Citations

Key Points Systemic immune microenvironment signatures in CMML indicate an altered T- and natural killer cell balance. CMML bone marrow dendritic cell aggregates associate with disease progression and systemic regulatory T-cell phenotypic switch.

Introduction: Mutations in the gene isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) occur in ~12-15% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Enasidenib, an oral small molecule selective targeted inhibitor of IDH2 enzymes, was approved forIDH2mutated relapsed/refractory AML (RR-AML) in 2017 (Stein et. al., 2017). There is limited data regarding its efficacy and toxicity outside the context of clinical trials. Using Mayo Clinic's cohort of AML patients, we provide a real-world look at outcomes forIDH2mutated RR-AML patients treated with enasidenib. Methods: A total of 13 patients treated with enasidenib for RR-AML were identified, all of which experienced at least one relapse following induction chemotherapy. Response assessment was based on European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2017 response criteria.Complete blood counts including blast percentage and transfusion dependency were obtained at AML diagnosis, initiation of enasidenib, 2 months and 6 months following initiation of therapy. Transfusion dependency was defined by the need for either a red cell or platelet transfusion within 4 weeks of the designated time frame. We compared the clinical characteristics of patients who achieved complete response (CR) (n=4) to those not achieving CR (n=9), using the Mann-Whitney U test for numerical variables and the Fischer's Exact test for quantitative data. Results: The median age at diagnosis of our 13 patients was 68 years (range 60-82), with a male predilection (n=11) (Table 1). Cytogenetic and molecular genetic findings are provided in Table 2. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 4 (30.7%) patients by cycle 2 and 2 of those patients (50%) proceeded to an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT). The median time from diagnosis to initiation of treatment for patients in CR was 3.5 months (range 1-7), and for patients not achieving CR was 13 months (range 6-53; p=0.048), with median time of follow up after treatment initiation of 23.5 months (range, 5-36) and 7 months (range, 1-14), respectively. Among 8 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, all the CR patients (2/2) achieved red blood cell and platelet transfusion independence 6 months after treatment, instead only (3/6) 50% of those not in CR achieved transfusion independence (p=0.028). An initial trajectory of improvement in counts is noted from the time of diagnosis to the 2 month mark post treatment with 75% of the responder cohort showing improvement in counts which was durable through the 6 month mark, whereas 55% of those that did not respond had worsening counts at month 2 and died prior to 6 month follow up. At the time of data cut-off, the median duration of CR was 14 months (range, 2-33), with 3 of 4 (75%) of responders maintaining CR. Figure 1 details overall responses and outcomes in all 13 patients. None of the patients in our study experienced differentiation syndrome. Five patients were hospitalized in the course of treatment for infectious complications. Two patients were noted to have hyperbilirubinemia however there was no clear indication that this was secondary to enasidenib Median overall survival for all 13 patients was 21 months (range, 6-53 months) with leukemia free survival of 7 months (range, 5-19 months). Furthermore, median overall survival for patients in CR was 27 months (range, 6-42), and those not in CR was 16 months (range, 6-53) (p=0.20). In addition, we observed that 75% of patients who attained CR are alive compared to 11.1% of those not in CR (p = 0.052). Conclusion: We demonstrate a superior CR rate of 30.7% with enasidenib amongstIDH2mutated RR-AML patients compared with clinical trial data showing CR rate of 19.6% (Stein et. al., 2019) despite our patients being heavily pre-treated with median number of two prior therapies (range; 1-5) including prior AHSCT in 2 patients. Moreover, a subset of patients (2 of 4 in CR) were able to undergo ASCHT. Finally, the achievement of CR at 2 months after initiation of therapy serves as an appropriate time point for response assessment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

