Citations

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.

Abstract Introduction Several studies reported that AML patients who remain in long-term remission after allogeneic transplant (allo-HCT) or autologous transplant (auto-HCT) have a shorter life expectancy, compared to the general population. However, little is known about the life expectancy of adult long-term survivors of AML who were treated with chemotherapy without HCT and, there have been no comparisons with survival among the general population. The current study reports on the life expectancy of AML patients who survived 3 years in complete remission (CR) after treatment without HCT, and compared this to the gender- and age-matched normal population. At 3 years in CR, the incidence of recurrence is exceedingly low (3%; Watts JM, Leuk Res 2014) minimizing the impact of relapse on the long-term survival. Methods Between 1984 and 2008, 3,012 patients, aged 15 years and older, with untreated AML entered 9 consecutive, phase II and III, ECOG-ACRIN trials (E3483, PC486, E3489, E1490, E3993, E4995, E3997, E3999, E1900). Patients in CR and relapse-free at 3 years are included in the analysis . Minimal cytogenetic information was available in the early protocols (E1490, E3483, PC486). A Kaplan-Meier plot was generated for the three groups, allo, auto and no HCT, censoring for patients alive at last contact. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard regression models were generated, considering death as an event. For comparison of long-term outcomes, patients were grouped together by age and matched to a normative population mortality rate. Subjects were also grouped by gender and treatment allowing for separate analysis of these groups with the no HCT group as the main group of interest. The normative population comparator of expected deaths was derived using mortality rates from United State CDC life table data. The median year was derived by calculating the person-years for each calendar year that patients were followed. To calculate the expected deaths for each age group, person-years was calculated by tabulating the years lived in each age group for all subjects. Each year of follow-up for AML patient was counted as one person year, and the tabulated bin corresponded with their age at the time. Person-years was then multiplied by the matching mortality rate. Chi-square statistics were derived using expected and observed deaths and then summed for each gender and treatment. The final comparison was of mortality rates since diagnosis in the 3-year alive and relapse-free AML patient population vs the normative population. To produce plots of mortality from diagnosis, person-years was tabulated for every year since diagnosis by treatment. The person-years were tabulated into 2-year bins. The US life tables from the CDC were used to generate a population mortality rate from diagnosis. Results A total of 503 adult AML patients in 3 year CR with a mean age of 42.9 years (15-79) were identified; 78 underwent allo, 110 auto and 315 did not undergo transplantation. The patients in the groups differed in age (p<.001) and cytogenetics (p=.01). The multivariate model showed equivalent hazards of death to the 3 groups. Observed deaths and person-years were given by age group, gender, and treatment group and each were matched to a mortality rate from the United State CDC life table data that matched the median year of each treatment group. A chi square test for each group compared the derived expected to observed deaths. In every treatment group, patients had a shorter survival compared to their age- and gender- matched general population (p-value of 0.004 for the auto-HCT and <0.001 for both allo-HSCT and no transplant groups). Table 1, selected only for the no HCT group, demonstrates the mortality rates by age and gender. Figure 1 indicates that AML patients who have survived relapse-free for at least 3 years continue to have higher mortality rates compared to the normative population for up to 14 years. This finding is not altered even if the very small number of patients who die from late relapse (>3 years from diagnosis) are removed from the analysis (data not shown) Conclusions Patients with AML who remain in CR at 3 years, do not have a normal life expectancy, even if they do not undergo HCT. The shorter life expectancy observed following an HCT may, at least in part, be related to the prior intensive therapy or other predisposing factors (e.g. CHIP) of the leukemia, rather than the transplant procedure itself. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures 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. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Douer: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy. 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; 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; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; 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. Litzow: Pluristem: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding.

