13.3%) pts had 1, 14 (31.1%) had 2, 2 (4.4%) had 3 and 23 (51.1%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 71% and 67% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50; multivariate model: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.25-1.27). 3-year RFS were 69% and 59% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.39-1.45; multivariate model: HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32-1.42). Among MRD+ pts (n=25), 14 were randomized to and 11 received blina: 7 (63.6%) pts had 2, and 4 (36.4%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 66% and 44% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.12-3.64). 3-year RFS were 64% and 31% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.15-2.74). Frequency of treatment-related toxicities among older pts during different study phases and treatment assignments will be presented. Conclusion Despite evidence of improved outcomes in the whole study cohort, the addition of blina to consolidation chemo for older pts with ALL was not associated with statistically significant improvement of OS or RFS in this exploratory analysis not powered to detect the difference in subgroups. This is possibly due to sample size but may be due to biologic differences in the older adult population. Further studies are needed to definitively determine tolerance and benefit of blina addition to consolidation for older pts with ALL.

Introduction: Based on a donor versus no-donor analysis, UKALLXII/E2993 showed a survival benefit for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in first complete remission (CR1) compared to consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy alone. The follow-up phase 3 E1910 trial (NCT02003222) randomized BCR::ABL1-negative B-lineage ALL patients (pts) aged 30-70 years in measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative CR1 after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (CC) +/- blinatumomab (blin) and demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) with blin (Litzow, NEJM 2024). The current exploratory subgroup analysis evaluates outcomes of MRD-negative pts randomized on E1910 who underwent alloHCT on trial. Methods: Among pts enrolled on E1910, pts in MRD-negative CR1 by 6-color flow cytometry after intensification who were randomized to CC +/- blin and subsequently underwent alloHCT were identified. We compared baseline characteristics, MRD status post induction, relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method and the two-sided log-rank test and Cox model. A multivariable analysis was performed with alloHCT included as a time-varying covariate as well as a landmark analysis comparing the outcome of pts with unfavorable risk on the CC + blin arm who underwent alloHCT versus those who did not. Results: Of 224 MRD-negative randomized pts, 44 underwent alloHCT on trial: 22 in each arm. The median time from randomization to transplant was 3.2 months (mos). The median follow-up from initial registration was 57.8 mos. Baseline demographics including age (median 55 years), gender (53% male), race (89% white) and ethnicity (89% non-Hispanic/Latino) were equally distributed. Compared to CC + blin, the median peripheral blood white cell (WBC) count and blast percentage at diagnosis were higher in the CC arm at 6,640 vs 3,740/uL and 55 vs 9%, respectively, while median marrow blast percentage and overall unfavorable risk as defined in E1910 (55% vs 64%) were similar. Of the 44 MRD-negative pts who proceeded to alloHCT on study, 77% in the CC arm and 64% in the CC+ blin arm were MRD-negative after induction. Myeloablative conditioning was given to the majority of pts (68% CC arm and 73% CC+blin arm) and the most common graft versus host disease prophylaxis was tacrolimus-based on both arms. Among the 44 pts who underwent alloHCT, the observed hazard ratio (HR) comparing relative risk of death between pts randomized to CC+blin or CC only was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.12-2.11) with a 3-year OS rate of 82% versus 71% and the HR comparing relative risk of relapse/death was 0.52 (CI: 0.15-1.79) with a 3-year RFS rate of 82% versus 67%. For patients with unfavorable risk, 3-year OS and 3-year RFS in each treatment arm were both 71% versus 65%. Among 50 pts with unfavorable risk in MRD-negative CR after intensification who were randomized to CC + blin, a landmark analysis performed at 5 mos post randomization showed 3-year OS and RFS rates of 71% versus 90% and 71% versus 86% between the 14 pts who underwent alloHCT and those who did not, respectively. Receipt of alloHCT was a time-varying covariate in a multivariable analysis with gender, WBC count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status, and combined molecular risk category. Age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and intention to receive alloHCT were used as stratification factors. In the entire cohort of MRD-negative pts who were randomized, there was a significant association between improved OS and the receipt of CC+blin vs CC alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.82; p=0.009), better performance status of 0-1 vs ≥2 and favorable vs unfavorable risk ALL. In contrast, the receipt of alloHCT had no significant effect on OS (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49 - 2.01). Conclusions: Within the constraints of small numbers, this exploratory subgroup analysis demonstrates that in pts with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1-negative B-ALL treated on E1910 who achieved MRD-negativity after intensification, alloHCT outcomes did not appear to be different with or without blin in consolidation. In a multivariate analysis of all MRD-negative pts, receipt of blin but not alloHCT was associated with improved OS. Further investigation is warranted to characterize the relative benefit of blinatumomab in pts receiving alloHCT in frontline consolidation.