INTRODUCTION T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of mature T-cells. Although responses may been seen with initial alemtuzumab-based therapy, relapse is inevitable and relapsed/refractory disease carries a dismal prognosis. T-PLL has shown in vitro sensitivity to venetoclax, and short-lived clinical responses to venetoclax monotherapy (Smith, Blood Advances 2020; Boidol, Blood 2017) or when given in combination with pentostatin (Alfayez, Leukemia & Lymphoma 2020). Given the lack of standard treatment options, we reviewed the outcomes of patients (pts) with relapsed T-PLL on venetoclax-based therapy. METHODS Using an institutional clinical database of pts with T-PLL seen in the Division of Hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, all pts treated with venetoclax or venetoclax-based therapies in a relapsed/refractory setting were identified. Clinical, laboratory, and pathology data, as well as treatment dosing and toxicity were ascertained retrospectively from the medical records. Diagnostic criteria and response definitions were utilized as per the T-PLL International Study Group (Staber, Blood 2019). RESULTS Between 8/2017 and 5/2020, 9 pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL treated with venetoclax were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 49-75), and one-third were male. Baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Rearrangement of TCL1 family genes was present in all 8 pts evaluated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using conventional cytogenetics, a complex karyotype was present in 4/6 pts tested. The median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-4), including alemtuzumab in 8 of 9 pts (intravenous 7/8); and two pts had undergone prior hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (1 allogeneic; 1 autologous) after achieving a complete remission. Additional individual pt details are included in Table 2. Prior to venetoclax therapy initiation, 2 pts had B-symptoms (2 night sweats; 1 fever) and 6 pts had an ECOG score ≥ 2. Lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly were present in 6 and 9 pts, respectively. Extranodal involvement included 3 pts with cutaneous involvement and 5 pts with effusions (4 ascites; 1 pleural). The target maximum dose of venetoclax (800 mg [n=4]; 400 mg [n=1]) was reached by 5 pts at a median of 12 days (range 7-40 days). The other 4 pts had disease progression after a median of 10 days (range 5-22 days) during the dose ramp-up, including 2 pts undergoing rapid dose escalation. Altogether, 6 of the 9 pts initiated venetoclax with a rapid dose escalation. Bendamustine was given with venetoclax in 5/9 pts; median number of cycles 1 (range 1-4) with variable starting dosing (range 60-100 mg/m2). The disease control rate was 56%; best response was partial remission (PR) in 4 (44%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 1 (11%) pt. The 1 pt with SD received venetoclax monotherapy; however, the overall response rate among pts who received the combination of venetoclax and bendamustine was 80% (4/5 pts). One pt with a partial remission met all criteria for complete remission but did not have a confirmatory bone marrow biopsy. Cutaneous disease improved in 2 of 3 pts (both with PR as best response), and effusions improved in 2 of 5 pts (1 PR and 1 SD as best response). Among those in PR, the median decrease in absolute lymphocyte count was 67x109/L and the median decrease in lactate dehydrogenase was 1,162 U/L (normal range 122-222 U/L). Median duration of treatment for all pts was 42 days (range 4-201 days). All pts ultimately died during follow-up with a median overall survival of 53 days (range 4-464 days); Figure 1. All pts experienced at least one adverse event and 8 of 9 pts had a grade ≥ 3 toxicity, most commonly edema (n=7) and neutropenia (n=6). Five pts required dose interruptions due to neutropenia (n=3), tumor lysis syndrome (n=1), and edema (n=1). Three pts had dose reductions, all from 800 mg dosing, due to hematologic toxicity (n=2) and nausea (n=1). No pts discontinued venetoclax as a result of adverse events. CONCLUSION Treatment of pts with relapsed/refractory T-PLL remains a significant unmet need. The 9 pts described herein represent the largest cohort of pts treated with venetoclax-based therapy in this setting to the current date. Despite initial reports of clinical efficacy, our results show that venetoclax (with or without bendamustine) has modest efficacy in the treatment of relapsed/refractory T-PLL after prior alemtuzumab exposure. Disclosures Parikh: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy. Bennani:Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Kay:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ding:Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax: off-label use in treatment of relapsed/refractory T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML and FLT3-mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) enrolled prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or post-transplant FLT3inhibitor (FLT3i) maintenance. Some mechanisms of drug resistance can be shared across FLT3i's, suggesting response to gilteritinib might differ in patients treated with frontline FLT3i. A better understanding of how prior therapy modulates response to gilteritinib is necessary to clarify this novel agent's role in the current FLT3-mutated AML treatment algorithm. Methods: This is an ongoing multi-institutional analysis from 13 US centers identifying patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patients who received gilteritinib as a part of an ongoing trial were excluded. Response criteria were identical to the ADMIRAL trial. For patients with available data and a composite complete remission (CRc), we defined clinically measurable residual disease (cMRD) negative status by bone marrow flow cytometry using a cutoff of <1 x 10x105 cells as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for FLT3 mutation with a minimum sensitivity of 5%. Survival from the time of gilteritinib initiation was recorded. Multivariate analysis included all variables collected to determine interaction with patient outcome (CR and survival data). Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank test were used for survival analysis after gilteritinib initiation. Results: 72 patients treated with prior FLT3i exposure received gilteritinib for treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patient characteristics are presented in table-1 with 46 (64%) previously receiving midostaurin, 19 (26%) sorafenib, and 7 (10%) other FLT3i. 8 (11%) received more than one prior TKI. NGS at diagnosis were available in 66 patients (92%) and co-mutations in DNMT3A, NPM1 and NRAS were observed in more than 10% of patients. Average duration of gilteritinib therapy was 5.7 months (range: 0.2-25 months). 27 (37.5%) received stem cell transplant (SCT) before gilteritinib and 15 (21%) underwent SCT after gilteritinib. The composite CR rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CRp) was 51.4% (n= 37 patients). With regard to specific FLT3i's, we found no significant difference in median survival (7.1 months and 6.4 months for midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively) or remission rates (CRc 54% and 47% for prior midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively). The CRc rate for patients who received only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. A trend toward higher CRc rate was noted in patients treated with gilteritinib in combination regimens rather than as a single agent (64% vs 43%, respectively, p=0.09 using Chi-square test). No survival advantage for combination therapy was seen over single agent. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of SCT (figures 1&2). Patients who received SCT after gilteritinib had significantly longer survival than non-transplanted patients (9.3 months vs 5.6 months, respectively, HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.2-0.8)(figure-3). Patients with concurrent mutations of NPM1/DNMT3A had a trend toward a higher CRc compared to FLT3 mutation alone (71% vs 50%, p= 0.2) but similar survival. With regard to mutations associated with drug resistance to other FLT3i's, patients with both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 mutation had similar response and survival to FLT3-ITD alone. However, patients with MAPK pathway activating mutations (e.g. NRAS and PTPN11) had lower CRc (37.5% vs 59.5%) and poorer median survival than other patients (3.3 months vs 7.5 months) (HR 2.2- 95% CI 1.1-4.4) p value <0.01(figure-4). Conclusions: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, gilteritinib remains a clinically active agent after treatment failure of prior FLT3i's (midostaurin or sorafenib). Mutations activating MAPK pathway have been implicated in secondary gilteritinib resistance but are seldom co-mutated at initial FLT3mut+ AML diagnosis. While further study is required, we hypothesize that their detection after frontline FLT3i therapy may represent treatment-emergent clones with propensity for pan-FLT3i resistance. Disclosures Zeidan: Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yilmaz:Pint Pharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Daicho Sankyo: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy. Daver:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Perl:Novartis: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Other; FORMA Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Honoraria, Other; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: writing/editorial support, travel costs for meeting presentations related to study, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing/editorial support, travel costs for meetings, Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Beat AML: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc: Other: uncompensated consulting, travel costs for meetings; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs for meeting. Altman:Kartos: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ASH: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Kura Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted, Research Funding; BioSight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel , Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Theradex: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; PrIME Oncology: Consultancy; PeerView: Consultancy; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Some of the patients we are reporting on received gilteritinib in combination with other agents which is off-label use.