SummaryThere are conflicting reports in the literature suggesting that one gender or the other has a better survival with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The present study was done in an attempt to resolve the issue. The effect of gender was examined on 3546 newly diagnosed patients with AML, including 548 patients with acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL) enrolled in 10 multi‐institutional treatment studies from March 1984 to November 2008. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to estimate event‐time distributions for survival and multivariate models were used to examine the gender effect after adjusting for multiple risk factors. P values were based on two‐sided tests. Non‐APL female patients had a significantly better overall (OS) but not disease‐free survival (DFS) than males, irrespective of age, initial white blood cell count, or dose of daunorubicin. No differences were observed for obese or FMS‐like tyrosine kinase 3‐internal tandem duplication (FLT3‐ITD)‐positive patients. Female patients with APL had a significantly better OS and DFS than male patients with APL, and differences in survival were greater for patients with t(15;17) + other cytogenetic abnormalities compared with those with t(15;17) only. Gender is an independent prognostic variable in patients with AML. Whether these survival differences are due to hormonal, genetic or pharmacokinetic differences between the sexes or differential toxin exposure such as smoking is unknown. However, the former seems less likely as patient age did not influence the survival advantage for female patients.

PURPOSE Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).

TPS9077 Background: ALCHEMIST (Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial) is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that offers biomarker analysis for high-risk resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to support randomized trials of novel adjuvant therapies within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). EA5142, a trial of adjuvant nivolumab for patients (pts) without EGFR / ALK alterations, has completed enrollment. Given the survival benefit seen with 1st-line chemo-immunotherapy (chemo-IO) for advanced NSCLC without EGFR / ALK alterations, there was compelling rationale for the launch of a trial offering concurrent immunotherapy with adjuvant chemo. Here we report updated enrollment to ALCHEMIST as of Jan 14, 2020. Methods: ALCHEMIST includes a screening trial (A151216, 5362 registered) that enrolls pts with completely resected clinical stage IB (≥4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC 7) NSCLC. Tissue and blood are collected, biomarker testing includes EGFR sequencing, ALK FISH and PD-L1 IHC. 733 active sites are enrolling across the NCTN. Pts with EGFR mutations may enroll to adjuvant erlotinib vs observation (A081105, 352 randomized); those with ALK fusions may enroll to adjuvant crizotinib vs observation (E4512, 99 randomized). A trial offering adjuvant nivolumab vs observation regardless of PD-L1 status (EA5142, 935 randomized) recently completed enrollment. To support ongoing investigation of adjuvant immunotherapy, ALCHEMIST is adding A081801 (opens spring 2020). Pts will be randomized to one of 3 arms: chemo-IO with pembrolizumab during and after chemo vs sequential chemo followed by pembrolizumab vs chemo alone. Pts with pathological N2 nodes are eligible and can undergo postoperative radiotherapy after completing chemo. Pts are eligible if enrolled to A151216, negative for EGFR and ALK alterations, and with PD-L1 testing completed (required for stratification). Local testing for EGFR, ALK and PD-L1 will be accepted for enrollment; central testing will not delay randomization. Pts may not have received any therapy except surgery for the lung cancer and must be age >18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, have no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment within 2 years, must not be pregnant or nursing, have no active second malignancy within 3 years and meet standard organ function values. By building off the ongoing ALCHEMIST platform, we hope to facilitate rapid enrollment to A081801 across participating NCTN sites. Clinical trial information: NCT02194738.