Background: Randomized studies in newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients with a FLT3 mutation show that adding 14 days of a FLT3 inhibitor to each intensive chemotherapy cycle improves overall survival. For patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy due to older age or comorbidities, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is associated with high rates of early relapse and short remission duration. There is a limited survival benefit of venetoclax (ven) plus azacitidine (aza) compared to aza alone among patients with AML with a FLT3-ITD mutation. Accordingly, there is significant interest in adding FLT3-targeted therapy to lower intensity chemotherapy for patients with ND AML and FLT3 mutations, but to date no randomized data have demonstrated a survival benefit for this approach.Gilteritinib (gilt) is a highly potent and FLT3-selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is the standard therapy of relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated AML, based upon superior survival in randomized studies. Gilt can also be combined safely with ven and/or aza, though myelosuppression remains a concern. Despite this, single institution studies of ven, aza, and gilt therapy of ND AML patients with FLT3-mutations show that this three-drug regimen is associated with near-universal complete remission rates (CR 90%, CRi 6%) and a majority of studied patients eliminate detectable FLT3-ITD (<1 x10-5) within four cycles by an ultrasensitive, amplicon-based NGS assay (Short, et al. JCO 2024). Rates of CR with full count recovery and survival appear superior to historical comparisons, but myelosuppression is potentially increased with the triplet regimen. These data demonstrate a need for multi-institutional comparative trials, not only to determine whether adding FLT3-inhibitors to ven and aza improve deep remission rates, but also to refine schedules of the triplet combination that improve tolerability for widespread use.Methods: This tier 1 MyeloMATCH substudy is an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial that will enroll ND AML patients older than age 60 or individuals judged by their treating physician to be best served by azanucleoside + ven-based therapy due to comorbidity. Subjects provide samples to the central MyeloMATCH Master Screening and Reassessment Protocol (MSRP, NCT05564390 ) and are assigned to the MM1OA-EA02 substudy (NCT06317649) based upon the presence of a FLT3-ITD or FLT3-TKD (D835) mutation by NGS. Subjects are randomized to one of three arms (regimens 1, 2, or 3), stratified by age (<70 years vs. older) and FLT3-ITD burden (ITD VAF>33% vs. lower VAF or D835). All study arms contain aza and ven administered in 28-day cycles with two study arms also including gilt. Regimen 1 is ven and aza administered as per the pivotal VIALE-A study. Regimen 2 adds gilt 80 mg once daily on days 1-28 and regimen 3 adds gilt on days 8-21 only. A marrow biopsy is performed during the first cycle (day 14-21, depending on study arm) and all chemotherapy is held until count recovery if a morphologic leukemia-free state or aplasia is seen. Patients receive up to two induction cycles to achieve remission and then receive ongoing consolidation cycles of therapy with a similar pattern of gilt administration up to 2 years. To minimize risk of cumulative myelosuppression, during consolidation azacitidine administration is reduced to days 1-5 on regimens 2 and 3 and ven limited to days 1-7 on regimen 2 and days 1-14 on regimen 3. For all arms, treatment-related adverse events prompt further reduction in ven, aza, or gilt dose or duration. Response will be measured after cycles 2 and 4, including centrally-performed MRD by flow cytometry. The primary endpoint is the rate of MRD(-) CR (<1 x 10-3) after up to 4 cycles. Key secondary endpoints include safety data, response rate, EFS, and OS. The study is powered to detect a 25% absolute improvement in MRD(-) CR rate in either triplet arm from a target accrual of 147 patients. A safety run-in for regimens 2 and 3 to confirm tolerability and feasibility will be performed after 20 subjects enroll to these arms; an interim futility analysis will be performed once response assessment of 50% of all planned accrual occurs. Study was activated on June 6, 2024 and is expected to continue until December 2025.