Introduction Clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance (CCUS) is defined by the presence of somatic driver mutations/copy number variations in hematopoietic cells in patients with low blood counts, in the absence of morphological evidence for myeloid neoplasms. Patients with CCUS are often symptomatic and can be transfusion dependent (TD), with high rates of progression to myeloid neoplasms, especially myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). In addition, similar to MDS, there are reports of CCUS patients responding to hypomethylating agents. Due to the lack of a formal diagnosis/morphological dysplasia, CCUS patients are often denied therapies or clinical trial enrollment. We carried out this study to validate our hypothesis that CCUS shares similar clinical and survival characteristics with lower risk MDS (LR-MDS). Methods CCUS patients were prospectively identified from the clonal hematopoiesis clinic, whereas LR-MDS patients were retrospectively identified from our institutional database. LR-MDS was defined as very low, low and intermediate risk MDS based on the R-IPSS categorization. Baseline demographics, blood counts, bone marrow (BM) morphology, cytogenetics, and NGS results were abstracted. Transfusion dependency was defined as requiring at least one unit of red cell or platelets every 4 weeks. The Mann-Whitney-U and Fischer's exact test were used to compare quantitative and qualitative data in subgroups. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) estimates were used for survival analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Results 186 patients were included in the study; 74 (40%) with CCUS and 112 (60%) with LR-MDS, median age 66 years, with 63% being male (Table 1). In the CCUS group, 93% had one or more mutations (67% >1 mutation) detected by NGS, while 7% had clonal cytogenetic abnormalities. Common mutations in CCUS included TET2 (30%), SRSF2 (20%), DNMT3A (13%) and ASXL1 (11%); with 28% of patients being red cell TD and 15% being platelet TD. On application of the R-IPSS stratification, 40%, 45%, 12% and 3% were in the very low, low, intermediate and high risk categories, respectively. LR-MDS subtypes included MDS-RS (50%), MDS-MLD (21%), MDS-EB (10%), MDS del5q (7%), and MDS-U (12%). SF3B1 mutations were seen in 67% (95% of MDS-RS), while TET2 and DNMT3A mutations were seen in 29% and 21%, respectively. 60% of LR-MDS patients had >1 mutation. 44% were red cell TD, while 10% were platelet TD. In comparison to patients with CCUS, LR-MDS patients were more likely to have higher white blood cell counts (p=0.002), higher neutrophil counts (p=0.009), higher platelet counts (p<0.001), be red cell TD (p=0.031), have BM ring sideroblasts (p<0.001), have higher BM blast% (p=0.004) and carry SF3B1 mutations (p<0.001); whereas CCUS patients were more likely to have higher monocyte counts (p=0.009) and more likely to carry IDH1 (p=0.005), ZRSR2 (p=0.005) and ATM (p=0.012) mutations. Importantly there were no differences with regards to R-IPSS cytogenetic risk groups, R-IPSS prognostic categories, platelet TD, and mutations involving TET2, DNMT3A, SRSF2 and ASXL1 and TP53. Notably signal pathway mutations and mutations involving tumor suppressor genes were infrequent (<5%) in both groups. The LR-MDS patients had a longer median follow up (53 vs 15 months) and at last follow up 72 (64%) and 11 (15%) deaths had been documented in the LR-MDS and CCUS groups respectively. 13 (18%) CCUS patients progressed to MDS (10) and AML (3) over a median of 15 months, while 9 (8%) LR-MDS patients progressed to higher grade MDS (1) and AML (8), respectively (median follow up 53 months). There was no difference in the median survival between CCUS (median OS not reached) versus LR-MDS (median OS 8.3 years) (p=0.372, Figure 1). Conclusion In spite of subtle phenotypic/molecular differences between LR-MDS and CCUS, both entities had similar prognostication, distribution of high risk mutations and survival outcomes. Within a short follow-up, 18% of CCUS patients progressed to MDS/AML, indicating that regardless of the absence of dysplasia these entities are a continuum of myeloid neoplasms. In order to improve access to treatments and clinical trial opportunities, we recommend that close consideration be given to consider CCUS as a MDS subtype. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Background Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is a newly described entity with a high probability to progress into myeloid disorders upon follow-up (Malcovati et al, Blood 2017). Little data is known on how to effectively treat patients with CCUS. We hereby describe a single institution experience in managing symptomatic CCUS patients. Methods Patients who had CCUS and underwent active treatment were identified after receiving IRB approval. CCUS diagnosis was rendered if patients had non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy evaluation combined with evidence of pathogenic myeloid somatic mutation using our institution next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (OncoHeme, Mayo Clinic). "Symptomatic patients" is determined by patients who need therapy beyond blood transfusion. Treatment type is based on physicians' choice. Clinical and lab results were collected. Response and progression were graded based on the MDS IWG 2006 criteria. The date of treatment initiation was used for overall survival (OS) and progression (either to myeloid neoplasm or worsening cytopenias) free survival (PFS) calculation. Stata 14.1(StatCorp) was used for data analysis. Results 1) Cohort characteristics: Between 2015 and 2020, 24 patients met inclusion criteria with median age of 72 years (range: 24-87). Twenty (83%) were men. 15 (63%) were white, 1 (4%) African American, 1 (4%) Native American and 7 unknown (33%). Eighty percent had ECOG PS≤1. Four (17%) patients had prior other hematology disorders and 3 (13%) had solid tumor. Two (8%) patients had previous radiation therapy, 2 (8%) received chemotherapy and 1 (4%) received allogeneic stem cell transplantation. At the time of treatment, the median of hemoglobin was 8.9 (range 6.8-13.7) g/dL, white blood cell 2.9 (range 1.4-12.3) *109/L, and platelet 76 (range 8-407) *109/L. Red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion dependency rate were 54% and 29%, respectively. We identified 23 different mutations. Most common mutations occurred in SRSF2 (N=5, 21%), TET2 (N=5, 21%), U2AF1 (N=5, 21%), and TP53 (N=4, 17%). Ten (42%) patients had 1 mutation, and 14 (58%) had ≥2 mutations. Treatment included hypomethylating agents (HMA) (N=10, 42%), growth factors (N=11, 46%), steroid (N=4, 17%), testosterone (N=2, 8%), cyclosporine (N=2, 8%), rituximab (N=1, 4%), immunoglobulin (N=1, 4%), vitamin B12 and iron (N=1, 4%). Seven (29%) patients received ≥2 treatments. Median follow up duration was 17.5 months (range 8.9-26.1). Median time from the diagnosis to treatment was 2.1 months (range 0-26.8). 2) Molecular correlation with response The overall response rate (RR) was 50% (hematological or symptomatic improvement). Most responders (67%) were treated with HMA (p=0.013). HMA treatment effect was not significantly associated with DNA methylation genes (DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2 and TET2, all p>0.05). The RR was 100% for the three patients with IDH1 mutation (treated with HMA, steroid and erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA), respectively). The RR was 100% for the 3 patients with ZRSR2 mutation (2 HMA, 1 testosterone). The RR was 0% for 3 patients with SF3B1 mutation (1 testosterone and ESA, 1 vitamin B12 and iron, and 1 HMA). The number of mutations had no impact on RR (p=0.41). Table demonstrates the RR for each treatment. 3) Survival and progression outcome At the last day of follow up, RBC and platelet transfusion dependency rate were 38% and 25%, respectively. The median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI: 7.5-65.3). Six patients (25%) progressed to myeloid malignancy with 4 myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and 2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Five patients progressed with worsening cytopenias. Among the 4 MDS patients, they had SF3B1, TET2, and ASXL1 mutations at the diagnosis of CCUS. Within the 2 AML pts, 1 had RUNX1 mutation, 1 had BCOR, DNMT3A, PHF6, RUNX1, SF3B1, STAG2, and TET2 mutations at the diagnosis of CCUS. The median OS was not reached with an estimated 2 year OS 77%. Three (13%) patients progressed with cytopenia and died. Their NGS at CCUS diagnosis showed ASXL1, TP53 and U2AF1 mutations, respectively. Conclusion Patients with CCUS responded to available treatments used for myeloid diseases. HMA were effective in this cohort. Mutation profile may have an impact on treatment response. Studies of larger cohorts are needed to validate our findings. Additionally, development of response and progression criteria would be helpful for such patients for reporting treatment outcomes. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Introduction Germline predisposition syndromes (GPS) are inherited disorders associated with germinal aberrations that increase the risk of malignancies. While aberrations in certain genes increase the risk for all types of malignancies (Tp53, ATM, CDKN2A, CHEK2), there is a growing list of genes associated specifically with hematological malignancies (GATA2, RUNX1, DDX41, ETV6, ANKRD26). At our institution, we have established a hematology GPS clinic to diagnose and manage GPS and with this report, detail our experience with 130 patients. Methods GPS were investigated in pediatric and adult patients with one or more first degree relatives with hematological/visceral malignancies or in those with antecedent