Abstract Over the past decade several prospective studies of post-remission therapy in AML have compared allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), autologous HSCT and chemotherapy. The data are appropriately presented by intention-to-treat analyses. However, such analyses do not provide information to the clinician or patient as to outcome from the initiation of post-remission therapy, be it HSCT or chemotherapy. Furthermore, such analyses are impossible to interpret when a significant percentage of patients do not receive their intended therapies (for example, only 54% of patients randomized to autologous HSCT; Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). Finally, such studies present survival data that may not be relevant to current practice where the mortality from autologous HSCT has decreased sharply (for example, 14% non-relapse mortality from autologous HSCT; Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). In the current analysis, results from 4 consecutive ECOG studies that included autologous HSCT were analyzed and the data collated. In PC486 patients received standard induction followed by allogeneic HSCT if they had a compatible sibling; otherwise they were to undergo an autologous HSCT without any prior consolidation (Cassileth, JCO, 1993). E4995 studied standard induction with added high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC) intensification on D 8–10, followed by 2 courses of HiDAC consolidation. All patients were to undergo an autologous HSCT after induction and consolidation (Cassileth, Leuk Lymph, 2005). E3489 was a US Intergroup study in which patients received standard induction (3 + 7). If in CR, all patients received an attenuated course of induction (2 + 5). Patients who had a histocompatible sibling were assigned to allogeneic HSCT; those without a donor were randomized to an autologous HSCT or chemotherapy (Cassileth, NEJM, 1998). E1900 is an ongoing phase III study in which patients receive standard induction followed by allogeneic HSCT or two courses of HiDAC followed by autologous HSCT. The latter study is ongoing; therefore, only data describing transplant-related mortality (TRM) are presented. The relapse rate from start of each post-remission regimen in these studies, based on therapy actually received and not on intention-to-treat analysis, is presented in table 1 and the TRM is presented in table 2. Table 1. Relapse Rate from Start of Post-Remission Therapy Cytogenetics Allogeneic HSCT (n=85) Autologous HSCT (n=113) Chemotherapy (n=109) Favorable 11.8% (2/17) 10.5% (2/19) 60% (12/20) Intermediate 20.5% (8/39) 32.3% (10/31) 53.7% (22/41) Unfavorable 16.7% (2/12) 41.7% (5/12) 83.3% (15/18) Unknown 23.5% (4/17) 33.3% (17/51) 56.7% (17/30) Table 2. Treatment-Related Mortality after Post-Remission Therapy Allogeneic HSCT Autologous HSCT – Marrow Autologous HSCT – Blood Chemotherapy Study E3489, E4995, E1900 E3489, PC 486 E4995, E1900 E3489 Treatment-related mortality 15.3% (18/117) 11% (16/85) 1.5% (2/135) 2.7% (3/109) In conclusion: The TRM after autologous HSCT using mobilized peripheral blood has decreased substantially in recent years. As shown in table 2, in PC486 and E3489 where bone marrow was harvested and treated with perfosfamide (4-HC) prior to cryo-preservation, the TRM was significantly greater than in the later studies, E4995 and E1900, where peripheral blood was harvested after priming with chemotherapy and/or cytokines. The lower relapse rate post autologous transplant, together with the lower procedural mortality with current practice, may confer a survival advantage in future prospective studies of autologous HSCT versus chemotherapy. While absolute comparisons cannot be made, as the timing of each therapy may not be identical, these data provide crucial information for informed and patient/physician discussions prior to initiation of postremission therapy.

Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin <9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD (>2 units/month) with serum Epo >500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a >2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients (<4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of >Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