7012 Background: DLBCL with expression of MYC and BCL2 (double expressor lymphoma, DEL), has an adverse prognosis. Venetoclax, an inhibitor of BCL2, was previously studied in combination with R-CHOP. A051701 is a phase II/III randomized trial of chemoimmunotherapy +/- venetoclax in DEL and double hit lymphoma cohorts. Here we report initial phase II results from the DEL cohort. Methods: Patients (pts) age ≥ 18 years (y) with untreated DEL were randomized 1:1 to R-CHOP (Arm 1) or R-CHOP-venetoclax (Arm 2). DEL was defined as MYC expression ≥40% and BCL2 expression ≥50%, without double hit cytogenetics. Enrollment was based on local pathology results that were centrally confirmed. Venetoclax 800 mg was given orally days 4-8 of cycle 1 and days 1-5 of subsequent cycles for up to 6 cycles. All cycles were supported by GCSF or peg-GCSF. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with 84% power to detect a HR of 0.518 corresponding to 2y PFS rate of 65% in Arm 1 and 80% in Arm 2 (1-sided α=0.20). Results: 119 DEL pts were enrolled: 60 Arm 1; 59 Arm 2. Analyses were performed for the modified intent-to-treat population, defined as eligible pts with confirmed DEL histology (n=113; 56 Arm 1, 57 Arm 2). Median age was 64 y (range 22-85); baseline demographic factors were well balanced except for advanced stage (more common in Arm 1; (77% vs 60%, p=0.051). Most pts were non-germinal center B cell-like by immunohistochemistry (Arm 1 72%, Arm 2 58%), high-intermediate/high risk IPI (Arm 1 54%, Arm 2 51%) and ECOG performance status 0-1 (Arm 1 95%, Arm 2 86%). BCL2 rearrangements were detected in 25% and 33% of pts on Arm 1 and Arm 2, respectively. Most pts completed therapy per protocol (84% Arm 1, 75% Arm 2). Median follow up is 27 months (m). No difference in PFS was observed with 12-m PFS estimates of 77% in Arm 1, 76% in Arm 2 [HR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.48 – 2.01), p=0.95]. The end of treatment (EOT) overall and complete response rates among patients with an EOT assessment were 87.5% and 70% in Arm 1, and 90% and 82% in Arm 2. Overall survival (OS) was not statistically significantly different with 12-mo OS estimates of 94% in Arm 1 and 79% in Arm 2 [HR = 1.27 (95% CI: 0.57 – 2.79), p=0.56]. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred more frequently in Arm 2 (42% vs 76%). The most commonly increased grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia (20% vs 47%), anemia (4% vs 25.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.5% vs 24%), febrile neutropenia (7% vs 16%) and fatigue (0% vs 11%). No grade 5 AEs on treatment were reported on Arm 1, and 3 were reported on Arm 2 (lung infection and sudden death NOS, both possibly related; respiratory failure, unlikely related). Conclusions: Adding venetoclax to R-CHOP in DEL pts did not improve PFS and resulted in increased toxicity. The study did not meet its primary endpoint in phase II, and so did not proceed to phase III. Clinical trial information: NCT03984448 .

Abstract Although initial therapy of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not standardized, bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is commonly used in older patients. Rituximab (R) maintenance after induction is often used. Thus, the open-label, randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1411 trial was designed to test 2 questions: (1) does addition of bortezomib to BR induction (BVR) and/or (2) addition of lenalidomide to rituximab (LR) maintenance improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with treatment-naïve MCL? From 2012 to 2016, 373 previously untreated patients, 87% aged ≥60 years, were enrolled in this trial. At a median follow-up of 7.5 years, there is no difference in the median PFS of BR compared with BVR (5.5 vs 6.4 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.16). There were no unexpected additional toxicities with BVR treatment compared with BR, with no impact on total dose/duration of treatment received. Independent of the induction treatment, addition of lenalidomide did not significantly improve PFS, with median PFS in R vs LR (5.9 vs 7.2 years; HR, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.62-1.15). Most patients completed the planned 24 cycles of LR at the scheduled dose. In summary, adding bortezomib to BR induction does not prolong PFS in treatment-naïve MCL, and LR maintenance was not associated with longer PFS compared with R alone after BR. Nonetheless, the >5-year median PFS outcomes in this prospective cooperative group trial indicate the efficacy of BR followed by R maintenance as highly effective initial therapy for older patients with MCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01415752.