thrombocytopenia (ANKRD26, RUNX1, ETV6), or with specific syndromic features (short telomere syndromes/STS, GATA2 haploinsufficiency, Fanconi anemia/FA, Shwachman-Diamond syndrome/SDS). Depending on the phenotype, specific functional assays such as flow-FISH for telomere length assessment and chromosomal breakage assays were ordered. After informed consent and genetic counselling, germline testing was carried out on peripheral blood mononuclear cell, skin fibroblast, or hair follicle-derived DNA. A custom-designed marrow failure NGS panel (200 genes) was used in most cases and interrogation of variants, in silico studies, and functional assays were carried out as previously described (Mangaonkar et al MC Proc 2019). Copy number variations were identified by aCGH. At the time of progression/worsening cytopenias, bone marrow/lymph node biopsies and NGS (next generation sequencing) were carried out where indicated. Results 130 patients with germline predisposition have been identified to date. The spectrum of disorders seen include STS 29 (22%), FA 17 (13%), GATA2 16 (12%), Diamond Blackfan anemia/DBA 13 (10%), RUNX1-FPD 12 (9%), ATM deletions/mutations 11 (8%), ANKRD26 6 (5%), SDS 5 (4%), DDX41 4 (3%), MPL 3 (2%), CHEK2, MECOM, Tp53 mutations 2 (2%) each, and CBL, CEPBA, ELANE, NF1, CDKN2A, CSF3R, ETV6, and GATA1 mutations, 1 (1%) each. Evidence for clonal evolution (CCUS) and hematological malignancies were seen in 51 (39%) patients, involving all the aforementioned genes/syndromes with the exception of DBA, CBL, ETV6, MPL, CSF3R, and GATA1. Seven (64%) of 11 patients with germline ATM deletions/mutations developed lymphoid malignancies; homozygous ATM (Follicular NHL-1, Burkitt lymphoma-1, T-ALL-1, T-LPD-1) and heterozygous ATM (T-PLL-1, DLBCL-1, CLL-1). Clonal evolution occurred in 11 (69%) of 16 GATA2 haploinsufficient patients (CCUS-2, MDS-3, CMML-1, AML-5) and in 7 (58%) of 12 RUNX1-FPD patients (CCUS-1, MDS-1, MDS/MPN-3, AML-2). Five of 29 (17%) STS patients had clonal progression (CCUS-2, MDS-2, AML-1), and 5 (29%) of 17 FA patients progressed to MDS-2 or AML-3. JMML was seen in one patient with a germline NF1 mutation, while 1 (20%) of 5 SDS patients progressed to AML. NGS data at progression was available in 24 (55%) of 44 myeloid/CCUS progressions, with somatic truncating ASXL1 mutations being most frequent (29%), followed by RAS pathway mutations (15%). AML/MDS progressions in STS, FA, and SDS were universally associated with complex/monosomal karyotypes, translating to refractory disease. Seventeen (39%) of 44 patients with myeloid predisposition underwent allogenic HCT (GATA2-7, FA-3, RUNX1-FPD-3, STS-2, NF1-1, Tp53-1), with 10 (59%) being alive at last follow up (Table 1). Conclusion We demonstrate the spectrum of germline aberrations associated with predisposition to hematological malignancies and outline the phenotypic heterogeneity of clonal transformation. The advent of NGS allows identification of clonal progression earlier than morphological changes, with mutations in ASXL1 and RAS pathway genes being commonly implicated. This study supports the universal development of dedicated germline predisposition clinics. Disclosures Pruthi: CSL Behring: Honoraria; Genentech Inc.: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Honoraria; HEMA Biologics: Honoraria; Instrumentation Laboratory: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria.

Background: Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a rare chronic myeloid malignancy with a poor prognosis. There are few epidemiologic studies on CMML. We studied population-based outcomes in CMML using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: The SEER 18 registries and NCDB Participant User File were used to identify patients with ICD-O-3 diagnosis code 9945/3 from 2004-2015. Incidence was identified using SEER and age-adjusted to the U.S. 2000 standard population. Causes of death were obtained and CMML-related death was defined as death from any myeloid disorder (CMML, acute monocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia [AML], chronic myeloid leukemia, other myeloid/monocytic leukemia, and aleukemic, subleukemic, and NOS) to avoid misattribution. Relative survival (RS) was defined as the ratio of the proportion of observed survivors in a cohort of CMML patients to the proportion of expected survivors in a comparable set of individuals that did not have CMML, adjusting for the general survival of the US population for race, sex, age, and time when the diagnosis was established. Time to AML was calculated using the left-truncated life tables session and a 3 month latency period was used to prevent misattribution. Per the NCDB's system on classifying treatment, hydroxyurea, decitabine, and azacitidine are considered chemotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), and Cox regression model was used to identify predictors of survival. Variables significant in univariate analysis (age, Charlson Deyo score [CDS], insurance type, and treatment facility type) were included in a multivariate analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.0. Results: In the SEER database (n=4437), the median age at diagnosis was 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68-83) and 2,783 patients (63%) were male. Incidence rates (1 case/1,000,000 individuals) were as follows: overall 4.4, male 6.6, female 2.9, Non-Hispanic White 4.9, and Non-Hispanic Black 3.3. The incidence did not significantly change from 2004 to 2015. With a median follow up of 5.8 years (95% CI: 5.5-6.3), the median OS was 1.3 years (95% CI: 1.3-1.4). 