Background: Relapse remains the most common cause of treatment failure after intensive induction and consolidation (CONS) therapy in older adults with AML. We therefore performed a prospective randomized phase II study to determine the safety and impact on DFS (relapse or death) and OS of DAC maintenance using an abbreviated 3-day schedule administered every 4 weeks for 1 year (per Lubbert et al, Haematologica 97:393, 2012) vs. Observation (OBS) after intensive AML therapy, conducted in the large multi-center E-A E2906 Phase III trial in patients (pts) age ≥60 yrs. Methods: The design and primary clinical results for E2906 (n=727) have been reported previously (Foran et al, ASH #217a, 2015), demonstrating superior OS following 'Standard' 7&3 (Daunorubicin 60mg/m2) induction and intermediate dose Ara-C consolidation (CONS) vs. single agent Clofarabine (CLO, provided by SANOFI), despite similar CR/CRi (CR with incomplete CBC recovery) and induction mortality rates. All CR/CRi pts after induction (n=311) were assigned to 2 cycles CONS with either Ara-C (1.5g/m2 x 12 doses; 6 doses if age >/=70 yrs), or single agent CLO, based on induction randomization. Ongoing CR/CRi after recovery from CONS was confirmed with restaging BM biopsy, and eligible pts offered participation in the 'Step 3' maintenance study, a 1:1 randomization (stratified by induction therapy, cytogenetic risk group, age <70 yrs) to either OBS vs. DAC (20mg/m2IV Days 1-3, q4 wks) for 1 year. DAC could be held for up to 4 weeks for delayed hematologic recovery, but dose reductions were not permitted per protocol, and DAC was not continued beyond 12 months. Patients in both arms were evaluated with CBC q4 weeks for 1 year, and surveillance BM biopsy every 3 months (or at the time of suspected clinical relapse) for 2 years. 'Step 3' was designed as a phase II pilot randomized study, with target accrual n=172, allowing 90% power to detect 36% reduction in DFS Hazard Ratio (HR) with DAC maintenance for 1 year (using protocol-specified 1-sided log-rank test significance level of 0.1), assuming 140 events & 2 years of follow-up from randomization. However, further accrual to E2906 was suspended in 2/2015 by independent DSMC due to superior OS observed with standard Arm, so that 'Step 3' completed only 70% of target accrual. P-values reported are two-sided by convention unless specified otherwise. Results: 'Step 3' total accrual was n=120 (of 172 planned) (DAC 61, OBS 59), with median age 69 yrs (range 60-85), and groups were very well balanced for baseline clinical characteristics; most pts had Intermediate risk cytogenetics (74.2%) and ECOG performance status (PS)=0/1 (96%). The median number of DAC cycles received was 6 (range 0-13), and analysis was 'intention-to-treat'. The median follow-up is 49.8 months. There were 90 DFS events (47 OBS, 43 DAC), with 82 deaths (46 OBS, 36 DAC). Univariate DFS and OS are shown in Figure, with associated two-sided p-values; using protocol-prespecified one-sided significance level of 0.1, OS was significant (one-sided p=0.06) for DAC v. OBS, and there was a statistical trend favoring DFS (one-sided p=0.11), particularly for CLO pts (Table). We also performed multivariate Cox model (after adjustment for ECOG PS, sex, secondary AML, and baseline hematologic parameters) which confirmed superior HR for DFS (one-sided p=0.10) & OS (one-sided p=0.07), per statistical design. FLT3-ITD status is available for n=96 pts, and 84 were FLT3-ITD-negative (46 OBS, 38 DAC). Importantly, we observed a significant association of DAC maintenance with superior OS in the large FLT3-ITD-neg subgroup (p=0.039) (Figure). DAC was generally well tolerated apart from grade 3 febrile neutropenia (9%) and reversible grade 4 cytopenias, with no grade 5 events. Conclusions: In this randomized phase II study, DAC maintenance for 1 year after intensive AML therapy was associated with improved HR for OS and a trend for DFS, using protocol-specified statistical design. Furthermore there was a significant impact on OS for the FLT3-ITD-negative population. We acknowledge limitations based on incomplete accrual due to early termination of the parent E2906 study, and inherent to the phase 2 design of this E2906 endpoint, but results suggest an important impact of DAC maintenance on survival. These data strongly support a definitive phase III randomized study of DAC maintenance, particularly focused on the large intermediate risk FLT3-ITD-negative subgroup. Disclosures Foran: Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Claxton:Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp, Astellas Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celegene Corporation, Medimmune, Inc, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Funding. Lazarus:Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy. Rowe:BioSight: Consultancy. Altman:Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Biosight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Zheng:Pfizer: Research Funding. Pratz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Powell:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nohla: 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; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Cellerant: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Disclosure: Use of maintenance Decitabine in AML