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

Background and Significance: The rare nature and diagnostic difficulty associated with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) has limited the inclusion of patients (pts) with these diseases, other than chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), in relevant clinical trials. This has resulted in the complete lack of approved agents for the treatment of pts with non-CMML MDS/MPN. Moreover, ASTX727 (oral decitabine-cedazuridine) was approved for CMML based on a study of only 16 pts with CMML. A larger study of CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN is needed. MDS/MPNs appear to be BCL2-dependent (Bogenberger et al., 2015; Jilg et al., 2016), but data for venetoclax combination therapy are derived from retrospective analyses of relapsed/refractory disease (Cortes et al. 2019; Hammond et al., 2020) or single-arm studies not dedicated to MDS/MPN (NCT04655755, Venugopal et al. 2021). Venetoclax exposures are not affected by coadministration of ASTX727 and predict responses similar to historical data (Mannis et al. 2021). Based on these promising early data and the critical need, we proposed a randomized study of ASTX727 alone or in combination with venetoclax for pts with MDS/MPN and >5% blasts. Study Design and Methods: This is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored, multi-center, international, randomized phase 2 study (NCT05600894, NCI 10538) designed to evaluate the efficacy of ASTX727 alone or in combination with venetoclax in pts with newly diagnosed MDS/MPN with >5% marrow blasts. Key eligibility criteria include allowing hydroxyurea cytoreduction to a WBC <10,000/mm 3 for proliferative disease and excluding pts with need for emergent disease-directed therapy as well as prior therapy for myeloid malignancy other than hydroxyurea or thrombopoietic/erythropoietin stimulating agents. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either ASTX727 alone (Days 1-5) or in combination with venetoclax, initially administered with a 3-day dosing ramp-up and given for 14 days per 28-day cycle (Figure 1). Pts are stratified by disease subtype, specifically CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN. The primary endpoint is the rate of complete remission (adapted from the MDS/MPN-specific response criteria developed by Savona et al. 2015). Secondary endpoints include the overall response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation rate, clonality at time of hematologic remission, number of red cell and platelet transfusions required and toxicity of ASTX727 versus ASTX727 + venetoclax. Pts randomized to the ASTX727 monotherapy arm and without response after 4 cycles of therapy, or with progressive disease after an initial response, cross over to the ASTX727 + venetoclax arm. A futility analysis is planned for each cohort (first 18 and 13 pts in each treatment arm for the CMML and non-CMML cohorts, respectively). We assume that 85% and 90% of pts in the CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN cohorts, respectively, randomized to the ASTX727 monotherapy arm will not achieve the primary endpoint and will cross over to the ASTX727 + venetoclax combination arm. The estimated accrual time of a total of 70 pts with CMML and 50 pts with non-CMML MDS/MPN will require about 2.9 and 2.1 years, respectively. Planned integrated studies include the use of an apoptosis multiplex immunoassay to evaluate how the addition of a BCL-2 inhibitor will influence the ability of ASTX727 to induce apoptosis and if particular thresholds of apoptosis are predictive of clinical response. Planned exploratory studies include the use of: 1) RNA-seq to evaluate if differences in baseline transcriptional programs appear to be predictive of response to ASTX727 and ASTX727+venetoclax, 2) next generation (Oncomine Comprehensive Assay (OCAv3)/whole exome sequencing to uncover biomarkers predictive of response/outcome, validate risk modeling to stratify these pts and detect/monitor measurable residual disease (MRD) on serial marrow samples that can predict depth of response with translation in improvement in event-based endpoints, and 3) circulating tumor DNA as a non-invasive means (i.e., without need for a marrow evaluation) of prospective MRD detection for prognostic use. This ongoing, randomized study may inform frontline therapeutic options, provide prospective data for venetoclax combination after HMA failure, and generate striking correlative science for pts with “high risk” MDS/MPN.