3635 patients (82%) died. Among those who died, 2016 patients (55%) deaths were CMML-related. When comparing CMML patients to the US general population, 3,156 patients were matched to the expected survival tables. In the general U.S. population, the expected survival for 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months was 95.6%, 91.3%, 87.1%, 83.1%, and 79.2%, respectively. In contrast, the RS for patients with CMML at the same time points was 63.6%, 46.2%, 35.2%, 28.8%, and 23.1% (Figure 1). 229 patients (5.2%) progressed to AML. The median time to AML was 1.2 years (IQR 0.6-2.3). In NCDB (n=6403), the median age at diagnosis was 74 years (IQR 66-82). With the median follow up of 6 years (95% CI 3.5-9), the median OS was 1.3 years (95% CI 0.4-3.3). The distribution of CDS score 0, 1, and >1 was 4518 (71%), 1193 (18%), and 692 (11%) respectively. 4687 (77%) had government insurance, while 1399 (23%) had private insurance. 3750 (60%) were treated at a non-academic center. The year of diagnosis was associated with improved OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99). Patients who were diagnosed in 2012-2015 had improved OS compared to patients diagnosed in 2004-2007 (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95) with OS at 1- and 5- years being 60% and 16% (2012-2015) vs. 56% and 17% (2008-2011) vs. 53% and 15% (2004-2007) respectively. 3029 (48%) patients received chemotherapy, while 270 (4%) patients received stem cell transplant as the first-line therapy. The median time to chemotherapy from diagnosis was 19 days (IQR 6-43). OS at 1-, 5-, and 10-years was 57%, 18%, and 4% (no chemotherapy), 56%, 14%, and 7% (received chemotherapy), 79%, 44%, and 38% (received stem cell transplant), and 56%, 15%, 5% (no stem cell transplant). OS curves are shown in Figure 2. Factors independently predicting inferior OS were age ≥ 65 years at the time of diagnosis (p<0.001), CDS ≥ 1 (p<0.001), government insurance (p<0.001), and treatment at a non-academic center (p<0.001) (Table). Conclusion: Despite an improvement in survival over the years, CMML continues to be a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Older age, CDS ≥ 1, government insurance, and treatment at non-academic facilities were predictive of inferior survival. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts >5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

AbstractVenetoclax and hypomethylating agent (HMA) combination therapy is FDA‐approved for elderly or unfit acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unable to withstand intensive chemotherapy. The primary objective of the current study was to impart our institutional experience with the above regimen, outlining response, survival outcomes, and its determinants amongst 86 treatment‐ naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients. A total of 44 treatment‐naïve AML patients, median age 73.5 years, enriched with secondary, therapy related and ELN adverse risk disease (n = 27) were studied. The CR/CRi rates of 50% (22 of 44 patients) were superior to 23% in a matched AML cohort treated with HMA alone (P = .005). Response rates were similar with TP53, FLT3, NPM1 and IDH mutations (P = .31). Moreover, CEPBA mutations (P = .03) and neutropenia (P = .05) emerged as predictors of complete response. Survivalwas prolonged in patients achieving CR/CRi (17 vs 3 months without CR/CRi, P < .001; conversely adverse ELN risk portended inferior survival. Amongst 42 relapsed/refractory AML patients, half received ≥2 prior therapies excluding transplant, and 15 (35.7%) had received HMA. A group of 14 patients (33.3%) attained CR/CRi; age > 65 years, AML with myelodysplasia, JAK2, DNMT3A, and BCOR mutations predicted complete response. Survival distinctions were based on CR/CRi (median survival 15 vs 3 months with/without CR/CRi; P < .001), and TP53 mutation status (P = .04). In summary, we corroborate existing reports demonstrating superior response and prolonged survival with venetoclax and HMA in treatment ‐naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients regardless of genotype. Additionally, we identify unique predictors of response to therapy which require validation.