Abstract Background: Novel therapies are required to improve the outcome of patients with AML. New agents are asked to demonstrate an overall survival (OS) benefit before qualifying for FDA approval. The long duration of clinical trials required in order to achieve this endpoint hampers quick evaluation of candidate therapies, including novel agents. Identification of reliable surrogate endpoints for OS in AML is needed. Here we compare the results of therapy for patients with untreated AML ages 16-60 years on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1900 trial (E1900) of induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation and autologous transplant in order to evaluate the validity of an event free survival (EFS) endpoint as a surrogate for OS. Methods:OS was measured from randomization for induction therapy to death from any cause (censored at last contact). EFS was measured from randomization to induction treatment failure, relapse after compete response (CR), or death in remission (censored at last contact). Hazard ratios (HR) were computed using Cox proportional hazards models. The association between EFS and OS was evaluated using the Kendall tau-a rank correlation for censored data. Results:There were657 patients enrolled of which 426 patients relapsed or had induction treatment failure before death or date of last contact. Median EFS and OS were 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 9.7 months) and 23.6 months (95% CI, 16.9 to 23.6 months), respectively. With a median follow-up of 80.1 months, there is a statistically significant correlation between EFS and OS (Kendall tau-a = 0.467, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.425, 0.510), p<0.001). This correlation was similarly significant at a median follow-up of 25.2 months (Kendall tau-a = 0.361, 95% CI (0.323, 0.400), p <0.001) when the E1900 trial was originally reported (Fernandez et al. NEJM 2009). Key findings reported based on the original OS endpoint are similar when analyzed with an EFS endpoint (Table 1). High-dose daunorubicin (90 mg/m2) (DNR 90) confers both an EFS and OS benefit in patients aged < 50 years and patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk, and does not confer an EFS or OS benefit in older patients and patients with unfavorable cytogenetic risk, on univariate analysis. Divergent results are only seen in the small subset of favorable cytogenetic risk patients, where DNR 90 conferred an OS benefit (p=0.027) without an EFS benefit (p=0.32). Both EFS and OS endpoints consistently reflect the impact of mutation status on survival. The presence of a FLT3-ITD or DNMT3A mutation has a negative impact on both EFS and OS while an IDH2 mutation has a favorable impact on EFS and OS. The presence of a NPM1 mutation confers a favorable impact on EFS and OS in patients who received DNR 90 and did not impact EFS or OS in patients receiving standard-dose daunorubicin (45 mg/m2) (DNR 45). The presence of an IDH1 mutation does not impact EFS or OS. Conclusions:The results of E1900 demonstrating superiority of DNR 90 in AML induction in patients up to age 60 are concordant when using an EFS or OS endpoint. This is true for the group as a whole as well as for subgroups for which targeted agents are in development (FLT3/IDH2 inhibitors). Further investigation of whether EFS is a reliable surrogate for OS is warranted in AML. If confirmed, its use as a primary endpoint could be adopted by regulatory agencies in order to allow more rapid completion of clinical trials in AML and bring new therapies to AML patients in a timely fashion. Table 1. Results of E1900 based on an EFS endpoint versus an OS endpoint. Subgroup N OS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (DNR 90/DNR 45) & 95% CI Wald P DNR 45 DNR 90 Age < 50 yrs ³ 50 yrs 188 142 172 155 0.66 (0.50, 0.85) 0.81 (0.62, 1.06) 0.002 0.118 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) 0.86 (0.67, 1.10) 0.0004 0.23 Cytogenetic Favorable Intermediate Unfavorable 38 141 59 51 127 63 0.51 (0.28, 0.93) 0.68 (0.50, 0.92) 0.79 (0.54, 1.16) 0.027 0.012 0.225 0.76 (0.44, 1.31) 0.63 (0.47, 0.83) 0.72 (0.49, 1.05) 0.32 0.001 0.09 Subgroup N OS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P EFS HR (MUT/WT) & 95% CI Wald P FLT3-ITD WT MUT 456 147 1.62 (1.31, 2.01) <.0001 1.48 (1.21, 1.82) 0.0002 DNMT3A WT MUT 371 119 1.30 (1.03, 1.65) 0.03 1.23 (0.98, 1.54) 0.07 IDH1 WT MUT 465 36 0.88 (0.59, 1.33) 0.55 0.91 (0.62, 1.34) 0.64 IDH2 WT MUT 451 50 0.63 (0.43, 0.93) 0.02 0.68 (0.48, 0.97) 0.03 NPM1 DNR 45 DNR 90 245 257 0.84 (0.61, 1.16) 0.60 (0.41, 0.89) 0.30 0.01 0.90 (0.66, 1.22) 0.59 (0.41, 0.84) 0.49 0.004 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.